1994-06-28CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, throu h
teamwork and COoperation, Provides at a reas,,n~-, ......... ,.- . .g 1
respond ~o e needs of all citizensi fostering '~ ~'f~,~a~'act~iUvaj~a%~e/l~uCrei~ht.nm~
C°mmuni~ ~i--:
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 14, 1994, REGULAR MEETING
AND THE JUNE 21, 1994, COMMIWFEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING.
PG. 2331-2347
~ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA KNOWN AS
PELICAN POINT - BOYER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. PG. 2348-2357
APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
FOR PELICAN POINT. PG. 2358-2383
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL, ROD LARSON & MYRNA NOYD, 2976
HIGHLAND BLVD., PID #23-117-24 41 0016, VARIANCE
FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
PG. 2384-2387
A E~.~_~.~: MARK WALSTROM, 4872 LESLIE ROAD, LOTS 8
& E 1/2 OF 9, BLOCK 21, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 41 0021.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR FENCE. PG. 2388-2394
CASE #94-31: MICHAEL & CAROL JOHNSON, 1733 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID
#13-117-24 11 0030.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR PORCH.
A E_C~.~._~:,~: JAMES PETERSON, 2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS
4-13, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID #24-117-24 14 0001.
PG. 2395-2407
2327
"' " ,"", II Il,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK.
PG. 2408-2424
AEC: CURTIS & MARJORIE OLSON, 4801 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOTS 1 & EY OF 2, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID g25-117-24 11 0122.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK.
PG. 2425-2441
E~: DUSTIN FRANTSEN, 2901 MEADOW LANE, LOTS 1 & 9,
BLOCK 5, MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY,
PID//23-117-24 42 0104.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE.
PG. 2442-2455
A_~: LOUIS, SHARRON & TIMOTHY ZSABO, 5135 DRUMMOND
ROAD, LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE, PID//25-117-24 12 0114.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION.
PG. 2456-2478
CASE//94-36: THOMAS HALL, 4994 BARTLET'F BLVD., LOT 4,
BLOCK 3, JOHN S. CARLSON ADDITION, PID//13-117-24 43 0040.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK.
PG. 2479-2492
AEC: MICHAEL JOHNSON, 1721 GULL LANE, LOTS 5, 6,
7, BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 13 0014.
REQUF~T: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
PG. 2493-2508
CASE #94-40: DIANA AKEY, 1920 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 6,
BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//18-117-23 23 0008.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE.
PG. 2509-2520
E~: PAUL & VIRGINIA ERICKSON, 1564 CANARY LANE,
LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 4, WOODLAND POINT, PID//12-118-24 43 0013.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR PORCH.
PG. 2521-2533
E~._~-4: WILLIAM & DEDRA KNOSALLA, 1705 EAGLE LANE,
LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 12, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 12 0064.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
PG. 2534-2546
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS:
DOCK SITES - 12550 & 22360.
PG. 2547-2556
2328
19. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS:
DOCK SITES - 02665, 13810, 31360,
31390 AND 51030. PG. 2557-2582
20. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT: DOCK SITE//42351,
MICHAEL HENRY, 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE (FORMERLY
DEAN HANUS PROPERTY). PG. 2583-2610
21. RF-SOLU~ION APPROVING OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR INFINITI
MARKETING, INC., 5318 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BLDG.) PG. 2611
22. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS AS NATURE
CONSERVATION AREAS (NCA'S) IN THE CITY OF MOUND. PG. 2612-2615
23. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SET BID DATE RE:
JOINT PUBLIC WORKS STORAGE SITE, CITY OF
MINNETRISTA AND ADVERTISING FOR BIDS ON THE
PROJECT.
SUGGESTED DATE: JULY 29, 1994.
(MATERIAL WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY EVENING.) PG. 2616
24. APPOINTMENTS TO SUBURBAN ALLIANCE BOARD. PG. 2617-2618
25. LICENSES: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMIT
SET-UP PERMIT - PLEASE WAIVE FEE
PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - PLEASE WAIVE FEE PG. 2619-2620
26. APPROVE PAYMENT REQUEST #1 - WATER METER READ SYSTEM,
SCHLUMBERGER INDUSTRIES - $25,433.40. PG. 2621-2622
27. PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 2623-2632
28. -INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Bo
Financial Report for May 1994, as prepared by
Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
L.M.C.D. mailings.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of
June 9, 1994.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 1994.
PG. 2633-2634
PG. 2635-2684
PG. 2685-2692
PG. 2693-2705
2329
Eo
Preliminary population and household estimate
(April 1, 1993) for the City of Mound, as
prepared by the Metropolitan Council.
Letter of Application for the Planning
Commission vacancy. Interviews will be
conducted by the Planning Commission at
their meeting June 27, 1994, beginning
at 7:30 P.M. You are invited to attend.
Proposed amendments to Hennepin County's Recycling
Ordinance. Proposed amendments require commercial
waste generators to separate high grade office
paper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans,
glass bottles and jars, and wood pallets from
their normal trash for recycling. The public
Service Committee will be meeting on
June 30, 1994, to discuss.
Also, on June 30th, the Public Service Committee
will be considering a revised Recycling Funding
Policy for 1995-1999. The revised Recycling
Funding Policy proposes that recycling grants
from Hennepin County to cities be limited to a
distribution of and annual SCORE revenues which
Hennepin County receives from the State. The
policy also allows cities which do not contract
for curbside recycling service to retain up to
10% of the grant funds for administration and
promotional expenses.
PG. 2706-2707
PG. 2708-2711
PG. 2712-2726
PG. 2727-2741
2330
Mound City Council Minutes
June 14, 1994
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 14, 1994
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
January 14, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and
Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Ken Smith was absent and excused. Also present were: City
Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City
Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested citizens:
Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig & Karolee Goodrich, Sandra Berkey, Joann & Bernie Boeser,
Richard & Pauline Garozzo, Anthony Ornelis, Brian & Sue Schebler, John Costello, Dave Lanz,
Patty Guttormson, Valerie & Dan Hessburg, Jackie & Peter Meyer, Dave Wren, Jeanette
Belcourt, Becky Hunt, Diane Maloney, Jay Petersen, Rhonda & Greg Eurich, Patti Herzog,
Greg Sicheneder, Carol Haunner, Michael Tegeder, David Decker, John Boyer, John
Blumentritt, Kevin Norby, Rod Larson, Craig Smith and Myrna Noyd.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the May
24, 1994, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.1
..RESOLUTION COMMENDING LT. RONALD L. WHITEHEAD AND THE
BLOOMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSISTANCE IN A MOUND
POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL INVESTIGATION.
The Mayor read the proposed resolution.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-76
RESOLUTION COMMENDING LT. RONALD L.
WHITEHEAD AND THE BLOOMINGTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR ASSISTANCE IN A MOUND
POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL
INVESTIGATION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Mound City Council Minutes
1.2
June 14, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA KNOWN AS PELICAN POINT - BOYEK
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
The application includes three items for approval: the Planned Development Area (PDA), the
Preliminary Plat, and variances. He outlined the following:
1. Environmental Review. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will be
prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not expected to be necessary as
Mound's shoreland ordinance should receive DNR approval prior to the final plat
approval (at least 60 days).
2. Density and Total Units. The maximum density allowed on the Pelican Point site, based
on the proposed plan, is 48 units. The total number of proposed units is within thc
requirements of both the Mound Zoning Code and the State shoreland requirements.
3. East Port Road. The developer's attorney and surveyor will need to research the platting
history of East Port Road and work with the City Attorney to resolve any issues.
4. Streets. Pelican Point Circle is proposed to be constructed as a public street. The design
and installation of the pavers must not create a future maintenance problem due to frost
heaving, snow plowing or differential settlement.
5. Driveways. If driveways are to be installed over lot lines, appropriate easements will
need to be established.
6. Variances. Variances for setbacks, lot width, lot area, street frontage, and street width
are included in this application.
7. Impervious Cover. Mound's shoreland ordinance limited impervious cover to 30% of
the total site. The State shoreland rules limit impervious cover to 25 %. Pelican Point,
as proposed, has an approximately impervious cover rate of 28.8% including both the
mainland and island areas.
8. Bluff Areas. Most of the riparian units observe at least the 30 foot setback. Exceptions
include Lot 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of Block 2. Bluff setbacks for these units range from
13 to 28 feet. Only lots 9 and 10 have a setback less than 20 feet.
9. Water Oriented Accessory Structure (WOS). A WOS is being proposed with a floor area
of 900 square feet, requiring a variance from the State shoreland standards.
10. Vegetation Removal. Covenants regulating vegetation removal could be included within
the homeowner's association agreements.
Mound City Council Minutes
11.
June 14, 1994
12.
13.
14.
15.
Docks. A common dock area accommodating 40 boats is proposed. Mound does not
have any specific review authority regarding docks, but can offer comments to applicable
permitting agencies.
Park Dedication. The Mound Park Commission will be reviewing the plat in June.
Channel Easement. The preliminary plat identifies a 70 foot wide channel easement
between the mainland area and the island.
Trail. The plan identifies a trail leading from the housing units to the common dock
area, and is generally consistent with the shoreland regulations.
Landscaping. Concept plans have been submitted and adequately convey the character
and level of landscaping. Additional detail, including identified species and sizes, will
need to be supplied at a later date.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use
permit to establish a Planned Development Area (PDA) including applicable variances, approval
of the Preliminary Plat for Pelican Point, and incorporation of the Preliminary Plat dated 4-2 !-
94, last revision 5-10-94 as Exhibit 1 of the conditional use permit subject to applicable
conditions. If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding, the following motion is
suggested:
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit
for the establishment of Pelican Point as a Planned Development Area including applicable
variances for lot sizes, lot width, lot line setbacks, and street frontage corresponding to the lot
configuration shown on the Preliminary Plat. Furthermore, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as well as its incorporation into the Conditional
Use Permit as Exhibit 1. The aforementioned approvals are contingent on the following
conditions:
Because of exceeding the threshold for an EAW resulting from the proposed common
dock area (marina) and in order to satisfy local environmental concerns, the applicant
shall prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), consistent with the
requirements found in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental
Review Program, 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. The EAW shall include a biological
inventory of the site as well as a Phase I archaeological reconnaissance survey of the
property. If the EAW results in information requiring additional conditions to this
preliminary plat approval, said conditions will be added prior to final plat consideration.
The applicant shall secure all applicable permits from all entities with jurisdiction over
this project including, but not limited to, the Department of Natural Resources, the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and
the Department of Health.
Mound City Council Minutes June 14, 1994
3. The applicant shall investigate and supply information to the City Attorney regarding the
historic platting of the East Port Road area and Island View Drive in order to verify that
the property shown within the Preliminary Plat is free of outside encumbrances.
11.
12.
13.
14.
All private driveways shall either be located within the lot that they serve or easements
shall be prepared allowing access on neighboring lots.
The project shall be limited to a total amount of impervious cover not to exceed 30
percent. As such, the City recommends that the DNR approve an impervious coverage
variance if applicable.
Bluff areas as delineated on the Preliminary Plat shall remain undisturbed. The City
recommends that the DNR approve top of bluff setback variances consistent with the unit
placement shown on the Preliminary Plat.
The City finds that the one proposed water oriented accessory structure is reasonable and
recommends variance approval by the DNR since it serves 40 homes. The proposed
building is of far less impact than a series of private water oriented accessory structures
that would be allowed if the lakeshore was platted into private lots in a more traditional
subdivision design. Said water oriented accessory structure shall comply with the setback
and color restrictions identified in the State shoreland rules.
Covenants and bylaws of the homeowner's association shall include provisions restricting
vegetation removal from Outlot C. Said documents shall be approved by the City of
Mound at the time of final plat approval.
Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD as applicable.
Park dedication fees shall be collected in conformance with the Mound Subdivision
Ordinance.
Tree management practices shall be followed consistent with the Tree Management
narrative submitted as part of the developers nan'ative and included as part of the
Conditional Use Permit as Exhibit 2.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscaping plan for the project entry for review
and approval by the City Planner.
Detailed information on paving at the entry area and at trail crossing points shall be
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
All interior lot lines shall be required to have a 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement
along both sides except common lot lines which pass through buildings.
Mound City Council Minutes June 14, 1994
15. Easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided for utilities not located
within street rights-of-way.
16.
A drainage and utility easement shall be provided at the north end of Outlot C for the
storm sewer and drainage channel that leads to Lake Minnetonka.
17.
18.
The City's existing storm sewer in East Port Road shall be added to the Preliminary
Utility Plan. Furthermore the proposed drainage pond shall have adequate capacity to
accommodate runoff from the Pelican Point development as well as from the existing
City storm sewer. Drainage calculations demonstrating adequate capacity shall be
submitted and approved by the City Engineer. The sediment control structure for the
pond outlet shall be relocated midway between the inlets.
Silt fence shall be located to contain all areas disturbed by grading. Method #1 for silt
fence installation as shown on the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan shall be utilized.
19.
20.
21.
All utilities adjacent to Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed within the public right-
of-way.
The proposed sanitary sewer shall be extended from manhole #7 with an additional
manhole placed to provide service for Lots 19 and 20, Block 2.
An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be added closer to the intersection of the
private drive (as shown on the plat) and Pelican Point Circle to retain the line within the
public fight-of-way and to reduce the length of the services to Lots 5 and 6, Block 1.
The watermain in this area shall also be moved.
22. An additional fire hydrant shall be added at the proposed cul-de-sac.
23.
24.
Additional mainline gate valves at locations acceptable to the City Engineer shall be
added to provide zoning of the water distribution system.
Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed as a 28 foot wide (back to back) public street
accommodating parking on one side. A 10 foot variance from the right-of-way
requirement is approved due to the desire of both the applicant and the City of Mound
to maximize retention of existing tree cover.
25.
Ingress and egress lanes at the project entrance shall be widened to 16 feet (back to back)
and B618 curb and gutter shall be installed.
26.
The proposed cul-de-sac that is identified on the Preliminary Plat as a "Shared Private
Driveway" shall be platted and constructed as a public street with fight-of-way and
pavement widths consistent with Pelican Point Circle. A variance for the cul-de-sac
Mound City Council Minutes
June 14, 1994
bubble of 20 feet is approved to establish an 80 foot diameter bubble with a paved area
with a 70 foot diameter. The pavement width at the bubble can be reduced by the
placement of a landscaped island providing that the cul-de-sac is posted for one-way
traffic only.
27.
Plans for street lighting shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall identify the system ownership as either public or private and shall specify
pole and fixture types and locations.
28.
No structures shall be built or placed upon the island (Outlot C) without specific
modification of the Conditional Use Permit.
29.
The approval of the PDA and preliminary plat are subject to all other applicable city
codes and ordinances.
30.
All bylaws and covenants and other association documents are to be reviewed by the City
Attorney.
The City Engineer commented that in answer to several questions brought up at the Planning
Commission public heating: 1)the main entrance to Pelican Point is approximately 75' from the
crest of the hill on Tuxedo Blvd. and meets all the state requirements as far as sight is
concerned; 2)Tuxedo Blvd. was designed to carry over 6500 cars per day. Last year a traffic
count was done and that showed 4447 per day so the additional 240 trips a day to be generated
by Pelican Point is still well under what the road was designed to carry.
Boyer Building Corp. reviewed their plan. They assured the Council that they will do
everything they can to preserve the majority of the trees on the property. They also reported
that they feel with the larger than necessary pond they will be creating will also cut down 'on the
nutrient that is currently entering the Lake from this property. Their plan is to have the entire
project completed in 3 years from the start, this Fall.
They asked that the Council consider the following:
Deferring the Park Dedication Fees ($3,100 per unit) until the closing of each
unit occurs.
Support from the Council, with the LMCD and DNR, on 40 unit dock marina and
the water oriented accessory structure.
e
The cul-de-sac area (which will serve 6 units), be 22' or 24' not the 28' in width,
which would allow 2 cars to pass with no parking on this road.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public
Mound City Council Minutes
June 14, 1994
heating.
On the three items asked about:
Cul-de-sac - The City Engineer reported that if there is no parking allowed on
this street or cul-de-sac, a 24' width would be acceptable. The road would still
have to be constructed as others in the plat, with curb and gutter. Also it would
be a public street.
40 dock marina & accessory structure - The Council stated they are in support of
the 40 boat marina and the accessory structure as requested and they would relate
this to the LMCD and DNR.
e
Park Dedication Fees - The Council explained that they have to be consistent and
the ordinance is explicit that the fee is to be paid before final plat approval. They
have required others to pay this fee.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare a resolution
of approval of the preliminary plat for a Planned Development Area for Pelican
Point detailing the conditions discussed tonight. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.3
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens directing that a letter be written
to the LMCD and the DNR giving strong support to the 40 slip marina at Pelican
Point and the accessory building. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.4
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 350:310, TO ADD A DEFINITION
FOR "VICTIMS OF DOMFSTIC ABUSE SHELTER" AND AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 350:760, TO MODIFY THE
TEXT OF THE EXISTING CODE TO ADD "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
SHELTER" TO THE LISTING OF USES ALLOWABLE IN THE GENERAL
BUSINESS (B-2) ZONING DISTRICTS BY ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
The City Planner stated that there is not a great deal of new information to add, with the
exception this item was part of a package of items offered previously. Initially it was driven by
the use of an existing building which subsequently has been demolished and is not part of the
plan. However, the applicant had made a legitimate application and has chosen to continue that
application to pursue modification of the zoning code to allow a "victims of domestic abuse
shelter" within the B-2 zoning district. As discussed before, this type of use could then be
placed in any of the B-2 zones within the city, subject to conditional use permit approval. He
stated that "victims of domestic abuse shelter would have to be defined and a modification made
Mound City Council Minutes June 14, 1994
to the text of the existing code to add this as an allowable use in the B-2 district.
The Planner reminded the Council that ordinance amendments according to the City Zoning
Ordinance reads in part, ...... ~Such amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall
only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as
reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City. M That type of finding would be
necessary in order for the zoning ordinance language to be amended to allow this type of use
in the B-2 zone by conditional use permit.
The applicant, Dan Hessburg, addressed the Council. He stated that this zoning amendment is
being requested because there is a need in this community and the surrounding area for this type
of shelter. He stated that this land use would be an educational, philanthropic, and charitable
nature for the community and its residents. He stated this type of shelter would be an asset to
the community, not a detriment to the public health, safety and welfare.
Mr. Hessburg then presented overheads that he stated would relate to some of the concerns that
have been brought up in the past. The area to be served by the shelter would be Mound, St.
Bonifacius, Minnetrista, South Lake Minnetonka, Deephaven, and Wayzata. He gave statistical
data on the number of abuses, as reported to the police departments, in this area.
Jackie Meyer presented slides of different shelters in the Twin Cities area.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
The following persons spoke against the zoning amendment for the following reasons:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
James Ventura, attorney for Driftwood Shores Association
Sue Schebler, 1759 Lafayette Lane
Jim Welbourn, 1747 Lafayette Lane
Chuck Auger, 1769 Lafayette Lane
Craig Goodrich, 1776 Lafayette Lane
Sandra Berkey, 1768 Lafayette Lane
Anthony Ornelis, 1759 Lafayette Lane
Brian Schebler, 1759 Lafayette Lane
Steven Berkey, 1768 Lafayette Lane (letter read to the Council)
Reasons:
There is no proposal. No plans, rules or guidelines have been presented. No
plans have been presented for a building and no budget.
This shelter would be just a temporary residence. There would be no counseling
at the facility.
Would have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
June 14, 1994
Mound City Council Minutes
- This type of use would eliminate property taxes on this parcel of land.
Allowing this in the B-2 zone, 2 of those areas are at the entrance to the city.
- A community residential facility is already allowed in the R-3 multi-family zone
and there are lots available in that zone.
- R-3 multi-family would be better suited for this type of use and lots are available
in that zone.
The Council should assess the needs of the city and its residents.
- The proposal is vague and nebulous.
- Any police calls would be a concern to the neighborhood.
- There are 3 - B-2 zones and the city could be asked to approve other types of
shelters (i.e. drug rehab, half-way houses, etc.) in the future.
Don't know how long these people would be housed at the shelter.
- A letter from Alan Goodell-Holmes, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist was
submitted.
- In favor of a shelter but not in a residential area of Mound.
Fear of violence in a residential neighborhood.
Would rather see some commercial business on the Fina site, not a shelter.
- Would rather have the Council deal with a site specific, not just generally change
the zoning ordinance to allow a victims of domestic abuse shelter.
- A letter from Jon Scherven, Burnet Realty, on an alternate site at the corner of
Shoreline Dr. and Norwood Ave.
Pictures were submitted of a shelter with a sign that stated that no donations
would be accepted there. When the person questioned the sign, they were told
it was because of the violence that has occurred.
- No taxes would be generated by a shelter.
Shelter will house more people from out of the area than residents of Mound.
The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed zoning amendment for the following
reasons:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Reasons:
Jay Petersen, 2667 Halstead Lane
Greg Sicheneder, Minnetrista (therapist working with perpetrator violence)
Dave Decker, Psychologist with Pyramid Mental Health Center in Minnetonka.
Dave Rand, 4610 Hanover Road
Buddy Erickson
leanette Belcourt, 4936 Leslie Road
Becky Hunt, 4935 Bartlett Blvd.
Val & Dan Hessburg, 3490 Lythram Way
There is a need for this shelter in this area.
There is a 60% turn away rate at other shelters.
Plans and guidelines would be addressed in a conditional use permit, not at this
time.
Mound City Council Minutes June 14, 1994
- Service are of 42,000 people, includes the surrounding area.
Need to stop the violence.
Women and children deserve the feel safe and shelters provide safety.
- A letter from Samaritan Center (Delia Bujold, Licensed Marriage & Family
Therapist) was submitted.
- There were 55 child protection cases started in 1993.
- We need to triple the number of shelters in the metro area.
The community needs to get behind this and support stopping the domestic
violence.
- Violence against women is the number 1 health issue for women.
- When a shelter was needed, this person had to take her 4 children out of school
and go to Eagan, because there was nothing else available.
- 7 letters were submitted in support of the shelter in the B-2 zone.
Val Hessburg,
yes or no.
Director of Westonka Intervention, urged the Council to make a decision tonight,
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Council discussed the need for a shelter. The consensus was that one is needed, but what
zone it should be allowed in is another question. The Council discussed the fact that a
commercial residential facility, already allowed by CUP in the R-3 zone is not the same as a
victims of domestic abuse shelter. The difference is that a commercial residential facility is state
licensed and the other is not. At this point, a victims of domestic abuse shelter is not allowed
in any zoning district of the city.
The City Attorney stated that designing the uses for the district should be done without taking
into consideration some specific proposal or a specific site. He also pointed out that in order
to approve the proposed zoning amendment, a 4/5 vote is required.
Council Liaison Jensen, stated that the Planning Commission was not as successful as the
Council in looking at the overall zone, trying to divorce themselves from the issue of the
convent moving to the Fina site. She further stated that the Planning Commission did address
the fact that this would affect all three B-2 zones.
The Council all agreed there is a need for a shelter in the community, i.e. the Westonka area.
The Council discussed the possibility of allowing this shelter in other zoning districts.
MOTION made by Smith seconded by Ahrens to deny the request for an amendment
to the Mound Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:310, to add a definition for "Victims
of Domestic Abuse Shelter" and an amendment to the Mound Zoning Ordinance,
Section 350:760, to modify the rest of the existing Code to add "Victims of Domestic
Abuse Shelter" to the listing of uses allowable in the General Business (B-2) Zoning
Districts by issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Mound City Council Minutes June 14, 1994
Councilmember Jensen stated that no matter what zone this shelter is proposed
to be in, the faces will change but the words will not.
Councilmember Jessen stated that if she votes to deny the request, it is because
she wants would like to see this be broader in scope than just the B-2 zone.
Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Ahrens & Smith all stated that they are not
convinced that this is the best use for the B-2 zoning district. Councilmember
Smith stated that he feels this type of use in a B-2 zone is not consistent with
what the EDC is trying to do in the business areas of Mound.
The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting no. Motion carried.
1.5
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to direct Staff and the Planning
Commission to look at all zones where they feel a victims of domestic abuse shelter
would fit, develop a definition, and bring a recommendation back to the Council.
Councilmember Jensen stated she is voting against this for the same reason as
before. The faces will change but the words will not. It is also not a productive
use of Staff time.
The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting no. Motion carried.
There was discussion on getting together with Westonka Intervention and other social service
agencies to explore and look at other areas that might be more well suited for a victims of
domestic abuse shelter.
1.6
CASE g94-37; INFINITI MARKETING, INC.. CRAIG SMITH, 5318 SHORELINE
DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING). OPERATIONS PERMIT.
The Planner explained the request. Staff recommendation is for approval for an initial
occupancy of approximately 8,744 square feet within the Balboa Building. It was further
recommended that the permit allow for future expansion providing the nature of the business and
the products stored on the premises remains essentially unchanged. It is an office and warehouse
area for the distribution of automotive aftermarket products such as consoles, rack systems,
radar detectors and other items. The firm will operate one shift with approximately 14
employees. Approval will be conditioned on compliance with all building and fire codes.
The Council asked about truck traffic. The applicant stated that this should not be a problem.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to direct Staff to prepare a resolution
of approval for an Operations Permit for Infiniti Marketing, Inc. 5318 Shoreline
Drive (Balboa Building) as recommended and conditioned. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
A391
Mound City Council Minutes
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.7 LICENSE RENEWALS.
The following licenses were presented for renewal: Expire 6/30/94.
7/1/94 to 6/30/95. Approval contingent upon all required forms,
submitted.
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor - Clsss A
Headliners Bar & Grill
On-Sale B~r
Al & Alma's Supper Club
House of Moy
Mound Lanes
Off-Sale Beer
Brickley's Market
PDQ Food Store
SuperAmerica
Club - On-Sale
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
On-Sale Wine
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
House of Moy
Sunday Sale~
Headliners Bar & Grill
VFW Post #5113
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorize renewal of the above
licenses. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
June 14, 1994
New License Period
insurance, etc. being
Mound City Council Minutes June 14, 1994
1.8 RFS;OLUTION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING
FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH - JULY 30 & 31. 1994.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-77 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM
LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR OUR LADY OF THE
LAKE CHURCH - JULY 30 & 31, 1994 (INCREDIBLE
FESTIVAL.
1.9 ADD ON ITEM; CASE //9,4-23: ROD LARSON & MYRNA NOYD, 2976
HIGHLAND BLVD., THAT PART OF BLOCKS 1 AND 2 INCL. BUCKBEE DR.
NOW VACATED, "MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY", PID #23-117-
24 41 0016, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
The Building Official reported that this item was tabled at the last meeting in order for staff to
gather more information on the sewer and water hook-ups. The request is for a variance to
allow construction of an attached garage. The nonconforming use is the second dwelling unit
(rental unit) on the property. A review of the sewer records shows that there are no sewer
connections from either dwelling to Highland Blvd. It is assumed the rental unit is connected
to the lakeside manhole through the principal dwelling. A dye test would have to be conducted
to confirm this situation. The property was only charged one assessment for sewer and one for
water.
The City Attorney pointed out that the sewer and water hook-ups to the second dwelling was
apparently done without a permit. The Building Official agreed. He stated that there are two
addresses for this property and two water shut-offs with two water bills being charged, one to
each dwelling unit.
The Building Official reported that sometime between 1965 and 1974, the detached garage was
converted to a second dwelling. There are no records of city approval of this conversion.
The owners of the property were present and stated that they purchased the property with the
rental unit which allowed them enough income to pay the mortgage payments. Mr. Larson
stated they are not in the position to give up the rental property. He asked that the Council
amortize the use of this rental unit to coincide with in the payoff on the mortgage or 20 years.
Then the building could be removed.
The City Attorney pointed out that the Council, by its own ordinance, cannot expand this
nonconforming use which it would be doing by allowing the garage addition and recognizing the
existence of this second dwelling (rental unit). He further stated that it appears that this is an
illegal nonconforming use. The City Attorney again referenced Section 350:420, Subd. 1 of the
Code which reads as follows: "Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date
of this Chapter may be continued at the size and manner of operation existing upon such date."
Mound City Council Minutes
The key words are "lawfully existing~.
June 14, 1994
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to direct staff to prepare a resolution
of denial based on the f'mdings discussed tonight. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $300,651.50, when funds are available.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Department Head monthly reports for May 1994.
B. LMCD Representative's monthly report for May 1994.
C. Notice of the Hennepin County Old Tyme Fair, July 28-31, 1994, Lion's Park in
Corcoran.
D. Hennepin County 1993 Annual Recycling Report.
E. LMCD levy adjustment. Refund of $7,235. Reimbursement for the Shoreland
Ordinance - $750. Another $500 will be forthcoming.
F. L.M.C.D. mailings.
G. LMCD proposed Budget for 1995.
H. Final Draft of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force Report.
I. Memo from Police Chief Len Harrell regarding his attendance at the FBI Academy in
January of 1995.
J. Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 1994.
K. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of May 12, 1994.
L. REMINDER: Around Mound Run/Walk, Saturday, June 11, 1994, Mound Bay Park.
M. REMINDER: Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. Fish Fry, Saturday, June 11, 1994, 4-8
P.M., Fire Station.
Mound City Council Minutes
N. REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 17-19, 1994.
Oe
June 14, 1994
REMINDER: COW Meeting, Tuesday, June 21, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
REMINDER: EDC Meeting, Thursday, June 16, 1994, 7:00 A.M., Mound City Hall.
You are invited to attend re: ISTEA Grant discussion.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to adjourn at 12:15 A.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - JUNE 21, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Skip Johnson,
Councilmembers Ken Smith, Phyllis Jessen and Liz Jensen. Absent and excused:
Andrea Ahrens. Also present: Gene Strommen, Executive Director of LMCD; Peter
Meyer, Park and Open Space Commission; John Cameron, City Engineer and Ed
Shukle, City Manager.
The Lake Access Agreement with LMCD was discussed. Ed Shukle, City Manager
introduced Gene Strommen to discuss with the Council previous City Council action
as it relates to the Lake Access Agreement. Strommen indicated that there were
some changes in the calculation of parking spaces that were countable towards the
700 parking spaces for car/trailers around Lake Minnetonka. The City Council
emphasized that they did not want to have the spaces on Beachwood Road signed on
the street as car/trailer parking only. Furthermore, they did not want them listed at
the access site. Strommen was going to communicate this information back to the
LMCD board at its next meeting. The City Council also asked Strommen about the
proposed application for 40 dock sites at Pelican Point. Strommen indicated that
under LMCD ordinances, LMCD allows one boat per 50 feet of shoreline. Pelican point
has 26 or 27 spaces based upon this formula. The applicant is requesting 40 dock
spaces. The City Council had indicated to Strommen that a letter would be coming
forward from the City of Mound supporting Boyer Building Corporation's proposal to
put in 40 dock sites. Strommen said that the LMCD would review the application and
the letter submitted by the City as part of its review process. Strommen also briefly
commented on the LMCD proposed budget for 1995.
John Cameron, City Engineer, was present to review the storm drainage for Lot 44,
Lynwold Park Addition. He explained that in 1987, a tremendous amount of rain fell
in late July flooding out a neighbors garage. He talked about a possible improvement
for the area, but was concerned about easements over the railroad tracks into Lake
Langdon. This council discussed the possibility of budgeting for a drainage project in
the future and to possibly establish a storm water management utility, which would
undertake a storm water management plan and ordinance specific improvement
projects under it within the city. The storm water utility issue was continued until the
next Committee of the Whole meeting. The issue of drainage for the area will be
considered through the budget process for 1995 or beyond. Also discussed was the
area across Cottonwood Lane to the west and the need for some type of an
improvement to that area as well.
Nature Conservation Areas were discussed. The City Council recommended that on
the June 28, 1994 regular meeting agenda, three specific areas be designated as
Nature Conservation Areas. They are as follows: 1) North of Bartlett, end of
Rusticwood (Rustic Place), 2) Indian Mound property on Westedge Blvd. (old sewer
plant), 3) Diamond Lane across the street from Phiibrook Park. Other areas that have
been recommended by the Park and Open Space Commission were discussed. The
City Council consensus was to leave these areas alone at this time.
I ,l I I, I, ,i~
Minutes - Committee of the Whole - June 21, 1994 - Page 2
Mayor and City Council salaries were 'brieflY ~liScussed. It was pointed out that the
mayor and city council salaries have not been increased since 1979. Ed Shukle, City
Manager distributed a survey published by the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM) which indicated that Mound is at the very Iow end of the wage
scale as it pertained to mayor an council salaries. City Council consensus was to
discuss this at its next COW meeting with the item going to the July 26, 1994 regular
meeting agenda for action. The actual salaries could not take effect until after the
municipal election held in November.
Goal setting issues were reviewed.
Skip Johnson gave a brief report on the meeting with the Westonka Intervention
representatives as it pertained to looking at other possible sites in the City of Mound
for a domestic abuse shelter.
The next meeting of the Committee of the Whole will be Tuesday, July 19, 1994,
7:30 PM, at Mound City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Ed Shukle
City Manager
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AREA WITH VARIANCES AS NOTED FOR PELICAN POINT
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an application for a major subdivision called
Pelican Point, pursuant to Section 330 of the City Code, and
WHEREAS, applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit
to establish Pelican Point as a Planned Development Area, together with a request for street and
cul de sac right-of-way variances and other variances as noted in Attachment A, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have studied the
practicability of the preliminary plat, the planned development area and the variances, taking into
consideration the requirements of the city, giving particular attention to the arrangement, location
and width of streets and their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage
disposal and drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining
lands and the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and
WHEREAS, the proposed design as conditioned is consistent with applicable
development plans and policies, and
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and
density of development contemplated if the conditions imposed herein are met, and
WHEREAS, the applicant will be participating in the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet and should the EAW identify significant environmental
issues, such issues shall be addressed by the developer in a modified preliminary plat to be
reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to final plat application, and
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed
project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the
approval addressing those considerations, and
-. WHEREAS, the proposed project as conditioned will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities
are being provided, and
WHEREAS, the use is reasonably related to the overall needs of the city and to
the existing land use, and
WHEREAS, the applicant's property is covered with mature trees and mature
vegetation which when coupled with the unusual shape and topography requires some variation
from the literal interpretation of the street design requirements of the zoning code to allow the
applicant to preserve the natural trees and vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, and
WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to
facilitate the preservation of vegetation and minimize topographic alterations, and
WHEREAS, the granting of the variances requested will not confer upon the
applicant any special privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same zone.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
A. Preliminary Plat approval, issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a
Planned Development Area, street and cul de sac right-of-way variances, and
applicable variances for a water oriented accessory structure, lot size, lot width,
lot line setbacks street frontage and building setbacks as shown on the Preliminary
Plat dated May 10, 1994 and as listed in Attachment A are hereby granted subject
to compliance with the following requirements:
1. Because of exceeding the threshold for an EAW resulting from the
proposed boat mooring structure (marina) and in order to satisfy local
environmental concerns, the applicant shall prepare an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW), consistent with the requirements found in
the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review
Program, 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. The EAW shall include a biological
inventory of the site as well as a Phase I archaeological reconnaissance
survey of the property. If the EAW results in information requiring
additional conditions to this preliminary plat approval, said conditions will
be added prior to final plat consideration.
2. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits from all entities with
jurisdiction over this project including but not limited to the Department
of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Health.
3. The applicant shall investigate and supply information to the City Attorney
regarding the historic platting of the East Port Road area and Island View
Drive in order to verify that the property shown within the Preliminary
Plat is free of outside encumbrances.
o
°
°
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
All private driveways shall either be located within the lot that they serve
or easements shall be prepared allowing access on neighboring lots.
The project shall be limited to a total mount of impervious cover not to
exceed 30 percent. As such, the City recommends that the DNR approve
an impervious coverage variance if applicable.
Bluff areas as delineated on the Preliminary Plat shall remain undisturbed.
The City recommends that the DNR approve top of bluff setback variances
consistent with the unit placement shown on the Preliminary Plat.
The City finds that the one proposed water oriented accessory structure is
reasonable and recommends variance approval by the DNR since it serves
40 homes. The proposed building is of far less impact than a series of
private water oriented accessory structures that would be allowed if the
lakeshore was platted into private lots in a more traditional subdivision
design. Said water oriented accessory structure shall comply with the
setback and color restrictions identified in the State shoreland rules.
Covenants and bylaws of the homeowner's association shall include
provisions restricting vegetation removal from Outlot C. Said documents
shall be approved by the City of Mound at the time of final plat approval.
Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD as
applicable.
Park dedication fees shall be collected in conformance with the Mound
Subdivision Ordinance.
Tree management practices shall be followed consistent with the Tree
Management narrative submitted as part of the developers narrative and
included as part of the Conditional Use Permit as Exhibit 2.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscaping plan for the project entry
for review and approval by the City Planner.
Detailed information on paving at the entry area and at trail crossing points
shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval.
All interior lot lines shall be required to have a 5 foot wide drainage and
utility easement along both sides except common lot lines which pass
through buildings.
15. Easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided for utilities
not located within street rights-of-way.
16. A drainage and Utility easement shall be provided at the north end of
Outlot C for the storm sewer and drainage channel that leads to Lake
Minnetonka.
17. The City's existing storm sewer in East Port Road shall be added to the
Preliminary Utility Plan. Furthermore, the proposed drainage pond shall
have adequate capacity to accommodate runoff from the Pelican Point
development as well as from the existing City storm sewer. Drainage
calculations demonstrating adequate capacity shall be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer. The sediment control structure for the
pond outlet shall be relocated midway between the inlets.
18. Silt fence shall be located to contain all areas disturbed by grading.
Method # 1 for silt fence installation as shown on the Preliminary Grading,
Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated April 21, 1994 shall be utilized.
19. All utilities adjacent to Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed within the
public right-of-way.
20. The proposed sanitary sewer shall be extended from manhole #7 with an
additional manhole placed to provide service for Lots 19 and 20, Block 2.
21. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be added closer to the
intersection of the private drive (as shown on the plat) and Pelican Point
Circle to retain the line within the public right-of-way and to reduce the
length of the services to Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. The watermain in this
area shall also be moved.
22. An additional fire hydrant shall be added at the proposed cul-de-sac.
23. Additional mainline gate valves at locations acceptable to the City
Engineer shall be added to provide zoning of the water distribution system.
24. Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed as a 28 foot wide (back to back)
public street accommodating parking on one side. A 10 foot variance from
the right-of-way requirement is approved due to the desire of both the
applicant and the City of Mound to maximize retention of existing tree
cover.
25. Ingress and egress lanes at the project entrance shall be widened to 16 feet
(back to back) and B618 curb and gutter shall be installed.
4
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
The proposed cul-de-sac that is identified on the Preliminary Plat as a
"Shared Private Driveway" shall be platted and constructed as a 24 foot
wide (back to back) public street with right-of-way width consistent with
Pelican Point Circle. A variance for the cul-de-sac bubble of 20 feet is
approved to establish an 80 foot diameter bubble with a paved area with
a 70 foot diameter. The pavement width at the bubble can be reduced by
the placement of a landscaped island providing that the cul-de-sac is posted
for one-way traffic only.
Plans for street lighting shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Engineer. Said plans shall identify the system ownership as either
public or private and shall specify pole and fixture types and locations.
No structures shall be built or placed upon the island (Outlot C) without
specific modification of the Conditional Use Permit.
The approval of the planned development area and preliminary plat are
subject to all other applicable city codes and ordinances.
All bylaws, covenants and other association documents are to be reviewed
by the City Attorney.
ATTACHMENT A
City of Mound
Pelican Point Variances
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot I Front setback 10' 20'
Lot 2 Street frontage 57.13' 2.87'
Front setback 24' 6'
Lot width 55' 5'
Lot 3 Street frontage 53.47' 6.33'
Front setback 21' 5'
Lot width 55' 9'
Lot 4 Street frontage 52.56' 7.44'
Front setback 20' 10'
Lot width 53' 7'
Lot 5 Front setback 25' 5'
Lot area 9,043 sf 957 sf
Lot 6 Lot width 45' 15'
Street frontage 48.69' 11.31'
Front setback 22' 8'
Lot 7 Street frontage 56.30' 3.7'
Lot width 53' 7'
Lot area 9,854 sf 146 sf
Lot 8 Street frontage 59.29' .71'
Front setback 26' 4'
Lot width 55' 5'
Lot area 7,708 sf 2,292 sf
Lot 9 Lot area 6,645 sf 3,355 sf
Street frontage 54.39' 5.61'
Front setback 20' 10'
Cut width 54' 6'
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot 10 Lot area 9,109 sf 891 sf
Front setback 20' 10'
Street frontage 53.50' 6.5'
Lot 11 Street frontage 58.36' 1.64'
Front setback 16' 14'
Lot area 9,459 sf 541 sf
Lot 12 Front setback 28' 2'
Street frontage 38.83' 21.17'
Lot area 9,366 sf 634 sf
Lot width 45' 15'
Lot 13 Lot area 8,151 sf 1,849 sf
Front setback 29' 1'
Street frontage 56.22' 3.78'
Lot width 55' 5'
Lot 14 Front setback 18' 12'
Lot area 8,877 sf 1,123 sf
Lot 1 Lot area 7,500 sf 2,500 sf
Street frontage 45' 15'
Lot width 40' 20'
Lot 2 Front setback 27' 3'
Lot width 40' 20'
Lot area 6,626 sf 3,374 sf
Street frontage 20.76' 39.24'
Lot 3 Lot area 6,583 sf 3,417 sf
Street frontage 44.38' 15.62'
Lot width 43' 13'
CLIEN'~\MOUND\94-5G \VARIANCE.PRO
Page 2
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot area 6,936 sf 3,064 sf
Lot width 47' 13'
Bluff setback 28' 2'
Lot 13 Street frontage 30.5' 29.5'
Lot area 6,724 sf 3,276 sf
Lot width 40' 20'
Lot 14 Front setback 15' 15'
Street frontage 53.56' 6.44'
Lot area 6,159 sf 3,841 sf
Lot width 55' 5'
Lot 15 Front setback 12' 18'
Street frontage 48.49' 11.51'
Lot area 5,130 sf 4,870 sf
Lot width 51' 9'
Lot 16 Front setback 12' 18'
Street frontage 44.03' 15.97'
Lot area 4,693 sf 5,307 sf
Lot width 48' 12'
Lot 17 Front setback 12' 18'
Street frontage 53.2' 6.8'
Lot area 5,802 sf 4,198 sf_
Lot width 55' 5'
Lot 18 Street frontage 24.09' 35.91'
Lot width 48' 12'
Lot 19 Front setback 15' 15'
Lot area 8,160 sf 1,840 sf
Lot 20 Street frontage 39.92' 20.08'
CLIENTS\MOUND\94-SG\VARIANCE.PRO
Page 4
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot 4 Lot area 7,102 sf 2,898 sf
Street frontage 52.78' 7.22'
Lot width 54' 6'
Lot 5 Lot area 8,142 sf 1,858 sf
Lot 6 Lot area 8,503 sf 1,497 sf
Lot 7 Lot area 8,448 sf 1,552 sf
Bluff setback 25' 5'
Lot 8 Front setback 26' 4'
Bluff setback 25' 5'
Lot area 6,964 sf 3,036 sf
Street frontage 42.7' 17.3'
Lot width 53' 7'
Lot 9 Lot area 6,594 sf 3,406 sf
Street frontage 49.22' 10.78'
Lot width 49' 11'
Bluff setback 13' 17'
Front setback 25' 4'
Lot 10 Front setback 25' 5'
Street frontage 46.35' 13.65'
Lot area 5,481 sf 3,519 sf'
Lot width 50' 10'
Bluff setback 13' 17'
Lot 11 Street frontage 49.2' 10.8'
Lot area 6,802 sf 3,198 sf
Lot width 53' 7'
Bluff setback 21' 9'
Lot 12 Street frontage 38.31' 21.69'
CLIENTSX MOUND \94-5G \ VARIANCE.PRO
Page 3
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot 21 Street frontage 37.91' 22.09'
Lot width 51' 9'
Lot 22 Street frontage 52.44' 7.56'
Lot area 7,231 sf 2,769 sf
Lot width 53' 7'
Lot 23 Lot area 9,163 sf 837 sf
Lot 24 Front setback 25' 5'
Lot area 9,524 sf 476 sf
Lot 25 Front setback 20' 10'
Lot area 6,475 sf 3,525 sf
Lot width 54' 6'
Lot 26 Front setback 16' 14'
Street frontage 53.25' 6.75'
Lot area 5,183 sf 4,817 sf
Lot width 53' 7'
Because Lots 21-26 front on a private street, applicable conditions are measured
from Pelican Point Circle.
Lots 9 and 10 of Block 1 have second front yard setbacks which would require a
variance.
Lot 9 Front yard setback: 20' 10' v
Lot 10 front yard setback: 22' 8' v
CLIENTS\ MOUND\94-§G \VARIANCE.PRO
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mn
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mound City Council and Staff
FROM: Bruce Chamberlain, Planning Consultant
DATE: June 22, 1994
SUBJECT: Pelican Point EAW
Enclosed, please find a completed Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Pelican
Point Multi-family Residential Development. The EAW addresses environmental impacts of
the project and identifies measures the developer is undertaking to minimize those impacts.
The project exceeds the threshold necessary for completion of an EAW due to the proposed
marina facility. The EAW addresses all aspects of the project so reviewers can evaluate the
full realm of project impacts.
The City Council is acting as the "Responsible Governmental Unit" in regard to this EAW
and responsible for its approval, distribution and evaluation. The action requested of the City
Council at this time is a motion approving the EAW document for distribution. Evaluation of
environmental impacts addressed in the document are not part of this action. If the Council
determines that alterations to the document are necessary, the motion can specify changes to
be made by staff prior to distribution.
If you have any question, I will be available at the City Council meeting.
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
612-8~5-~160
], ~ ,1~
HO I S ! NGTON KOEGLER
6~ PO~ JUL 05 '9~ 09:4~
ATTACHMENT
I,F. GAL DESCRIPTION
Phelps Island Park, 1 st Division Lot 73
That part lying Southeasterly of Channel.
Phelps Island Park 1 st Division.
Lots 19 to 34 inclusive also including adjacent private street and private alley and that part
of Lot 73 lying northwesterly of channel also commencing at the intersection of the
northeasterly line of Lot 19 extended with westerly line of private alley adjacent to said
Lot 19, thence southerly along westerly line of' said private alley to its intersection with the
northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of Lot 34, thence northwesterly along
said extension of the southwesterly line of said Lot 34 to a point distant :286.8 feet
southeasterly from the point of intersection of' said line with the southeasterly line of
Tuxedo Road thence northeasterly 20 feet parallel with said road line thence northwesterly
216,8 feet parallel with the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of said Lot
34 to the southeasterly line of said road thence northeasterly along said road line to the
northeasterly line of said Lot 19 extended thence southeasterly 299. I feet to the point of
beginning.
Unplatted I9 117 23.
Commencing at the point of intersection of the northwesterly extension of the
northeasterly line of Lot 35 Phelps Island Park First Division with the northwesterly line of
private alley adjacem to said lot, thence southwesterly along said alley line to the westerly
extension of the southwesterly line of Lot 38 of said plat thence northwesterly 200 feet
along said extended line, thence northeasterly 200 feet to a point in said northwesterly
extension of said northeasterly line of said Lot 35 a distance of 266.8 feet along said
extended line with the southeasterly line of Tuxedo Road, thence northwesterly 266.80
feet along said road line thence southeasterly 286.8 feet parallel with said northwesterly
extension of said northeasterly line of said Lot 35 thence southwesterly 20 feet parallel
with said road line thence southeasterly to the point of beginning.
nvironmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
NOTE TO PREPARERS
This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGLO or its agents. The project proposer must supply
~y reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer
does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary.
For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free)
1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult "EAW Guidelines," a booklet available from the EQB.
NOTE TO REVIEWERS
Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB
Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has
been prepared for the scopin$ of an ElS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information
and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS.
1. PmjectTItie Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development
2. Pmposer Boyer Building Corporation 3. RGU City of Mound, Minnesota
Contact per~n Oohn Blumentritt Contact person Mark Koegler
Address 18283A Minnesota Blvd. and title City Planner
Idayzata, MN 55391 Address 5341 Maywood Road
Phone (612) 475-2097 Mound, MN 55364
Phone (612) 472-0600
4. Reason for EAW pra~ratlon
Fl ElS scoping ~ mandatory EAW
If EAW or ElS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s) 4410-4300
5. Project Location
.... N ~-t44- S ~4¢4-Section 19 Township ~17N ._ Rang~_
County Hennepin City/Twp
I"1 citizen petition [-1 RGU discretion r-I Proposer volunteered
SUBP. 25
23W_
Mound
Attach co~ of tach of the following to th~ EAW:
a. a county map showing the general location of the pr°ject; Figure 1, Pages 15-17
b. copy(les) of USGS 75 minute, 1'~4,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries;Figure 2, Page
¢. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features. Figures 3-9, Pages 19-25
Oascrlptlon Give a complete descril:ttion of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary).
Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or
produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities.
See Page 7
18
Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EQB Monitor notice: See
Page 8
7. Project Magnitude Data 13.7 Mainland
Total Prom Area (acres) 0.7 Water, 0.8 Island
Number of Residential Units
Unattached 0 Attached
Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space)
Total 0
square feet;
Indicate area of specific uses:
Office
Retail
Warehouse
Light Industrial
Other Commereial (specify)
Building Height(s) 25 '
8. Permits and Approvals Required
Unit of Covernment
or Length (miles)
Manufacturing
Other Industrial
Institutional
Agricultural
List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required:
Type of Application Status
See Page 8
Land Usa Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the
compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental
matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage
tanks.
See Page 9
10. Cover Typ~ Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and
after totals should be equal):
Before After Before After
Types 2 to 8 Wetlands _ 0 0 Urban/Suburban Lawn 0 1
Wooded/Forest ] O. 3 7. ~ Landscaping
Brush/Grassland '
Cropland ~ ]. ] Impervious Surface _ 0 4, l
0 0 Other (describe) - O R --
11. Rsh, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a.
Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any
measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
See Page 9
Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special-concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird
nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? [Z] Yes ~] No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by' the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was
conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
2
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the pro~-'t involve the physical or hydrologic alw..radon (dredging, ii.l~g, stream diversion,
outfall structure, dikhng, impoundment) of any surface water Oake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? ~ Yes [] No
If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, inctudin§ the construction process; volumes of
dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stem diversion; water su~ace area affec.~ .ed;.tim. in$ and ex%ent of fluctu=tions
in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to rmmm,:,e unpacts.
See Page 10
a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? [] Yes [3 No
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted well~, give
the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known).
The previous residence gathered potable water directly from Lake Hinnetonka.
b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewater~g)? ~ Yes r'q No
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of
any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels.
See Page 10
Will the project require connection to a public water supply? E] Yes [] No
If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used.
See Page 10
14. Water-related Land U~ I~M~ment Dlsltlct~ Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year
flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? E] Yes [] No
' ' If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of t.h~e district.
See Page 10
15.
Water Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ~ Yes [] No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users
or fish and wildlife resources.
See Page 10
16. Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Ground water: minimum nve~ ~6%verageunknown Bedrock minimum over 16' average unknown
Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need no.~t be attached.)
See Page 'ti
17. Er0sl0n and Sedlrnentalt0n Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved:
acres 3 ; cubic yardslO ~ 000 .
Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map.
Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project.
See Page 11
18. Water Quality. Surface Water Runoff
a.treatC°mparerunoff.the quantity and quality of site runoff before and a/tar the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or
See Page 11
b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of
the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lalz consult ~EA W Guidelines' about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.)
See Page 12
19. Water Quality. Westewatera.
a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters
produced or treated at the site.
Pelican Point development will generate normal domestic sewage. The estimated
average flow is 14,954 gallons per day.
b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project
involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters
(including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharg~
may affect a ~ consult "EA W Guid~line, s' about whether a nutrient budget analysis is noeded.)
N/A
C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the
system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary.
See Page 12
20. Ground Water--Potential for ~onternlnaiJon
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: over 16~hirdmum;unknown average.
13. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow
limestone formations/karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to
avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
No known hazards are present.
Ident~yanyto~corhazardous materials to beusedorpresenton theprojectsiteandidentifymeasurestobeusedto
prevent them from ~ntamirtating ~ound water.
Common residential materials will likely be used and disposal of such materials
are subject to applicable guidelines and laws.
21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks
a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures,
~dg_es,,an, d ashes. Identify .th.e m,etho~,, and l~ation of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if
ere wm ~e a source separauon plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling.
See Page 12
3.
Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum
products or other materials (except water).
None
4
22.
Traffic Parking spaces added ].60 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) N/A Estimated total Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 240 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic genera[ed (if known) and its timing: 22
P. M. . For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the proj~ect.
Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic eonsestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic h~provements which will
be necessary.
67% inbound (14.7 trips), 33% outbound (7.3 trips)
There will be no appreciable impact on traffic congestion.
23. Vehicle-related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon
monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If tl~. proje~
involves $00 or more parking spaces, consult ~EA W Guidelines" about whether a d~tailed air quality analysis is needed.)
The project will not cause any significant decrease in air quality.
24.
Stationary ~ource air eml~10n$ Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust
stacks)? [] Yes R'I No
If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the
quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality.
25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? ]~ Yes 0 No
If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse
impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these rece~ors.
.... See Page
26. Are
b.
¢.
d.
e.
any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
archeological, historical, or architectural resources? 1~1 Ye~ [] No
prime or unique farmlands? [] Yes ~ No
designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? [] Yes IX] No
scenic views and vistas? ~ Yes [] No
other unique resources? [] Yes [XI No
If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe
any measures to be tak.en to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
See Page 13
27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and large
visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) []3 Yes [~ No
If yes, explain.
28.
Compatibility with plans b the project s~bject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water,
or resource management plan of an local, regional, state, or federal agency? [] Ye~ [] No
If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how
any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain.
See Page 13
29.
Impact on Infrastructure rand Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be
rec{~red to serve the project? ~ Yes [] No
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a 'connected action' with r~l:,ect
to the project must bg assessed in this EA W; see #EA W Gufdelin~s" for details.)
See Page 13
30. Related Developments; Cumulatlva Impacts
a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? [] Yes J~] No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review.
b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? [] Yes 12[ No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review.
C. Is other development anticipated on adjacent ]ands or outlets? [] Yes [] No
If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project.
d. If a,b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other
development.
31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by
items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
None
:32.
SUMMARY OF [9$UES (This sect/on ne~d not be completed if the EA W is being don~ for EIS scoring; instead, address relevant issues in the
draft 5coping Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require
further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may
be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions.
See Page la
CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (all 3 certifications must be signed for EOB acceptance of tho EAW for publication of
notice in the EQB Monitor)
A. I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signature
B. [ hereby certify that the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or
project components, other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as "connected actions" or
"phased actions," as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60.
Signature
C. 1 hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list.
Signature
Title of signer Date
Ml.-anc~z~ Env'trc~mc.heal Qualhy Bo. an:L Rcv~.scd/uno I990.
QUESTION SUPPLEMENT
e
Pelican Point is located in Mound, Minnesota on an easterly facing shore of Lake Minnetonka. Access
to the site is from Tuxedo Boulevard, a short distance south of County Highway 125. The property
consists of two land areas separated by water. The mainland portion of the site consists of 13.7 acres
of heavily wooded and rolling land with a pronounced bluff area close to the shoreline. The second
land area is a 0.8 acre island a short distance off of shore on Lake Minnetonka. The mainland has
1387 lineal feet of lake shore. The island has 1471 feet of lake shore. The property falls within
Mound's Shoreland Management District. The site is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-l)
with a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. The land use proposal described in this document is
consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan which identifies low density residential as the
preferred land use. Twinhomes are an acceptable land use in the R-1 Zoning District through the
creation of a Planned Development Area.
The development proposal calls for constructing 20 twin home buildings (40 units), one water
accessory building and a 40 stall boat mooring structure. The developer is proposing the creation of a
Planned Development Area (PDA) to allow more flexibility in the development pattern. The creation
of a PDA can have beneficial impacts on tree loss, grading and other environmental factors. All
development is proposed to occur on and attached to the mainland. The island will remain
undisturbed. A single loop street called Pelican Point Circle will wind through the site and access
Tuxedo Boulevard at a single location. The water oriented accessory building will be located a
minimum of 50 feet from shore in the beach area of the site and have storage facilities for each
housing unit. The boat mooring facility is proposed to be a single structure connected to the mainland
with a pier. The developer is proposing a trail to connect the mooring structure with the housing
units. The trail does not pass through any designated bluff areas. The proposal calls for 30% hard
cover including buildings, streets, driveways, etc. The remainder will be reserved for stormwater
ponding and open space.
The north, west and south sides of the development will be buffered from the adjoining multi-family
and single family residential neighborhood by retention of the existing vegetation (overstory trees and
underbrush). In addition, the homes will be placed to generally maintain a 30 foot setback (with some
variance exceptions) from the bluff line facing Lake Minnetonka. It is proposed that the vegetation in
the bluff area remain intact. Site clearing will be limited to selective removal of existing trees only to
accommodate construction of the homes and road. Preliminary computations indicate that 25-30% of
the internal overstory trees will be lost due to construction. To counteract the loss of trees, many
existing young understory trees which would otherwise be removed will be relocated within the
development.
The on-site stormwater management plan proposes capturing the majority of the site drainage into an
on-site stormwater NURP pond which will provide for water quality and rate control. It is proposed
that the pond discharge into Lake Minnetonka through an existing drainage channel which will be
stabilized and modified to control erosion and dissipate the energy of water flow before in reaches the
lake.
The grading plan indicates that the majority of grading needed on the site will be done to
accommodate the stormwater pond and loop street. Buildings will be placed in order to minimize their
impacts on existing grades. Preliminary computations indicate there will be 10,000 cubic yards of
common excavation.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development
7
The development is projected to have a late 1994 construction start with an approximate three year
completion time. The developer is proposing to construct the NURP pond and implement erosion
control measures prior to other activities. Street construction will then be undertaken to provide access
and fire protection prior to housing construction.
Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in the EQB Monitor notice:
Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development is a proposed 40 unit twinhome development on
a 13.7 acre site with significant features including dense mature trees, bluffs and frontage on Lake
Minnetonka. The project includes an off-shore, 40 slip boat mooring structure and a water oriented
accessory building on the beach.
Unit of Government: Type of Permit / Aooroval_:
Status:
Federal:
Army Corps of Eng. Nationwide Permit To be filed
State:
Minnesota PCA Sanitary Sewer Extensions To be filed
Stormwater Discharge To be filed
MN Dept. of Health
Water Main Extension
Dewatering for Utilities
To be filed
To be filed
(if needed)
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Boat Dockage
Water Appropriation Permit
To be filed
Pending
Municipal:
City of Mound
Watershed:
Minnehaha Creek
Watershed Dist.
Septic Field Removal
Rezoning to PDA
Site Plan Permit
Planned Development Area/
Conditional Use permit
Developer's Agreement
Plan Review of Construction Plan
and Specifications
Preliminary and Final Plat
Construction of R.O.W.
Building Permit
Stormwater Management Permit
To be filed
Pending
Pending
Pending
To be filed
To be filed
Pending
To be filed
To be filed
Applied for
(pending)
Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District
Boat Dockage
To be filed
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development
e
Information obtained from personal interviews and a review of historical aerial photos confirm that
past development on the site included a single family residence since at least 1937. Records from the
City of Mound indicate that the house was burned by the fire department in 1978. Aerial photos
indicate that the main residence was in the central portion of the site at the end of a long, tree-lined
driveway. A guest house was located north of the main house. A walkway, gazebo and stairway led
from the main house to the shore where a boat dock was generally present from 1960 to the early
1970's. Past land use on the site included one single family residence and 1 to 3 accessory buildings.
The last remaining structure on the site was demolished in 1981. The collapsed structure still exists
and will be removed when the property is developed.
Based upon available information, this site was always single family residential and there is no
knowledge of any adverse environmental effects on the property due to past land uses. A phase I
environmental audit is attached as Exhibit A.
Adjacent to the property is an existing condominium complex to the north, twin homes to the west
and single family homes to the south. The preservation of vegetation around the perimeter of the
property and a great deal of interior trees will provide a significant buffer for the surrounding
residential properties. The project poses no adverse environmental impacts to the surrounding
properties.
ll.a.
The mainland site is currently inhabited by common animal species such as White Tail Deer, raccoon,
squirrel and rabbit. The existing wildlife habitat will be impacted by site development and there will
be displacement of plant and animal species. It is anticipated that after construction is complete and
the site re-stabilizes, a somewhat different habitat and wildlife mix will repopulate. The Natural
Heritage Program of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has conducted an on-site
inspection and finds the site to have low significance as a natural area and believes it unlikely that the
site contains rare plant species.
The shoreline of the site contains aquatic vegetation which is likely used by fish for spawning. The
proposed 40 slip boat mooring structure will be roughly 60 feet away from shore. The only place
where the mooring structure will directly contact shore is where the single pier meets land. Increased
boat traffic from the mooring facility could have negative impacts on water quality and wildlife
habitat by re-suspending bottom sediment, eroding the shoreline, increasing nutrient levels and
reducing sunlight infiltration. The mooring structure could have negative impacts by disrupting the
lake bottom with support pilings and through the use of wood preservatives harmful to aquatic life.
Erosion control measures (silt fence, diversionary diking) as noted on Figure 6, will be installed to
control the amount of undesirable silty material and other suspended solids from Lake Minnetonka.
Once the site is developed, the on-site stormwater system (which includes construction of a
skimmer/sedimentation basin) is designed to insure water quality of the on-site stormwater before it
discharges into Lake Minnetonka. It is anticipated that, due to the sedimentation basin, runoff water
quality will be improved with completion of the proposed development. All grading/erosion control
plans will be approved by the City and Watershed District prior to beginning grading operations.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development
12.
There is an existing drainage ditch on and adjacent to the site which channels much of the site runoff
into Lake Minnetonka. As part of the project, a sedimentation pond will be constructed in an upland
portion of the site. The pond will have an outflow structure and skimmer device to control the flow
and quality of runoff. Runoff quantities after development will not exceed current levels. The
drainage ditch will be modified and stabilized to control erosion and dissipate the energy of water
flow before in reaches the lake. Minor grading of the ditch will be needed to accommodate the
installation of a stormwater pipe connection from the pond. All grading operations will utilize
erosion control measures as shown on Figure 6 and all disturbed areas will be revegetated at the
conclusion of the grading process.
13.b.
Dewatering may be needed in order to construct the sanitary sewer and watermain. It is not
anticipated that a well point will be needed because of the variability of the ground water depth. A
low volume trench pump capable of pumping 800 gallons per minute should have enough capacity.
The dewatering permit will be obtained prior to beginning any utility construction. The water will be
discharged into the sedimentation basin to be treated prior to entering Lake Minnetonka. The low
amount of dewatering needed is expected to have a negligible effect on ground water levels.
13.c.
The City of Mound's municipal water system will serve the development. It is estimated that the
project will use 14,954 gallons of water per day. The DNR water appropriation permit number is at
this time unknown. The source of water is seven municipal wells that access the Prairie Du
Chien/Jordan Aquifer. The unique well number of the seven municipal wells are:
a. 206993
b. 206928
c. 206994
d. 208866
e. 232167
f. 112215
g. 240756
14.
Pelican Point is within the City of Mound's Shoreland Management District (Mound City Code
Section 350.1200). Mound's Shoreland Management Ordinance is currently pending approval by the
Minnesota DNR. Approval of Mound's ordinance by the DNR will occur prior to approval of the
final plat. The proposed project is generally compatible with the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
15.
The project is proposed to have 40 boat slips adjacent to the site on Lake Minnetonka. There are
currently no boat slips associated with the site. The total area consumed by the boat mooring facility
will be approximately 0.7 acres of water surface including boat maneuvering space. Lake
Minnetonka is a vast lake with a great deal of recreational boat use. The Pelican Point project will
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development
increase boat usage on this segment of the lake but due to the residential nature, it is unlikely that it
will create localized or lake-wide overcrowding or boat conflicts.
As mentioned in question 11, increased boat traffic from the mooring facility could have negative
impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat. The mooring structure itself could have negative
impacts by disrupting the lake bottom with pilings and through the use of wood preservatives harmful
to aquatic life.
16,
The majority of the site consists of Erin Loam (EnB, EnC& EnE) with slopes ranging from 2 to 24
percent. This gently undulating soil occupies forested areas on hillsides and knolls. Slopes are 75 to
125 feet long. In many places the slope is in several directions. The soils are generally dark
colored in the surface layer with clay loam subsoils. Most areas are underlain by calcareous loamy
till. Drainage ranges from poor to very poor. The primary management concern related to
residential development is control of erosion. These soils erode rapidly if not protected, and
machinery is hard to operate on the steep slopes. This soil is suited to uses that keep it covered with
plants.
The soils along the lake are Sandy Lake Beaches (Lc) and Fill Land (Fd). Lc soils consists of poorly
drained, gravelly and sandy materials around the shoreline of lakes and sloughs. The soil was
deposited through wave action. The native vegetation consists of reeds, sedges, and willows. Fd soil
is a miscellaneous land type that consists of soil material that has been used to fill depressions. This
land type is usually loamy but sometimes clayey. The underlying material is mainly very poorly
drained.
Soils along Tuxedo Boulevard are Cut and Fill land (Cu). This miscellaneous land type consists of
mixed soils which are disturbed for construction.
Soil borings were completed on the property to a depth of 16 feet in October, 1977. No groundwater
was found and no bedrock was discovered in the borings. Boring logs are not included in this
document but are available upon request.
See Figure 9 for Hennepin County Soil Survey.
17.
There are steep slopes with highly erodible soils existing on the site. The proposed preliminary plat
identifies areas with greater than 30% slope designated by the Mound Shoreland Management
Ordinance (Mound City Code, section 350:1225) as bluff areas. The vegetation in bluff areas will
remain undisturbed by ordinance. In steep slope areas (12 to 30%), the developer proposes to plant a
native grass understory and leave it in a natural growth fashion to discourage erosion.
Erosion and stormwater runoff will be controlled during construction by silt fences, earth diversion
dikes and sediment ponds. Areas disturbed during construction will be seeded, sodded or paved
during the restoration phase of construction. The erosion control plan conforms to City and
Watershed District Standards. See Figure 5 for sedimentation and erosion control details.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development
18.a.
A hydraulic analysis of the surface and stormwater runoff for the proposed site and surrounding area
has been completed. The "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota" published by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service was used as a reference material for the analysis. Stormwater
runoff calculations are based on a 100 year-24 hour rainfall event. The present site runoff for the 100
year storm event is approximately 1.63 acre feet. After completion of the proposed development, the
site runoff will increase to approximately 2.22 acre-feet. Existing runoff calculations include a
limited amount of stormwater runoff which enters the site from a stormsewer line in Tuxedo
Boulevard. After development, Tuxedo Boulevard runoff will flow to the proposed detention basin.
To lessen the impact of site runoff, a sedimentation/detention basin built to NURP standards will be
constructed at the north central portion of the site. A flow control device at the pond will limit the
rate of flow into the drainage channel which in turn discharges into Lake Minnetonka to a maximum
discharge of 5 cubic feet per second. This discharge rate conforms to the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District standards. The detention basin will also act as a sediment control basin and
skimmer. The proposed detention basin has been designed and sized to accommodate the additional
site runoff created by the proposed development. As the stormwater passes through the sedimentation
basin the sediments will filter out of the water and the skimming device will prevent floatables from
moving downstream.
18.b.
There will be two general routes of stormwater runoff from this development to Lake Minnetonka. 1)
Overland flow of surface runoff from roofs and green areas which slope naturally toward the lake. 2)
An engineered system for all other runoff which includes the following elements: green space and
hard surface runoff flows to curb and gutter/storm sewer; storm sewer flows to sedimentation basin;
sedimentation basin flows into drainage channel; channel flows to Lake Minnetonka. The nutrient
concentration levels which reach the lake in runoff are expected to decrease as a result of the NURP
standard detention basin. A nutrient budget is not needed for this project.
19.c.
All wastewater and sewage anticipated to be generated from this development are scheduled to be
added to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment System through a proposed 8" sanitary sewer
connection to the existing pipe located in the Tuxedo Road right-of-way. The public system has
adequate capacity to handle increases due to the development.
21.a.
The construction and use of the project will generate mixed municipal solid waste. Demolition waste
and construction debris will be properly disposed of in a demolition and debris landfill. Use of the
site will generate grass clippings and other gardening/turf maintenance wastes which may be amenable
to composting. The balance of the waste profile is expected to be largely made up of paper,
corrugated cardboard, and plastics with some glass and metals. Source separation will occur on an
individual lot basis and will meet and/or exceed the City and UBC standard requirements. It is
assured that maximum recycling alternatives will be employed by the waste hauler which services this
development. It is anticipated that only a fraction of the solid waste generated by this development
will be land filled. Sewage from the project will flow into the Metropolitan sewage treatment system.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development
25.
During construction, airborne fugitive dust will temporarily increase. All available mitigation
measures will be employed to reduce the dust emissions from the construction activities. The
mitigating measures will include selective grading and staged construction, timely job site clean-up,
haul road maintenance, watering of soils undergoing grading or earth moving operations during
periods of high winds (determination to be made on-site by general contractor).
To minimize construction noise, equipment will be properly exhausted and construction activities will
be subject to the City's construction timing limitations for hours of operation and noise ordinances.
No additional measures are being proposed to minimize construction noise because the project is not
expected to produce unusual amounts of noise. The predicted noise level is expected to be less than
the state construction noise maximum standard of 65 dBA.
26.a.
Archaeological Research Services, an independent consulting firm has conducted a cultural resource
investigation of the property. A small habitation site has been identified but due to extensive
disturbance, ARS does not believe the site warrants further investigation. Near the shoreline, a
mound-like feature has been identified as a potential Native American burial site. The developer has
indicated that the location of the pier and trail shown on the plan will be moved to the south to insure
that the mound is not disturbed. The Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance requires that any
disturbance be a minimum 50 feet from an unplatted cemetery. The State Historical Society is in the
process of reviewing the archeological study. Their formal response will be incorporated into this
EAW as Exhibit B if it is submitted prior to final publishing.
26.d.
Scenic views and vistas from the site to Lake Minnetonka will be preserved through careful placement
of the residential buildings and internal public road. Views from Lake Minnetonka to the site will be
preserved by maintaining building setbacks from the bluff line and preservation of a large portion of
existing natural vegetation.
28.
The proposed low density residential land use conforms to the City of Mound's Comprehensive Land
Use Guide Plan designation. The property also lies within the Lake Minnetonka Shoreland
Management District.
The development must also conform with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's plans for
stormwater management. This has been accomplished through the proposed design of the stormwater
system with the detention/sedimentation basing which also conforms to NURP standards and properly
treats the stormwater runoff before it is discharged into the existing on-site wetland.
29.
The development will require on-site public utility improvements. The sanitary sewer is proposed to
be 8" PVC and the watermain is proposed to be 8" D.I.P. Natural gas, electric, phone and cable
services will be provided by the appropriate local utility companies.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development
$91
32.
Potential environmental impacts of Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development are:
· shoreline degradation on Lake Minnetonka;
· disturbance and/or destruction of aquatic vegetation and wildlife habitat;
· stormwater runoff impacts;
· disturbance and destruction of upland vegetation and wildlife habitat;
· erosion.
This report identifies several techniques the developer is proposing as well as regulations placed by
governmental agencies which reduce or eliminate many of the potential impacts associated with the
development. The strongest potential for impact to the environment may be the effects of boat traffic
close to the Pelican Point shoreline. Even though lake-wide boat traffic will increase very little due
to the development, there will be more disturbance to the shoreline which is currently relatively
undisturbed.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development
~n i J ! [] , it I
.!
'18
I ,I J i I ,,1~ I ·
.)
--- ~ -,."'i ~~.~, o.,tom o'~i u
~ I
~L[ '",o,,,~.."~'""",,~.~,~. SITE LOCATION MAP
(612) 933-0972
~ASSOCIAT[S LTD~ ~ax: (6~2) 033-1153
17
Point
Point
,/
Int
MINNETONK]
4_:_:
~ SCALE 1:24000 .
I ~. 0 I M&E
1000 0 lOOO 2000 3000 4000 5000 ~ 7~00 FEET
/ ../ . -$ 0 I KILOMETER
~/ i /o,.~."/ ,.
'~n NATION~ GEOO~C ~R~L ~M ~ 19~ - _ ~/ . ~ ~ .'
~ M,ar
~ssoc~s :r~j
922 k4oin~treet '
Hopkins, Mn.
(6~2) 933-o972
~ax: (6~2) 953-1155
U.S.C~S. MAP MOUND QUADRANGLE
RGURE 2
6/6/94
FI~t~E 3
19
O~3x~
nlmm~
,. /
FIGURE 4
20
j\
FIGURE 5
21
I - ,, I .:
0
FIGURE 6
22
I!
FIGURE 7
23
mmmm
RG~E8
24
I mi j !, I , li~ "'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF ROD LARSON
AND MYRNA NOYD OF 2976 HIGHLAND BOULEVARD
FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ADDITION ON
P.I.D. NO. 23-117-24-41-0016
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statutes Section 462.353 conv~¥~ au~ho,lty
~ thu City to plan and ~ection 462.357 provides enabling legislation for
the City to adopt a zoning ordinance and zoning regulations, and
WHEREAS, Section 350:620 of the Mound City Code establishes the
single family residential district and Section 350:420 indicates the
provision governing non-conforming uses and Section 350:530 authorizes the
variance procedures in the City Code, and
Wq{EREAS, the applicants in Case No. 94-23 are Rod Larson and Myrna
Noyd who reside at 2976 ~ighland Boulevard, and they have applied for a
variant, Lo ad~ m garage ~o ~h¢ main huu~ Otl =belt property, and they
acknowledge that there is another structure located near the main structure
which they rent out, and '
WHEREAS, the applicants allege that the two residences on the same
property have existed for many, many years and were in existence when they
purchased the property at 2976 Highland Boulevard ten years ago, and
WHEREAS, the matter was considered by the City Council on May 24
1994, and questions were raised at that time concerning the history of th.
property, and the matter was d~,rred ~o a~ditional information could be
presented to the Council on June 14, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the building official has indicated that City records of
building permits, sewer and water installations, and other related
histories for the properties that bear addresses 2976 and 2980 Highland
Boulevard are as follows:
On June 22, 1965, the property was assessed one unit for
sanitary sewer treatment plant, trunk system, and
sanitary sewer laterals and service·
There are no building permits or sewer and water
installation records on file at City Ball for the non-
conforming rental dwelling.
In January of 1966, the records reveal a connection to a
sewer service at the lake side manhole, and on September
16, 1966, Permit No. 1088 was granted for a sewer
connection.
On or about February 27, 1987, a special assessment
prepayment was received from Twin City Abstract
Corporation in the amount of $3,434.91 for sewer lateral
and street improvements.
II · J ,! J , I~ II Ii
and
WHEREAS, there is no record of a connection to the municipal water
but the building official has indicated there are two meters and two shut-
off valves for the property, and
WHEREAS, there are no City records to indicate the location of the
sewer lines or any hook-up for City water on the property and there is no
definitive way to establish if these utility lines were installed without
the City's knowledge or if for some reason the records have been lost or
misplaced, and
W~EREAS, the parties agree that the property is non-conforming in
that there are two principal structures on the property in a single family
residential district and one of the structures is built too close to the
public street to meet set-back re~l]~ r~m~n~. ~n~ ~h~o£~.o %ho propo~mr ko
non-conforming, and
WHEREAS, Section 350:420, Subd. 1, of the City Code reads as
follows:
"Any structure or use lawfully existing on the effective date of
this Chapter may be continued at the size ~nd in ~ ~anne~ of
~peratjon existing upoo ~uch
and
WHEREAS, the purpose of a non-conforming use provision in a zoning
ordinance is to meet constitutional requirements that there is not a
taking, but the non-conforming provisions are designed to place the
property into conformance with City ordinances and codes at some time in the
future when the property is expanded or if for any reason it is destoryed or
damaged beyond 50% of its value, and
WHEREAS, the Council is very understanding of the applicants'
desire to add a proposed double garage to their existing home which
overlooks Lake Minnetonka, but the addition of the garage will be an
expansion of a non-conforming use and will undoubtedly extend the life of
the non-conforming status of the property, and will also establish a
precedence for other properties in the City which haue two or more
residential structures on a single family lot, and
WI4E~EA=, Oec~ion 350;530 =oCebllshus =he provisions ~or the
granting of variances and indicates that a variance may be granted only in
the event that certain circumstances exist including
"exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property
which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone
and vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or
other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of this Ordinance have no control",
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of
Mound as follows:
1. The application of Rod Larson and Myrna Noyd for a variar
to construct a garage at 2976 Highland Boulevard on ?.I.D. No. 23-117-2~
41-0016 is hereby denied for the following reasons=
a. The property is non-conforming in that it has two
principal residential structures on one parcel of land in a single
family district.
b. The survey shows the proposed garage structure is
located in an area which is essentially where a garage would be
located on the property for a residential unit and would conform to
setback requirements from Highland Boulevard, and the applicants
agree that it is their intention to eventually do away with the
rental structure but they allege that they cannot afford to do so at
the present time for economic reasons. The street side structure
has double garage doors facing the street and gives the impression
of a garage rather than a residence.
c. The City records do not reveal permits issued by
the City for the multiple sewer connections, nor do they reveal any
application for the water connection, although the City does
acknowledge that there are two separate utility billings made to
the property, and how this has come about is not known to
uurrent City staff or the Council. The property has apparently
paid one sanitary sewer assessment and if there is a water
assessment that is not revealed in City records and apparently
not known by the applicants.
d. The requirements for granting a variance and the
reasons for granting a variance in Section 350:50 are not met in
that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which
apply to this property or any other properties in the single family
zone, and further the denial of a variance request does not deprive
the applicants of rights generally enjoyed by other parties in the
same district, and further the granting of the variance will confer
on the applicants special privileges that are denied by the zoning
ordinance to owners of other single family lands or structures in
this zoning district.
2. The City Council further finds that the granting of this
variance and the expansion of this non-conforming use would be detrimental
to the public welfare and would convey privileges on this property which do
not exist for other properties, and the economics of a rental of the street
side property does not justify the granting of a variance which would be
contrary to the City's stated goals of bringing all properties into
conformance with current codes.
3. The City Council further finds that the applicants can
rectify the problem and would not need a variance if the second residence on
the single family lot were removed, as this would bring the property into
compliance with the R-1 zoning district and would allow the applicants tn
use their property in a manner which is consistent with the zoning ordinanc
applicable to all other properties in the same use district.
4. The City Council further finds that if standards and
requirements are waived or relaxed for one property, other property owners
have the right to expect thesame kind of treatment or their constitutional
rights would be adversely affected by failing to apply the equal protection
laws of the Constitution to all residents.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
..CASE #94-3(~ MARK WALSTROM, 4872 LESLIE ROAD, LOT 8 & E 1/2 OF 9, BLOCK
21, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-2441 0021. VARIANCE FOR FENCE,
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a 2 foot
fence height variance for a portion of the yard fronting on Monmouth Road. This portion of
the site is functionally the rear yard. The applicant's concern is lighting from houses on
Monmouth create a nuisance for this property.
The applicant has a reasonable concern due to topography. The houses and lights to the north
appear to create a negative impact. There are other properties in this area with similar
situations, and they have established tree and bushes and other growth to minimize this
negative impact of the neighboring lighting, etc. Staff's main concern is the impact of a 6 foot
fence this close to the right-of-way. The lot line is situated virtually up to the paved
Monmouth Lane, and it appears that establishing a buffer of tree or other growth is preferable
to a 6 foot fence in this location.
Staff recommended denial of the request as it is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance
provisions regarding fences and other alternatives are available.
Mrs. Wahlstrom stated that they have no privacy in their backyard from the street and
neighbors due to topography. They would like to install a 6 foot high fence at their property
line which is 1 foot from the wood retaining wall, on the street side. She emphasized reasons
for needing a 6 foot fence, as follows:
The topography creates a hazardous situation for her children.
To keep the neighbors dogs out.
To filter the lights from neighboring properties which shine into their house.
Mrs. Wahlstrom also stated that if trees were planted, they do not provide much privacy in
the winter.
Mueller commented that he does not think 2 feet more of fence height will make much of a
difference. Weiland confirmed with the applicant that there is about 3 feet between their
property line and the curb.
Hanus commented that he would prefer a fence over foliage in this instance because of the
limited space between the retaining wall. Aisc, the fence is better than seasonal buffering.
Jensen commented that she does not want to see the City walled-off.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend denial of the
variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
It ,i J ,! [] , It I
CITY of MOUND
STAFF REPORT
534~ t.tA'FWCOD BOAD
MOUND. I.t,;NE$OTASBS64
,~'2,472 0690
FAX 6~2~472 0620
DATE:
Planning Commission Agenda of June 13, 1994
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT:
Variance Request for Fence
APPLICANT:
Mark Walstrom
CASE NO. 94-30
LOCATION:
4872 Leslie Road, Lot 8 & E. 1/2 of 9, Block 21, Wychwood, PID @4-117-24
41 0021
ZONING:
R-lA Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking a 2 foot fence height variance for a portion of the yard fronting on Monmouth
Road. This portion of the site is functionally the rear yard. The applicant's concern is lighting from
houses on Mbnmouth create a nuisance for this property.
COMMENTS
The applicant has a reasonable concern due to topography. The houses and lights to the north appear
to create a negative impact. There are other properties in this area with similar situations, and they
have' established tree and bushes and other growth to minimize this negative impact of the
neighboring lighting, etc. Staff's main concern is the impact of a 6 foot fence this close to the right-
of-way. The lot line is situated virtually up to the paved Monmouth Lane, and it appears that
establishing a buffer of tree or other growth is preferable to a 6 foot fence in this location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request as it is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance provisions
regarding fences and other alternatives are available.
JS:pj
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 28, 1994. The abutting neighbors have been notified of
this request.
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution;
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-I)620
City Planner .~~ Public Works
City Engineer ~ DNR
Other
APR 2 8 1994
Application Fee: $50.00
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property
Addition ~]\]t~h [X.3~
Owner's Name
Use of Property:
Block
Pm no. c~-II
oozl
Day Phone~~
Owner's Address
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure ftr 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.):
' Pr', ~'.~,--i F~ce_ ~/o,~,5 bc,.~L S,~¼ ~(
I/
Vm'iance Application (11/93)
Cas~ NO.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes ~)~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, qot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (NSEW)
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ( N S E W )
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
e
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
Please describe:
_ ~0 t.~,.5
( ) too narrow (~I topography ( ) soil
( ) too small drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
.J
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Cas~ No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No~l~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
/-
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature fff~'-
Applicant's Signature ~;~'~/~,~,_
IIIIGIITEREO UHJ)IJ~ I-AWl OJr ITA?I OJI~ II|NNI. IOrA
LICJlliI, I'.~ IY OROINA~ OJI' CItY O~ klINNIJa, III:)Lll
~,le I~AI~T 5~'TH STREet PA. 4.4~81
I I
/ , '\ / , ·: '/ .; '.,x
/' ': /"( .,. ' ~
hereby ¢~rttfy that thla tm a true and correct pl&t of a .utve~~'-'
lot 8 and the East 1,/2 o.f Lot 9, a~ neaaurer] elon8 the N.~'th ~ South ltuej o! eatrl Lot 9,
Block 21, ~/Tchvood, Hennepin C,ognt'y, Htnaeaota.
AI ,u~vzv.o .~' Mz VHt.- llth .... u^v o~,__:ejO
It. C/'JAC;KJON. ~LJ~'~I.~?.,~IITRATION,.IN~. 3eoo
'
Required Lot Width:
Existing Lot Width
SETBACKS REQUIRED:
SIDE: N S~ W &
~l N S E W 1~'
LAKES ItORZ:
50' ~measured from Q.N.W.}
EXISTING ARD/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDIN~
..o..,d)...
.'~., ...~-fo'[
REAR: N S t~ # ·
L,AAE SNORE:
IS
FRONT:
FRONT:
SIDE:
SIDE:
PEAR:
LAKESHORE:
ACCESSORY BUILDING
4' or ~'
50' tmeasp;~ from O.H.W.)
NO,
_ FRON s E w ~
FRONTI--- N S E W
SIDE; N S E W
SIDE: N $ ~ W
PEAR: N S E W
LAIGES HORE:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING PORCH
AT 1773 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 5,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PlO #13-117-24 11 0030, P&Z CA~E #§4-31
WHEREAS, the owners, Michael & Carol Johnson, have applied for a variance
to construct a 12' x 20' three season porch. The proposed porch meets all setback
requirements. Following are the variances involved:
Front Yard - House
Side Yard - Garage
Rear Yard - Shed
Hardcover
Existing/
Proposed Required. Variance
27.8' 30' 2.2'
3.0' 4' 1.0'
2.0' 4' 2.0'
32% 30% 2%
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, the hardcover variance on this lot results from the existing
facilities, the new porch, and particularly, the extensive concrete parking area that is
proposed. The hardcover would need to be reduced by 275 4-/- square feet in order
to conform to the 30% requirement, and;
WHEREAS, there is a 9 foot wide boulevard area, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval, as recommended by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming
setbacks to the house, garage, and shed, as follows, to allow construction of
a conforming porch addition.
Proposed Resolution
Case #94-31
Page 2
e
Front Yard - House
Side Yard - Garage
Rear Yard - Shed
Existinq/Prooosed Re(~uired Variance
27.8' 30' 2.2'
3.0' 4' 1.0'
2.0' 4' 2.0'
Approval is contingent to the following: The proposed concrete parking area
shall be reduced in size in order to not exceed the maximum impervious cover
limitation of 30%. Furthermore, the applicants shall revise their site plan
accordingly and submit a new Hardcover Calculations sheet for review and
approval by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to
all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of 12' x 24' three season porch.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 13 and 14, Block 5, Shadywood Point.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
~ MICHAEL & CAROL JOHNSON, 1773 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 &_
14, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-2411 0030. VARIANCE FOR PORCH.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicants are seeking approval of a variance to construct a 12' x 20' three season porch.
The proposed porch meets all setback requirements. This case involves the following
variances:
Existin(~/Prooosed Reauired Variance
Front Yard - House 27.8' 30' 2.2'
Side Yard - Garage 3.0' 4' 1.0'
Rear Yard - Shed 2.0' 4' 2.0'
Hardcover 32% 30% 2%
The hardcover variance on this lot results from the existing facilities, the new porch, and
particularly, the extensive concrete parking area that is proposed. It appears as though it
would be relatively easy to remove a portion of the proposed concrete parking area in order
to achieve conforming impervious surface coverage.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the
variances relating to the existing front yard setback of the house, the existing side yard
setback of the garage, and the existing rear yard setback for the shed conditions upon the
following: The proposed concrete parking area shall be reduced in size in order to not exceed
the maximum impervious cover limitation of 30%. Furthermore, the applicants shall revise
their site plan accordingly and submit a new Hardcover Calculations sheet for review and
approval by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit.
Michael Johnson, applicant, addressed the Commission and requested that they take the 9
foot wide boulevard area into consideration when reviewing the hardcover. Mr. Johnson
emphasized the need for the addition parking area, he has two cars and a boat that need to
be parked outside. He also noted that he gets water in his basement and the concrete area
helps deter seepage.
Mueller noted that the hardcover would need to be reduced by 275 square feet in order to
conform to the 30% requirement. The Commission discussed many different options to help
the applicant meet the hardcover requirement. Jensen suggested that the applicant work on
his site plan to make it work.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the
variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Variance - 3 Season Porch
APPLICANT: Michael and Carol Johnson
CASE NUMBER: 94-31
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5i
LOCATION: 1773 Shorewood Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicants are seeking approval of a variance to construct a three season
porch on the south side of their existing home. The proposed porch which measures 12' x 20'
meets all setback requirements. The variance request results from the home and two accessory
buildings which do not conform to current setback requirements. In addition to the proposed
porch, the plan identifies a new proposed concrete parking area at the rear of the home. The
proposed construction combined with the existing hardcover results in a requested impervious
surface coverage of 32% which slightly exceeds the 30% maximum identified in the ordinance.
As proposed, this case involves the following variances:
.Issue Existing/Proposed Required Variance
From Yard - House ' 27.8' 30' 2.2'
Side Yard - Garage 3' 4' 1'
Rear Yard - Shed 2' 4' 2'
Hardcover 32% 30% 2%
COMMENT: The proposed addition is in full compliance with all setback requirements. As
a result, the only item identified in the variance listing above that is of concern is the hardcover
variance. The hardcover variance on this lot results from the existing facilities, the new porch
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
Johnson Variance Planning Report
June 8, 1994
Page Two
and particularly, the extensive concrete parking area that is proposed. It appears as though it
would be relatively easy to remove a portion of the proposed concrete parking area in order to
achieve conforming impervious surface coverage.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
(recognition) of the variances related to the existing front yard setback of the house, the existing
side yard setback of the garage, and the existing rear yard setback for the shed conditioned upon
the following:
· The proposed concrete parking area shall be reduced in size in order to not exceed the
maximum impervious cover limitation of 30%. Furthermore, the applicants shall revise
their site plan accordingly and submit a new Hardcover Calculations sheet for review and
approval by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4720620
Planning Commission Date: -.~.~~~-
City Council Date: ~ '"~-~-' q__.~
Distribution:
~--7.~ City Planner ~ Public Works
City Engineer ~ DNR
Other
MAY 9 199z~
Application Fee: $50.0Q
Case No.~~
Please
type or print the following informsfion:
Address of Subject Property
Addition I~
Zoning District
Owner's Name
Use of Prope.~:
Owner's Address
Block
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)..
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
~,~ :-q'.t- 3 "'" -
· ,.r.~_~w~._~ ~?or'c3~,
c .o. q4'51
Variance Application (! 1/93)
P~e 2
3. Do the existing slxuctures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ¢. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
· ~eat'gido Yard:
~ide:
Does the prese~n~ use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes t)q, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ()drainage ~I existingsituatiOn
( ) too shallow ( ) shape other: specify
Please describe:
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lan"
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
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 fotr which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No9(~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature ~
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
CiTY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
NAME:
ADDRESS:
EX~ST~NG LOT AREA _lC?r9 ~
EX~ST~.G LOT AREA IC~ ,qq~'
sc, ~T x 3o% = ~o;~
SQFT X 15% = _ I~LI~
HOUSE:
LENGTH WIDTH
x
X
GARAGE:
TOTAL HOUSE *
2~.5,x
- X
TOTAL GARAGE ******************
DRIVEWAY:
TOTAL DRIVEWAY *****************
DECK: X =
(if impervious X =
surface under
deck = 100~) TOTALDECK '************
TOTAL DECK @ 50%*******'*******
/~,"~(--~ TOTALOTHER **** ******* **
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
UNDER (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
YES___NO
BY:
DATE:
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYEOR
MICHAEL AND CAROL JOHNSON
OF LOTS 13, AND 14, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lots 13, and 14, Block 5, SHADYWOOD POINT
e: denotes iron marker found
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above
described property and the location of an existing house,
garage, shed, and ali visible "hardcover" thereon. It
does not purport to show any other improvements or
encroachments.
,0
$
~o~
~o~o~.
8ETBACKB REQUIRED:
PRINCIPAL BUZLDZNG
FRONT= N S (E)W
FRONT I N S · If
SIOEI
v
~S~O~z ~9' (~aeured from O,H.W,J ,
ACCESSORY BUILDING
FRONT = N S E W
FRONT = N S E W
SIDE= N S E W 4' 9; §'
~SHO~, 50' fmeaoured J~om O.H.W,I
EXISTING ~d~D/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
BY I ~ ~~ , ,,--v DATE
k
uc
o
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
FOR A NONCONFORMING DECK AT
2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 4 - 13, BLOCK 7,
SETON, PID #24-117-24 14 0001
P&Z CASE #94-32
WHEREAS, the owner, James Peterson, has applied for a variance in order to
construct a nonconforming deck on the lakeside of the property. A corner of the deck
is 7 feet nonconforming to the required 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water
(OHW).
WHEREAS, variances were granted for the reconstruction of the dwelling,
Resolution # 90-108, and the garage addition #93-128, which included a 12 foot front
yard setback variance for the dwelling, a 48 foot setback variance from the garage to
the OHW, and a 12 foot setback variance from the driveway to the OHW, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed setback encroachment for the deck is minimal in this
case and is buffered by the substantial wetlands, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed deck is Iow to the ground, and if not attached to the
dwelling would not require a building permit. A guardrail is not planned and this
lessens the visual impact from the lake, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000
square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot
setback to the OHW, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval as the request is a minimal encroachment due to
the specific conditions and is a reasonable use of the property, subject to compliance
with the conditions listed in Resolution//93-128.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance for the following, to allow construction
of a nonconforming 10' x 20' deck:
Proposed Resolution
Case #94-32
Page 2
e
Front Yard - House
OHW - Garage
OHW - Driveway
OHW - Deck
Existino/
Proposed Required Variance.
8' 20' 12'
48' 50' 2'
38' 50' 12'
43' 50' 7'
Variance approval is subject to compliance with the conditions listed in
Resolution #93-128.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to
all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of 10' x 20' deck.
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
filbd with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
-~' JAMES PETERSON, 2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 4 - 13, BLOCK 7
SETON, PID #24-117-2414 0001. VARIANCE FOR DECK
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a permit
in order to construct a nonconforming deck on the lakeside of the property. A corner of the
deck is 7 feet nonconforming to the required 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water
(OHW). This encroachment is minimal in this case and buffered by the substantial wetlands.
As noted on the plans, the deck is Iow to the ground and if not attached to the dwelling would
not require a building permit. A guardrail is not planned and this lessens the visual impact
from the lake.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is a minimal
encroachment due to the specific conditions and is a reasonable use of the property.
Jensen questioned if the Building Official has confirmed compliance to the conditions listed
in Resolution #93-128, specifically, "The driveway shall be located so that the impact of the
encroachment is minimal and shall not exceed a 12 foot variance from the required 50 foot
setback." The Building Official suggested that this could also be made a condition in this
resolution, and he can verify.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the
variance, as recommended by staff, and Including required compliance to the
conditions listed within Resolution #93-128. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
CITY of MOUND
STAFF REPORT
534! MAYWODD ROAD
MOUN? MINNE$3TA55S64"687
~612! 472--9600
FAX 612 4-2 0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission Agenda of June 13, 1994
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT:
Variance Request for Deck
APPLICANT:
James Peterson
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
94-32
2561 Wexford Lane, Lots 4 - 13, Block 7, Seton, PID #24-117-24 14
0001
ZONING:
R-lA Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND.
The applicant is seeking a permit in order to construct a nonconforming deck on the lakeside
of the property, A corner of the deck is 7 feet nonconforming to the required 50 foot
setback to the ordinary high water (OHW). This encroachment is minimal in this case and
buffered by the substantial wetlands.
As noted on the plans, the deck is Iow to the ground and if not attached to the dwelling
would not require a building permit. A guardrail is not planned and this lessens the visual
impact from the lake.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION..
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is a minimal
encroachment due to the specific conditions and is a reasonable use of the property.
JS:pj
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
this request.
Qprinted on recycled p3per
The abutting neighbors have been notified of
¥//
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
City Council Date:
Planning Commission Date:~
City Planner ~ Public Works
City Engineer DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50,00
Case No.~
Address of Subject Property
Lot5 6/ /'-D /~
Addition
Zoning District
/~c I t~ Z o¢ ~; ]]lock
Use of Property:
PID No. 2q -
/i 7 -- 07¢
- Iq ooo/
Owner's Name ,.~ffle.S ~ ~-,Z-~-ett-S'~'~
Owner's Ad~ ~ ~ I i?.~y ~o~o
A~t's N~e (if o~er ~ o~er)
Day Phone 6t 7o~ ~3 'Tq
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure f6r this property? 0~ 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.):
~DoOd Dec..K lC, X ~o A~c,~ o~= ,Ooc,~<
II ,[ II I, I ,ii, ~'
%ri~mce Appli~tion (11/93)
Page 2
Case No. ~.~__~_~
e
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~gj[. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
e
SETBACKS: required requested
(or existing)
Front Yard:( N S(~W ) ~,0
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ( N S F~) ,~t") _
:(NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size: sq fl
Hardcover: sq fl
VARIANCE
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
.. ft.
ft. t -ft. - ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sqft sqft
sqft sqft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~(~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
e
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
too small ( ) drainage ~x~ existing situation
too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lan(
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain:
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 (). ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
Date/~/~ ~'/~.~ ]_GC/_y'
/
Date
II ,I II I. I. ,,11, ·
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
NAME:
ADDRESS:
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
8GFT X 30% = J ¢?'D~ J
SQ FT X 15%
HOUSE:
LENGTH WIDTH
~ x ~o __ ~0
/%__x ,.~o = 0
- X --
GARAGE:
TOTAL HOUSE *
X
DRIVEWAY:
TOTAL GARAGE
/~ x
X
DECK:
(if impervious
surface under
deck = 100~)
OTHER:
TOTAL DRIVEWAY
X
TOTAL DECK *
TOTAL DECK
~ x
TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL PROPOSED
UNDER (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
DATE:
"- --...ZOO. 0 0 ....
Lots 4 thru 13, inclusive, Block 7, SETON, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
GENERAL NOTES
_o Denotes iron monument Proposed top of foundation elevation =
II
,CERTIFICATE OF' SURVEY
prepared for:
.... ZO0. O0 .... --
~.,.,., ,c
, .,, - ,, .X<;~) '~\ . .
~- -~ · - ' k - -
0
- .,
... LoT
' -..,oo. oo..-
~ CARRICK -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots 4 thru ~3, inclusive, Block 7, SETON, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
GENERAL NOTES
o Denofes iron monument
· +" De,ales cross chieeled In concretl
x 939.? Denolee existing spot elevation
~ Denotee IXOposed spot elevation
( Denotes surface drainage
Dashed contour lines denolee proposed fealuree
Solid contour linee denotes exieting features
.,ALL-METRO LA_ND
,~URVEYORS,
2340 Partials Street
Long Lake, Minnesota 55356
Ph; 475-143~
Proposed top al foundation elevation
Proposed basement floor elevation
Proposed garage floor elevalion ·
BENCHMARK:
] hereby certify Ihol thll eurvey,[~lenor report
wet prepared by me O~ under my dlrectlupervilion
ond thai [ om o duly Rlglttlrld ~nd Survtyor
SCALE
FILE NO.
September 28, 1993
RESOLUTION
ION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT y _A?_ _S_ET. BACK
TO At. COW CONSXRVC O A
AND LAKESHORE SETBAC XFORD LANE,
GARAGE ADDITION AT 2561 WE
LOTS 4 THRU 13, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID g24-117-24 14 0001
P&Z CASE ~3-046
WHEREAS, the applicant, Willette Construction, Inc., has applied for the following
variances to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage addifon:
Existing/
Pro_oosed
FRONT EAST 20' 8' 12'
O.H.W. 50' 48' 2'
WHEREAS, the existing dwelling reconstruction was approved by Resolution ~ 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.
309
September 28, 1993
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve a 12 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
located so that the impact of the encroachment is minimal and shall not exceed a 12 foot
variance from the required 50 foot setback. The site plan shall be reviewed and
approved by City Staff.
e
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.
e
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 22' x 22' garage addition.
4. 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 Henri,pin
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.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by
Councilmember Ahrens.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Sensen, lessen, and Smith.
The following voted in the negative:
none.
310
Mayor lohnson was absent and excused.
September 28, 1993
Attest: City Clerk
311
178
September 12, 1990
RESOLUTION %90-108
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE
A FRONT YARD & BIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
LOTS 4 - 13; BLOCK 7; SET.N; PID %24-117-24-14 0001
(2561 WEXFORD LANE) P&Z CASE NO. 90-933
WHEREAS, the applican~ 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, Set.n, 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, Set.n, PID
#24-117-24-14 0001 (2561 Wexford Lane).
The Ci'ty 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:
II ,! II !, m ,,J,
179
September 12, 1990
a. 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=
1) 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 J24-117-24-14
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.
5. 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, Jessenv Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none ·
~ayor v
Attest:. city Clerk
r..AX~ S HOA,~ t
S]rDII M I ! # t~ / -
II ,11 II ,I, J ....~ "'
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #g4-__
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING DECK AT
4801 ISLAND VIEw DRIVE,
LOT 1 & E 3' OF 2, BLOCK 13, DEVON,
PID #25-117-24 11 0122, P&Z CASE #94-33
WHEREAS, the owners, Curtis and Marjorie Olson, have applied for a variance
in order to reconstruct an existing nonconforming 12' x 22' deck on the property. The
following variances are involved:
Existin0/Proposed ~ Variance.
House - Front .15' 20' 19.85'
House - Side 2.6' 6' 3.4'
House - Rear 10' +/- 15' 5' +/-
Deck - Rear 1' +/- 10' 9' +/-
Deck - OHW 40' +/- 50' 10' +/-
Lot Area 4,300 sf +/- 6,000 sf 1,700 sf +/-
Hardcover 2,146 / 50% 1,290 / 30% 856 / 20%
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000
square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot
rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the impact of the excessive hardcover is reduced by the boulevard
between the property and Island View Drive, the unimproved 40 foot wide platted
Devon Lane, and Devon Commons, and;
WHEREAS, a minimally sized deck is a reasonable use of this riparian property.
The deck is existing and this is the only logical location for replacement, and;
WHEREAS, the lot corners and the City utility easement are not clearly located
on the survey, and;
WHEREAS, due to the location of the patio doors, a minimal size deck of 10
feet may not be considered functional, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval by a 3 to 2 vote.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
Proposed I~esolution
Case #94-33
Page 2
The City does hereby grant a variance for the following to allow construction
of a 1-2' x 22' deck:
Existino/Proposerl Reouired Variance
House - Front .15' 20' 19.85'
House - Side 2.6' 6' 3.4'
House - Rear 10' +/- 15' 5' +/-
Deck - Rear 1' +/- 10' 9' +/-
Deck - OHW 40' +/- 50' 10' +/-
Lot Area 4,300 sf +/- 6,000 sf 1,700 sf +/-
Hardcover 2,146 / 50% 1,290 / 30% 856 / 20%
Approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
An updated survey shall be submitted that verifies the conditions as
submitted and includes the location of the City easement on the lakeside
for utilities.
t0/
A ~:~ deck may be reconstructed~
o er ' .
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to
all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a ~r~ x 22' deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 1, Block 13, Devon.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
E~ CURTIS & MARJORIE OLSON. 4801 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT I & E_
~' OF 2, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID 825-117-2411 0122. VARIANCE FOR DECK~
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking variances
in order to reconstruct an existing nonconforming deck on the property. The deck is
nonconforming to the 50 foot lakeshore setback by approximately 10 feet and also to the rear
yard setback by approximately 9 feet. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the 20 foot
front yard setback by 19.85 feet. This site grossly exceeds the maximum hardcover due to
the minim, al lot size of 4,300 square feet +/-. The additional green space on the right-of-way,
the commons, and the commons access to the east lessens the impact of this excessive
hardcover.
A minimally sized deck is a reasonable use of this riparian property. The deck is existing and
this is the only logical location for replacement. The lot corners and the City utility easement
are not clearly located on the survey.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a maximum 10 foot
wide deck with the condition that an updated survey be submitted that verifies the conditions
as submitted and includes the location of the City easement on the lakeside for utilities.
Weiland commented that the survey is a good idea, and it will verify any encroachments onto
the easement. The Building Official confirmed that the setback noted to the shoreline is
approximate, and it needs to be confirmed.
Mueller does not think it should be the applicant's responsibility to locate the easement; it is
a city easement on public property. Hanus stated that he understood the recommendation to
mean that the applicant only needs to verify the easement is not on his property.
MOTION made by Weiland; seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff, with the exception that a 12 foot deck be
allowed to be constructed as long as the deck does not encroach over the
property line.
Hanus questioned if a 10 foot deck is not a functional size, and suggested that because of the
location of the doors entering onto the deck, this could be a hardship to allow the 12 foot
deck.
Mueller stated that he feels the City should assist in locating the easement. Sutherland
commented that both the City Engineer, John Cameron, and Public Works Superintendent,
Greg Skinner, recommended that the easement be located by the applicant.
Jensen feels a 10 foot deck is functional and it would also improve the setback to the lake.
Michael emphasized that the existing 12 foot deck has been there for a very long time.
MOTION carried 3 to 2. Those in favor were: Weiland, Hanus, and Michael.
Mueller and Jensen opposed.
This case' will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
CITY of MOUND
STAFF REPORT
534! MAYWOOD ~OAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55354
,612) 472~0600
FAX ~612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
Planning Commission Agenda of June 13, 1994
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official -]C-'f~'2 ,
Variance Request for a Deck
Curtis & Marjorie Olson
94-33
LOCATION:
4801 Island View Drive, Lot 1 & E. 3' of 2, Block 13, Devon, PID #25-117-24
11 0122
ZONING:
R-lA Single Family Residential
The applicant is seeking variances in order to reconstruct an existing nonconforming deck on the
property. The deck is nonconforming to the 50 foot lakeshore setback by approximately 10 feet and
also to the rear yard setback by approximately 9 feet. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the
20 foot front yard setback by 19.85 feet. This site grossly exceeds the maximum hardcover due to
the minimal lot size of 4,300 square feet +/-. The additional green space on the right-of-way, the
commons, and the commons access to the east lessens the impact of this excessive hardcover.
A minimally sized deck is a reasonable use of this riparian property. The deck is existing and this is
the only logical location for replacement. The lot corners and the City utility easement are not clearly
located on the survey.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a maximum 10 foot wide deck
with the condition that an updated survey be submitted that verifies the conditions as submitted and
includes the location of the City easement on the lakeside for utilities.
JS:pj
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 28, 1994. The abutting neighbors have been notified of
this request.
II
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee:_.~$_.O_~
City Planner .~o Public Works
City Engineer ~ DNR
Other
Please type or print the foflowing information:
Address of Subject Property ~:~ ~/-~,~d'")
Lot I
Addition
Block /-~
PID No. ,~7 ,C'--- // 7-- ~ ~ //
~g District /~'//9~
Owner's Name ~. Z/Cf?_';
Use of Property:
Day Phone/j
I
Owner's Address
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address Day Phone
1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure ftr this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No. ~__~_.~~.~
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoninf
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (~S E W_ ) R ,o ft. - f-fi-' ft. /'Z ff~'-' ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E~)) ,, ~; ft. ~, ~ fl. ~, ~ fl.
Side Y~d: ( N S E W ) fl. fl.
R~ Y~d: ( ~E W )
~ide: (
· (NSEW)
Strut Frontage:
~t Si~:
H~d~ver:
4; OVsq ft ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow
)too small
too shallow
( ) topography
( ) drainage
( ) shape
soil
existing situation
other: specify
Please describe:
I1
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.~
e
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~'). ff yes, explain:
e
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
No (~. If yes, explain:
yes (),
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Appliea~Signature
Date,5~-/~a ~ cf t~. .
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
NAME:
EXISTING LOT AREA 4 %00 "f-/-- SQ FT X 30%
EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 15%
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
DRIVEWAY:
LENGTH WIDTH
TOTAL HOUSE *******************
_~"7, ~ x ?-'~.-7 = ~'-7 /
X =
TOTAL GARAGE ******************
_~ x 2~ = )~0
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY *****************
~,~c~:_ /~ x ,-2~ = ~~
(if impervious X ~' ' =
surface under
deck = 100%) TOTALDECK ************* ?
TOTAL DECK @ 50%***************
OTHER:
TOTAL OTHER *******************
TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER * * * * * * * * * * * * ·...... i~/!.~...~
UNDER **''..*,,,,,.,,......,.......
YES NO '"] '
BY: ~ DATE:
THE JOHN J. RYAN CO.
ICALE: I INCH -:22~ FEET iG0~,i[LBYAVE~IUE, IT. PAU~-B~$O4
PLAT OF SURVEY
TE:L. rpHON E:, 646.6~B~1
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF Bf, HL,DI24G
I hereby certify that on
this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State of ~Minnesota.
CERTIFICATE OF 8t.rgVEY
I hereby certify that on 19 ,
this survey, plan. or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
JOHN J. RYAN, REGISTERED SURVEYOR. NO. 4489
PAUL. J. CRANE REGISTERED SURVEYOR. No
ON LAKE MINNETONKA INDIAN BURIAl- MOUND~I
534]. MAYWOOO ROAD TELEPHONE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 J~e 15, 1977 (612) 472-1155
Mr. Clayton Shatney
4801 Island View Drive
Mound, Nih. 55364
1V.r.' Shatney:
Enclosed is a copy of your blueprint.
As per our telephone conversation, you may find that by enlarging the entire
level above the exis, tlng garage to the existing perimeter (walls) and incorpor-
ating the use of trusses, you could defuse some of the bad bearing the print
now would require.
Also, you could achieve a choice of ceLlin§ aesthetics by'the use of either a
common truss, or which would give you a flat ceiling or a scissor truss,
which would give you a vault or cathedral type ceiling. In either choice !
would recommend no less than a 4-12 pitch of either type truss used. We
then could use regular type shingle roofing; maintain necessary ventilation
area and also provide adequate area for required insulation at a moderate
cost.
Clay, in staying with common construction procedures such as this, the in-
itial investment is somewhat lower and the maintenance and upkeep is consider-
ably less costly.
Although it is possible to construct your proposed addition as drawn it does
propose some hidden problems of ,initial construction and maintenance. How-
ever, as you prefer, I shall try to best advise in whatever procedure and/or
technique you choose.
Enclosed is a'copy of a Certificate of Survey that was made in 1971, of which
shows the location of the structure on the lot as well as the square foot area
of your lot. ! know we ta/ked about an addition that has been made to your lot
and I would advise that prior to, for the City Plannbtg Commission's benefit,
Mr. Clayton Shatney
4801 Island View Drive
Mound, Mn.
Page 2
that you document this addition to your property.
Please note #1 on survey copy is as follows:
Lot size as shown is 4, 000 square feet, zoning requirements of square
footage for the area is 6,000 square feet. You have a lot size deficiency of
2,000 sq. ft. Any documentation of addition would be beneficial at this point.
You have an existing non-conforming use, as your structure does not meet the
side yard requirements at #2 of six (6) feet. No. 3, you~ structure does not
meet the rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet as by zoning the lot llne abut-
ting public commons is considered to be a rear yard.
"x" at the NCU, describe by noting survey and install as a reason for
request. Elaborate on the need of the home expansion to be necessary for
_family use.
Fill out the enclosed application and return with one copy of your survey prior
to twelve (12) noon Thursday the 23rd of June for placement on the agenda for '
the Planning Commission Meeting here at City Hall at 7:30 p.m. June 30, 1977.
Your presence and/or your contractor or agent is required.
If you have any further questions feel free to call at your convenience.
Re sp e ctfully,
HT/dd
enc: 2
Henry Truelsen
City Inspector
PLAT OF SURVEY
TELE"PHON w, $44.~181
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING
! hereby certify that on ' 19
this ;u~,ey, plan, or report wa~ prepared hy me or undpr
roy direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered I.~,d
Surveyor under the taws of the 5tare uf Minnesota.
I he.by certify that on 19 -
this su~ey, plan. or report w~s prepaid by me o~ under
my direr su~r,;ision and that [ am a duly Registered ~nd
Surveyor under the laws or the S~te of Minnesota,
77 -297
7-12-77
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 297
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW THE
NON- ~CXJNFORMING USE
WHEREAS,
owners of property described as Lot 1 and part of Lot 2,
Block 13, Devon has requested a variance for non.-conforrn- -
ing use in the building of a~sed0i~d 'story addition, and
WHEREAS, adjacent area has two story homes and this will not con-
flict with surrounding homes
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That the Council concurs with the Planning Commission
recommendation and does hereby authorize the issuing
of a Non-Conforming Use Permit for the erection of a
second story addition to the home on property described
ab ore.
Adopted by Council this lZth day of July, 1977.
I ,I i I, I
69-206
10-7-69
RESOLUTION NO. 69-206
RESOLUTION GRA~TING GARAGE VARIANCE
(Lot l, Block 13, Devon)
k~."~$, the owner of Lot l, Block i~, Devon has requested variance in
setback requirements for the construction of a two-car garage
in same location as pr. esent single car garage, and
hrHF_~F~.$, the Platting Commission has reco~,mended that a waiver be granted
~o place a two-car garage in the szme location as present single
car garage as outlined wi~h plat plan showing location of garage
in relation to stree~ as opened,
.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ¥ILt~GE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
' .ZNNESOTA:
That the setback requirements for construction of two-car garage
on Lo~ l, Block 13, Devon be granted..
Adopted by the Council ~his 7th day of October, 1969.
I ,11 I ,I i, ,,e. ·
GENEIb%I-, ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET
ADDRESS: ~ : t~T AR~A: LOT AREA:
b 0.rd ~, ........ :..,:~ ....................
...4~J ....... .~ ............... ' - , ,.,.,~,0uo ,,0.,.,.,.~.u~
__, o., ,,,.,,..×.,o o,. o, .u_,,-~--', ~ o,,,-, ,..X, ,,o_,
Existing Lot Width , Depth
BETBI~CK8 REQUIRED:
SIDE~ N S ~
HO z ~mea~ured from O.H.W.~
EXISTIN~ ~/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS=
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
FRONT ~ S E W ~ _
c o o
t.AKZSHORE:
zs T~ CONFO~ZaG?
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIOE: N $ E W
SLOE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
I FRONT t N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE; N S E W
4' or
4'
___~Q~ Imeatured from O.H.W.I
ACCESSORY
':'AT%.,b~LW--:4:- I
'"1 ...... 7_ 2 4
C,
C.-
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE
AT 2901 MEADOW LANE, LOT I & 9, BLOCK 5,
MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY,
PID #23-117-24 42 0104, P&Z CASE #94-34
WHEREAS, the owner, Dustin Frantsen, has applied for a variance to recognize
existing nonconforming setbacks and lot frontage in order to construct a detached
garage that is conforming to setbacks and impervious surface requirements, and;
WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-2 zone which requires a minimum
lot area of 6,000 square feet, lot frontage of 40 feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to
Meadow Lane, a 10 foot front yard setback to the unimproved Glenwood Drive, a 6
foot side yard, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is nonconforming by 7.5 feet to the required
10 foot setback to Glenwood Road, and lot frontage is nonconforming by 1.4 feet,
and;
WHEREAS, the parcel is an odd shaped corner lot further complicated by the
unimproved Glenwood Road. A Construction on Public Lands Permit, as required by
City Code Section 320 will need to be issued as part of this request for the proposed
driveway, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant originally applied for a street vacation of Glenwood
Road, however, due to the City utilities located in the right-of-way and the adjacent
undeveloped Lots 13 - 17, staff suggested to the applicant that a vacation would
receive a negative recommendation from staff, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming
front yard setback to Glenwood Road of 2.9', and nonconforming street
frontage of 38.4' to allow construction of a conforming 26' x 30' detached
garage, subject to the following:
Liability concerns need to be addressed, possibly through a hold harmless
agreement prepared by the City Attorney.
Proposed Resolution
Case//94-34
Page 2
b. The City shall not be responsible for reimbursement for any
improvements made by the applicant to the right-of-way, in any case.
c. In the event the right-of-way is disturbed at any time by the City, the
City will not be responsible for restoration, other than that as approved
by the Public Works Superintendent.
d. If an when an additional building site is created on the north side of
Glenwood Road, the street should be improved to City standards and the
cost assessed to the abutting, benefited properties, which would include
this parcel.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to
all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 26' x 30' detached garage.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 1 and 9, Block 5, Minnesota Baptist Summer
Assembly.
THis variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
~ D STIN FRANT EN 2901 MEAD W LANE LOT I & BL K 5
MINNES TA BAPTIST S MMER ASSEMBLY PID #23-117-24 42 0104. VARIANCE FOR
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This property is located in the R-2
zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, lot frontage of 40 feet, a 20
foot front yard setback to Meadow Lane, a 10 foot front yard setback to the unimproved
Glenwood Drive, a 6 foot side yard, and a 15 foot rear yard setback. The existing dwelling
is nonconforming by 7.5 feet to the required 10 foot setback to Glenwood Road, and lot
frontage is nonconforming by 1.4 feet.
The applicant is seeking a building permit for a garage that is conforming to setbacks and
impervious surface requirements. The parcel is an odd shaped corner lot further complicated
by the unimproved Glenwood Road. A Construction on Public Lands Permit, as required by
City Code Section 320, will need to be issued as part of this request for the proposed
driveway.
The original application was for a street vacation, however, due to the City utilities located in
the right-of-way and the adjacent undeveloped Lots 13 - 17, staff suggested to the applicant
that a vacation would receive a negative recommendation from staff. This variance request
was another option available in seeking approval to construct a garage. The logical, and
preferred solution, is to have Glenwood Road improved to City standards, however, this
results in a considerable cost to the abutting properties and is not feasible to the applicant at
this time.
Staff Recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to allow
construction of a 26' x 30' detached garage, subject to the following:
1. Liability concerns need to be addressed, possibly through a hold harmless agreement
prepared by the City Attorney.
The City shall not be responsible for reimbursement for any improvements made by the
applicant to the right-of-way, in any case.
In 'the event the right-of-way is disturbed at any time by the City, the City will not be
responsible for restoration, other than that as approved by the Public Works
Superintendent.
The recommendation of the City Engineer as listed in his memorandum dated June 8,
1994.
Mueller noted that the hardcover calculations did not include the driveway, however, it
appears that the hardcover will still be conforming including the driveway. Mueller expressed
a concern about possible future deck construction, and that with the hardcover maxed out,
it would not be conforming.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
jJ ,J Il I, J, ,,~
CITY of MOUND
STAFF REPORT
534" MAVWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MIN'IE$OTA 5536~-!,587
6!2
FAX ~6'2 472 0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Agenda of June 13, 1994
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request for Detached Garage
APPLICANT:
Dustin Frantsen
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
94-34
2901 Meadow Lane, Lot 1 & 9, Block 5, Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly,
PID #23-117-2442 0104
ZONING:
R-2 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND_
This property is located in the R-2 zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square
feet, lot frontage of 40 feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to Meadow Lane, a 10 foot front
yard setback to the unimproved Glenwood Drive, a 6 foot side yard, and a 15 foot rear yard
setback. The existing dwelling is nonconforming by 7.5 feet to the required 10 foot setback
to Glenwood Road, and lot frontage is nonconforming by 1.4 feet.
The applicant is seeking a building permit for a garage that is conforming to setbacks and
impervious surface requirements. The parcel is an odd shaped corner lot further complicated
by the unimproved Glenwood Road. A Construction on Public Lands Permit, as required by
City Code Section 320, will need to be issued as part of this request for the proposed
driveway.
The original application was for a street vacation, however, due to the City utilities located
in the right-of-way and the adjacent undeveloped Lots 13 - 17, staff suggested to the
applicant that a vacation would receive a negative recommendation from staff. This variance
request was another option available in seeking approval to construct a garage. The logical,
and preferred solution, is to have Glenwood Road improved to City standards, however, this
results in a considerable cost to the abutting properties and is not feasible to the applicant
at this time.
Staff Report
Frantsen, 2901 Meadow Lane
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to allow
construction of a 26' x 30' detached garage, subject to the following:
Liability concerns need to be addressed, possibly through a hold harmless agreement
prepared by the City Attorney.
e
The City shall not be responsible for reimbursement for any improvements made by
the applicant to the right-of-way, in any case.
In the event the right-of-way is disturbed at any time by the City, the City will not be
responsible for restoration, other than that as approved by the Public Works
Superintendent.
..
The recommendation of the City Engineer as listed in his memorandum dated June 8,
1994.
JS:pj
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 28, 1994. The abutting neighbors have been noti)~ed of
this request.
Roos Associates, Inc.
Telephone
612/47~-6010
612/476-8.532 FAX
Engln~rs.
Planners
Surveyors
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Joe Sutherland - Planning
John Cameron - City Engineer
June 8, 1994
Variance Request - Case #94-$4
MFRA #848?
uested a building permit for a detached garage
The applicant has req ........... A ~ad. This will require a 120
facing the u~improved portion
constructed and mainteine~ on the City right-
foot long drzvew~to b~ _ v c de requzres a special permit
construction on or alteration of public Lan
nwood Road has a long ~istory dating back to
This portio~ of Gle ere ~m roved with curb.an9
~on .~,~ ~ o her streets in this a~ea w -,~--~ ~- the ro ec~
---~ - ..... _ m~ -~ .... ~__ · i oo=cion was o.~.~.--o~, fL?
it was unu,-d th, 1 with aocess at
!rouh 1~. Block 4, were combined intu u..~ Z"- 'iCl ..... - number of
he c~r~e of Glenwood Road and Meadow Lane. over =ne y~=~ - sites.
people have proposed subdividing these lots into 2 or ~ building
One formal application was made in 1987 by Mrs. Maas, the original owner
when the other street improvements were made in the area.
five lots were purchased and a home constructed on
Since then, ~he .. . -=~- --~ leaves the possibility
the easterly portio~ ~ P - - ~-~ te another buildable site.
that the parcel couz~ ce sub)ivid?~_~y_-Zia., improved street or have
This site howev~ ~uld n.o~_ _~...~ a{tv watermain is also
City water available. ~"= ~ ...... 'Lane. There is an ex~st~ng
intersection of Glenwood Road and Meadow
sewer service on Lot 16.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I would not have any objection to allowing this private driveway in
if that is the only option and it is acceptable with
Public WOr~S. , ~-= on the north side that the street ~.~
building sics is
nd the COSt assessed to abutting,
to City standards ~ ..... = ...... ~ ~ ed bv the applicant
~ ~., ,_w own
properties, which woul~ lnc£u~e =n
for this variance,
An Equal Oppo~unlty Employer
!i
¢,1L,~IUWO0 E
Land Sup;eyc;~
FRANK R. CARDARELLE Eden PraJde, MN 55344
(612) 941-3031 ~
. Certificate of Survey
Survey For Dustin Frantsen Book ~4~ Page_'~ 5' File
2901 Meac~ow Lane Mound, ~n..
Scale: 1" =
0 Denotes
30'
Iron Mon.
Found
~.UN 6 ~
,, 94. - //-/ x--'-~' '. '~.--"F"_;-. ,_,' :-~"~--'--
~--~w~ 12 th ..,~ March - W___/ N F'rank R Cardare',,.
State Reg. No. 650::
VARIANCE APPL!CATiOI~
CITY OF MOUND
$341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $$364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
City Planner Public Works
City Engineer DNR
Other
Application Fee:_ $50.00
Address of Subject Property_.
Addition '~-
~g Dis~ct~ U~ of ~o~:
Owner's Address~ Z.~
Applicant's Name (if other than owner) '--
my mone x3,3
Address
Day Phone
1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure f6r this property.'? ( ) yes, {)(no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Ill
Varianc~ Application (11/93)
l~e 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existina)
Front Yard: ( N s~W )
Side Yard: ((~ W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ( N S E W )
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
ft.P,,..q ft. 7. Ift.
__
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sqft sqft sqft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~0,., No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
~X~ too narrow
too small
too shallow
( ) topography
( ) drainage
~,..shape
( )soil
~ existing situation
~.other: specify
Vnrinnce Application (11/9:3)
Pa~e 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lan~'
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~/,}. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~. ff 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 (). ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
~' ~ lr ~/' SQ FT X 30% =
SQ FT X 15% =
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
DI~'IVEWAY:
DECK:
(if impervious
surface under
deck = 100%)
OTHER:
LENGTH
WIDTH
TOTAL HOUSE *
X
TOTAL GARAGE
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY
X
X
TOTAL DECK * * *
TOTAL DECK @ 50%
X
X
TOTAL OTHER * *
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
UNDER (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BY:
I I
DATE:
YES NO
Councilmember Fenstad moved the following resolution,
October 10; 1~78'
RESOLUTION NO. 78-h72
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT THE SIDE
YARD VARIANCE AS REQUESTED
WHEREAS, owners of property described as Lot 1, Block 5, Minnesota Baptist
Summer Assembly have requested a side yard variance for a non-
conforming use as lot is zoned Residential B, 6,000 sq. ft. and
lot is undersized,and
WHEREAS, a sideyard variance of 3.6 feet is needed and owner wlshed to
to add an "L" shap&d deck.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
HOUND, MINNESOTA:
That Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to waive the lot size and side yard setback defic-
Iencies and grant a permit to construct an "L" shaped deck
with the stipulation that deck never be enclosed. Said side
yard variance of 3.6 feet granZed.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Swenson, and upon vote being taken thereon, the followlng
vot%d in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Withhart,
the followlng voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was
declared passed and adopted, signed by the. Mayor and his signature'attested
by the City Clerk.
est:~' City Clerk'
Mayor
s/Tim Lovaasen
Required ~ W~:~ ~ ~ (frontag~ on ~n improved public street)
Existing ~t Width ~ ~ , Depth
FRONT:~
FRON?:/#)
SIDE~
REAR:
L,A~SHORE:
"~ICC£S$OR¥ BUILDING
SIDE: N S E W ,,4' 9~ ~'
R~AR: N S ~
LAK£SHORE: ~0' Jmeasured from
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
FRONT::~
FRONT ~.~ S ge W
I SIDB= N S E W
~OPERTY CONFO~I NG, YES
.o ~ (~,
~'~ _ ,, ;,, ,
.~ ~ · : : .. · . ~ ·
.,.~ '~' ~.-I ~~~-~~
.'
. .' ". 4"'. (4) (5) '
~ '".'1 "'
,,CC"SSOR, BUII. DI,",.
FRONT: N S ge W
SIDE: N S ge w ~q
SIDE: N ~ W
LAKESHORge I
(~05) $
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION
AT 5135 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOTS 9 & 10,
BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE, PID #25-117-24 12 0114
P&Z CASE #94-35
WHEREAS, the owners, Louis, Sharron and Timothy Szabo, have applied for
a variance to add a bedroom, enclose an exterior stairway to the basement, and install
a driveway to the existing garage in the rear yard. The following variances were
requested:
House - Front (N)
House - Side (W)
Garage - Side (W)
Shed - Rear (S)
Hardcover
Existinq/Proposed ReQuired Variance
13.4' 20' 6.6'
2.6' 6' 3.4'
3.9' 4' .1'
3' 4' 1'
1933 sf +/- 1920 sf 13 sf +/-
WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-1A zone which
lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot
and a 15 foot rear yard setback.
requires a minimum
side yard setbacks,
WHEREAS, all structures on the property are nonconforming. The foundations
of all buildings are in good condition, otherwise they all need maintenance. The
existing dwelling, other than the foundation, is in very poor condition. The applicant
intends to resolve some of these problems as part of this proposal.
WHEREAS, the garage had previously been used as a workshop and general
storage, and not to park vehicles. There is currently no driveway other than the slab
used as a parking area. The proposed driveway dissects the parcel and creates
additional hardcover, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has made an effort to amend his original application
in order to alleviate some of the variances, and subsequently, deleted the need for a
hardcover variance, and a setback variance for the shed, and;
WHEREAS, the proposal, as amended, represents an improvement to the
nonconforming status of the property, 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:
Il ,i II i ti: ,1~ I t
Proposed Resolution
Case//94-35
Page 2
The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the following nonconforming
situations to allow construction of a conforming addition:
House - Front (N)
House - Side (W)
Ga. rage- Side (W)
Existin_~/ProDosed ~ Variance
13.4' 20' 6.6'
2.6' 6' 3.4'
3.9' 4' .1'
This variance is approved subject to the following conditions:
The garage shall be relocated on the property to allow for a 6 foot
separation from the principal dwelling, or to allow for a 5 foot separation
with the construction of the required firewall. The garage may maintain
the 3.9 foot side yard setback, if necessary.
The shed shall be removed to improve hardcover and eliminate the
nonconforming setback, prior to building permit issuance.
The proposed bedroom addition shall conform to the required 20 foot
front yard setback.
The proposed enclosure for the stairway shall meet the 6 foot side yard
setback requirement, unless a minimal side yard encroachment is needed
to allow for the required 3 foot landing at the top of the stairway.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
3~)0:420, 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 4' x 14' stairway enclosure addition, and
a 10' x 14' one story bedroom addition.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 9 and 10, Block 14, Whipple.
Proposed Resolution
Case #94-35
Page 3
J
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
~ LOUIS, SHARRON, & TIMOTHY SZABO, 5135 DRUMMOND ROAD~
LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE, PID #25-117-2412 0114. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This property is located in the R-
lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback,
6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback.
The applicant is seeking variances as listed below in order to add a bedroom, enclose an
exterior stairway to the basement, and install a driveway to the existing garage in the rear
yard. All structures on the property are nonconforming. The foundations of all buildings are
in good condition, otherwise they all need maintenance. The existing dwelling, other than the
foundation, is in very poor condition. The applicant intends to resolve some of these problems
as part of this proposal.
Re(]uired Variance~
1. The existing dwelling requires recognition of a 6.6 foot front yard variance and a 3.4
foot west side yard variance.
2. The existing garage requires a 0.1 foot west side yard variance. The existing shed
requires a 1.0 foot side and rear yard variance.
3. The proposed bedroom is nonconforming to the required 20 foot front yard setback by
2.8 feet.
The proposed enclosure for the stairway is nonconforming to the west side yard
setback by 2 feet.
The proposed driveway creates an impervious surface variance of 124 square feet
(including the existing shed).
This property is a hodgepodge of buildings that results in a poor layout on the property. An
alternative is demolition and reconstruction of conforming structures and a more suitable
layout for the site.
The former owner used the property in a non traditional manner. The garage had been used
as a workshop and general storage, and not to park vehicles. There is currently no driveway
other than the slab used as a parking area. The proposed driveway dissects the parcel and
creates the excess hardcover.
The applicant's proposal does not encroach a great deal more than the existing conditions,
with the exception of 124 square feet more of hardcover, however, it does not improve any
of the nonconformities and extends them. The enclosure over the stairway encroaches into
the normal 6 foot building code separation of structures of this type.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as it is
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and this proposal increases the
intensity and extends the nonconforming use of the property.
An alternative to a recommendation of denial is to table the request to give the applicant the
opportunity to evaluate other possibilities for development of the site that will be consistent
with the zoning ordinance and improve the nonconforming status.
Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994
Applicant's Louis and Tim Szabo, informed the Commission that they would like to address
each variance situation as outlined in staff's report, and explained that they have made some
modifications to their plan. They confirmed that the shed has a concrete floor.
The existing dwelling requires recognition of a 6.6 foot front yard variance and a 3.4
foot west side yard variance.
The applicant cannot change this item.
The existing garage requires a 0.1 foot west side yard variance. The existing shed
requires a 1.0 foot side and rear yard variance. Staff also noted that in order to qualify
the garage as an accessory building and be permitted to have a 4 foot side yard
setback, it must be setback 5 feet from the principal dwelling, and the Building Code
requires a 6 foot separation unless there is fire wall construction.
They are willing to move existing detached garage to the south, away from the
house, to allow for a 6 foot separation.
Will remove the shed which will also improve hardcovar.
The proposed bedroom is nonconforming to the required 20 foot front yard setback by
2.8 feet.
The addition can be moved back to meet the 20 foot setback requirement.
The proposed enclosure for the stairway is nonconforming to the west side yard
setback by 2 feet.
The stairway addition can be moved over to meet the 6 foot side yard setback
requirement.
The proposed driveway creates an impervious surface variance of 124 square feet
(including the existing shed).
The 10.2' x 11' shed will be removed, resultingin a very minor hardcover
variance.
The Building Official supported the proposed changes, and stated that it is reasonable to allow
a minimal side yard encroachment for the stairway enclosure as a minimum 3 foot landing at
the top must be provided.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the
variance according to the proposed plan amendments as noted by the applicant.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
8
LU U I,'..'5 ,..'5/_. ^ 15(J
OF LOTS 9, AND 10, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Drummond
N 88°57'E 80.00
._~, -
~
I
· ' ~ I ~ :~..~. ,o., ~ I ,,~/////////i]
i ~ ~i ~. x~' ..... , I,~'///////////1
"' -/~," i~"'P'",~ ";;'-: , I ...."
"~ I [ ~" --..,J--,_L......--'~
~1 ~ '7xist/n.,o , ] ~m~Ve
'r,, · ; ' fl...
~1.?.~ . ,,.,.
°~ ~'x;s t.
80.00 . ..
~ o~' .;
8
_LEGA_____L_L DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED.
LoLs 9, and lO, Block 14, HHIPPLE.
o- denotes iron marker
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above
described property, and the location of an existing
house, garage, and shed thereon. It does not purporL to
show any other improvements or encroachmenLs.
()
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
LOUIS SZABO
OF LOTS 9, AND 10, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Drummond
[ oad
":i' I :::'"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lots 9, and 10, Block 14, WHIPPLE.
o: denotes iron marker
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above
described property, and the location of an existing
house, garage, and shed thereon. It does not purport to
show any other improvements or encroachments.
JUN 2 2 ~
~neer and Land Sun'eyor under
5'3-94
20'
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
g ~LO ~ SQ FT X 30% --- l~!:~i/~ c~4:~ ]
SQ FT X 15% --
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
LENGTH WIDTH
/,,~ % '1 ! ,/
x .. /g' /_/
/o, x /~
TOTAL HOUSE * * * * * *
TOTAL GARAGE ******************
DRIVEWAY: ~1~.
~ F ' x ~6-' = ~ ~,~
TOTAL DRIVEWAY *****************
DECK: X =
(if impervious X =
surface under
deck = 100~) .TOTALDECK ********
TOTAL DECK @ 50%***************
OTHER:
TOTAL OTHER *******************
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
UNDER (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * · ·
J~YES__NO
CITY of X,IOUND
STAFF REPORT
534- MAYWOOD ROAD
L~OUN-.Z '3FINESOTA 5536-:-
6~2) 472 0693
FAX f6!2) 472-0620
DATE:
Planning Commission Agenda of June 13, 1994
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff ....
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT:
Variance Request for Addition
APPLICANT:
Louis, Sharon, and Timothy Szabo
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
94-35
5135 Drummond Road, Lots 9 & 10, Block 14, Whipple, PID #251-117-2412
0114
ZONING:
R-la Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND
This property is located in the R-la zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square
feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard
setback.
The applicant is seeking variances as listed below in order to add a bedroom, enclose an
exterior stairway to the basement, and install a driveway to the existing garage in the rear
yard. All structures on the property are nonconforming. The foundations of all buildings are
in good condition, otherwise they all need maintenance. The existing dwelling, other than
the foundation, is in very poor condition. The applicant intends to resolve some of these
problems as part of this proposal.
Required Variances
The existing dwelling requires recognition of a 6.6 foot front yard variance and a 3.4
foot west side yard variance.
The existing garage requires a 0.,1 foot west side yard variance. The existing shed
requires a 1.0 foot side and rear yard variance.
The proposed bedroom is nonconforming to the required 20 foot front yard setback
by 2.8 feet.
Staff Report
Szabo, 5135 Drummond
Page 2
The proposed enclosure for the stairway is nonconforming to the west side yard
setback by 2 feet.
The proposed driveway creates an impervious surface variance of 124 square feet
(including the existing shed).
.COMMENTS
This property is a hodgepodge of buildings that results in a poor layout on the property. An
alternative is demolition and reconstruction of conforming structures and a more suitable
layout for tl~e site.
The former owner used the property in a non traditional manner. The garage had been used
as a workshop and general storage, and not to park vehicles. There is currently no driveway
other than the slab used as a parking area. The proposed driveway dissects the parcel and
creates the excess hardcover.
The applicant's proposal does not encroach a great deal more than the existing conditions,
with the exception of 124 square feet more of hardcover, however, it does not improve any
of the nonconformities and extends them. The enclosure over the stairway encroaches into
the normal 6 foot building code separation of structures of this type.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as it is
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and this proposal increases the
intensity and extends the nonconforming use of the property.
An alternative to a recommendation of denial is to table the request to give the applicant the
opportunity'to evaluate other possibilities for development of the site that will be consistent
with the zoning ordinance and improve the nonconforming status.
JS:pj
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
have been notified of this request.
The abutting neighbors
II ,i ! [] , it
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
$341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
C1'(¥ OF
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
City Planner _c3-'~o Public Works
City Engineer ~ DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No.~
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property
/
Lot-S' % tg/,/P /a
Addition Vv' H t' t°/o L E
Block ] q
VtD
Zoning nistrict ~- / h us~ of h-operty: ._c' ;,~,3 k 3'~ ~; / V ~ e,z, ) d ~ ~ ~c
Owner's Address /7g 3oO/grh C77, TP,/-.,qKEv,'L LL~ l~/V' O~O'o'-/j-$707
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
/ I
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoniw
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required
Front Yard: {(~)S E W ) ,~/) ~ ft.
Side Yard: (lqS E W_) ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E~0) ~ t ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft.
: (NSEW) ft.
Street Frontage: 0a~ ~ 'ft.
Lot Size: gO' ~ ~'"'~' 4t'~9 ~'sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft
requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
/ ~.~
_/$'q.. ' . g //
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ('/9, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
( )soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
Please describe:
Variance Applicafioa (11/93)
Page 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No (). If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that aH of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature ~-~
Signature
Applicant's
Date
~ ~ /~ ¢ ~..~/ / ~
J~'~ t7Y ¥
/
4'.~5'- .Ye
J I J ,I J, ,11, I II
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
NAME:
EXm~.G LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
SQ FT X 30% =
SQ FT X 15% ---
[ J~/~O I
LENGTH WIDTH
HOUSE: I~'~3"
x /,F~/-'/
x
TOTAL HOUSE "* * * * *
X
TOTAL GARAGE ******************
DRIVEWAY: (Or~¢'bC~ I0 ~ X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY
DECK: X
(if impervious X
surface under
deck = 100~)
TOTAL DECK *************
OTHER:
TOTAL DECK @ 50%***************
/
/o'~" x // = .. //,~ ~,..
TOTAL OTHER *******************
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
UNDER (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I
_ YES___NO
It I II I [] , Ii, & i
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
~G~ SQFT X 30% =
SQ FT X 15% =
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
LENGTH WIDTH
X =
TOTAL GARAGE ******************
DRIVEWAY: C~WC~ETE /~ X ~ .z/ /
GP/~ v~: l._ X N~~ =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY *****************
DECK: X
(if impervious X =
surface under
deck = 100%) TOTALDECK
TOTAL DECK @ 50%***************
OTHER:
TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
I /~33 I
UNDER (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[ 13 ]
YES___NO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Drurnrnond
· ' ' N 88~'57' E 80.00
;.!
"ID
~xistin. e
· Oo
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED-
Lots 9, and 10, Block 14, WHIPPLE.
o: denotes iron marker
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above
described property, and the location of an existing
house, garage, and shed thereon. It does not purport to
show any other improvements or encroachments.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
LOUIS SZABO
OF LOTS 9, AND 10, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Drummond
· -- S 88057'w
f.';.:
~EGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lots 9, and 10. Block 14, WHIPPLE.
o: denotes iron marker
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above
described property, and the location of an existing
house, garage, and shed thereon. It does not purport to
show any other improvements or encroachments.
i)
~ ADDRESS'
Existing ~t Width
SETBACKS
FRON?: ~
FRONT
BIDE:
PEARs
(frontage on an £mprovod public street)
, Depth
LAKESHOR~ s
50' Ime&gured from O~H,W.)
E?ZSTIN~ AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
SIDE~ N S g W
~AR t N S g W .~
~S HO~ t
IS THIS~'R?¥~_[~Z.~w.__NFORRING? YES NO ?.
ACCESSORY BUILDING
FRONT* N S E W
SIDE: N S ~ W 4' ~
SIDEr N S E W 4' ~
REAR: N B E W . 4'
LJ~KESHO~: 50' :measured fro~ O.R.W?}
ACCESSORY BUILDZN~
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE~ N S ·
SIDE: N S
REAR: N S g W ~
LAKESHORB:
WIlL THE PROPOSED II4PRO~]~MF~flTS CONFORR? Y~ NO
~" s WINDSOR.'~
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
4994 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 3,
JOHN S. CARLSON ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 43 0040
P&Z CASE #94-36
WHEREAS, the owner, Thomas Hall, has applied for a variance to construct a
conforming deck on the front of the home. This request involves the following
existing nonconforming situations:
Side Yard - House
Front Yard - Shed
Existing/
Proposed Required Variance
5.3' 6' .7'
15' 20' 5.0'
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000
square feet, 20 foot front yard setbacks, and 6 foot side yard setbacks. This property
is a through lot with frontage on both Bayport Road and Bartlett Blvd., and;
WHEREAS, the proposed deck addition conforms to all setback requirements.
WHEREAS, impervious surface on the lot is conforming with total hardcover
at 23.3%.
WHEREAS, due to topography it would be difficult to relocate the shed, and
its current location does not impact sight distance along Bayport Road nor does it pose
any other practical problem, and there is a 14 foot wide boulevard from the properly
line to the curb of Bayport Road which reduces the impact of the shed, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming
5.3' side yard setback to the house, and 15' front yard setback to the shed, to
allow construction of a conforming deck.
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
Case #94-36
Page 2
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
prbperty to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of 14'8" x 31' +/- deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 4, Block 3, John S. Carlson Addition.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
CASE #94-3~i THOMAS HALL, 4994 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 3. JOHN S.
CARLSON ADDITION, PID #13-117-2443 0040. VARIANCE FOR DECK.
Building (~fficial, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking approval (recognition) of variances to construct a conforming deck on the
front of the home. The subject property is a through lot with frontage on both Bayport Road
and Bartlett Blvd. The proposed deck addition conforms to all setback requirements. The
existing home and a shed building are currently nonconforming due to setbacks. Total
hardcover on the site is 23.3%. This case involves the following variances:
Side Yard - House
Front Yard - Shed
Existin.q/ProDosed Required Variance
5.3' 6' .7'
15' 20' 5.0'
The shed is 144 square feet. It may be possible to move the shed into a conforming position
on the lot,, however, its current location does not impact sight distance along Bayport Road
nor does it pose any other practical problem.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the
variances related to the side yard setback of the existing house and the front yard setback for
the existing shed in order to construct a conforming deck as shown on the applicant's site
plan.
Weiland questioned the applicant if he could move the shed. Mr. Hall informed the
Commission that due to topography it would be difficult to relocate, however, it could be
done. Jensen noted that there is a 14 foot wide boulevard from the properly line to the curb.
The applicant stated that there are no visual problems with the shed location.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mound Planning Commission and Staff
Mark Koegler, City Planner
June 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Variance Request - Deck
APPLICANT: Thomas E. Hall
CASE NUMBER: 94-36
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5j
LOCATION: 4994 Bartlett Boulevard
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R1-A)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval (recognition) of variances to construct a
conforming deck on the front of the home. The subject property is a through lot with frontage
on both Bayport Road and Bartlett Boulevard. The proposed deck addition conforms to all
setback requirements. The existing home and a shed building are currently non-conforming due
to setbacks. Total hardcover on the site is 23.3%.
As proposed, the case involves the following variances:
Issue Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard - House 5.3' 6' .7'
Front Yard - Shed 15' 20' 5'
COMMENT: The proposed addition is in full compliance with all setback requirements. The
existing home will continue to encroach slightly into the side yard in the foreseeable future since
the home appears to be in good condition. The shed is listed on the survey as a "wood shed" and
has a total area of 144 square feet. It may be possible to move the shed into a conforming
position on the lot, however, its current location does not impact sight distance along Bayport
Road nor does it pose any other practical problem.
Land Use/Environmental' Planning/Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
Hall Variance Planning Report
June 8, 1994
Page Two
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
(recognition) of the variances related to the side yard setback of the existing house and the front
yard setback for the existing shed in order to construct a conforming deck as shown on the
applicant's site plan.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
t --zS-q4
City Planner ~J-~.JO Public Works
City Engineer .~3--Z.{o DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No.~
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property
Applicant's Name (if other than owneO
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure f6r this property'?. ( ) yes, 47~.no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Appllc~tion (11/93)
Page ~-
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located'?. Yes (~No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) 2A") ' ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: (J~[S E W ) ~/~ t~' ft. I~ '~o ,'~e'~;Jft. _~' ~.
Side Y~d: ,~S E W ) ~ ' a. .~', .~ a. , ~ a.
R~ Y~d: ( N S E W ) ~ ~ ~. ~. ~.
~ide: ( N S E W ) ~. ~. ~.
· (NSEW) ~. ~. ~.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: q q ~."~ sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: ~_q '7 ~7 sq ft sq ft SCl ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
existing situation
( ) other: specify
Please describe:
Variance Application (1 ID3)
Page 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the la~
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~f). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No-(~. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes~, No (). ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
maintaining and removing such;~, / notices as may ~
Owner's Signature ~ ~~/~~ '
t/-,fi/"'
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,
ii ,I II ,I, I , it I
GITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
EXISTING LOT AREA
SQ FT X 30% =
SQ FT X 15% =
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
DRIVEWAY:
DECK:
(if impervious
surface under
deck = 100%)
OTHER:
LENGTH
~0 ~. x
X
X
TOTAL HOUSE *
X
X
TOTAL GARAGE
WIDTH
~,./ ~ = /0~/.?t
:~-'~..35''~ x
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY
/~w 'x
X
·,,
TOTAL
DECK
TOTALDECK @ 50%
/0' x
X
TOTAL OTHER * *
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
Ltq O
$--o9.
UNDER (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
YES___NO
J ¸il
.I
Survey on file? yee~_ no
Required Lot Width:,, E~ /
Existing Lot Width.
8E?B~CKS REQUIRED:
V
Date of surve~~_. ~ot of Record? yes_,~ no.
{{ron~&ge on an lmprovod public
,Depth I~ /
WOODRIDGE RD ~
$
(26)
~0.7e
(30
,'4
7
(6)
c ~J -- 0 C
~ I 0 ~
~- · n I I , # I ,Ii,
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK
TO ALLOW A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT
1721 GULL LANE, LOTS 5, 6, 7, BLOCK 14,
DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 13 O014
P&Z CASE #94-38
WHEREAS, the owner, Michael Johnson, has applied for a variance
to recognize an existing nonconforming 10.8 foot front yard setback to allow
construction of a 10.3' x 13.9' entry deck and conforming 28' x 24' garage addition,
and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000
square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, and 6 foot side yard setbacks, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed entry deck will continue the front wall line but will
not further encroach into the front yard area. According to the elevation drawing
submitted, the deck will not contain a roof, 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 a 9.2' front yard setback variance to allow
construction of an open entry deck and conforming garage addition, subject to
thi~ condition that the front porch area not be roofed or enclosed in the future.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to
all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of 10.3' x 13.9' open entry deck, and a 28'
x 24' garage addition.
Proposed Resolution
Case #94-38
Page 2
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 14, Dreamwood.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
CASE #94-35 MICHAEL JOHNSON, 1721 GULL LANE, LOTS 5. 6. 7, BLOCK 14,
DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 13 0014. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking a front yard setback variance to add an entry deck at the southeast corner
of the structure and construct a new 28' x 24' garage addition. The garage conforms to
required setbacks. The proposal includes construction of a 10.3' x 13.9' entry deck. The
proposed entry deck will continue the front wall line but will not further encroach into the front
yard area. According to the elevation drawing submitted, the deck will not contain a roof.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard
setback variance of 9.2 feet for the construction of an open entry deck and an attached
garage measuring 28' x 24'.
Staff noted that two garage sizes were identified in the application, one measuring 28' x 24'
and the other measuring 30' x 26'. The applicant clarified that the proposed garage is 28' x
24', and the other size included the overhangs.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff, and including a condition that the front
porch area not be roofed or enclosed in the future. Motion carried unanimously.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Variance - Garage and Entry Deck Addition
APPLICANT: Michael Johnson
CASE NUMBER: 94-38
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5k
LOCATION: 1721 Gull Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-IA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a front yard setback variance to add an entry deck
at the southeast comer of the structure and construct a new attached garage. The garage
conforms to required setbacks. The proposal includes construction of an entry deck measuring
10.3 feet by 13.9 feet. Within the application, two different sizes are identified for the proposed
garage, one measuring 28' x 24' and the other measuring 30' by 26'. The hardcover calculations
that are provided are based on the larger garage size. With the larger garage and a new concrete
patio area at the rear of the structure, total hardcover is slightly under the 30% maximum.
COMMENT: Since the entry deck is attached to the structure, it is subject to the setback
requirements of the principal building. The home currently has a 10.8 foot front yard setback
which requires a variance of 9.2 feet. The proposed entry deck will continue the front wall line
but will not further encroach into the front yard area. According to the elevation drawing
submitted with the plans, the deck will not contain a roof.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the front yard setback variance of 9.2 feet for the construction of an open entry deck and an
attached garage measuring 30' x 26'.
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 myw~ Road, Mound, ~
~one: 472-~, F~: 47~20
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No. q4"3~
Distribution;
City Planner -_..~_-_.-_-_-_-_-_~ Public Works
City Engineer ~ DNR
Other
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property
Addition
PID No.
q - q $ O
Day Phone loc/q-Io'7
Day Phone /¥/4
Has an application ever been made\foy~oning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property.'? ( ) yes,fl~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of res~lu[ions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
0
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
3. Do the existing structures comply with all, ar/e.a, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonin,
district in which it is located.'? Yes (), No~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot ar~a, etc0:
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (N~)
ft. /0 ft. I~I / ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft'
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft'
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft'
: (NSEW) ft. ft- ft'
Street Frontage: /~) ' ft. ft' ft'
Lot Size: q fgU'/') sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the pres~ of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it i~
located? Ye?~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography 4 )/soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape /( ?other: specify
.le rc>n- C LrV 5e2 c_ 3.o0
a a n i a ,It I :ii,,
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of any~n?/having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
No (). If yes, explain:
Yes (),
Are the conditions of hardship,~oI/~vhich you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No,)~X ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be req~redjby law.
"' ~wner's Signatu~~~~-~~~ Date
Applicant's Signature Date
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
SQ FT X 30% =
SQ FT X 15% =
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
DRIVEWAY:
DECK:
(if impervious
surface under
deck = 100%)
LENGTH
WIDTH
IL, x
Io x
TOTAL HOUSE *
~O X
X
TOTAL GARAGE
x
X
/6 =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY *****************
~0 x /~7 = /,~o
'7 x ~ = _~/
TOTAL DECK ****'******** 27/'~
TOTAL DECK @ 50%***************
=
TOTAL OTHER *******************
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
~ (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BY: :,' ~d" ?'.2
4
y,YES___NO
Plat or S;~rvey
for H, rs. Ruly L. Hel~us
of' Lots 5~ r~ and ?~ Block
Hennepin County, l.',innesota
q
Oert.~Ficate o£ Survey:
I h,',reby certify that this is a true and e~rrect r~::~resentatic, n of
a surw~y of' the botm~mr~e~ of Lets 5, ~, ,.nd 7, Block 1,',, l~e:~m~ood ',nd
of the loc,:td,~n of all buildings ther~c,p, It :lees nc, t ,~urmrt te ~how
other improw~nts or encroachments, if ar:y, from or on ~:".id
Seole: 1" = 4C' ~rdon 7t. Col in'
5~te : ~-15-73 b,n~ . u~.g.'or and Planner
+ .iKnss~ ta
o : Iron z~,rker l/,ng D~ko, .
!'lat oF Survey
for }4r~. RuLy L. }.'el]us
of I~t.~ 5, 6, and 7, Block ll,, Dro~,mwood
Henneptn C?unl,y, I.:tn~eso'ta
f
/
/
Cert.~ fie'ate of Survey:
! h.'~.reby ce2'ttCy th,Jt tills
a survey of the bo~md,LrJon of Lcts 5, ~'~ .~nd 7, Block 1,',, !h'o~lmw~od '.,nd
other l mprov,~nts or oncro,~,chm~nts~
9, re : ~-15-73 b~nd . u~.c.'or nnd Pl.ann~r
o : Iron ~m~rker l~n~/
';,, \
eurve:y._~__5~l~_. Lot or Record? yea ~. no .... J
Date
of
(frontage on in tmprovod publLe effect)
Depth ~0 ·
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
ACCESSORY BUILDING
SlDtl N I I W 4' Dr 6'
SIDEs g I · # 4' or 6'
REARs N S I # , 4'
LJd~SNORll }9~ Imeilured treat O.H.W,I
i i
FRONTs # I I W
FRONTs N I l
SIDEr # I I W
REARs
WILL THE FROPOS£O IKPROVEK£NT~ CONFORm?
YES , ~0 ill*
COI MON
2-D
'II~
(~))J
I
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE
AT 1920 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 6, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0008
P&Z CASE #94-40
WHEREAS, the owner, Diane Akey, has applied for a variance involving a
number of nonconforming situations in order to construct a nonconforming detached
garage, as follows:
Existinq/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard - Garage 2.' 8.' 6.'
Side Yard - Shed 1.65' 6.' 4.35'
Street Frontage 50.' 60.' 10.'
Lot Width 50.' 60.' 10.'
Lot Size 7,639 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 2,361 s.f.
Hardcover 37.49% 30% 7.49%
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 for the principal dwelling, side yard setbacks
of 6' and 10', and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and;
WHEREAS, the garage is proposed to be situated on the lot with the garage
door facing the east side property line which requires an 8 foot setback to the front
yard. Because of the location of the existing home and the existing topography the
proposed garage sits two feet inside the property line, and 8 feet from the curb,
resulting in a 6 foot variance, and;
WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage is currently at 44.32%. With the
proposed garage, the total hardcover is reduced to 37.49%, and;
WHEREAS, a minimum size garage of 22' x 22' would not decrease the
amount of hardcover as the driveway cover would increase, and the garage service
door would then have to be placed at the side of the garage resulting in additional
hardcover for a landing and stairs, and;
WHEREAS, a 22' x 22' garage versus a 24' x 24' garage would reduce the
hardcover by only 48 square feet, and;
Proposed Resolution
Case #94-40
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance to allow the construction of a 24' x 24'
detached garage with a side facing door. Following are the variances involved'
ExiSt,hq/Proposed ~ Variance
Front Yard - Garage 2.' 8.' 6.'
Side Yard - Shed 1.65' 6.' 4.35'
Street Frontage 50.' 60.' 10.'
Lot Width 50.' 60.' 10.'
Lot Size 7,639 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 2,361 s.f.
Hardcover 37.49 % 30 % 7.49 %
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to
all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of 24' x 24' detached garage with a side
facing door.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 6, Block 2, Shadywood Point.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
CASE#94-40 DIANA AKEY, 1920 SHOREW00D LANE. LOT 6. BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-2323 0008. VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking approval of a number of variances in order to construct a detached garage.
At the present time, there is no garage on the site. Below are the variances involved in this
case:
Existina/Proposed ReQuired Variance
Front Yard - Garage 2.' 8.' 6.'
Side Yard - Shed 1.65' 6.' 4.35'
Street Frontage 50.' 60.' 10.'
Lot Width 50.' 60.' 10.'
Lot Size 7,639 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 2,361 s.f.
Hardcover 37.49 % 30% 7.49 %
The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' x 24' detached garage with the door facing the
ease (side). Such structures are required to maintain an 8 foot front yard setback. Because
of the location of the existing home and the existing topography of the site, the proposed
garage sits two feet inside the property line, and 8 feet from the curb. At the present time,
hardcover surfacing covers 44.32% of the site. With the proposed garage, the total hardcover
is reduced to 37.49%.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances noted
above in order to allow the construction of a detached garage with a side facing door. In its
deliberation on this matter, the Planning Commission may want to consider whether or not the
garage size as proposed represents a minimum situation. If the Commission concurs that a
variance for a garage should be granted, there should be conditions on the removal of the
existing driveway apron and bituminous area that lies immediately south of the proposed
garage building.
Mueller questioned if a 22' x 22' garage would be preferred. He noted that if 2 feet were
removed on the depth it would not change the amount of hardcover as it would increase the
driveway coverage, and removing 2 feet on the width would reduce the hardcover by only 48
square feet.
Applicant., Diane Akey, explained to the Commission that if the width was reduced to 22', the
doorway would have to be moved from the front to the side, which would then require an
additional landing and walkway resulting in more hardcover.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Jensen, to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff, for a 24' x 24' detached garage. Motion
carried unanimously.
Jansen confirmed with staff that the Commission's findings would be included in the
resolution.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
IZllB
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Variance - Detached Garage
APPLICANT: Diana Akey
CASE NUMBER: 94-40
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-51
LOCATION: 1920 Shorewood Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a number of variances in order to
construct a detached garage. At the present time, there is no garage on the site. According to
the hardcover calculations prepared by the surveyor, 44.32% of the site currently consists of
impervious surfacing. The following is a listing of variances involved in this case:
Issue Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard - Prop. Garage 2' 8' 6'
Side Yard - Shed 1.65' 6' 4.35'
Street Frontage 50' 60' 10'
Lot Width 50' 60' 10'
Lot Size 7,639 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 2,361 sq. ft.
Hardcover 37.49% 30% 7.49%
COMMENT: The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' x 24' detached garage with the door
facing the east (side). Such structures are required to maintain an 8 foot front yard setback.
Because of the location of the existing home and the existing topography of the site, the proposed
garage sits two feet inside of the property line. At the present time, hardcover surfacing covers
44.32% of the site. With the proposed garage, the total hardcover is reduced to 37.49%.
Land Use/Environmental· Planning/Design
7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
Akey Variance Planning Report
June 8, 1994
Page Two
In previous cases, the City of Mound has made every attempt to accommodate the construction
of garages. In most cases, having a garage as part of a residential property precludes the need
for outside storage thereby improving the appearance of the neighborhood. In order for the City
to grant a variance, the variance must represent the minimum necessary to relieve a hardship or
practical difficulty situation. In this case, the proposed improvements actually reduce the amount
of impervious surfacing. The reduction could be even furthered by reducing the size of the
garage to 22' x 22' or a similar dimension.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the variances noted above in order to allow the construction of a detached garage with a side
facing door. In its deliberation on this matter, the Planning Commission may want to consider
whether or not the garage size as proposed represents a minimum situation. If the Commission
concurs that a variance for a garage should be granted, it should be conditioned on the removal
of the existing driveway apron and bituminous area that lies immediately south of the proposed
garage building.
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
City Planner ~ Public Works
City Engineer ~5-- ~:~l DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
case q4-40
Please type or print the following information:
vropeny ~_c~t) ~xnr~.~~
Address of Subject
I
Zoning District ~: ~_
Owner's Name
Owner's Address
Use of Property:,
Block
Pm No. ~.~- ~'~-~,~ _D~_ ~
Day Phone
Applicant's Name (if other than owner).
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure f6r this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
' - q
Ill .,I II
c .o. q/--t-. 40
Variance Application (l 1/93)
Pa~e 2
;. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (N~WI ~ ft. ,~ ft. (,~,. ft.
Side Yard: ( N W ~ ft. I..t_d.~_' - ft. ~ ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft'
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) /.,¢,0 ft. ._~_~ ft. JO ft.
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ¢, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow (~ topography
too small ( ) drainage
too shallow ( ) shape
( )soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
Please describe:
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lant'
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes {~ No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~'. ff yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signatur~ ~~d~~~
Applicant's Signature
Date_~~
Date
;SEL
Required ~t Width: ~/ ~ , (frontage on ~n improved public
LAY~SHOREs
50' tmeaeurqd ~rom O.H.W.J
EXISTING ~/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
FRONT: N S K W
i::,o:,' "
REAR: N S E W
LAA~ SHOJ~:
WILL THE PROPOSED IMPRO%SKME~LTS CONFORR?
YES
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS ~COVERAGE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AT
1564 CANARY LANE, LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 4
WOODLAND POINT, PID #12-117-24 43 0013
P&Z CASE #94-42
WHEREAS, the owners, Paul and Virginia Erickson, have applied for a 3.3%
hardcover variance in order to remove an 8' x 17' existing deck and replace it with a
11' x 14' three season porch, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area
of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, and 6 foot side yard setbacks,
and;
WHEREAS, the existing home and the proposed porch conform to setback
requirements, and;
WHEREAS, the subject site is somewhat unique in that it is surrounded by City
owned open space on two sides. A 20 foot parcel to the north of the site and the lots
behind the existing home are owned by the City of Mound for drainage purposes, and;
wHEREAS, the additional 3.3% hardcover is more than compensated by the
amount of permanent open space abutting this parcel, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval with the finding that strict interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance in this case constitutes a practical difficulty, in light of the fact that
permanent open space abuts the property on two sides. Also, It is not the intention
of this variance approval to allow a new deck in the future for the existing deck that
is being replaced by a porch.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby grant a variance to impervious surface coverage of 3.3%
or 208 square feet to allow construction of a 11' x 14' three season porch.
2. 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
Case #94-42
Page 2
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of 11' x 14' three season porch.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Woodland Point.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
~ PAUL & VIRGINIA ERI(~KSON, 1564 CANARY LANE, LOTS 7 & 8,
BLOCK 4; WOODLAND POINT, PIg #12-117-2443 0013. VARIANCE FOR PORCH,
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking a hardcover variance in order to remove an existing deck and replace it
with a 3 season porch. If the proposal is approved, the total impervious surfacing on the site
will be 33.3%. The existing home and the proposed porch conform to setback requirements.
The subject site is somewhat unique in that it is surrounded by City owned open space on two
sides. A 20 foot parcel to the north of the site and the lots behind the existing home are
owned by the City of Mound for drainage purposes. In the past, the applicant has inquired
about purchasing all or a portion of the City owned land. To date, the City has elected to
retain the title to these land areas. The proposed construction exceeds the maximum hard
coverage allowed by a small margin. The additional 3.3% hardcover is more than
compensated by the amount of permanent open space abutting this parcel.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that strict interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance in this case constitutes a practical difficulty, in light of the fact that permanent open
space abuts the property on two sides. As a result, hardcover variance approval is
recommended to allow construction of the porch.
The Com[nission questioned if the adjacent City property may some day be sold to abutting
land owners. The Secretary stated that the property has been retained for drainage and utility
purposes and has not be released for sale. It was clarified that the existing deck is 8' x 17'.
The Commission discussed the possibility of the owner wanting a de.r.~ in the future to replace
the deck that is now being converted to a screen porch.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jansen, to recommend approval of the
variance, as recommended by staff, and including the following:
It is not the intention of this variance approval to allow a new deck in the future
to replace the existing deck that is being eliminated by the new porch.
This approval includes the finding that the adjacent City owned property will not
be developed in the future and therefore is taken into consideration as additional
green space for the nonconforming hardcover.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Variance - 3 Season Porch
APPLICANT: Paul and Virginia Erickson
CASE NUMBER: 94-42
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5m
LOCATION: 1564 Canary Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a hardcover variance in order to remove an existing
deck and replace it with a 3 season porch. If the proposal is approved, the total impervious
surfacing on the site will be 33.3%. The existing home and the proposed porch conform to
setback requirements.
COMMENT: The subject site is somewhat unique in that it is surrounded by City owned open
space on two sides. A 20 foot parcel to the north of the site and,the lots behind the existing
home are owned by the City of Mound for drainage purposes. In ttie past, the applicant has
inquired about purchasing all or a portion of the City owned land. To date, the City has elected
to retain the title to these land areas. The proposed construction exceeds the maximum hard
coverage allowed by a small margin. The addittional 3.3% hardcover is more than compensated
by the amount of permanent open space abutting this parcel.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that strict
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in this case constitutes a practical difficulty, in light of
the fact that permanent open space abuts the property on two sides. As a result, hardcover
variance approval is recommended to allow construction of the porch.
Land Use / Environmental , Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
1,1
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Application Fee:_ $50.00
City Planner I Public Works
City Engineer ~ t::3.. ~ { DNR
Other
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property ~ ~- ~ q
Lot --/ -4 9
Zoning District ~ - I A Use of Property:
Owner's Address
Day Phone
Block
PID No.
Applicant's Name (if other than owne0
Address Day Phone
1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application (11/93)
P~o 2
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonin;
district in which it is located? Yes ~.. No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback,l-6t area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. fi.
Lot Size: sqft -~ , .,~ sqft
Hardcover: Itt ~ sq ft ...~li~(__sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow
too small
too shallow
( ) topography
( ) drainage
( ) shape
( )soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
I,I
Variance Application (11/93)
hie 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted 0982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
No (). ff yes, explain:
Yes (),
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?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature~~~~~'~
Applicant's Signature_
Date_
Date
NAME:
ADDRESS:
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(..,~HO0 SQ FT X 30% =
SQ FT X 15% --
f Iq~
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
DRIVEWAY:
DECK:
(if impervious
surface under
deck = 100%)
OTHER:
LENGTH WIDTH
q~ x :~L~ =
X =
X =
TOTAL HOUSE * *
~ ,-{ x
X
TOTAL GARAGE *
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY
Iq x
X
TOTAL DECK * * *
TOTAL DECK @ 50%
X
TOTAL OTHER ' *
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
UNDER (OVER) *****************************
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
YES___NO
BY:
DATE:
I I II !, J, ,,1~ a .
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
,, ,, ,. ,; : , ..:F. ?'7-,--;----,-:-_m_~_ _ L __-
SurveV .[:or: .__ /J~'- -' '~ ' ' ~'~------:"~"-:-~-J' ......... ' ........... · -Book .~= Page ',') ~_~_
~(~. 0
'5
GENEIL,kL ZONING INI:OIL\L~,TION $IIEET
Existing Lot Width.
8~.?B~CR8 REQUIRED,
FRONT: N S E
FRONT:
'ID', ¢, . W
~$HO~ SO' (measured from O.H.W.
Z~ I$TING ~/OR
, Depth__
(frontage on an improved public street)
YES~
ACCESSORY BUI LDINO
FRONT: N S E~ ~ /
FRONT: N S g W
SIDE: ~S E W 4° or §'
LAXI~$HOFL~: . SO' fmeasured from O.H,W,)
ACCESSORy BUILDI~
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
5IDEi N $ E W
S,D.,".l~ -- I'Z- /
R..R, . ;4' +/--
LA~SHOI~:
WILL THE PROPgSi:D IMPROVEMENTS
CONFORm? YE~ NO_
(D~ O
34.78 F~ES
GOVT LOT 8
r¢ o
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT
1705 EAGLE LANE, LOTS I & 2, BLOCK 12,
DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 12 0064
P&Z CASE//94-43
WHEREAS, the owner, William Knosalla, has applied for a variance to recognize
an existing nonconforming front yard setback and a hardcover variance as listed below
to construct a 24' x 24' garage addition:
Front/Side (N)
Hardcover (w/shed)
_Existin.q/Proo0sed ~
12' 20'
2,128 sf 1,920 sf
Variance
8'
208 sf
WHEREAS, the existing home is on a corner lot and is required to observe a
20 foot setback from both Three Points Blvd. to the north, and Eagle Lane to the east,
and;
WHEREAS, the lot also contains a 10' x 10' shed which appears to conform
to side and rear setback requirements, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, abutting neighbor to the west, Ann Eberhart, has concerns about
increased drainage onto her property, as she already has problems, and the applicant
stated he is willing to work on the drainage issue and will make necessary corrections,
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that a 24' x 24' garage
does not constitute a "minimum" situation, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant states the original garage size of 24' x 24' as
proposed in 1980 was conforming, and that this size is needed for parking and
storage, 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:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT
1705 EAGLE LANE, LOTS I & 2, BLOCK 12,
DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 12 0064
P&Z CASE #94-43
WHEREAS, the owner, William Knosalla, has applied for a variance to recognize
an existing nonconforming front yard setback and a hardcover variance as listed below
to construct a 24' x 24' garage addition:
Front/Side (N)
Hardcover (w/shed)
..Existing/Proposed ~ Vari~ance
12' 20' 8'
2,128 sf 1,920 sf 208 sf
WHEREAS, the existing home is on a corner lot and is required to observe a
20 foot setback from both Three Points Blvd. to the north, and Eagle Lane to the east,
and;
WHEREAS, the lot also contains a 10' x 10' shed which appears to conform
to side and rear setback requirements, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, abutting neighbor to the west, Ann Eberhart, has concerns about
increased drainage onto her property, as she already has problems, and the applicant
stated he is willing to work on the drainage issue and will make necessary corrections,
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that a 24' x 24' garage
does not constitute a "minimum" situation, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant states the original garage size of 24' x 24' as
proposed in 1980 was conforming, and that this size is needed for parking and
storage, 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:
Proposed Resolution
Case #94-43
Page 2
The City does hereby grant a 108 square foot hardcover variance and
recognizes the existing nonconforming 12' setback to Three Points Blvd., to
allow construction of a 24' x 24' garage addition, subject to the following:
a. The shed be removed.
b. Drainage and grading issues be reviewed by staff and corrected ' accordingly. --~/,~/.~- ('~ ~ ~';~ ,, ;~ .-- ~; ....
The City Cod~Eil authorizes the alterat~°~ set forth ~elow, pursuant
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and exnress~.
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 improv~q~
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use ~f th~~
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land'
Construction of 24' x 24' garage addition.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots I and 2, Block 12, Dreamwood.
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
!
Fl£cO ,~ooH~.,,~ POcO.u 7NI- ~,6.o¢ p Z ~.u
THE'
oF )..oT.Z.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
CASE #94-43 _WILLIAM & DEDRA KNOSALLA. 1705 EAGLE LANE, LOT~ I & 2
BLOCK 12, DREAMWOOD, PID # 13-117-2412 0064. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION,
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a 24' x 24' garage addition. The proposed
garage meets all setback requirements. The existing home is on a corner lot and as such, is
required to observe a 20 foot setback from Three Points Blvd. The existing house is located
12 feet from the property line resulting in an 8 foot variance. In addition to the home, the lot
also contains a 10' x 10' shed which appears to conform to side and rear setback
requirements. The amount of proposed impervious cover will total 33.3%.
In considering this case, the Planning Commission may want to comment on whether or not
a 24' x 24' garage is truly a "minimum" situation.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the
side yard setback variance for the existing home and a hardcover variance in order to allow
the cons{ruction of an attached garage. In its deliberation on this matter, the Planning
Commission may want to consider whether or not the garage size as proposed represents a
minimum situation.
The Commission confirmed that the 8' x 16' portion of the house as shown on the survey is
actually a deck.
Abutting neighbor, Ann Eberhart, expressed a concern about increased drainage onto her
property, as she already has problems. The Building Official commented that staff can review
the drainage issues and can offer corrective measures, such as gutters to direct drainage to
the front of the lot, or re-grading if necessary. He added that this is the time to improve these
conditions, and this can be worked out before the building permit is issued. The applicant
stated that he is willing to work on the drainage issues and make any corrections necessary.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the
variance upon the following conditions:
1. The shed be removed.
2. Drainage and grading issues be reviewed by staff and corrected accordingly.
The maker of the motion confirmed that this motion does not condone that a 24' x 24' garage
is considered "minimum".
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mc!
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Variance - Attached Garage
APPLICANT: William P. Knosalla
CASE NUMBER: 94-43
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5n
LOCATION: 1705 Eagle Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an attached garage
measuring 24' x 24'. The proposed garage meets all setback requirements. The existing home
is on a comer lot and as such, is required to observe a 20 foot setback from Three Points
Boulevard. The existing house is located 12' from the property line resulting in an 8 foot
variance. In addition to the home, the lot also contains a 10' x 10' shed which appears to
conform to side and rear setback requirements.
The subject property lies within the shoreland zone and is therefore subject to the 30% hardcover
limitation. According to calculations provided by the applicant, if the garage is approved, the
amount of impervious cover will total 33.3%.
COMMENT: In the past, the City of Mound has encouraged the construction of garages in
order to reduce clutter and enhance the appearance of neighborhoods. In order to accomplish this
objective, variances are sometimes necessary. The need for a garage has been considered a
practical difficulty under the terms of the ordinance. Despite this fact, the City has consistently
attempted to ensure that variances that are granted represent the minimum necessary to alleviate
the practical difficulty situation. In considering this case, the Planning Commission may want
to comment on whether or not a 24' x 24' garage is truly a "minimum" situation.
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
JI ,I II I I~ , I[ I i
Knosalla Variance Planning Report
June 8, 1994
Page Two
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
(recognition) of the side yard setback variance for the exiting home and a hardcover variance in
order to allow the construction of an attached garage. In its deliberation on this matter, the
Planning Commission may want to consider whether or not the garage size as proposed represents
a minimum situation.
II I II !, I, ,J, ' '"
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
I~AY 2 6 1994
Application Fee:
$50.00
Case No. q4-~4~
City Planner 5-~ Public Works
City Engineer ~ DNR
Other
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property
ca /;/.//~
Owner's Address_ / 7~5"
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
Lot
Addition
Zoning District
Owner's Name
Use of Property:
f/~///t9,.5'/4c ~ ,J .~ Day Phone
No. 13-11 .-] 44.
f £~.7 /.4 2.
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made fqr 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 restlftions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
~/ ~q e-d,4' .d P~..d
V~riance Application (11/93)
Page 2
o
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
3 C .4
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
~ J o 3_r- 7-0
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (N~.S(~JW) ft. ~q ft.
Side Yard:
Side Y~d: ( N
R~ Y~d: ( N S E~) ft.
~eside: ( N S E W )
· (NSEW)
S~t Fron~ge: ft. ~ q ft.
~t Si~: sq ft
H~dcover: ~sq ft
fto
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
soil
existing situation
other: specify
pN 7- f
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No/~. If yes, explain:
8. 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?
7/115' _/Y2-- fw.k' //// fi 7-
9. Comments:
$/
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature ./J~/~. /. _~_w6~_~w~
Applicant's Signature /~J,~,~.~ f. _~.~_~_ ~'~
Date
Date
Cer~i£ic'-.%~ o:' ~urvvf.'
for L~k,~
of Lots ~ and
Hcnn~p~n County,' K~nnesota
I hare~.; certify th=. this is a ..
true an..1 co'trect representation .-
of a s'l'm,,ey o? the boundaries of
Lots 1 and 2, Block 12, Dreamwood, and
the location of all ez. isting buildings, if any, ther~cn, and the proposed.
location of a .~rooosed building. It does not purport to sho~ o~hsr improve-
Scale: 1" -- ~0' Oordon R. Coffin ?~g/~o. 6064
Date : 8-22-80 Land Surveyor and ?lanner
o : Iron marker Long Lake, hLinnesota
NA ME:
¢
ADDRESS:
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATION S
' 1 7~ :- :~: l
~Yd O_ so FT x 30% =
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
DRIVEWAY:
DECK:
(if impervious
surface under
deck = 100%)
OTHER:
LENGTH WIDTH
~d x JY
X
X
TOTAL HOUSE *******************
X =
TOTAL GARAGE
~ ,/ x
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY *****************
!.~ x ~ = /~o
X =
TOTAL DECK *************
TOTAL DECK @ 50%***************
./~ x /~ = /~ ~
X =
TOTAL OTHER * **** **** **** **'* **
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ***** ************ **
UNDER((OVER~J**************** **** ******** *
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
YES,~NO
DATE:
< iS''/ :>
,, I'/=
Design Works (S~) , Knox LLun~er, #217 Hopkins,
5/25/94 16:49
JI · I I ~m , II, I ,I
GENI£1L~.L ZONING INFOIL'~IATION SIIEET
J ADDRESS;
Required Lo[ Width: ~ / (frontage on in improved ~blLc itreet}
/
Ex[sling ~ Width
SIDer N S E:
IJU(ZSHORE: 50' Im~a~qr~d ~rom O,14~w, }
~(~:gS SORY BUILDING
FRONT: N S ~ W
FRONT: N 5
SlDt'~ N S
~SHO~:
EXISTINO AND/OR PROPOSED SETBXCKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING i~.CCESSOR¥ BU I LD I NG
FRONT Ii ~ S E W FRONT ~ N S
~SHO~: ~A~SHO~:
8 ~'
O
C
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF
PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS
FOR DOCK SITES 12550 AND 22360
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for
Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any
public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed these requests and recommended
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as
follows:
The City Council does hereby approve the following structures/encroachments to be removed from the
commons, including necessary restoration, subject to the following:
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
WATERSIDE COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
WlOTA COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
12550
1729 GULL LANE
Rose Bialon
OLD CONCRETE
BLOCK STAIRWAY
STAIRWAY UNSAFE. STAIR AND DOCK SPACE ARE
NOT USED AT THIS TIME. RECOMMENDATION IS FOR
STAFF TO WORK WITH ABUTTING OWNER TO REMOVE
STAIRWAY AND DOCK LICENSE WILL NOT BE ISSUED
UNTIL STAIRWAY ISSUE IS RESOLVED.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS: DOCK SITES 02665, 12550, 13810~31360, 31390, AND 51030
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The City of Mound is updating the permits for
structures located on public lands. Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permits as shown
on Exhibit A, below, subject to the following conditions:
Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments" noted on Exhibit
A.
2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
The Park Commission reviewed each site separately.
WATERSIDE COMMON. SHORELINE TYPE D
The Parks Director informed the Commission that this items has been withdrawn as the outlet has
been removed from the Commons, and the Building Official has confirmed the removal.
,n ,n n i I, , # I ,I,
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
pUBLIC LAND PERMITS: DOCK SITES O2665J 12550~ 13810, 22360.31360, 31390, AND 5103q
Perks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The City of Mound is updating the permits for
structures located on public lands. Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permits as shown
on Exhibit A, below, subject to the following conditions:
Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments" noted on Exhibit
A.
2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
The Park Commission reviewed each site separately.
WIOTA COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
12550 17'29 GULL LANE OLD CONCRETE STAIRWAY UNSAFE. STAIR AND DOCK SPACE ARE
Rose Bialon BLOCK STAIRWAY NOT USED AT THIS TIME. RECOMMENDATION IS FOR
STAFF TO WORK WITH ABUTTING OWNER TO REMOVE
STAIRWAY AND DOCK LICENSE WILL NOT BE ISSUED
UNTIL STAIRWAY ISSUE IS RESOLVED.
The Parks Director explained that the Building Official has discussed this issue with Ms. Bialon, and
she will try to arrange to have the blocks removed.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens, to recommend that the City work with
Mrs. Bialon to remove the cement block stairway, and that the applicant's dock license
not be issued if compliance has not been achieved within one year of the date of
approval of the permit. MOTION carried unanimously.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA ,55364-1687
:"~" ~"~612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 9, 1994 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting
Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~'
Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS FOR DOCK SITES: 0266~, 12550)
31390, AND 51030.
1381~31360,
The City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands. City Code Section
320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public
way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons.
Staff recommends approval of the Public Land Permits as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments" noted on the
attached Exhibit A.
2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval..
3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
4. The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
printed on recycled paper
dll Il la I Lan, , ii, Ii ii,
Park and Open Space Commission Meeting
June 9, 1994
"EXHIBIT A"
Public Land Permits
It
~i::!::~::~!~!iii::!~i~::~::~!~iii:~i~:.`;:~!ii::~]::iiiii!::ii~/:!~::::~i~i~:~ii::i~::i!~!!i[i]:::::~iii:~:~i:~i!i~:::iii~i i:. i:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: t I ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: i:::: i ! :~
II
02665 ] I 1601 PARADISE LANE I NEW STAIRWAY APPROVE 5 YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
Cynthia Cornetet REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
WIOTA COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
12550 1729 GULL LANE OLD CONCRETE STAIRWAY UNSAFE. STAIR AND DOCK SPACE ARE
Rose Bialon BLOCK STAIRWAY NOT USED AT THIS TIME. RECOMMENDATION IS FOR
STAFF TO WORK WITH ABUTTING OWNER TO REMOVE
STAIRWAY AND DOCK LICENSE WILL NOT BE ISSUED
UNTIL STAIRWAY ISSUE IS RESOLVED.
13810 1749 AVOCET LANE ELECTRIC LIGHT, REMOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES.
Bob & Sharon Riebe OUTLET, AND
PUMP
WATERSIDE COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
22360
DELETE*
2149 CARDINAL LANE I ELECTRIC OUTLET I REMOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES.
Willard Botko [ [*HAS BEEN REt, lOvED PER BEV BO'FKO 6-6-94
BLACK LAKE LANE, SHORELINE TYPE D
31360& 4608 KILDARE ROAD NEW STAIRWAY APPROVE § YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
Bill Voss REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
31390 4610 KILDARE ROAD
Todd Smith
51030
2933 CAMBRIDGE LN
Beverly Christianson
BRIGHTON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
REPLACE EXISTING
STAIRWAY
APPROVE 5 YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
m · m m ~, i ~ B I
Conversation Record
CONVERSATION
WITH:
REGARDING:
JI · I I, ~ ,It I ,I,
May 26, 1994
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, M;!,%E$OTA 55364-!687
(6:2 472 0600
FAX -..*'2) 472-0620
Ms. Rose Bialon
1729 Gull Lane
Mound, MN 55364
RE: CONCRETE BLOCK STAIRWAY TO DOCK SITE//12550
Dear Ms. Bialon:
City staff is updating permits for stairways and other things that are on the commons. Adjacent to
your house at 1729 Gull Lane, and on the commons, is a small concrete block retaining wall and
some concrete blocks set into the hill as a stairway to get to the lake. Permits are issued to abutting
owners who, at some time, made the improvements (please note attached photocopy).
The retaining wall appears to be in okay condition and staff will recommend that a five (5) year permit
be issued by the Council. There is no cost or fees involved with permits on the commons.
The concrete block stairway has some loose blocks and is not really safe, according to today's
building code standards. This stairway does not appear to be used, and a dock permit for this site
has not been issued for some time. Staff has recommended that the Council direct us to work with
you to get the stairway removed.
The Park Commission has requested staff to discuss the removal with you, and report back to them.
I have attempted to call you at 379-3071 and there has been no answer. I have scheduled this case
for the June 9, 1994 Park Commission meeting. Please contact me prior to that date so we can
discuss the stairway removal.
Building Official
JS:pj
cc:
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Park Commission
Enclosurs
~ printed on recycled paper
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
February 1 O, 1994
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of a
th~ year non-renewable permit for the bird house located on Wiota Common
abutting 1779 Wildhurst Lane, Dock Site #10520. Motion carried 6 to 1.
Those in favor were Goode, Casey, Darling, Byrnes, Meyer, and Geffre. Ahrens
opposed.
The Commission confirmed with staff that e letter will be mailed to the owner of 1779
Wildhurst Lane explaining the action taken.
Dock Site #12490, 1733 Gull Lane. Retainin(~ Walls.
The retaining walls on Wiota Common abutting 1733 Gull Lane, Dock Site #12490 were
discussed. It was noted that the walls were privately constructed and they are in good
condition.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Goode to recommend approval of a 5
year permit for the retaining walls as recommended by staff. Motion carried
unanimously.
29 Gull Lane. Stairway.
Fackler explained that this stairway consists of cement blocks imbedded into the hill.
dock site is not utilized by the abutting owner or any other individual.
This
Fackler noted that there is not much need for a stairway in this area as there is a stairway at
the end of gull, and then the bottom of the hill is traversable to this dock site. Fackler also
noted that the slope is not so steep that it would not be difficult to repair the grade.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to tabl_..._~e this request u~ntil staff
~can disc,uss removal q.f the. stairway,with the abutting owner. Motion carried
6 to 1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Byrnes, Goode, Casey, Geffre, and
Meyer. Darling opposed.
Dock Site 12610, 1725 Finch Lane, Flea Pole,
Fackler announced that this flagpole has been removed from the common.
Dock Site #13390, 1736 Bluebird Lane, St~3irway, Retaining Wells and Garden.
The need for this retaining wall was discussed. The abutting owner, Scott Schmieg, stated
that the previous owners of the house told him that the City installed the wall. Fackler stated
that he is not familiar with the site.
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Meyer to table this request pending a
staff report on the need for the retaining wall. Motion failed 5 to 2. Those in
favor were Darling and Meyer. Those opposed were Byrnes, Ahrens, Casey,
Goode, and Geffre.
Mr. Schmieg stated that it is his opinion the retaining wall is needed to help prevent erosion;
the size of the wall is approximately 2' high by 12' long and is constructed of log timbers.
5
JI · n I I, ,IL I ,I
BAY)
COg~oN
2-D
([989 AERIAL PHOTO)
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND
FOR DOCK SITES 51030, 31360, 31390, 02665, AND 1 3810
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for
Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any
public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed these requests and recommended
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as
follows:
of the Public Land Permits as shown on Exhibit A, below, subject to the following conditions:
1. Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments" listed below.
2.The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
4. The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
PEBBLE BEACH COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE A/D
02665 I 1601 PARADISE LANE NEW STAIRWAY APPROVE 5 YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
I
Cynthia Cornetet REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
WIOTA COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
13810
I1749 AVOCET LANE
Bob & Sharron Riebe
ELECTRIC LIGHT,
OUTLET, AND
PUMP
APPROVE OUTLET, LIGHT, AND PUMP ACCORDING TO
//15 ON THE FLOW CHART, "GRANT PERMIT UP TO 3
YEARS AND RENEWABLE"
BLACK LAKE LANE, SHORELINE TYPE D
NEW STAIRWAY
31360 &
31390
4608 KILDARE ROAD
Bill Voss
4610 KILDARE ROAD
Todd Smith
APPROVE 5 YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
BRIGHTON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
51030
2933 CAMBRIDGE LN
Beverly Christianson
REPLACE EXISTING
STAIRWAY
APPROVE 5 YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS: DOCK SITE~-~'~_., 12550.13810, 22360.31360.31390, AND 51030
Perks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The City of Mound is updating the permits for
structures located on public lands. Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permits as shown
on Exhibit A, below, subject to the following conditions:
Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments" noted on Exhibit
A.
2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
The Park Commission reviewed each site separately.
PEBBLE BEACH COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE A/D
1601 PARADISE LANE NEW STAIRWAY APPROVE 5 YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
Cynthia Cornetet REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
The Parks Director explained that this is a new stairway to an existing dock site.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval of the
stairway, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
PUBLIC !~AND PERMITS: DOCK SITES 02665. 12550F~-J22360, 31360, 31390, AND 5103,',
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The City of Mound is updating the permits for
structures located on public lands. Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permits as shown
on Exhibit A, below, subject to the following conditions:
1. Permits shall be approved according to the 'Recommendation/Comments' noted on Exhibit
A.
The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
The Park Commission reviewed each site separately.
J 1749 AVOCET LANE J ELECTRIC LIGHT, J R~MOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES.
..... J Bob & Sha*'on Riebe J OUTLET, AND J
I I PUMp I
The Parks Director explained to the Commission that staff determined the light, outlet, and pump
should be removed from the commons, as it is inconsistent with the guidelines. When staff applied
the flow chart to this request, they determined the light, outlet and pump will not "enhance end
encourage the use of the public lands by the general public.* Both Goode and Ahrens disagreed and
feel a permit should be granted for three yeers, end renewable. Goode noted that the light is not
obtrusive, and the pump end outlet are used to water the lawn which is not · negative impact.
Ahrens emphasized thet abutters are also part of the *general public". The Parks Director asked the
Commission to consider how this epproval could set a precedence for other cases. Schmidt
suggested that the pump and electric be allowed to remain, but that the light be moved to private
property. Meyer noted that the electric in the light post could be capped within e box that could be
level with the grade, and an extension cord of about 4 feet long could then be extended to the pump
on the dock.
MOTION made by Casey to recommend that the light, outlet, and pump be removed,
as recommended by staff. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed.
Geffre noted that the Commission has already recommended approval of pumps on other docks.
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Steinbring to recommend that the pump and
outlet be allowed to remain with the outlet box flush to the ground, and that the light
be relocated onto private property.
It was noted that this light is a good 70 feet +/- from private property. Ahrens stressed that this
area is different, and the light is not obtrusive and it should be allowed to remain. The Guidelines for
Lights on the Commons were reviewed and Ahrens noted that she does not agree with the guidelines.
Goode emphasized that this light is existing, and it should be allowed to remain, but if it were a
request for a new light she would look at it differently.
Darling withdrew his motion.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt to recommend approval of the outlet,
light, and pump according to//14 on the flow chart, which states, "Grant permit up to
5 years and renewable. The motion was subsequently withdrawn by Ahrens.
MOTION made by Geffre, seconded by Darling to recommended approval of the light
and outlet accoarding to //16 on the flow chart, "Grant permit up to 3 years, not
renewable. To be checked annually.'
Byrnes stated that she in not in favor of the motion because of the "not renewable.' It was
discussed that the option should be available to have the light and electric renewable.
MOTION made by Goode, aeconded by Ahrens to recommend the outlet, light, and
pump be permitted according to//15 on the flow chart, 'Grant permit up to 3 years
and renewable.' MOTION carried 6 to 3. Thoae In favor were: Goode, Ahrens,
Byrnea, Schmldt, Steinbrlng, and Geffre. Dading, Casey, and Mayer were opposed.
Casey commen,ed tha~ he was in favor of staff's recommends,ion.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS: DOCK SITES 02665, 12550, 13810, 22360.~31~60, 3_1390JAND 5103n
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The City of Mound is updating the permits for
structures located on public lands. Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permits as shown
on Exhibit A, below, subject to the following conditions:
Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments" noted on Exhibit
A.
2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
The Park Commission reviewed each site separately.
BLACK LAKE LANE, SHORELINE TYPE D
31360 & 4608 KILDARE ROAD NEW STAIRWAY APPROVE 5 YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
Bill VOSS REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
31390 4610 KILDARE ROAD
Todd Smith
The Parks Director explained that this will be a new stairway to be shared between two dock site
holders.
MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval as
recommended by staff. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Darling,
Goode, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbring. Casey abstained.
Casey explained that he did not get a chance to look at the site.
~ ii, ,it, il ,11,
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS: DOCK SITES 02665, 12550, 13810, 22360, 31360, 31390, AN d__51030--]
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The City of Mound is updating the permits for
structures located on public lands. Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permits as shown
on Exhibit A, below, subject to the following conditions:
Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments" noted on Exhibit
A.
2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
The Park Commission reviewed each site separately.
BRIGHTON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
Beverly Christianson STAIRWAY REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
51030
The Parks Director explained that this request is to replace an existing dilapidated stairway.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval as
recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY of MOUND
5341 M" ','WOOD ROAD
MOUND:. M',t',,"~.ESOTA 5536.'-1687
.... ' ,'¢6' £ 472.0600
FAX Et2) 472-0620
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 9, 1994 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting
Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~
(.,/- -
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS FOR DOCK SITES: 02665, 12550, 13810, 22360, 31360,
31390, AND 51030.
The City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands. City Code Section
320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public
way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons.
Staff recommends approval of the Public Land Permits as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject
to the following conditions:
Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments" noted on the
attached Exhibit A.
2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval..
3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
~ oriPte~ o~ recvc!ed ¢3cer
Park and Open Space Commission Meeting
June 9, 1994
"EXHIBIT A"
Public Land Permits
1729 GULL LANE
Rose Bialon
12550
1381O
WIOTA COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE D
OLD CONCRETE
BLOCK STAIRWAY
1749 AVOCET LANE ELECTRIC LIGHT,
Bob & Sharon Riebe OUTLET, AND
PUMP
STAIRWAY UNSAFE. STAIR AND DOCK SPACE ARE
NOT USED AT THIS TIME. RECOMMENDATION IS FOR
STAFF TO WORK WITH ABUTTING OWNER TO REMOVE
STAIRWAY AND DOCK LICENSE WILL NOT BE ISSUED
UNTIL STAIRWAY ISSUE IS RESOLVED.
REMOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES.
BLACK LAKE LANE, SHORELINE TYPE D
31360 & I 4608 KILDARE ROAD I NEW STAIRWAY I APPROVE 5 YEAR PERMIT. INSTALLATION AS
J Bill Voss J j
3139o 14510KILDARE ROAD I REOU~RED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
~dd Smith I
CITY
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
OF MOUND, 5341 Mavwood Road, Mound MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0626
55364
DISTRIBUTION:
BUILDING OFFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
DATE RECEIVED
PARK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE
~ che__~ one)
I~1
I--I
I.
I~1
I.. I
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT
SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3}.
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in
an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation,
fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4).
like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the
City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some
time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a
limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building
Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change
in dock site holder.
Applicant Name Jy/4~ ~f~. (~/~ ~:f'
Address /~ /~c/. ,,~.-,;/~-,,.,.
Phone (home) ~7~ ~:~/~ (work)
Abutting Address ~ ~6~ ~r);~/~,
Property Owner ~ ~~ [~ ~ '~o~~'~/~63
Legal Lot ~ / Block
Description Subd.
Pub 1 i c Name~
Property Dock Site $ Shoreline Type.
Contractor Name ~~ O
Address ~~) ~<~ ~,
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): ~~3,~
Signature of Applicant
Date
~A¥-2~-94 TUE 13:23 AP TECHNOLOGY
il,, ~, ,il
FAX NO, 6126280106 P, 01
i~j~i;'~i~il Cynthia Li~ns
~:=~=~==~=~,,.~{i...~.:=~= Proposed Exterior Stair
Number of pages Including cover sheet: 2
AP Technology Managem t't, Inc.
600 West County Road D ~ ./
New BHghton, MN S&ll2
USA
axCoverS
~l~J~ Building & Zoni
..............................
Message:
Attached you will find the drawing for the proposed stair to be constructed at the
waterfront near my home. The total rise is approximately 7'-0' and the total run is
approximately 23'-0"; the step rise and run will be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code. Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any
questions or comments.
RRY-24-94 TUE 13~24
RP TECHNOLOGY
F~qX NO. 6126280106
P. 02
WOO0 DECKING I 2 X MIN.;
NOSING
STEEL ANGLE BEYOND
"TREADS ANO RISERS
2 X MIN.
_J
CARRIAGE
-CHAMFER
STEEL ANGLE WITH
LAG BOLTS TO
HEAVY TIMBER STAIR
,~TE EL ANGLE WITH LAG
OR THROUGH BOLTS TO
ROUGH HORSE
CARRIAGE ~
AND ~IAGE
~ECTION
13-117-24
GOVT--~T
......... 15~ I. 5,1 RES .......
(WEST ARM)
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 1994
BATCH 3: Wlota Common, PeabodY tane. Waterside Common. ton~ford Road. Kenmore Common.
and Excelsloc Lane
Parks Detecto(, Jim Facklar, reviewed the report fo( Batch 3. City staff is in the Ixocess of updating
permits fo( encroachments on pubr. c lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are
required for I~ivata structures located on pubfic lends as specified in City Code Sect;on 320.
Staff recommended approval of Public Land Permits ss listed on "Batch #3", es fMowa:
t. Unless otherwise noted in the *Comments/1:~ecommendation" column on the attached 'Batch
4'3", permits shall be approved acco(ding to (14) on the Decision Row Chart, "Grant Permit
up to 5 Years and Renewable."
2. The permits will expire five (5} years from the date of City Council approval.
3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
4. All electrical work on public p~operty ia required by State law to be installed by a qualified
licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspecto(.
The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be
submitted showingin detail the location of ail electrical sewices on the public land. All power
supply to the abutting property must be p~opedy disconnected until such wo(k is approved by
the City Council. 'l~e applicant must verify disconnection with staff.
Ail these requests will be fo(warded to the City Council fo( final action on April 26, 1994.
The Commission determined to review each dock site individually.
WIOTA COMMONS, CLASS D
DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROAC34MENT COMMENTSA~COMMENOATtON
13810 1749 AVOCET LANE OUTLET&PUMP API~OVE PERMIT PENDING UPDATE TO COOE.
ELECTI~C LIGHT liE. MOVE - INCONSISTENT WlTH GUIDEUNE$.
The Parks Directo( clarified that there are not other lights, outlets o( pumps on Wiote Commons, and
suggested the Park Commission review the guidelines fo( lights. As questioned by Ahrens, Fackler
noted that staff does not feel this light compass with I1 of the Guidelines fix Allowing Lights on
Public Lands, which states, "Lights are allowed only to illuminate substantial safety hazard areas such
es stairways with an excessively steep incline, end fo( substantial security reasons."
Bob Riebe explained to the Commission that he would like the light, outlet, end pump to remain. He
explained that the light was installed in 1984 by Glen Neddemeyer and that it is installed to code.
The pump is attached to the dock in the summer and is removed in the winter. The pump utilizes the
electrical outlet on the light, and the pump is hooked up to the underground slxinkler system. Their
propem/is the end of the commons that abuts properties with private lakesh~e, and they all have
lights just like this one so he does not see how his light would look out of plK:e.
Cesey questioned if the outlet could be moved onto private property and how this would wo(k,
mechanically. The applicant stated that an extension co(d would have to run from the outlet, across
the commons, to the pump.
Schmidt noted that the LMCD is reviewing their light policy and maybe this issue should be tabled
until they complete their policy review.
Darling summarized that this light is on public land and questioned if the light gives the impression
that this is private lend. He also questioned how this light pole compares to a l~rd house which was
previously reviewed, end stressed the need fo( consistency of standards by ~ Commission.
It was noted that the light pole ia 120' +/- from the applicant's house.
MOTION made by Cesey to recommend approval of staff mcommendaEon for removal
of the light, and to table the portion of tho request relating to the oudet and the pump
In order to determine the respective benefits. Motion seconded by Dugng.
Casey requested that the cost for removal of the outlet and pump be provided by the applicant.
Ahrens commented that the cost should not be e consideration.
Mr. Riebe stressed that fact that the pump is used to water the commons sue and it would be an
injustice to not approve the pump end outlet which have exJstad fo( ten years.
MOTION oarrted $ to 3. Those In favor were: Dallng, Cassy, Meyer, (:3afire, end
Stelnbdng. Those opposed were: eyrnoe, Alvene, end Schnddt.
Cesey commented that he would like to see the mechanics of how the IXXnp works because he
cannot see the burden o( hardship for the landowner to place this equipment on their own property.
There was some discussion about the difference in taxes between private lakeshore property and
properties that abut the commons.
II ,I J i, LJ , I1 I
,~ V C,',Z g 'F /.- zv
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Ro.ad. Mound, bin
Phone: 472-0/500, Fax. 472-0620
55364
~ISTRIBUTION:
BUILDING OFFICIAL
-PARKS DIRECTOR
-DNR
MCWD
DAT". ' ECEIVED_
PARK MEETING DATE
COUNCIL DATE
~check ,one):
~e CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT
SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 1).
e ~ PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure
I I (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
~ ~ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE to allow an existing improvement to remain in
an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
~. _~ LAI~D ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation,
fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4).
like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the
CltF to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some
time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a
limited time and are non-transferable. StairwaF construction must meet the State Building
Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change
in dock site holder.
Applicant Name
Property O~er
Legal Lot .x
Block
Description Su~.
Property Dock Site $ ~/3~ /~/f~ Shoreline T~e.J~
Address ~ -
Phone ~ -
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS)
Signature/f AppliCant
Date
Il
? ~
18
lg
(62)
~ ~_o_ _, ~ _, i_ ._ ~_s_ _ -/
RD
(4)'\ .
FROM : ACAD - ~v C.
PHONE NO. : 612 472 1347
Ma~, 15 1994 10:54PM F~
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATIOI
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road. Mound. MN
Phone: 472-0~00, FaX: 472-0620
55364
~0FFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
CITY COUNCIL DATE=
Icheck lone),
, _, CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PKRHIT
SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINOS ON PUBLIC LAND
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 1).
JX~J PUBLIC ~D ~INTXN~CE PE~IT - to allow repairs to an existing ot=u~ture
(City Coda Section 320, $ubd. 3).
~--~ CONTI~ATION OP STRUCTURE to allow an existing ~provemant to =e~a~n in
I I --
an "as is' condition (City Coda Section 320, Subd. 3).
I--I
~ ~D ALTE~TION - change in shoreline, drainage, slo~, tr.es, vegetation,
f~ll, e~c. (Cl~y Code Section 320, Subd. 4).
like boa~ houses, p~t~o., sheds, etc. sro all NONCONFO~IN~ USES. It Is the intent of the
CLtF to bring all these uses into oonfo~ance which means that those structures will at some
tho In tho future have to bo removed from the p~lLc lands, All po~ta are granted for I
lhited tine and are non-transferable. Sta~a~ const~ctlon must -eat the State BuLldLng
~de uhon the pem~t La for nov construction, or a nov pe~t Ls applLed for duo to change
~ dock s~te holder.
Address. 2933 Cambridoe Lan~
Phone (home) 472-8082 (work)
_ ~escription Subd. ' '
Public Name_Beve
Property Dock Site # ~o~n Shoreline Type~n m~-w
Contractor Name se~£
Address, -
Phone
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR &MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST& PURPOSE: ~epair exist/no stairs to
sob
_ .gnatu~ of Applicant
Date -
Bm~mrlw I'1 Chrl~tl~n~on
PHOI,~ I,,113.
; ~2 Q72 8002
P01
Company: City of_Mo_und
Attention: Jon Sutherland
FAX Number: .472-06_20
Pa§e Count: 1 ot' 2
S/24/94
I'm not pleased with ~ drawings, but I leave for Canada tomorrow ~fternoon. If I'm goir~ to
comply. I need to get something to you tonight. Any corrections you might h~ve, ! hope be ~bte
to resubmit a new drawing tomorrow.
I hope to fix the stairs told-June ~nd to do zhat i need to get ~e permit.
Please call me before ngo,, will, ~'9' ch~u,ge$ you have.
! w~nt to th~nk you for III ~f),our help. Thirds here aren't pcb-feet ~nd It will t~k¢ time
ener~, to 8et ever),thir~ to m norrned state. I~ven if over, in8 here wa~ perfect, I ~tlll wouldn~
~ntlelp~te ~et~lng ~he klmd of re=pon-.e ~nd cooper~on you've ~iven me. Thenk you.
Sincerely,
Beverly M. Chri~tian~on
2933 Cambridge Lane
Mound, Minnesota .55364
Phone 612-472-8082
FAX 61 2-4)2-1347
FROH ; Bewerlw ['I Chrl~l~n~on
PHONE biO.
612 472 8882
P02
36 Inches
Commons
Landing to
Lake
Top View of
Repairs to
Existing Stairs
on the Commonns
First set of
Stairs to the
Lake
Side View of Stairs
Inches
Inches
{Not drawn to scale)
tandln# I~ween
~l~t set and second
sel of st~lr~
Maximum .~ize
32 square feet
Second set of stairs
tO the Lake
I 36 Inches I
Lake Minnel.onka
FROM
: ACAD - Bev C.
PHONE ND.
: 612 472 1~7
Maw.
15 1994
10:53PM
ComPany: ._C:i_~ of Mound
Attention: pe_~Z ....
FAX Number: 472-0620
Page Count: 1 of 2
S/I 5/94
Dear Peggy,
I'm not sure I'm addressing this to the right person, but I'm confident you will be kind enough to
redirect this to the right person.
There is a recent Survey ot' the property on file and I'm requesting permission to repair an
exlstlng stairway to the lake. I have a few concerns. There Is an existing landing that may have to
be replaced with something smaller to comply with the new regulations. I am scheduled to be
out of town May 2S-29th and June 4-18th. Can I have another person represent me at the
meetings, If I'm out of town?
If you can answer my questions or require additional information, please call me.
Sincerely,
Beverly M. Christianson
Beverly M. Christianson
2933 Cambridge Lane
Mound, Minnesota ,55364
Phone 61 2-472-8082
BUS (612~ 544-7619
SURVEYIN~ & LANE) PL ANNINO
590~ GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 223, GOLDEN VALLEY. MN 35422
Certificate of Surv E
HAROLD CHRISTIANSON
L...
180
E ~ ISTING
DECK
o~
L
L E Y
--I00.OO--
HOUSE
d.--6'WOOD F['~C.:F.. --IOO. OO--
',1
,I
/'EXISTING ~
I ~ /. G A~,~ /. ~ I
,q
- --2.3. Z .......
0 Denotes Iron.
_~,)E$CRIPTIDN OF PROPERTY:
Lots 7{8~
WYCHWOOD HEN~EPI~ C0~ MI~/,
SCA LE: '1"= 20'
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE I,AND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF file LOCATION Of ALt. BUILDINGS iF ANY
THEREON, AND ALl VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, rF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND
Dated th,,. /~"'"'"/ day al.. "4;;z"::s~"'~ _A.D. 19~'~
Su, veyar M~,~ halOID Reglltrol,on NO /-~ ~ ~.%'-"
Book 13 Page... 73
Sec ~-~ T. ~ R. _~,
L KE
RIGHTON
bric. ret
(4o) (4o)
34~
140)
/~5.00
Wood
_Conc. C6nc.
Walk walk
8005 --..
Conc.
ret. wall
101. 04
(52)
wail- ~
st~wy
(40)
7 ~ I0 9
(.go) (52) (40)
10/. O0
( COOK'
~5 s ,
24.117
12-B
(8'1
'~YCH~O00
40
,o~ AFTON RD
LESLIE RD
': ~L~O~ ~ s~7~,o MANC.~ [STER
'11
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
-SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND
INCLUDING A RETAINING WALL, STAIRWAY, AND LAND ALTERATIONS
ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
LOT 7, BLOCK 7, DEVON
DOCK SITE #42351
WHEREAS, the City of Mound requires permits for private structures located
on public lands, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a
four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or
the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, on May 25, 1993 a permit for a stairway was granted for this dock
site, Resolution//93-68, which has now expired, and;
WHEREAS, The City and the previous owner at 4729 Island View Drive, Mr.
Dean Hanus, were involved in litigation in which the City prevailed and obtained an
order for removal of the boathouse on the abutting commons. The boathouse was
partially removed by Mr. Hanus and restoration is still incomplete
WHEREAS, new owner of the abutting property, Michael Henry, has revised
the plans for the abutting commons and has submitted an application for a permit to
lower the height of the existing retaining walls, modify the slope to a more natural
grade, and fill in the old boathouse, and install a new stairway. This plan utilizes
existing on-site materials and modifies the slope to a more natural grade, and;
WHEREAS, this proposal is a combination and compromise of the applicant's
initial request and the City's staff recommendation, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed this request
and unanimously recommended approval with conditions as recommended by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Permit to a one year permit to complete the alterations on the
commons according to the plan and specifications as submitted (Exhibit A),
w!th the following conditions:
Full compliance with the escrow agreement dated June 1, 1994 as
prepared by the City Attorney.
JI I I I ~n~ ,It I ,ii
Proposed Resolution
Page 2
The new stairwav shall be installed to code as required bv the Building
Official.
The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation
and maintenance of the retaining walls and stairways.
If compliance has not been achieved within one year of date of approval
of the permit, the applicant's dock license will be revoked until all
provisions in the permit are met. If the applicant has not completed all
the necessary work set out in the permit within one (1) year of approval
of this resolution, any rights to construct or maintain these allowed
improvements on public land shall be considered revoked and City staff
is authorized and directed to proceed to remove all improvements and
complete restoration not authorized and approved by the City Council.
The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council
approval, in the event full compliance with the resolution is achieved
within one (1) year.
f. The permit must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
g?~A cope of this resolution granting ~ sp~ial permit shall be f~ed as a
~ ememorial in the office of the registrar of titles of Hennepin County or in
~the office of the County Recorder if the property is abstracted property.
~The legal description of this property affected by this permit is:
Lot 7, Block 7, Devon.
The applicant shall file and pay the costs of filing a Certified copy of this
resolution. A copy of the recorded document with all recording data
shown by proper County officials shall be submitted to the City Clerk.
*The City Attorney may advise whether item "g." should be included in this
resolution.
I I I I I , ~, I ,I
l'lJJ~$ & $I'ECIIrICATIOM$ FOg PROFOSE3) ~;STOL4.'L'ION .tXD NODXIfIC~?XOI
~O Dm CC~4011, JJOrflK 4737 lll.~l) ~1~ Pf.X~I
E X H I B I T 'A'
4737 TS~ V~EW DR~E
RESOLUTION tf94-
~ 28, 1994
SLAND VisW
~I~PR~vE~ BY ~aF~', AiL
i
(Orn~n~ not
~o-~¢n1~ ~
reduced)
~o, Iggl
~ WRI,1,.. , MoDPf
11. lffi',~ Ii,. ADDITIC:,U~L
/IND I"IE To' F..,KI%T 1~14,'~
I, IF.E. PF~.
JI I I I ~n, ,ii, I ,I
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
PUBLIC LAND pERMIT: DOCK SITE 842351, MICHAEL HENRY, 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
SHORELAND RESTORATION
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a permit to lower the
height of the existing retaining walls, install a new stairway, modify the slope to a more natural grade,
and fill in the old boathouse area using materials from the site, as shown on the attached plan. The
proposed work is a combination of the applicant's initial request to extend the expired permit
(Resolution//93-68) and the City's staff recommendations.
The City and the previous owner at 4729 Island View Drive, Mr. Dean Hanus, were involved in
litigation in which the City prevailed and obtained an order for removal of the boathouse on the
abutting commons. The boathouse was partially removed by Mr. Hanus and restoration is still
incomplete. After resolution of this lawsuit, a Lis Pendens was filed with the County and this put a
restriction on the sale of the property. The applicant and staff met on several occasions working out
a compromise that we feel is achievable by the applicant and minimizes the level of private
encroachment on the public land.
Staff recommended approval of a one year permit to complete the alterations on the commons
according to the plans and specifications as submitted, with the following conditions:
Full compliance with the escrow agreement dated June 1, 1994 as prepared by the City
Attorney.
2. The new stairway shall be installed to code as required by the Building Official.
The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance of the
retaining walls and stairways.
If compliance has not been achieved within one year of date of approval of the permit, the
applicant's dock license will be revoked until all provisions in the permit are met. If the
applicant has not completed all the necessary work set out in the permit, any rights to
construct or maintain these allowed improvements on public land shall be considered revoked
and City staff is authorized and directed to proceed to remove all improvements not authorized
and approved by the City Council.
The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, in the event full
compliance with the resolution is achieved within one (1) year.
6. The permit must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
Chair Schmidt confirmed that the applicant is in agreement with staff recommendation.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend approval of the
request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
The applicant was informed that this recommendation will be reviewed by the City Council on June
28, 1994.
CITY
of MOUND
Staff Report
534! MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
i6~2) 472-0600
FAX 6~2) 472-0620
DATE:
June 9, 1994 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting
TO:
FROM:
APPLICANT:
Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff
¢.
Jori Sutherland, Building Official ~(~[.~
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Michael B. Henry
ADDRESS: 4737 Island View Drive, Lot 7, Block 7, Devon
DOCK SITE: #42351
COMMONS: Devon Commons
SHORELINE: Type C
SUBJECT: PUBLIC LAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Applicant's Request and Background
The applicant is seeking a permit to lower the height of the existing retaining walls, install
a new stairway, modify the slope tea more natural grade, and fill in the old boathouse area
using materials from the site, as shown on the attached plan. The proposed work is a
combination of the applicant's initial request to extend the expired permit (Resolution//93-
68) and the City's staff recommendations.
The City and the previous owner at 4729 Island View Drive, Mr. Dean Hanus, were involved
in litigation in which the City prevailed and obtained an order for removal of the boathouse
on the abutting commons. The boathouse was partially removed by Mr. Hanus and
restoration is still incomplete. After resolution of this lawsuit, a Lis Pendens was filed with
the County and this put a restriction on the sale of the property. The applicant and staff met
on several occasions working out a compromise that we feel is achievable by the applicant
and minimizes the level of private encroachment on the public land. Please note the attached
background information including:
1. Jon Sutherland's letter dated March 4, 1994 to Dean Hanus.
Staff Report
Henry, 4737 Island View Drive
June 9, 1994
Page 2
2. Henry's first letters dated May 3, 1994.
3. Jon Sutherland Response dated May 11, 1994.
4. Ed Shukle's letter dated May 23, 1994.
5. First Security Title letter dated May 27, 1994.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a one year permit to complete the alterations on the commons
according to the plans and specifications as submitted, with the following conditions:
Full compliance with the escrow agreement dated ~___/I /~as prepared by the City
Attorney.
2. The new stairway shall be installed to code as required by the Building Official.
3. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and
maintenance of the retaining walls and stairways.
If compliance has not been achieved within one year of date of approval of the permit,
the applicant's dock license will be revoked until all provisions in the permit are met.
If the applicant has not completed all the necessary work set out in the permit, any
rights to construct or maintain these allowed improvements on public land shall be
considered revoked and City staff is authorized and directed to proceed to remove all
improvements not authorized and approved by the City Council.
The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, in the
event full compliance with the resolution is achieved within one (1) year·
6. The permit must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
JS:pj
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road. Mound. MN 55364
Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620
.... ~ISTRIBUTION:
BUILDING OFFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
DATE RECEIVED
PARK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE
check ne)
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT
SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 1).
I~1
I
PUBLIC IJ%Hl) MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
~--' CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in
an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
'~' I~ ~TER~TION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation,
fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4).
lik~ boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCO~O~XN~ USES. It Is the intent of the
City to brin~ ill these uses into confo~ance which means that those st~ctures will
t~e In the fature have to be removed from the p~lic lands. All p~mits are ~ranted for
l~lted t~e and are non-transfer~le. Staimay const~ction suet sect the State
~dm when the p. mit is for haw constmction, or I new p.mlt is ~pplied for due to
In dock sit~ holder
' Applicant Name /~/~'/ ~
Phone (home) 9~ -/~O J (work)
~utting Address
Property Owner ~,% ~f / ~ HCa r/
Legal Lot ~ Block
Description Su~.
Public Name ~ ~a
Property Dock Site $ Shoreline Type
Contractor Name K~n
Address
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE:
I
Signature of Appl~ic~
.7/
· m I I I I , # I I
_,UST t)'PHIDL 6L,~ 1~ VPI1CH
E~ST. ~uST,~,t Pt. AU'~I.-5
Al:~PR~vr::b BY' 6"rAl~, AI~L
N 5TAI, L
~5
App~ov6C, e.Y
5 ~A1X. NOT P~6c
I
1961
J J,,
(FOR OFF'-~CE USE ONLY)
I,G#NEHAHA CREEK,
NA. TERSHED DISll~CI'
Hinnetonka, MN 55345.
Permit Appllcat4on No. --
Date Received -
Notice Sent
Agenda Date ' -
i.
AppI...ZCAI'"XON FOR PERI4IT - FORHA
(See Reverse Side For Instructions)
:~ ) (Address
(Telephone~ (ZSp~
3. Perm~Reques~d For:~/~¢~eE~ all appropriate.
Stormwater Hanagemeni Plan'" C.~E~"Floodplain Alteration
Hetland Alteration
O Commercial : C)
CI Dredging
O Industrial
O Institutional or Highway G~ CI ShoreltnelBank Xmprovement
O Residential C) Stream/Lake Crossing
NOTE: ApPlicants to Lay SandblanKets Hust Use Applicmtton For Fermlt-FOPJ4 B
4. Pro~ect LOCatlOn~q/~O~"~ ~ (Range)
(City) (County) (~ Sec.) (Sec,) (Township)
5.
6. If This Pro~ect Requtres Huntctpal Approval or Review, Attach Documentation
of Municipal Revtew. -
'7.' .l~.,y o~ ~ate~t ~r~am,or ~etland Affect by Runoff From This 5Ire: _~a~ _
~t~~ ,r6~(/~o~ _ Distance From Pro~ect:
8. Schedule For Construction, Implementation of TemporarY Erosion Controls.
Substantial Completion and Restoration: ' co ~ ;f~;~ ~' ~
CITY of MOUND
Letter of Agreement
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND MINNESOTA 55364.' 687
t6121 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
This agreement, by and between the City of Mound, 5341 Maywood
Road, Mound, Minnesota,
hereinafter referred to as "City.., and
Mound, MN, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant.,,
The City of Mound is aware that the applicant is seekin a e
from the DNR / Watershed, herei .... g p rmit
. nurser re~erred to as "aa~,,.
the following improvements:~~S~or~ ~, ~ ....z , to make
on the public property known as ~
The ApPlicant is not a representative of the City and is personally
requesting the permit from the agency.
The Applicant shall apply to the agency as an "applicant. and list
the City as the "owner,. to ensure that the City is kept apprised of all
actions during the permit process.
When the agency has completed processing the application, the
agency shall convey their recommendation to the City of Mound, and the
City of Mound will complete the Public Lands Permit process.
Signatures
Pp lcant
DATE
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
{612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472~620
March 4, 1994
Fax 930-0509
Mr. Dean Hanus
4737 Island View Drive
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT: PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION OF BOATHOUSE AND RESTORATION OF
EFFECTED AREA
Dear Mr. Hanus:
This letter is to confirm our phone conversation of March 3, 1994 regarding your
demolition permit for the boathouse. It is the position of the City that as part of the
boathouse demolition you are responsible for restoration of the area.
As you are aware, this restoration work may not proceed until the City and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approve of your restoration plan. As
an example of a plan, I have faxed and discussed with you the City's restoration plan
used for the proiect at 4729 Island View Drive adiacent to your residence. This plan
was prepared by the City Engineer and was also approved by the MCWD. It is my
understanding, through our discussion, that you would like to replicate the City's plan
by filling the building site and matching existing adiacent grades as much as possible.
Your plan should include all of the information noted on the attached supplemental
data sheet, and a completed Public Lands Permit Application. In addition to this
information, you will need a survey with elevations to detail existing and proposed
grades, and the amount of fill to be placed below the 931.5 elevation. A full cross
section is needed to detail the amount and type of fill to be placed above any masonry
that may be left in place, and detail the amount of concrete block that will remain.
Y'our plan must be first submitted to the City for review, and preliminary approval,
then to the MCWD with a letter supporting your request from our City Manager. The
MCWD will not approve a permit request without the CiW's recommendation.
The Department of Natural Resources does not regulate fill in the shoreland zone
above the OHW elevation of 929.4, however, we notify them as a courtesy. They
normally give a verbal approval as long as they know the CiW and MCWD is involved.
p~nte~l on r~Y¢led ~al~r
Mr. Dean Hanus
March 4, 1994
Page 2
It is anticipated that one of the conditions of approval by the MCWD will be that
compensatory floodplain storage will have to be provided. The City may be able to
provide for compensatory storage, however, you will be responsible for proportionate
costs to have the City provide this service. At this time, I am unable to give you any
cost estimates because we don't know how much fill will be placed in the floodplain,
or have a final plan for the City's compensatory work.
One of the City's concerns is erosion potential. It is my understanding you will not
be removing any of the masonry walls below existing grades at this time or until an
appropriate plan for restoration is finally approved by the City. If you want to
demolish these masonry walls below grade, a plan for erosion control must be
provided for City approval before the project is started. Demolition requirements
mandate removal of all debris and foundation wall two feet (2') below grade.
A temporary safety guardrail or fence needs to be installed as soon as possible to
provide safe access adjacent to this area.
As you are aware, the compliance date for Resolution #93-68 pertaining to the
stairway construction, etc. is coming up May 25, 1994. If you would like to meet on
the site pertaining to this issue, please contact Jim Fackler or myself. We are working
jointly on commons issues and we are both available to answer any of your questions.
Unfortunately, we will both be out of the office from 3-7-94 to 3-11-94. If you have
any questions during that time, contact Peggy James at 472-0600 as we will be
keeping in touch with her.
Respectfully,
Building Official
JS:pj
Enclosure
cc:
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Jim Fackler, Parks Department
Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
Ellen Sones, MCWD
RECEIVED 5
May 3, 1994
Ed Schukle, Jr. City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
This is a request to extend the compliance date for resolution/~93-65 regarding Devons
Commons, abutting 4737 Island View Dr., Block 7, Lot 7, Devon, Dock site ~/42351.
We, Michael B. & Lisa M. Henry are in the process of purchasing above property with a
proposed closing date of May 27, 1994. Due to the lawsuit on this property there is a
cloud on the title which is restricting us from purchasing said home. We are submitting
this proposal in good faith and with the hope that the city of Mound will accept our plans
and remove the court lien without the need to escrow moneys which in turn would allow
us to purchase the property and resolve the issues outlined in a time f~ame approved by
the city.
Dete:Febuary 3, 199~
Concept Landscaping, Inc.
3153 Priest Lane
Mound, MN 55,364
Phone 472-4110~750.4374
City of Mound attn. Jim Fackler
:5341 Maywood Road
Zip: Mound, MN 55364 -
472-0614
Estimate
MN Lic. ~(X)8997Contractor
Dredging Contractor.Lic. ~33.O4
Hanus boathouse and retainln.g wall
Demolish retaining walls to upper wall
Move earth to create grade same as Munson finish grade
Haul away old walls and debris
Spread with black dirt and erosion blanket.
Install balance (4 upper wall with existing material
, Balance day of completion
, ,,~ ~e,~ ~c.~y ,~c,. "am"m A~ ,~m~a ~..~.., ~ ~'~. ~ ."~"k- ~ mv~a~ ~om ,=~m
~~n~ ~ Pm~l- ~ ~ . ,
" ..... _~lgNa~re:
Resolution tt93-68
Point A.) Please see contractors blueprint.
B.) Please see contractors blueprint.
C.) Proposed owners acknowledge responsibility for maintenance and upkeep
of retaining walls during the course of ownership of property.
D.) After consultation with landscaper appropriate plantings shall be installed.
Some examples are: Eng_e!man I---.vY~& Vi--rginia C~per. These are to be
bought and planted b~ Owners within 60 days of proposed closing date of
May 27, 1994.
. E.) Patio blocks will be removed and area will be returned to a natural seeded
grass state to be bought and planted by owners within 60 days of
May 27, 1994.
F.) Flagpole has been removed bj/current homeowner.
G.) Wire fence will be removed within 60 days of May 27, 1994.
H.) Per building inspector, John Sutherland, electrical has been removed.
After a final inspection of interior wiring by building inspector, at his
convenience, this point will have been resolved.
*Acknowledged but not included in resolution is the issue of the removed
boathouse area. We would like to propose that homeowners will backfill and
grate to city's specifications if the city can provide appropriate fill.
In closing we would like to state that in complying with the city's resolution requirements
and the costs involved in purchasing and dosing on the property has pushed us to the
utmost financial limits. We are asking you, the city of Mound, to remove the lien without
the need to escrow moneys so that we may purchase the property and begin immediate
compliance with resolution tt93-68 and bring the issues and conflicts to an agreeable end.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Henry
Lisa M. Henry
KEI~ -ROB~.RTS C01~STRUCTIOM
2835 Co~unt~ .Road ~19
Me11$na, M_'? 55359
--- PROPOS~j5 --_
I -"fen 'Roberts, '~BA Ken Roberts ~ ~ ·
' -' ~onstru~tzon, agree to
perform the necessary carpentry work on guard/stair rails
and the (2) approved landings located at g.?37 Islandview Dr.
Cost of this work estimated at 'J1375.O0, to be complete~
within 60 ~ays of th~ closing date of ..... ~ 199~
-°.eturning removed boathouse area to conrorm '..;ith a~joining
commons ~orea, ~~n~ within guidlines of resolutiou, cost is
estimated at approx. * ~
" ,..5,-,0.00.
Signed
T,ic. -.-7-'20003306
Signed
144
May 25, 1993
RESOLUTION J93-68
RESOLUTION TO ~ppROVE ~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC I~NDS PERMIT
TO ~LLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF STAIRWAY IJ~NDINGS
ON DEVON COMMONS~ ~BUTTING 4737 I8~D VIEW DRI~
B~CK 7~ ~T 7~ DEVON~ ~CK SITE %42351'
~E~8, applicant, Dean Hanus, has applied for a
Const~ct[on on Public ~nds Pe~it to allow the construction of
stai~aY landinss, including a 3' x 12' upper landing attached to
the existing boathouse and a 6' x 6' mid landin~ for the stai~ay,
on Devon commons, ~utting 4737 Island View Drive, Block 7, ~t 7,
Devon, ~ck site ~42351, and~
~E~, City Code Section 320, re~ires City council
approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any
public way, park or co~ons, or the alteration of the natural
contour of any public way, park, or co~ons, and~
currently ~n l~tlgatlon
~EREaS, the city ~s with the
applicant regarding construction and reconstruction work on Devon
Co~ons without pe~its, and;
~EREA8, stai~ays are considered pe~issible by the Use
Plan for Devon Colons and also by the new Shoreland Management
ordinance, and;
~E~AS, the applicant's re~est includes anchoring the
upper landing to the boathouse. The boathouse has been ordered to
be remove4 by the council. This re~est is directly contrary to
the City's prior order. Approval of connection would conflict with
City council's decision of Dece~er 10, 1991 and May 26, 1992, and;
~EREAS, the upper ti~er stai~ay never received a
pe~it, and the City has not ordered removal, and;
~E~AS, the retaining walls never received a pe~it,
and ~e City has not ordered removal, and;
~EREAS, the guardrail on lake side of patio area has
never received a pe~it, and;
~EREAS, the patio area, currently covered with patio
blocks, is a hardcover surface and was recognized by Resolution
%78-372. The city's goal at that time per the Flow Chart was
,,Renewable up to 3 years contingent on the city's Use Plan", and;
~E~AS, the flagpole located in the patio area has
never received a pe~it, and;
144
Nay 25, 1993
k~ZR~AS, the wire fence on the east side of the subject
abutting property located on Devon Commons has never received a
permit, and;
WHEREAS, miscellaneous electrical and low voltage
lighting has never been permitted by the City, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this
request and recommended approval with conditions.
in favor and I opposed. The vote was 6
~OW, ?~EREFORE, B~ I~ RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit
Hanus to allow the construction of stairway landings for Dean
on Devon
Commons abutting 4737 Island View Drive, Block 7, Lot 7,
Devon, Dock Site ~42351, upon the following conditions:
The size of the upper landing shall not exceed 3' wide by
4' long and shall not be attached to the boathouse. The
smaller landing size is consistent with the Shoreland
Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200) and
reduces the impact to the shoreland. The mid-landing
within the stairway shall not exceed 4' x 6'. The
smaller size is still large enough to maneuver items to
and from the lake and represents less impact to the
shoreland An alternative would be to change the
location ~f the stairway to provide for less impact (note
original location on 1974 survey). If the stairway
location is changed, a new plan would have to be
submitted.
~. The upper timber stairs may remain subject to the
installation of a handrail and guardrail on all stairs as
approved by the Building Official
~. Retaining walls may remain subject to the owner
acknowledging that he constructe .
~?al of the City and is t~-~hes~-~alis without
m~ince~ance and .--,--- ~$ponslDle for
upkeep. If . their
deteriorate and are in need ofthe retaining walls
repair, it is the
responsibility of the owner of Lot 7 Block 7 Devon to
replace or repair the wall. ' ,
D. The g~ardrails may remain if they are buffered/screened
with plantings, paid for by the applicant and as approved
by staff.
145
May 2§, 1993
E. The patio area should be restored to a natural condition
and planted with natural vegetation that facilitates
screening of the retaining walls and buffers the visual
impact of the shoreland. A landscape plan for the patio
area must be prepared by the applicant and approved by
the staff.
F. The flagpole must be removed from the public commons.
G. Remove the wire fence located on Devon Commons.
All power supply to the commons from 4737 Island View
Drive must be temporarily disconnected by a qualified
electrical contractor and verified by staff. An
application may be filed, according to City Ordinances,
to allow the electrical work to remain. In the event an
application is not received within one year of the
approval date of this Resolution, all electrical work
shall be removed from the public commons.
I. The applicant shall be required to agree in writing to
the terms set forth in this resolution, and the Special
Permit. The Special permit will expire one (1) year from
the date of City Council approval and upon agreement by
the applicant to be bound by the conditions. In one year
staff will evaluate compliance. If compliance has been
achieved, the permit will be extended administratively
for four (4) years.
as not been achieved within one year of
com lian? ? _. 'he-ermit, staff will r comme 9_
date o£ appr~vu~ v~ _~_.f ,~ ~ ssued until comp~lanu=
applicant's uo?k. li~:'Tg~"ii.~e~ons set forth in t~?
with all Pr0v~ _ __ not completed a%l
.... -^rmit. If the applicant ha~ ..... * ~th ~n
the necessary wor~ ~u ~u~ ~" ~ .... ~-~s to construc= or
· hese allowed
maintain t ..... ~ ~-, ~aff is authorized and
be considere~ revoKeQ anu ~ ~
ected to proceed to remove a~l the improvements not
di~ ..... ~ --~roved by the C~ty Council.
au~orlzeG uuu a~ ~
Nothing contained in this approval shall be deemed by the
applicant or by the court to change prior actions or
prior orders of this Council for removal of the boathouse
as set forth in council resolutions adopted on December
10, 1991 and May 26, 1992. It is the intent of this
council to respond to the applicant's request to
construct and maintain a stairway from his private
146
May 25~ 1993
property to the public commons. It is not the intent to
modify or amend prior orders of the Council nor should it
be interpreted to in anyway modify, restrict, or change
the litigation filed by the City against Dean Hanus.
K. A copy of this resolution granting a special permit shall
be filed as a memorial in the office of the registrar of
titles of Hennepin County or in the office of the County
Recorder if the property is abstracted property. The
legal descript{on of this property affected by this
permit is:
Lot 7, Block 7, Devon.
The applicant shall file and pay the costs of f~ling a
Certified copy of this resolution. He shall provide the
City Clerk with a copy of the recorded document with all
recording data shown by proper County officials.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and
seconded by Councilmember Jensen.
The following Voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Voted in the negative: Ahrens.
Attest~
147
CITY of MOUND
534' MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 5536-:' ' ;.87
,6!2~ 472 0600
FAX {612~ 4720620
May 11, 1994
Mike and Lisa Henry
1285 North Arm Drive
Orono, MN 55364
SUBJECT: SHORELAND RESTORATION ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING
4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Henry:
Confirming our conversation of May 9, 1994, the information required in order to
pursue the proposed shoreland restoration on the commons abutting 4737 Island View
Drive is outlined below. Permit approvals are required from the City of Mound and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District {MCWD). Depending on your plans, there may
be a minor amount of fill to be placed in the floodplain. The MCWD requires
compensatory floodplain storage; the City may provide this at a per yard cost.
1. Certificate of Survey, including the following:
a. Existing and proposed work. '
b'./~Ordinary High Water elevation of 929.4.
Floodplain elevation of 931.5, and the amount of fill to be placed in the
floodplain must be shown.
2. Plans, drawn to scale, to include:
Full cross section drawing with details of existing and proposed work,
drawn to scale.
Restoration and landscape, with list of plantings.
~ Detail method of erosion control.
Cost estimates of work to be done, including cost of labor and materials.
Completed Public Lands Permit Application form.
o,,'~ted on ,ecvcled
4737 Islgnd View Drive
Msy ~ f, ~994
5. Signed Letter of Agreement between you and the City for the MCWI~
If your plans receive preliminary approval from City Staff, the City Manager will sign
the Letter of Agreement that must accompany your application to the MCWD for
alteration to the floodplain.
Enclosed for your reference, is the following information:
A copy of the Certificate of Surveys currently on file at the City for 4729 Island
View Drive, and 4737 Island View Drive.
The restoration plan and cross section drawing submitted for the work on the
commons adjacent to 4729 Island View Drive.
Application form for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Letter of
Agreement form.
Application for Public Lands Permit, including application deadline dates and
meeting dates.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jim Fackler or myself.
you. _..~
Jon Sutherland
Building Official
Thank
JS:pj
Enclosures
CC:
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Sandra Keegan, Burnet Realty, 19400 Hwy. 7, Excelsior, MN
File
55331
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOO0 ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-I 687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
May 23, 1994
Mike and Lisa Henry/
1285 North Arm Drive
Orono, MN 55364
RE:
Fax 445-8950
Also mailed May 23, 1994
Shoreland Restoration and Boathouse Restoration on Devon Commons
Abutting 4737 Island View Drive
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Henry:
Pursuant to our meeting of May 9, 1994, and subsequent telephone conversations
between yourselves and City staff, the following details what the City of Mound is
requiring regarding the commons property abutting 4737 Island View Drive:
l~he City of Mound will require you to apply for a Public Lands Permit
J Application to be submitted on or before June 1, 1994. The permit will detail
what the City of Mound is suggesting of you on the commons property as it
pertains to a permit for use of the commons. The City staff will review the
permit and will make a recommendation to the Park and Open Space
Commission at its June 9, 1994 meeting. The City Council will then hear the
Park and Open Space Commission's recommendation at its meeting on June
28, 1994. Assuming the City Council approves the permit, you will then have
· until January 15, 1995 to complete the work (please note that this is the date
f/ that the court had given Mr. Hanus to complete the boathouse removal).
/
/
~2. The City of Mound does not agree to extend the permit that was issued to Mr.
/ Hanus in Resolution #93-68. Rather, the staff has developed part of a plan for
you that will meet the needs of the City and will provide you with the
enjoyment of the commons property. To more specifically spell this plan out,
(see proposed plan enclosed) the following details should be noted:
Top wall (both sides of existing stairway): Remove 5 timbers and adjust
1
up-hill slope to match existing grade on adjacent sites. Install plantings
as approved by staff. Use soil that is removed and place it in boathouse
area.
Second Wall from Top: May remain as is.
Patio Area: Remove existing pavers and modify slope from base of
second wall to match the reduced height of third wall. Use soil that is
removed and place it in the boathouse area. Install plantings as
approved by staff. Match existing grade to west.
Third Wall from Top: Remove minimum of 6 timbers from this wall as
required by staff. Modify slope as noted above.
Fourth Wall from Top: Maintain this wall. Modify slope as required by
staff.
Boathouse area: (1) Install new retaining wall. Step down as required
to match new slope. (2) Install new retaining wall as required to tie into
new slope. Install additional anchoring and tie to existing walls as
needed.
Fill this area as required. Install new retaining wall to match west side.
Install plantings. Slope to match adjacent site as required.
Fill boathouse area slope to match adjacent site as required by staff.
Install new maximum 4 foot wide walkway between the lower and upper
stairway.
Install new handrail and guardrail on both sides of existing upper
stairway.
Install new stairway, maximum 4 feet wide, with handrail and guardrail
on both sides.
Remove lower existing stairway.
Additional fill may be needed to achieve desired final grade and shall be
provided by the applicant.
Plantings and restoration. All ground cover to be approved by staff.
Mature growth of plantings shall not block or hinder traversability.
2
Jon Sutherland, Building Official, drafted a letter dated May 11, 1994 to you
which outlined the information required in order to pursue the proposed
shoreline restoration and boathouse restoration on the commons abutting 4737
Island View Drive. Enclosed is a copy of that letter for your reference. This
information is still required as part of the application.
The City of Mound will require you to escrow $3000 which will assure the City
that the proiect will be completed per the proposed plan. Please remember that
in our meeting on May 9th, I indicated that for the City to come in and do this
work that is required, it would cost in the neighborhood of $3000 to $6000.
Assuming that the work is done to the City's satisfaction, the escrow deposit
will be refunded, less any specific costs that the City has to incur. An itemized
breakdown of those costs would be provided to you upon completion of the
proiect.
I recall from our meeting and subsequent phone conversations, that your financial
position may make this proiect difficult to achieve. However, I stated to you several
times at the meeting that although I am sympathetic to your situation, I cannot use
financial hardship as a reason to remove the Les Pendance on this property. It is up
to you to resolve that issue in order to proceed on the purchase of the Hanus
property.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
~..~.i~ce rely,
~'rd i Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
CC:
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
t/3'~on Sutherland, Building Official
Sandra Keegan, Burnet Realty
ES:Is
3
May 27, 1994
Mr. Gino Businaro
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
RE: 4737 Island View Drive - Release of Lis Pendens & Escrow
Purchasers _ Mr. and Mrs. Michael Henry
Dear Mr. Businaro:
In accordance with the instructions in a letter we received from Mr.
Shukle dated May 25, 1994 in regard to the above matter, we are enclosing
a check to the City of Mound in the amount of $3,000.00.
Per the above referenced letter, this is the amount required by the City
as an escrow in exchange for the Discharge of Lis Pendens on the property.
Please sign the copy of this letter below, and return it to us in the
enclosed envelope as your acknowledgement of receipt of the enclosed
funds.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Cordially,
Sherry S t elllm~ch
Real Estate Closer
File No: 94-06606
Enc.
The undersigned hereby acknowledges
receipt of $3,000.00 from First
Security Title
_ City of Mound
Wayzata Office
319 Barry Avenue · Suite 101 · Wayzata, MN 5539l · (t~12) 475-0340 · Fax 475-0592
First Securi/), Title a divi.~ioll of Burner Realh., Inc. 1~
OF MOUNU
Fax ~,75 - 0592
MaY 25, 199~'
Ms. SherrY Steilrnach
First Security 'iqtte
319 Barry Avenue
Suite 101
Wayzata, MN 55391
RE: Release of Lis Pendens - ~,737 Island View Drive
Mr. and Mrs. Mike Henry Purchasers of property from
Mr. Dean HanUS - First Security '1'%tie File #9~''06600
View
Dear Ms. Stettmach:
Discharge of Notice of Lis Pendens on the property at ~,'73'7 Island
· . -his rop~r~v is set for FridaY, May
Enclosed is a Mr. Dean Hanus and to be purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Mike
· ,,ders~andt g . o u~ o,, u ~e ~Y ~ .....
n tt ~s ~.~ ,,.~ ~nctOSe~ ~s a c P~, _. ~t~ Manager for t t~e
3 pM. ~ b myse~
[T, 1994',,' -ed Mrs. Hen~ and Y MaY 23, 199~ which indicates that
signed oY ~w,. ~.. is a leper d~ed 53000 escrow being
A~ached to the agreement aOu~ing
CI~ Is releasing the Lis pendens on t~e prope~ pursuant to a restoration,
set aside to the CIW of Mound so that the worlc on the commons prope~
Mrs. Hen~ to the
&T37 Islan~ View Drive, ~eaiing wit~ snore[and restoration an~ boathouse
in con~uncdOn wit~ t~e Ci~ and restores the
wilt be completed pursuant to a plan to ~e sub~i~ed by Mr. and
CIW. ~is plan ~es been developed closing on the pro~e~, please sub,it a cheC~
prope~Y to a reaSOnable sta~e- upon
payable to t~e Ci~ of Mound and send it to the a~en[ion of Gino BusinarO, Financ~
Director at the CIW of Mound, 53~1 MaVwood Road, Mound, MN 55364.
money wilt be held In escrow and upOn completion of the proieC:, according to
agreement, the escrow money wilt be returned tess any expenses ~irectiY incurred by
the CI~. If you have any questions, please contact
ncereW, '
Shukte, Jr.
Manager
Enclosures
ES:ts
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
-SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND
INCLUDING A RETAINING WALL, STAIRWAY, AND LAND ALTERATIONS
ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
LOT 7, BLOCK 7, DEVON
DOCK SITE #42351
WHEREAS, the City of Mound requires permits for private structures located
on public lands, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a
four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or
the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, on May 25, 1993 a permit for a stairway was granted for this dock
site, Resolution #93-68, which has now expired, and;
WHEREAS, The City and the previous owner at 4729 Island View Drive, Mr.
Dean Hanus, were involved in litigation in which the City prevailed and obtained an
order for removal of the boathouse on the abutting commons· The boathouse was
partially removed by Mr. Hanus and restoration is still incomplete
WHEREAS, new owner of the abutting property, Michael Henry, has revised
the plans for the abutting commons and has submitted an application for a permit to
lower the height of the existing retaining walls, modify the slope to a more natural
grade, and fill in the old boathouse, and install a new stairway· This plan utilizes
existing on-site materials and modifies the slope to a more natural grade, and;
WHEREAS, this proposal is a combination and compromise of the applicant's
initial request and the City's staff recommendation, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed this request
and unanimously recommended approval with conditions as recommended by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Permit to a one year permit to complete the alterations on the
commons according to the plan and specifications as submitted (Exhibit A),
w!th the following conditions:
Full compliance with the escrow agreement dated June 1, 1994 as
prepared by the City Attorney.
Proposed Resolution
Page 2
bo
The new stairway shall be installed to code as required by the Building
Official.
The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation
and maintenance of the retaining walls and stairways.
If compliance has not been achieved within one year of date of approval
of the permit, the applicant's dock license will be revoked until all
provisions in the permit are met. If the applicant has not completed all
the necessary work set out in the permit within one (1) year of approval
of this resolution, any rights to construct or maintain these allowed
improvements on public land shall be considered revoked and City staff
is authorized and directed to proceed to remove all improvements and
complete restoration not authorized and approved by the City Council.
The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council
approval, in the event full compliance with the resolution is achieved
within one (1) year.
The permit must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
A copy of this resolution granting a special permit shall be filed as a
memorial in the office of the registrar of titles of Hennepin County or in
the office of the County Recorder if the property is abstracted property.
The legal description of this property affected by this permit is:
Lot 7, Block 7, Devon.
The applicant shall file and pay the costs of filing a Certified copy of this
resolution. A copy of the recorded document with all recording data
shown by proper County officials shall be submitted to the City Clerk.
*The City Attorney may advise whether item "g." should be included in this
resolution.
' "", ," i I,
PU~qS & $1'ECXlrXCATXONS FOE PROi'OS~'n I~$TOILATXON AND NOOIIfXCATXOW
TO DL"VOU CO~*O~, AM71'TX~ 4737 XIX~ VX~ DP, XT~
E X H T B X T
4737 XST,.AIID VII&"H' DRIFI~
RESOLUTION
JON~ 28. I994
SLAND VIEW
II1
~Em DY6 £ -nr~
A1).3~51' UPHILL 5/.,Ol~ TD I,'I4~H
E ~fST. ~ MST~.
/~PPR~vED BY 61'Im"~', ALL
:-'.'SCOFf:. 7'0 m/~TCH THE
TO ~6 l::'u4r..C-4) tU Bc:,/:fr H'c::q.,,-~6"'
,-%
51.o~ A5 RP_.R:'~r_.,~ BY ~f6cF,
'FID
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT: DOCK SITE #42351, MICHAEL HENRY, 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
SHORELAND RESTORATION
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a permit to lower the
height of the existing retaining walls, install a new stairway, modify the slope to a more natural grade,
and fill in the old boathouse area using materials from the site, as shown on the attached plan. The
proposed work is a combination of the applicant's initial request to extend the expired permit
(Resolution 893-68) and the City's staff recommendations.
The City and the previous owner at 4729 Island View Drive, Mr. Dean Hanus, were involved in
litigation in which the City prevailed and obtained an order for removal of the boathouse on the
abutting commons. The boathouse was partially removed by Mr. Hanus and restoration is still
incomplete. After resolution of this lawsuit, a Lis Pendens was filed with the County and this put a
restriction on the sale of the property. The applicant and staff met on several occasions working out
a compromise that we feel is achievable by the applicant and minimizes the level of private
encroachment on the public land.
Staff recommended approval of a one year permit to complete the alterations on the commons
according to the plans and specifications as submitted, with the following conditions:
Full compliance with the escrow agreement dated June 1, 1994 as prepared by the City
Attorney.
e
The new stairway shall be installed to code as required by the Building Official.
The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance of the
retaining walls and stairways.
If compliance has not been achieved within one year of date of approval of the permit, the
applicant's dock license will be revoked until all provisions in the permit are met. If the
applicant has not completed all the necessary work set out in the permit, any rights to
construct or maintain these allowed improvements on public land shall be considered revoked
and City staff is authorized and directed to proceed to remove all improvements not authorized
and approved by the City Council.
e
The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, in the event full
compliance with the resolution is achieved within one (1) year.
The permit must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
Chair Schmidt confirmed that the applicant is in agreement with staff recommendation.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend approval of the
request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
The applicant was informed that this recommendation will be reviewed by the City Council on June
28, 1994.
CITY of MOUND
Staff Report
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MCUND. MINNESOTA 55364-~88-
,6!2~472.0600
FAX 6t2 472 0620
DATE:
June 9, 1994 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting
TO: Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff
5,
FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~~
APPLICANT: Michael B. Henry
ADDRESS: 4737 Island View Drive, Lot 7, Block 7, Devon
DOCK SITE: #42351
COMMONS: Devon Commons
SHORELINE: Type C
SUBJECT: PUBLIC LAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Applicant's Request and Background
The applicant is seeking a permit to lower the height of the existing retaining walls, install
a new stairway, modify the slope to a more natural grade, and fill in the old boathouse area
using materials from the site, as shown on the attached plan. The proposed work is a
combination of the applicant's initial request to extend the expired permit (Resolution #93-
68) and the City's staff recommendations.
The City and the previous owner at 4729 Island View Drive, Mr. Dean Hanus, were involved
in litigation in which the City prevailed and obtained an order for removal of the boathouse
on the abutting commons. The boathouse was partially removed by Mr. Hanus and
restoration is still incomplete. After resolution of this lawsuit, a Lis Pendens was filed with
the County and this put a restriction on the sale of the property. The applicant and staff met
on several occasions working out a compromise that we feel is achievable by the applicant
and minimizes the level of private encroachment on the public land. Please note the attached
background information including:
1. Jon Sutherland's letter dated March 4, 1994 to Dean Hanus.
Staff Report
Henry, 4737 Is/and View Drive
June 9, 1994
Page 2
2. Henry's first letters dated May 3, 1994.
3. Jon Sutherland Response dated May 11, 1994.
4. Ed Shukle's letter dated May 23, 1994.
5. First Security Title letter dated May 27, 1994.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a one year permit to complete the alterations on the commons
according to the plans and specifications as submitted, with the following conditions:
Full compliance with the escrow agreement dated ~/~ /~as prepared by the City
Attorney. __ m
2. The new stairway shall be installed to code as required by the Building Official.
Se
The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and
maintenance of the retaining walls and stairways.
If compliance has not been achieved within one year of date of approval of the permit,
the applicant's dock license will be revoked until all provisions in the permit are met.
If the applicant has not completed all the necessary work set out in the permit, any
rights to construct or maintain these allowed improvements on public land shall be
considered revoked and City staff is authorized and directed to proceed to remove all
improvements not authorized and approved by the City Council.
The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, in the
event full compliance with the resolution is achieved within one (1) year.
The permit must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
JS:pj
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 MaYwood Road. Mound. MN 55364
Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: ~72-0620
)ISTRIBUTION:
BUILDING OFFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
DATE RECEIVED
PAR/{ MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE
check ne)
.... !
I__1
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT
SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
,I ,[ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in
an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
[~----"~I ~ ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation,
fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4).
like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMINO USES. It is the intent of the
City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some
time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a
limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building
Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change
in dock ~ite holder.
~pplicant Name /~[¢~de'! ~
Address V737 r~/~g~,%~r m~J, m~
Phone (home) 9]~ -/]o / (work)
~utting Address ~737 ~&aJ~,~ ~r ~,J ~
Property O~er ~,~ /
Lega~ Lo~ ~ ~osk
Description Su~.
Public Name ~ ~Oa
Property Dock Site ~ Shoreline Type
Cont~acto~ Name K~n
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING I~BOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: ~3'~ ;~o £~3'/~r¢ ¢o~J 3'~,'~/,%~. ~ ~ /~/ $~ ~ ~.
I
lgnature of Appl~
SI.AND VIEW
~i~1~ A-5 ~F_.~o~Rr~ BY
~ALL 5T~ ~ A§
6L0t~
~5
I I
III
r~:~-r-~
F~ I--I I--
~_.F-t t-q
M/NNEILR~LR
~1~[~ ED DI~-i]iICT
Minnetonka, MN 55345
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Permit Appllcat4on No.
Oate Received
Rotlce Sent
Agenda Date
APPIICATION FOR PER~IT - FORM A
(See Reverse Side For Instructions)
^ (Pr t.nt or
_~'~..le~ne~ .~._ / ~ip)., (Te!.ephone)
.... ~-~'_'- -(C~i~er Slgn.ature) _" ~ C~IpoEo C~ R.L.S.
3. Perm,: Requested For: 7(~ ,11 appropriate ~xe,)
(Ztp)
0 L.A. 0 Other
Be
Storm~ater Managemen~ Plan'"
C3 Commercial
C3 Industrial
0 Institutional or Highway
C~ Residential
C.V{~'Floodplatn Alteration
D. C3 Wetland Alteration
E. C3 Dredgtng
F. C3 .Shoreline/Bank Improvement
G. C3 Stream/Lake Crossing
NOTE:
4.
Applicants to Lay Sandblankets Must Use Application For Pemtt-FORM B
Project Locatton~Otc~C~ ! en l_ ! ! I
(C~t~) (Count~) (~ Sec.) (Sec.) (Township) (Range)
Describe the Pro~ect: ~o F~fo(~ re~eveZ ~Xa~ ~F~ ~ q ~x~/
6. If This Pro~ect Requtres Municipal Approval or Review, Attach Documentation
of Municipal Review.
7. ..l~..y of Water, Stream or Wetland Affect by Runoff From This Site:
t'ql,~tf~£~ , ~4~1/: 8~ Dt stance Fr~ Pro~ect:
8. Schedule For Construction Zmplementatlon of Temporary Erosion Controls,
Substantial C~pletton an~ Restoration: '~ Ae co~/~ ~:~,'~
PLF_X~ CXU. (e~Z) 939-8320.ZF AS~ZST,mC[ Z~ COeS'LETZ~ T~rzs FOra ZS ~-Qu~. ]~ suem~zm; THZS
FOreS, ZtE: APeLZC.~Un' AOO~T~a.E~ AU. LrqUZ~S F~e r~ZT ~q,eOVAt. AS oemtmxEo e'r
247: ZLDR
CITY of MOUND
Letter of Agreement
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-'687
1612) 472-0600
FAX (612~ 472-0620
This agreement, by and between the City of Mound, 5341 Maywood
Road, Mound, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City", and
name of applicant (~) applicant' s address
Mound, MN, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant",
The City of Mound is aware that the applicant is seeking a permit
from the DNR / Watershed, hereinafter referred to as "agency", to make
the following improvements: TO f~;"oft ~ C0~,,$ ~Aof,~'r, ~
on the public property known as ~0~ ~'~l~lt~l~O'l~d"~
The Applicant is not a representative of the City and is personally
requesting the permit from the agency.
The Applicant shall apply to the agency as an "applicant" and list
the city as the "owner" to ensure that the City is kept apprised of all
actions during the permit process.
When the agency has completed processing the application, the
agency shall convey their recommendation to the City of Mound, and the
City of Mound will complete the Public Lands Permit process.
Signatures'
Applicant
DATE
DATE ' /
printed on recycled paper
March 4, 1994
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Mr. Dean Hanus
4737 Island View Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Fax 930-0509
SUBJECT:
PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION OF BOATHOUSE AND RESTORATION OF
EFFECTED AREA
Dear Mr. Hanus:
This letter is to confirm our phone conversation of March 3, 1994 regarding your
demolition permit for the boathouse. It is the position of the City that as part of the
boathouse demolition you are responsible for restoration of the area.
As you are aware, this restoration work may not proceed until the City and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approve of your restoration plan. As
an example of a plan, I have faxed and discussed with you the City's restoration plan
used for the project at 4729 Island View Drive adjacent to your residence. This plan
was prepared by the City Engineer and was also approved by the MCWD. It is my
understanding, through our discussion, that you would like to replicate the City's plan
by filling the building site and matching existing adjacent grades as much as possible.
Your plan should include all of the information noted on the attached supplemental
data sheet, and a completed Public Lands Permit Application. In addition to this
information, you will need a survey with elevations to detail existing and proposed
grades, and the amount of fill to be placed below the 931.5 elevation. A full cross
section is needed to detail the amount and type of fill to be placed above any masonry
that may be left in place, and detail the amount of concrete block that will remain.
Y'our plan must be first submitted to the City for review, and preliminary approval,
then to the MCWD with a letter supporting your request from our City Manager. The
MCWD will not approve a permit request without the City's recommendation.
The Department of Natural Resources does not regulate fill in the shoreland zone
above the OHW elevation of 929.4, however, we notify them as a courtesy. They
normally give a verbal approval as long as they know the City and MCWD is involved.
pflnted 0~1 recycled paper
Mr. Dean Hanus
March 4, 1994
Page 2
It is anticipated that one of the conditions of approval by the MCWD will be that
compensatory floodplain storage will have to be provided. The City may be able to
provide for compensatory storage, however, you will be responsible for proportionate
costs to have the City provide this service. At this time, I am unable to give you any
cost estimates because we don't know how much fill will be placed in the floodplain,
or have a final plan for the City's compensatory work.
One of the City's concerns is erosion potential. It is my understanding you will not
be removing any of the masonry walls below existing grades at this time or until an
appropriate plan for restoration is finally approved by the City. If you want to
demolish these masonry walls below grade, a plan for erosion control must be
provided for City approval before the project is started. Demolition requirements
mandate removal of all debris and foundation wall two feet (2') below grade.
A temporary safety guardrail or fence needs to be installed as soon as possible to
provide safe access adjacent to this area.
As you are aware, the compliance date for Resolution //93-68 pertaining to the
stairway construction, etc. is coming up May 25, 1994. If you would like to meet on
the site pertaining to this issue, please contact Jim Fackler or myself. We are working
jointly on commons issues and we are both available to answer any of your questions.
Unfortunately, we will both be out of the office from 3-7-94 to 3-11-94. If you have
any questions during that time, contact Peggy James at 472-0600 as we will be
keeping in touch with her.
Respectfully,
Building Official
JS:pj
Enclosure
CC:
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Jim Fackler, Parks Department
Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
Ellen Sones, MCWD
May 3, 1994
RECEIVED HAY
5
Ed Schukle, Jr. City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
This is a request to extend the compliance date for resolution ~)3-68 regarding Devons
Commons, abutting 4737 Island View Dr., Block 7, Lot 7, Devon, Dock site//42351.
We, Michael B. & Lisa M. Henry are in the process of purchasing above property with a
proposed closing date of May 27, 1994. Due to the lawsuit on this property there is a
cloud on the title which is restricting us from purchasing said home. We are submitting
this proposal in good faith and with the hope that the city of Mound will accept our plans
and remove the court lien without the need to escrow moneys which in turn would allow
us to purchase the property and resolve the issues outlined in a time frame approved by
the city.
Date:Febuary 3, 19~1
Concept Landscaping, Inc.
3153 Priest Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Phone 472-4118\750-4374
Name: City of Mound attn. Jim Fackler
Address: 5341 Ma..yw.ood Road
_City,Stale'Zip: Mound, MN ~ -
Phone: 472-0614
Estimate
MN Lic. ~(XX)8997Contractor
Dredging Contractor .Uc. t~33-04
Hanus boathouse and re~ainlng wall
DemoliSh block walls to elevation equal to Munson finish grade
Demolish retaining walls to upper wall
Move earth to create grade same as Munson finish grade
Haul away old walls and debris
Spread with black dirt and erosion blanket.
Install balance of upper wall with existing material
~ to be made IS f~w~:
30% Down, Balance day of completion.
Date of ~~: , ~JOna~re: .....
Resolution tt93-68
Point A.) Please see contractors blueprint.
B.) Please see contractors blueprint.
C.) Proposed owners acknowledge responsibility for maintenance and upkeep
of retaining walls during the course of ownership of property.
D.)
After consultation with landscaper appropriate plantings shall be installed.
Some examples are: ~Enge!man_J[.vy &~.V'_n'ginia C~per. These are to be
bought and planted by owners within 60 days of proposed closing date of
May 27, 1994.
£.)
Patio blocks will be removed and area will be returned to a natural seeded
grass state to be bought and planted by owners within 60 days of
May 27, 1994.
F.) Flagpole has been removed by current homeowner.
G.) Wire fence will be removed within 60 days of May 27, 1994.
H.)
Per building inspector, John Suthefland, electrical has been removed.
Alter a final inspection of interior wiring by building inspector, at his
convenience, this point will have been resolved.
*Acknowledged but not included in resolution is the issue of the removed
boathouse area. We would like to propose that homeowners will backfill and
grate to city's specifications if the city can provide appropriate fill.
In closing we would like to state that in complying with the city's resolution requirements
and the costs involved in purchasing and closing on the property has pushed us to the
utmost financial limits. We are asking you, the city of Mound, to remove the lien without
the need to escrow moneys so that we may purchase the property and begin immediate
compliance with resolution #93-68 and bring the issues and conflicts to an agreeable end.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Henry
Lisa M. Henry
K~ ROBMRTS CONSTRUCTION
2835 Col~nt¥ Road 319
Me~$na, MM 55359
51219 .
--- PROPOSAL ---
I, TKen-Roberts, DBA Ken Roberts Construction, agree to
oerform the necessary carpentry work on guard/stair rails
and the (2) approved landings located at g. 737 Islandview Dr.
Cost of this work estimated, at f1575.O0, to be completed
within 60 days of the closing date of May 27, 1994.
Peturning removed boathouse area to conform ~,.rith adjoining
commons area, an~ within guidlines of resolution, cost is
estimated at approx. ,..5~O.00.
Signed
Lie. ¢20003306
Signed
144
May 25, 1993
RESOLUTION %93-68
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF STAIRWAY LANDINGS
ON DEVON COMMONSv ABUTTINO 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr
BLOCK 7~ LOT 7~ DEVON~ DOCK BITE ~42351'
WHEREAS~ applicant, Dean Hanus, has applied for a
Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the construction of
stairway landings, including a 3' x 12' upper landing attached to
the existing boathouse and a 6' x 6' mid landing for the stairway,
on Devon Commons, Abutting 4737 Island View Drive, Block 7, Lot 7,
Devon, Dock Site #42351, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council
approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any
public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural
contour of any public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, the city is currently in litigation with the
applicant regarding construction and reconstruction work on Devon
Commons without permits, and;
WHEREAS, stairways are considered permissible by the Use
Plan for Devon Commons and also by the new Shoreland Management
Ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant's request includes anchoring the
upper landing to the boathouse. The boathouse has been ordered to
be removed by the Council. This request is directly contrary to
the City's prior order. Approval of connection would conflict with
City Council's decision of December 10, 1991 and May 26, 1992, and;
WHEREAS, the upper timber stairway never received a
permit, and the City has not ordered removal, and;
WHEREAS, the retaining walls never received a permit,
and the City has not ordered removal, and;
WHEREAS, the guardrail on lake side of patio area has
never received a permit, and;
WHEREAS, the patio area, currently covered with patio
blocks, is a hardcover surface and was recognized by Resolution
#78-372. The City's goal at that time per the Flow Chart was
"Renewable up to 3 years contingent on the City's Use Plan", and;
WHEREAS, the flagpole located in the patio area has
never received a permit, and;
144
May 25, 1993
WHEREAS, the wire fence on the east side of the subject
abutting property located on Devon Commons has never received a
permit, and;
WHEREAS, miscellaneous electrical and low
lighting has never been permitted by the City, and;
voltage
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this
request and recommended approval with conditions. The vote was 6
in favor and 1 opposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit for Dean
Hanus to allow the construction of stairway landings on Devon
Commons abutting 4737 Island View Drive, Block 7, Lot 7,
Devon, Dock Site J42351, upon the following conditions:
The size of the upper landing shall not exceed 3' wide by
4' long and shall not be attached to the boathouse. The
smaller landing size is consistent with the Shoreland
Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200) and
reduces the impact to the shoreland. The mid-landing
within the stairway shall not exceed 4' x 6'. The
smaller size is still large enough to maneuver items to
and from the lake and represents less impact to the
shoreland. An alternative would be to change the
location of the stairway to provide for less impact (note
original location on 1974 survey). If the stairway
location is changed, a new plan would have to be
submitted.
The upper timber stairs may remain subject to the
installation of a handrail and guardrail on all stairs as
approved by the Building Official
Retaining walls may remain subject to the owner
acknowledging that he constructed these walls without
approval of the City and is responsible for their
maintenance and upkeep. If the retaining walls
deteriorate and are in need of repair, it is the
responsibility of the owner of Lot 7, Block 7, Devon to
replace or repair the wall.
The guardrails may remain if they are buffered/screened
with plantings, paid for by the applicant and as approved
by staff.
145
May 25, 1993
The patio area should be restored to a natural condition
and planted with natural vegetation that facilitates
screening of the retaining walls and buffers the visual
impact of the shoreland. A landscape plan for the patio
area must be prepared by the applicant and approved by
the staff.
F. The flagpole must be removed from the public commons.
G. Remove the wire fence located on Devon Commons.
He
Ail power supply to the commons from 4737 Island View
Drive must be temporarily disconnected by a qualified
electrical contractor and verified by staff. An
application may be filed, according to City Ordinances,
to allow the electrical work to remain. In the event an
application is not received within one year of the
approval date of this Resolution, all electrical work
shall be removed from the public commons.
The applicant shall be required to agree in writing to
the terms set forth in this resolution, and the Special
Permit. The Special Permit will expire one (1) year from
the date of City Council approval and upon agreement by
the applicant to be bound by the conditions. In one year
staff will evaluate compliance. If compliance has been
achieved, the permit will be extended administratively
for four (4) years.
If compliance has not been achieved within one year of
date of approval of the permit, staff will recommend the
applicant's dock license not be issued until compliance
with all provisions and conditions set forth in the
Special Permit. If the applicant has not completed all
the necessary work set out in the conditions set forth in
the resolution and the permit, any rights to construct or
maintain these allowed improvements on public land shall
be considered revoked and City staff is authorized and
directed to proceed to remove all the improvements not
authorized and approved by the City Council.
Nothing contained in this approval shall be deemed by the
applicant or by the court to change prior actions or
prior orders of this Council for removal of the boathouse
as set forth in Council resolutions adopted on December
10, 1991 and May 26, 1992. It is the intent of this
Council to respond to the applicant's request to
construct and maintain a stairway from his private
146
14/
May 25, 1993
property to the public commons. It is not the intent to
modify or amend prior orders of the Council nor should it
be interpreted to in anyway modify, restrict, or change
the litigation filed by the City against Dean Hanus.
Re
A copy of this resolution granting a special permit shall
be filed as a memorial in the office of the registrar of
titles of Hennepin County or in the office of the County
Recorder if the property is abstracted property. The
legal description of this property affected by this
permit is:
Lot 7, Block 7, Devon.
The applicant shall file and pay the costs of filing a
Certified copy of this resolution. He shall provide the
City Clerk with a copy of the recorded document with all
recording data shown by proper County officials.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and
seconded by Councilmember Jensen.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following voted in the negative:
Ahrens.
Attest: City Clerk
}4ayor ~// ''
147
CITY of MOUND
534' MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 5536-:'
~6!2~ 472 0600
FAX {6'~ 2~ 472-0620
May 11, 1994
Mike and Lisa Henry
1285 North Arm Drive
Orono, MN 55364
SUBJECT: SHORELAND RESTORATION ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING
4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Henry:
Confirming our conversation of May 9, 1994, the information required in order to
pursue the proposed shoreland restoration on the commons abutting 4737 Island View
Drive is outlined below. Permit approvals are required from the City of Mound and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Depending on your plans, there may
be a minor amount of fill to be placed in the floodplain. The MCWD requires
compensatory floodplain storage; the City may provide this at a per yard cost.
1. Certificate of Survey, including the following:
a./Existing and proposed work. -
b.~ Ordinary High Water elevation of 929.4.
/c~. Floodplain elevation of 931.5, and the amount of fill to be placed in the
floodplain must be shown.
Plans, drawn to scale, to include:
Full cross section drawing with details of existing and proposed work,
drawn to scale.
Restoration and landscape, with list of plantings.
Detail method of erosion control.
Cost estimates of work to be done, including cost of labor and materials.
4. Completed Public Lands Permit Application form.
Henry
4737 Is/end View
May I l, ~994
5. Signed Letter of Agreement between you and the City for the MCWI~
If your plans receive preliminary approval from City Staff, the City Manager will sign
the Letter of Agreement that must accompany your application to the MCWD for
alteration to the floodplain.
Enclosed for your reference, is the following information:
e
A copy of the Certificate of Surveys currently on file at the City for 4729 Island
View Drive, and 4737 Island View Drive.
The restoration plan and cross section drawing submitted for the work on the
commons adjacent to 4729 Island View Drive.
Application form for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Letter of
Agreement form.
e
Application for Public Lands Permit, including application deadline dates and
meeting dates.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jim Fackler or myself.
yOU. ~.~~
J~n Sutherland~
Building Official
Thank
JS:pj
Enclosures
CC:
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Sandra Keegan, Burnet Realty, 19400 Hwy. 7, Excelsior, MN
File
55331
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY1NOOD ROAD
MOUND, M~NNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
May 23, 1994
Mike and Lisa Henry/'
1285 North Arm Drive
Orono, MN 55364
RE:
Fax 445-8950
Also mailed May 23, 1994
Shoreland Restoration and Boathouse Restoration on Devon Commons
Abutting 4737 Island View Drive
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Henry:
Pursuant to our meeting of May 9, 1994, and subsequent telephone conversations
between yourselves and City staff, the following details what the City of Mound is
requiring regarding the commons property abutting 4737 Island View Drive:
1~"~ e City of Mound will require you to apply for a Public Lands Permit
J Application to be submitted on or before June 1, 1994. The permit will detail
what the City of Mound is suggesting of you on the commons property as it
pertains to a permit for use of the commons. The City staff will review the
permit and will make a recommendation to the Park and Open Space
Commission at its June 9, 1994 meeting. The City Council will then hear the
Park and Open Space Commission's recommendation at its meeting on June
28, 1994. Assuming the City Council approves the permit, you will then have
until January 15, 1995 to complete the work (please note that this is the date
that the court had given Mr. Hanus to complete the boathouse removal).
The City of Mound does not agree to extend the permit that was issued to Mr.
Hanus in Resolution #93-68. Rather, the staff has developed part of a plan for
you that will meet the needs of the City and will provide you with the
enjoyment of the commons property. To more specifically spell this plan out,
(see proposed plan enclosed) the following details should be noted:
ae
Top wall (both sides of existing stairway): Remove 5 timbers and adjust
1
up-hill slope to match existing grade on adjacent sites. Install plantings
as approved by staff. Use soil that is removed and place it in boathouse
area.
Second Wall from Top: May remain as is.
Patio Area: Remove existing pavers and modify slope from base of
second wall to match the reduced height of third wall. Use soil that is
removed and place it in the boathouse area. Install plantings as
approved by staff. Match existing grade to west.
Third Wall from Top: Remove minimum of 6 timbers from this wall as
required by staff. Modify slope as noted above.
Fourth Wall from Top: Maintain this wall. Modify slope as required by
staff.
Boathouse area: (1) Install new retaining wall. Step down as required
to match new slope. (2) Install new retaining wall as required to tie into
new slope. Install additional anchoring and tie to existing walls as
needed.
Fill this area as required. Install new retaining wall to match west side.
Install plantings. Slope to match adjacent site as required.
Fill boathouse area slope to match adjacent site as required by staff.
Install new maximum 4 foot wide walkway between the lower and upper
stairway.
Install new handrail and guardrail on both sides of existing upper
stairway.
Install new stairway, maximum 4 feet wide, with handrail and guardrail
on both sides.
Remove lower existing stairway.
Additional fill may be needed to achieve desired final grade and shall be
provided by the applicant.
Plantings and restoration. All ground cover to be approved by staff.
Mature growth of plantings shall not block or hinder traversability.
2
Jon Sutherland, Building Official, drafted a letter dated May 11, 1994 to you
which outlined the information required in order to pursue the proposed
shoreline restoration and boathouse restoration on the commons abutting 4737
Island View Drive. Enclosed is a copy of that letter for your reference. This
information is still required as part of the application.
The City of Mound will require you to escrow $3000 which will assure the City
that the project will be completed per the proposed plan. Please remember that
in our meeting on May 9th, I indicated that for the City to come in and do this
work that is required, it would cost in the neighborhood of $3000 to $6000.
Assuming that the work is done to the City's satisfaction, the escrow deposit
will be refunded, less any specific costs that the City has to incur. An itemized
breakdown of those costs would be provided to you upon completion of the
project.
I recall from our meeting and subsequent phone conversations, that your financial
position may make this project difficult to achieve. However, I stated to you several
times at the meeting that although I am sympathetic to your situation, I cannot use
financial hardship as a reason to remove the Les Pendance on this property. It is up
to you to resolve that issue in order to proceed on the purchase of the Hanus
property.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
~~cerely,
Edward ~1. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
cc: Jim Fackler, Parks Director
~'~on Sutherland, Building Official
Sandra Keegan, Burnet Realty
ES:Is
3
May 27, 1994
Mr. Gino Businaro
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
RE: 4737 Island View Drive - Release of Lis Pendens & Escrow
Purchasers - Mr. and Mrs. Michael Henry
Dear Mr. Businaro:
In accordance with the instructions in a letter we received from Mr.
Shukle dated May 25, 1994 in regard to the above matter, we are enclosing
a check to the City of Mound in the amount of $3,000.00.
Per the above referenced letter, this is the amount required by the City
as an escrow in exchange for the Discharge of Lis Pendens on the property.
Please sign the copy of this letter below, and return it to us in the
enclosed envelope as your acknowledgement of receipt of the enclosed funds.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Cord ially,
Sherry Stelflmach
Real Estate Closer
File No: 94-06606
mr~c.
The undersigned hereby acknowledges
receipt of $3,000.00 from First
Security Title
City of Mound
BY: ~~.~
/
Wayzata Office
319 Barry Avenue * Suite 101 · Wayzata, MN 55391 · (t~12) 475-0340 · Fax 475-0592
First Security Title a div,.~ion of Burner Reahv Inc. '~'
OF MOUND
May 25, 1
Ms. Sherry Stellmach Fax 4.75 - 0692
First Security Title
319 Barry Avenue
Suite 101
Wayzata, MN 55391
RE: Release of Lis Pendens - 4,737 Island View Drive
Mr, and Mrs. Mike Henry Purchasers of Proper~y from
Mr. Dean Hanus - F;rst Security Titte File #94,-06606
Dear Ms. Stellmach:
Enclosed is a Discharge of Notice of Lis Pendens on the property at 4,73? Island View
Drive, currently owned by Mr. Dean Hanus and to be purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Mike
HenrY. It is my understanding that the closing on this properTY is set for Friday, May
27, 1994, 3 PM. Also enclosed is a copy of an agreement dated May 26, 1994.,
signed by Mr. end Mrs. Henry and bY myself as City Manager for the City of Mound.
At-;ached to the agreement is a leper dated May 23, 1994 which Indicates tha'( the
City is releasing the Lis Pendens on tt~e 13roper~ pursuant to a $3000 escrow being
set aside to the City of Mound so that the work on the commons property abusing
4,737 Island View Drive, cleating with snoreiand restoration and boathouse res;oration,
will be completed pursuant to a plan to be submi~ed by Mr. and Mrs. Henry to the
' n'unctton with tl~e CiW and res-r, ores the
,-,*.o This plan t~es been developed ~n. c.o ! __ .~_-ropertY, please submit a check
proper~y to a rea_eDna.u,.=. =--_~ -__~4-,end it ~o the at-lend,on o~ ~,~u ~,,-, This
payable to tl3e City o! Mounu u,,,~ o
Director at the City of Mound, 534,1 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5536,~.
money will be held in escrow and upon completion of the project, according ~o the
agreement, the escrow money witt be returned less any expenses direcl:lY incurred by
the City. If you have any quest;ions, ptease contact me.
Sincerely, · ~
· Shukle, Jr.
blty Manager
Enclosures
ES:is
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #g4-
TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR
INFINITI MARKETING, INC.
5318 SHORELINE DRIVE
(BALBOA BUILDING)
WHEREAS, Operations Permits are required by City Code for new businesses
operating within the Balboa Building which is a Planned Industrial Area (PLA), approved
by Resolution//85-87, and amended by Resolution//87-145, //87-205, and;
WHEREAS, Infiniti Marking will maintain an office and warehouse area of
8,744 square feet for distribution of automotive aftermarket products such as
consoles, rack systems, radar detectors and other items, and;
WHEREAS, the firm will operate one shift with approximately 14 employees,
and;
WHEREAS, all products stored will be dry goods made of wood, plastic,
fiberglass and aluminum; no chemicals or toxic substances are used in their business
operations, and;
WHEREAS, over the course of the next few years, the company plans to
expand its warehouse space, and;
WHEREAS, adequate parking is available for employee use within the property,
and;
WHEREAS, the proposed operation is consistent with the criteria for granting
Operations Permits found in Section 350:680, Subd. 8 of the Mound Zoning
Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, to approve an Operations Permit for Infiniti Marketing for an initial
occupancy of approximately 8,744 square feet within the Balboa Building, and that
the permit allow for future expansion, providing that the nature of the business and
products- stored on the premises remains essentially unchanged. Approval is
conditioned on compliance with all building and fire codes.
June 28, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS
AS NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS
IN THE CITY OF MOUND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound directed that a Nature
Conservation Area Plan be developed; and
WHEREAS, in July 1993, a Plan was prepared by Mark Koegler,
Hoisington/Koegler Group, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Plan defined Nature Conservation Area as: 'City owned and/or
controlled lands which are or could be, essentially natural and would conserve flora and fauna.
Such areas are to be established in recognition of the benefits of preserving natural open space
for present and future generations.'; and '~ax.n-.W,o ~
WItEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has devoted a great deal of
time to studying potential sites for possible Nature Conservation Area status; and
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has made some
recommendations regarding certain sites as Nature Conservation Areas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered those
recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, hereby designates the following as Nature Conservation Areas under the
definition stated above:
North of Bartlett Blvd, end of Rusticwood Road (Rustic Place).
PID #23-117-24 31 0077.
Indian Mound property on Westedge Blvd.
PID g23-117-24 22 0003.
Diamond Lane, across the street from Philbrook Park.
PID #14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR
INFINITI MARKETING, INC.
5318 SHORELINE DRIVE
(BALBOA BUILDING)
WHEREAS, Operations Permits are required by City Code for new businesses
operating within the Balboa Building which is a Planned Industrial Area (PLA), approved
by Resolution//85-87, and amended by Resolution //87-145, //87-205, and;
WHEREAS, Infiniti Marking will maintain an office and warehouse area of
8,744 square feet for distribution of automotive aftermarket products such as
consoles, rack systems, radar detectors and other items, and;
WHEREAS, the firm will operate one shift with approximately 14 employees,
and;
WHEREAS, all products stored will be dry goods made of wood, plastic,
fiberglass and aluminum; no chemicals or toxic substances are used in their business
operations, and;
WHEREAS, over the course of the next few years, the company plans to
expand its warehouse space, and;
WHEREAS, adequate parking is available for employee use within the property,
and;
WHEREAS, the proposed operation is consistent with the criteria for granting
Operations Permits found in Section 350:680, Subd. 8 of the Mound Zoning
Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, to approve an Operations Permit for Infiniti Marketing for an initial
occupancy of approximately 8,744 square feet within the Balboa Building, and that
the permit allow for future expansion, providing that the nature of the business and
products- stored on the premises remains essentially unchanged. Approval is
conditioned on compliance with all building and fire codes.
II
June 28, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS
AS NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS
IN THE CITY OF MOUND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound directed that a Nature
Conservation Area Plan be developed; and
WHEREAS, in July 1993, a Plan was prepared by Mark Koegler,
Hoisington/Koegler Group, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Plan defined Nature Conservation Area as: "City owned and/or
controlled lands which are or could be, essentially natural and would conserve flora and fauna.
Such areas are to be established in recognition of the benefits of presery, ing natural open spa~ce.
for present and future generations."; and 't.~. ~c¢~.~,/-~ /~.~ ~t~.~~
WHEREAS, Ge ~rk and Open ~'pace Commission has devoted a great
ti e to studying potentaal s~tes for possible Nature Conservation Area status; and .
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has ma~'de~m~/~
recommendations regarding certain sites as Nature Conservation Areas; and _/~~'~?,__.
WHEREAS,
the City Council has reviewed and considered'""th0se /'~
recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of _~e Ci~
of Mound,~.~in~s~m~k~ ~e~_.j,e~the following as Nature Conservation Areas uhder the
definitiont~-s~ -ab,0ve¥~.-~
North of Bartlett Blvd, end of Rusticwood Road (Rustic Place).
PID//23-117-24 31 0077.
Indian Mound property on Westedge Blvd.
PID g23-117-24 22 0003.
e
Diamond Lane, across the street from Philbrook Park.
PID//14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014.
PID 23-I 17-24 31 0077: North of Bardett, end of Rusticwood (Rustic Place).
This parcel is adjacent to the School District property already preserved as a
nature study area. This parcel is a relatively undisturbed remnant of "Big Woods'
habitat. Classified as a Park.
20. OZ..
EVERGREEN"-RD ..... ~ ,
1
ko ,.
.~' (63) -~
RUSTI ~ ~RD
(78)
,-4.57
(7)
(6)
~f
(49)
13
: (81)
,
~. 55A 37
· .~2. 5
(85) ~
INDIAN MOUND PROPERTY.
PID 23-117-24 22 0003: Westedge Blvd. (old sewer plant), a nice mixture of
prairie, woodlands, and wetlands. This parcel is adjacent to other natural areas.
Classified as a Park.
(4)
23-117-2z
(6)
PID 14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014: Diamond Lane, across thc street from Philbrook
Park and retained for drainage purposes.
.... 2584.67 RES .-
17-24
(37)
9. 46
40
(4~)
13.* . .
3Z
(33) ~
(53)
(42) ~ (52)
(54)
4Z
(43)
~i'o. 67
(18)
6?.t5..
(8)
· . 174.53
· ~0, 35
?
6
(6)
(58)
I
24) (6g)
;(67)
14
~Z (7c
-- ,47, ,5,
SECTION 00030
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
SITE GRADING & ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
MOUND/MINNETRISTA PUBLIC WORKS MATERIAL STORAGE
osals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00
and materiels and all else necessary rut u~
SURFACING OF A MATERIAL STORAGE AREA AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING
ACCESS ROAD.
All proposals shall be addressed to:
Ms. Fran Clark, City Clerk
City of Mound
5341Maywood Drive
Mound, Minnesota $5364
and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with
the statement ,,Mound/Minnetrista Public Works Material Storage" and
shall be on the Proposal Form included in the plans and specifications
for the pro3ect.
he Plans and specifications and other proposed contract
. Copie~_o_f~j ,J,..~ .~ office of McCombs Frank Roos As~?ciat~i
3rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. plans anu
Inc., 15050 2 _ . ...... ~.A. m~ be obtained at =h~ offices
specifications zor use ~n p~e~a~n~~. ~. whiah is NON-REFUNDABLE.
, h rate of ~OUr O0±±~r~ t~-, · r
urchased at t e ' n which is NON-
~wenty-fi~e cents ($0.25) Der pa~e of specif~catto s,
REFUNDABbE.
Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified
check, or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the
total amount Of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days
after the bids are opened.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive
any informalities or irregularities therein.
City of Mound, Minnesota
Skip Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Fran Clark, City Clerk
END OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
00030 - 1
MFRA 910481
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND,~ MINNESOTA
CA SE NO. 94-2
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #85-87
FOR A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA AT
5300-5400 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING)
BALBOA ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 34 0096
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold
a public hearing on July 26, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City
of Mound offices at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, to consider an
amendment to Resolution #85-87 approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Industrial Area. The Toro Company has made application to allow for two canopies
for employee break areas at the exterior of the Balboa Building. The subject property
is legally described as follows:
BALBOA ADDITION. All that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of-way located
in ~he South Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43
minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section
13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-
way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East along said center line a
distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of said Section 13 said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly
Ivy Street, extended southerly; thence North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East
along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet
northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc.
railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence
continuing North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 40.16 feet to a
line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center
line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line
a distance of 846.76 feet to the southwesterly corner of Lot 22, Block 11, Abraham
Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park; thence South 2 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds East
a distance of 40.00 feet to said line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as
measured at right angles to, the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-
way; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West parallel with said center
line a distance of 850.35 feet to said point of beginning.
All that part of Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way located in the south Half of
Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,
Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43
minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section
13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-
way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East along said center line a
distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of said Section 13, said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly
Ivy Street, extended Southerly; thence South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West
along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet
southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc.
railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence
continuing South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 40.16 feet to
a line parallel with and 50.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said
center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said
center line a distance of 1586.25 feet to the west line of Lot 10, Block 2, 'L.P. Creivers
Subdivision of Lot 36, Lafayette Park'; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds
EaSt along said west line of Lot 10 a distance of 8.77 feet to the northwest corner of
said Lot 10; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 08 seconds East along the North line
of said lot 10 and its easterly extension a distance of 144.02 feet to the center line of
Fairview Lane; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said center
line of Fairview Lane a distance of 41.93 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet
southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said center line of the Dakota Rail, lnc.
railroad right-of-way; thence westerly, parallel with said center line a distance of
140.37 feet, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the south having a radius of
8584.37 feet, a central angle of 0 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds and a chord that
bears South 87 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 87 degrees 26
minutes 58 seconds West continuing parallel with said center line and tangent to said
curve a distance of 1589.10 feet to said point of beginning.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given
the opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Mailed to property owners within 350' by July 12, 1994. Published in 'The Laker' July 11, 1994.
ill I !, Ii, ,,11 ~
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
June 22,1994
Mr. Charles Pugh
6201 Red Oak Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Suburban Alliance
Dear Mr. Pugh:
Kiki Sonnen of WECAN has contacted me regarding your participation on the
Board of Directors. It is my understanding that we have two positions on Suburban
Alliance from the City of Mound. If you are interested in filling one of these positions,
as our representative, please contact me. I will then have the City Council formally
approve your appointment at the next regular City Council meeting, which is
scheduled for Tuesday, June 28, 1994. Thank you for your interest in the City of
Mound.
Sincerely,
d J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
ES:Is
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MA't~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
June 22, 1994
Ms. Roberta Cook
220 Center Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Ms. Cooke:
Kiki Sonnen of WECAN has contacted me regarding your participation on the
Board of Directors. It is my understanding that we have two positions on Suburban
Alliance from the City of Mound. If you are interested in filling one of these positions,
as our representative, please contact me. I will then have the City Council formally
approve your appointment at the next regular City Council meeting, which is
scheduled for Tuesday, June 28, 1994. Thank you for your interest in the City of
Mound.
Sincerely,
~~d)~w~a r~ J~ S~h u~ ,~, ~ r,
City Manager
ES:Is
[ l,
uays, ptus
$2.00 per day after
:: third day .~
Limi~ to Ten ConSeCutive Days
Four PefYear to any Organization
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
~ Ho~ Phone:~
Work Phoae:~~
~tion 810.10, SuM. 2. ~abili/y ~. (a) Prior to ~e i~ of
3~A.801 ~o ~e Ci~ ~e& ~d ~ ~e Co~ioner of~blic ~fety ~ a ~ndition Of~e i~ or renewM of
~s li~. p~fof~clM ~ibilily shall ~ given by fling ~ ~ifi~te
~licy or ~l provid~g ~e ~mum ~vemg~
3~A.~, SU~ivisioa 1. It ' · for d~ ~op liability ~
~ui~ by M~ law. ~s ~e mt~t of ~s ~t/on ~o r~ui~ ~e ~mum
of
~ of Covemge:~~
~/ion 810:10. Su~. 1. Appli~tion Fo~. In ~e ~ of~y appli~ion for a Tem~ '~-~ale' li~n~ to
Mlow ~e ~d ~mpt/on of ~r on public l~d or public ~h~! !~, ~e appli~t shall, P~or to iss~ of
~ch li~, file ~e ~ttea ~ of ~e o~er of ~ch !~ to tach ~ of
Danc~
$200.00 Yr.- Annual DanC~ .
CITY OF MOUND
s3~ ~¥wooo
~ot~, ~~SOT~ 553~
AppLICANT:
ADDRESS:~
EVF_2Cr: ' ' ' '
LOCATION OF DANCE:~
HOME pHONE #:~ HOME pHONE #:_ "-
WORK PHONE #:_
wORK PHONE #: ~ .
~.:::::~?:i::i:W~. :..:. ::i":~!':'..'i ~ ': '' ' :: '' : ..:.... :.... ' '. (,subrlll ·
Police Dept.~-~
:...:!ii!i: :? :::. i:' '.:. ?: ...' Adm, A~pr°V~~ De~i~~ t
Bldg. Dept. ~ ~ ~
~ Fire Dep~__~
~lfJh
$34~ .. Houad Clty Hanager
HOUnd, Road
Dear
Telephone
~72/475'~010 Englneer~
612/476.8632 FAX Plannera
Surveyor~
22, 1994
C:pzT
EnClos
~hrou h ed la S
~O~ra.~ urder .i~~,;33.4n -_ uUO~ec. ~uest ~
contac~ 5~u ~ave -- ~' the .~_z-equest
· '~ or "c ~o the
Deed additioDal infOrmattoa, Please
Vary truly YOUrs,
McCoMBs F~NK ROOs
John Cameron
A~ EqU~l 0ppO~unity EmplOyer
PUBliC H£ARING NO TICE
Cl7~ OF MOUND
MOUND,. MINIVE$o TA
CA SE NO. $4-2 !
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL U
APPROVED BY RESO S PERMIT
,..-_ FOR A PLANNc,, .... LUTION #85-R7 E
n,c uNIVE (BALBOA ~UILDING)
BALBOA ADDITION, PID ~13-117-24 34 0096
a Public hearin0 on I 26
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City
~und offices a~ at 7:30 . .. . of
menament to Reso'-_: 41 MaywOodm Council ound will hold
~ndustrial Area. ~_%t,on ~85-87 annr~,.:~~' ~ound, Minn~ Chambers of the C'
/or employee hr,~,'_'~ ICrC Companv~,~g. a Conditional ;~:~s~te, to COnsid,r ~t~
legally -'~0~ areas at the ext~,';~ ~aOe application '.~. ~ermit for a
described as follows: e ~-,uoa uuilding. The ~;',~;7~. Canopies
. . --~J~u[ prope~y
BALBOA ADDITION. All that pa~ of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of-way located
m the South Half of Section 13, Township 117 NO~h, Range 24 West of the Rhh
Principal Meridian, Hennepin COunt, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the sOUthwest Corner of said Section ~ 3; thence No~h 2 degrees 43
minutes 32 seconds East along the West line of the Southwest Oua~er of said Section
13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of.
way; thence No~h 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 SeConds East along said center line a
distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest OUa~er of the Southwest
Oua~er of said Section 13 said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly
IW Street, e~ended southerly; thence No~h 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 Seconds East
along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line Parallel With and 10.00 feet
no~herly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc.
railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence
continuing No~h 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 40.16 feet to a
line parallel With and 50.00 feet nO~herly of, as measured at right angles to said center
line; thence No~h 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel With said center line
a distance of 846.76 feet to the SOuthwesterly corner of Lot 22, Block 11, Abraham
Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park; thence South 2 degrees 33 minutes 02 Seconds East
a distance of 40.00 feet to said line parallel with and 10.00 ieet northerly of, as
measured at right angles to, the center line of said Dakota Rail, inc. railroad right-of'
w~¥; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 secondS West parallel with said center
line a distance of 850.35 feet to said point of beginning.
/Ntt that part of Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-WaY located in the south Half of
SectiOn 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth principal Meridian,
Hennepin CountY, Minnesota described as foll°wslaid Dakota Rail, thc. railroad
thence North 2 degrees 43
commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 13; Quarter of said Section
minutes 32 secondS East along the west line of the Southwest right-of'
799.$2 feet to the center line of East along said center line a
13 a distanCe of Quarter of the
waY; thence North $? degrees 26 minuteS 58 seconds Southwest
line of Cedar Lane, formerly
distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest
34 minutes 56
Quarter of said SectiOn 13, said east line is also the center secondS West
line parallel with and
Ivy Street, extended SoutherlY; thence South 2 degrees 10.00 feet
.... said center line o L_ described; thence
east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a · f the Dakota Rail, Inc.
along said .... ured at right an? ,"jo inn,ng of the land to -= - feet to
southerly or, as "'=°Which is the point u, ~ West a distance of said
railroad right-of-waY utherl¥ oi, as__me_as__~a~ East parallel with said
continuing South 2 degreeS 34 minutes 56 secondS ured at right angles to
west line of Lot 10, Block 2, "L.P. Creivers
a n~.u_.~ne; thence North o degree 08 minutes 52 seconds
centut-
center line a distanCe of 1566.25 feet to the
SubdiVision of Lot 36, Lafayette park"; thence North 1
EaSt along said west line of Lot 10 a distanCe of $.77 feet to the northwest corner
said Lot 1 O; thenCe South 89 degrees 51 minuteS 08 secondS East along the North line
of said lot 10 and its easterly extension a distanCe of 144.02 feet to the center line of
FairvieW Lane; thenCe North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 secondS East along said center
line of FairvieW Lane a distance of 41.93 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet
southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said center line of the Dakota Rail, inc.
right-of-waY; thence westerlY, parallel with said center line a distanCe of
railroad non.tangential curve, concave to the south having a radius of
140.37 feet, along a degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds and a chord that
8584.3'/feet, a central angle of 0 West; thence South 87 degrees 26
bears South $7 degrees 56 minutes 13 secondS
minutes 58 secondS West continuing parallel with said center line and tangent to said
curve a distance of 1589.10 feet to said point of beginning.
Att persOns appearing at said hearing with reference to the above wi%l be given
the oPP°rtunity to be heard at this meeting.
Clerk
Mailed to property ownerS within 350' by July 12, 1994. published in 'The Laker' July 11, 1994.
BILLS
June 28, 1994
BATCH 4062
Total Bills
$141,261.64
$141,261.64
Z
Z
i I ·
J I,,
o
O0
I
0
.4'
I
o
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Sum mer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
Area Fire
Service Fund
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Cemetery Fund
Docks Fund
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
May 1994
May 1994 YTD
.BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE
63,130
2,000
1,380
180,330
11,320
48 350
151 080
24 200
81 500
795 240
5 400
157.850
397 520
102 860
136 620
33 930
40 000
134 24O
1,240 35,056
0 0
202 350
13,152 69,984
34 3,080
25 322
15,069 65,187
1,461 9,032
6,608 33,961
55,595 307,183
(62) 655
11,296 55,384
22,481 158,079
19,953 45,661
10,232 47,053
0 0
1,635 3,401
10,027 50,134
.2,366~ 950 168,948 884,522
41.67%
PERCENT
VARIANCE EXPENDED
28,074
2,000
1,030
110,346
8 240
48 028
85 893
15168
47 539
488 057
4 745
102 466
239,441
57,199
89,567
33,930
36,599
84,106
55.53%
0.00%
25.36%
38.81%
27.21%
0.67%
43.15%
37.32%
41.67%
38.63%
12.13%
35.09%
39.77%
44.39%
34.44%
0.00%
8.50%
37.35%
1 ~482~428 37.37%
240,190 14,485 86,530 153,660 36.03%
104,330 18,601 60,009 44,321 57.52%
190,840 12,916 82,771 108,069 43.37%
834,990 20,202 163,067 671,923 19.53%
1,390,280 109,429 460,842 929,438 33.15%
5,240 696 2,154 3,086 41.11%
53,680 2,642 23,637 30,043 44.03%
exp94
06/14/94
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
May 1994
41.67%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non -Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Charges to Other
Departments
TOTAL REVENUE
May 1994 YTD
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE
1,231,780 0 0
9,450 95 2,019
59,850 7,663 29,238
884,960 0 28,044
49,500 1,125 6,113
65,000 5,317 20,899
60,800 1,286 6,140
15,000 1,347. 5,249
2~376t 340 16.833 97t 702.
VARIANCE
(1,231,780)
(7,431)
(30,612)
(856,916)
(43,387)
(44,101)
(54,660)
_(9,751)
PERCENT
RECEIVED
0.00%
21.37%
48.85%
3.17%
1 2.35%
32.15%
10.10%
34.99%
4.11%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
308,817 25,013 135,384 (173,433)
108,000 8,651 27,452 (80,548)
1,300,000 120,687 496,800 (803,200)
380,000 27,834 131,581 (248,419)
680,000 55,229 274,677 (405,323)
5,650 680 1,080 (4,570)
72,000 (371) 70,726 (1,274)
43.84%
25.42%
38.22%
34.63%
4O.39%
19.12%
98.23%
06/14/94
rev94
G.B.
' RECEIVEO 2 0
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Lake Access Committee
Agenda
6:00 pm, Wednesday, June 22, 1994
TONKA BAY CITY HALL
Comments received on the Report of the 1992 Lake
Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force, draft dated May 11,
1994. ~ members ~sked to bring their .report
distributed ak .the 5/25/94 board'meeting);_
Consider action to recommend the report to the LMCD board
as drafted May 11, 1994, with any additional amendments
as presented above;
Recommendation to communicate report completion to State
Officials:
* Senator Gene Merriam
* " Steven Morse
* " Gen Olson
* Representative David Battaglia
* " Phyllis Kahn
Steve Smith
* " Todd VanDellan
Ron Abrams
* Governor Arnie Carlson
* DNR Commissioner Rpd Sando
* Metropolitan Council Chair Dottie Rietow
* Henn. County Commissioner Emily Staples
* Others ~ ~ ?
Propose that the board designate the Lake Use Committee
to implement the report recommendations and terminate the
Lake Access Committee;
5. Additional business;
6. Adjourn
,. RECEIVED ~N 2 0
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
A~hnlnistratlve committee
Meeting Notice and Agenda
6:30 PM, Wednesday, June 22, 1994
Tonka Bay city Hall
1. Review of 5/25/94 Meeting Report per enclosed copy
Board members' responses from cities on draft 1995 budget
Consider policy proposal on the reserve level for the
Save the Lake Fund balance
Review and recommendation regarding extended overtime
hours for EWM crew to speed up harvest program
5. Additional business
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
RECEIVED 2 0 lgg4
7:30 PM, Wednesday, June 22, 1994
Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone
1. Annual Public Officials Lake Tour, Saturday, 8/13/94; time and
location confirmation
READING OF MINUTES - 5/25/94 Board Meeting
PUBLIC 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
* B.
* C.
* D.
WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock
Approval of minutes, 6/11/94 meeting
Bayshore Manor Condominiums, Excelsior, Excelsior Bay, multiple
dock license; recommending approval of the 4/5/94 site plan
Lord Fletchers Apartments, Spring Park, West Arm, multiple dock
license; 1) recommending approval of dock reconfiguration with
no increase in slip sizes per 5/6/94 site plan, and
2) recommending approval of partial construction of the Lord
Fletchers Apartment docks (for 14 of 32 slips)
Facilities with unrestricted watercraft affected by Resolution
90; recommending that Resolution 90, adopted 4/27/94, be
effective beginning with 1995 license year
E. Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures; recommending that an ordinance
be drafted changing the distance in Sect. 2.07 from 200' to
150' and removing the LMCD from permitting temporary structures
as long as the Sheriff,s Water Patrol will issue permits under
LMCD's ordinances
Fe
Gas dock width; recommending an ordinance be drafted to allow
10' width for gas docks with some linearity on the length
included
Ge
Shelter for electronic equipment on gas docks; recommending an
ordinance be drafted to allow a weatherproof shelter for cover
and security of electronic equipment with size to accommodate
one or two people
LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 6/22/94, Page 2
* I.
· J.
* K.
City of Wayzata's Lakewalk, Wayzata Bay; recommending initial
concept approval, to direct staff to work with Northwest
Associated Consultants, Inc. to draft ordinance provisions
which would be reviewed by the LMCD attorney
DNR proposal to enter into a cooperative agreement with the
LMCD, to have the LMCD issue certain permits for the DNR;
recommending a letter be sent to the DNR that the LMCD is
interested in entering into a cooperative agreement
Minnetonka Yacht Club; recommending approval of a multiple dock
license renewal without change for 1994
scientific buoy in West Upper Lake; recommending to the Lake
use & Recreation committee that a special event permit be
issued with no fees for this scientific buoy [Item 2. F. 1)]
L. Additional Business
LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster
A. Approval of minutes, 4/18/94 and 6/13/94 meeting (4/18/94
minutes distributed with April board agenda mailing)
B. Draft ordinance relating to Watercraft for Hire, amending Sect.
3.07; recommending approval of the first reading, as amended by
committee
C. Draft ordinance relating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect.
3.04, Subd. ?; recommending approval of the second reading
D. Request for Quiet waters Areas south of Deering Island;
recommending that no quiet waters area be established in the
area south of Deering Island
E. Hennepin county Sheriff's Water Patrol Report
F®
Additional business
1) U of M Scientific Buoy in West Upper Lake; Water Structures
committee recommendation that a special event permit be
issued with no fees
SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, chair Mollet
* A. Approval of minutes, 6/2/94 meeting
B. Divers Lake Bottom Clean-Up, 6/19/94, report of committee event
C. Progress to date on priqate fund solicitation resp°nse
LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 6/22/94 Page 3
®
LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol
A. Report of 6/22/94 meeting
1) Present Lake Access Task Force Report for final adoption upon
review of comments from cities and agencies
2)Communicate Lake Access Task Force Report to state
public officials
3) Designate Lake Use & Recreation committee to implement
Lake Access Task Force Report recommendations and terminate
the Lake Access Committee
EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn
* A. Approval of minutes, 6/10/94 meeting
Be
Report on 6/10/94 Task Force meeting
Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee Report, 6/15/94 meeting
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone
* A. Approval of minutes, 5/25/94 meeting
B. Report of 6/22/94 meeting
1) Policy proposal on reserve level for Save the Lake Fund
Balance
2) Review and recommendation regarding extended overtime
hours for milfoil crew to speed up milfoil harvest
C. Additional business
FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop
A. May Balance Sheet
B. Year to Date Financial Summary
C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (meeting handout)
D. 1995 LMCD Budget for a~option and submittal to member cities
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
6/17/94
RECEIVED
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Regular Meeting
7:30 PM., Wednesday, May 25, 1994
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER '
The meeting was called to order by Chair Johnstone at 7:30 PM
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Wm. Johnstone, Chair, Minnetonka; Bert Foster,
Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Jos. Zwak, Greenwood; Mike
Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese,
Mound; Robert Rascop, Treasurer, shorewood; Douglas Babcock,
Secretary, Spring Park; Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Duane
Markus, Wayzata. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel;
Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen,
Executive Director. ·
Members Absent: Craig Moiler, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland
Orono has no appointed representative.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements from the chair.
READING OF MINUTES
Zwak moved, Bloom seconded, to approve the minutes of the
4/27/94 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from persons
jects not on the agenda.
in attendance on sub-
CONSENT AGENDA
Bloom moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda
items identified by "*", removing 1.A. (Water Structures Commit-
tee Minutes of 5/14/94) and 1.F. (Bean's Greenwood Marina) for
individual discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Water Structures, Chair Babcock
A. Approval of Minutes. Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded,
to approve the minutes of Water Structures Committee meeting of
5/1.4/94 with the following corrections:
Page 2, Item 2, Minnetonka Boat Works, (MBW), Paragraph 3, 5th
Sentence to read: "Babcock added that MBW had 76 7~4 storage slips
and 6 transient slips all within 200' "
Page 3, Line 2, to read: " .... 80 slips to 89 slips in order to
ee~a~m ad__~d the 9 slips geam~ed ponstrpcte~dd under the TLWV."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Michael G. Arvidson New Multiple Dock License Applica-
tion, Shorewood, 'Gideons Bay.
Babcock presented the Public Hearing report with findings
and committee recommendation for approval of a multiple dock
license for 7 BSU at Lot 293, Auditors subd. 135, with the stipu-
lation that the granting of this license does not authorize
anything prohibited by the City of shorewood Ordinances.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
May 25, 1994
DISCUSSION: LeFevere suggested adding to the motion LMCD Code
Section 2.12, Subd. 8.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded, to approve a multiple
dock license for Michael G. Arvidson, Shorewood, Gideons Bay, for
7 BSU at Lot 293, Auditors subdivision 135, noting that as speci-
fied in LMCD Code Section 2.12, Subd. 8, nothing herein is in-
tended to supersede ordinances or regulations of local municipal
authorities or other governmental agencies with appropriate
jurisdiction, or to authorize any use or structure which is
prohibited by such ordinance or regulation. The LMCD recognizes
the legitimate interests of other governmental agencies in regu-
lating uses and structures, and nothing herein should be deemed a
disapproval of any such regulations.
DISCUSSION: Rascop said approval conflicts with the Shorewood
ordinance as the lots involved do not have a primary residence on
them. The executive director said the structures are not on the
outlot itself. The docks precede the city's ordinance which
prohibits building docks without a primary structure on the
site. Thibault said that in 1982 the City of Shorewood allowed
the three docks to be grandfathered in. Two docks are to be used
soley by Mr. Arvidson, 5595 Timber Lane, and his tenant at 5597
Timber Lane and the third dock is limited to use by Duane Bag-
dons, 5585 Timber Lane, who has a dock easement on the site. In
a letter dated 5/4/94, the city stated that if the docks are
used to store boats other than those owned by Arvidson, his
tenant and Bagdons, the license should be revoked. Thibault said
the committee, in its discussions, did not want to be in the
position of enforcing the Shorewood ordinance. LeFevere said
that, if one of the boats were to be owned by someone other than
those specified by Shorewood, it would not be a violation of the
LMCD Code. The District, in that case, would be in the position
of enforcing the city's code.
Rascop said the LMCD Code says the LMCD will abide by city
ordinances and will not approve anything in violation of a city
Code. Babcock said the city has stipulations about the use of
the docks over and above what the LMCD Code requires. LeFevere
said Sect. 2.03, Subd. ~ of the Code regarding multiple dock
licensing states that construction must comply with municipal
zoning ordinances. The action can be interpreted that the LMCD
is not pre-empting the authority of the city. He said that by
acceding to the city's request it puts the LMCD in the position
of enforcing a city ordinance. He used as an example a city
requesting the LMCD not approve a dock for a restaurant that does
not have adequate parking on land. The parking is not part of
the L~CD authority.
Bloom spoke for approval based on the applicant complying
with the LMCD ordinances.
VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop voting nay.
C. Minnetonka Boat Works (MBW), Multiple Dock License,
(MDL) Special Density License (SDL) and Length Variance Applica-
tions, 294 E. Grove Lane, Wayzata, Wayzata Bay.
- continued
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 25, 1994
The committee submitted the Public Hearing report and Find-
ings and recommended as follows: 1) Findings and Order be
drafted for denial of the variance application, 2) extension of
the temporary low water variance (for the nine slips extending to
238') for one year to 4/26/95, subject to execution of a coopera-
tive agreement with the City of Wayzata for the use of the
handicapped accessible slip, with nine inside slips being taken
out of service, and 3) the applications for a new multiple dock
license and special density license be tabled.
Johnstone said he would refrain from voting because of a
possible conflict of interest as his firm does work for MBW.
Babcock said the committee voted as it did because it wanted
to send a message that the District does not want variances
beyond the 200' limit. The decision to extend the Temporary Low
Water Variance (TLWV) for one year was in response to the Ameri-
can Disabilities Act (ADA) and because of the costs being in-
curred by MBW in replacing non-encased polystyrene docks at its
Orono marina. The SDL and new MDL applications were tabled
because they require a new site plan. Foster asked that each
item be considered individually. Babcock said the three items
are tied together. Foster asked whether it would be realistic to
deny the variance to 238' but leave the variance application open
to up to 200' He would like to have that option left open to
MBW without submitting a new application.
Markus called attention to a 5/24/94 letter from Allan
Orsen, City Manager, City of Wayzata, indicating he has met with
the MBW staff regarding some land use changes tying in with the
proposed Lakewalk along the Wayzata lakefront. The city supports
the extension of the MBW variance to allow a reasonable time
frame for all parties to better determine the future use of the
waterfront. Markus suggested there will be a total reconfigura-
tion of the area between Broadway and Barry Avenues. He suggest-
ed allowing the TLWV docks to remain in place for one year, but
not be used.
Babcock recapped that MBW needs a variance for any change in
the 100' to 200' area, there is a need for a new multiple dock
license because there is a change in configuration and additional
slips, and a new Special Density License in order to add 9 slips.
James Farrell, Oenmar, said that if the District requires a
roping off or non-use of the 9 docks outside of the 200' limit
the MBW will withdraw its offer to enter into an agreement with
the City of Wayzata for the use of one slip for the city's com-
pliance with the ADA.
MOTION: Markus moved, Foster seconded, to amend the TLWV to
allow the 9 slips constructed under the TLWV to remain in posi-
tion until 4/26/95 by which date they must be removed, provided
they are, at this time, permanently roped off or in some manner
prohibited from being used. The justification for the extension
is the hardship involved in the cost of removing the docks at
this time.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
May 25, 1994
DISCUSSION: Frank Pillsbury, General Manager, MBW, asked that
MBW be allowed to use the 9 slips when the MBW has a special
event. Foster asked Markus if he would amend the motion to allow
the use of the slips for special events. Markus did not agree to
amend the mot ion.
Reese said he is concerned by the City of Wayzata letter
supporting the variance.
Foster called attention to a letter from the Wayzata Yacht
Club (WYC) offering an ADA approved handicapped slip to the City
of Wayzata in return for LMCD approval for removal of 9 of its
buoys and replacement with 9 slips beyond 200'. Pillsbury said
there are more ADA requirements than just a ramp to a dock. He
doubts that the WYC docks meet the other ADA requirements.
Pillsbury objected to any inference that the ADA slip for the
city is a bargaining chip for the additional slips.
VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop and Reese voting nay. Johnstone
abstaining.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Bloom seconded, to refer to the commit-
tee any plans the MBW has for a variance, multiple doCk license
and special density license falling within 200' of the shore
line.
VOTE: Motion carried, Johnstone abstaining.
E. Sandy Beach Place, 3995 North Shore Drive, Orono, West
Arm
The application is for a new dock license to reduce the
slips from six to five to comply with City of Orono requirements.
The requirement results from the removal of one structure from
the property. A request of the applicant for his personal use of
the sixth slip was denied by the city.
Babcock asked about the 8' extension on the pier on which
the sixth slip was located. Thibault said it is used for water
skiing and is within the dock use area.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve a new dock
license for Sandy Beach Place, reducing the slips from six to
five, eliminating slip #4, which is to be signed "No Parking"
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
F. Bean's Greenwood Marina, 21945 Minnetonka Blvd., Green-
wood, St. Albans Bay.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded, to approve a new dock
license for Bean's Greenwood Marina with minor changes as fol-
lows: 1) Relocation of slip #104 to the space next to slips #55-
58 2) Relocation of slip #110 next ~o Slip #7 3) denial of the
relocation of slips Tl12 and TI13, 4) Require the dock ends next
to slips #80 and #84 to be signed "No Boat Docking".
VOTE: Motion carried, Penn voting nay.
G. Lord Fletchers Apartments, 4400 West Arm Road, Spring
Park, West Arm.
Babcock turned the chair over to Foster because he lives in
Lord Fletchers Apartments.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS · May 25, 1994
The application is for a new dock license for reconfigura-
tion of slips with no increase in slip size and a request for
partial construction of the dock. Foster explained that the
applicant is licensed for 32 slips and wants to construct only
the 14 slips needed this year. LMCD ordinance No. 123, Code
Sect. 2.05, Subd. 8, requires that special density licenses
issued for facilities which are not fully constructed for any two
year period shall be deemed abandoned and revoked except to the
extent such facilities are actually constructed within such
period; provided, that the facilities may be partially construct-
ed if the licensee: a) receives approval from the Board for such
partial construction at the time of the granting of the appli-
cant's annual multiple dock license and b) all amenities required
for the facility are provided during the year. Lord Fletcher
Apartments has a Special Density Permit issued 10/3/84 based upon
the provision of public winter access at the apartment ramp.
Foster said the District could allow partial construction of
this facility, reducing from the licensed 32 slips to 14, as
requested. If denied, the applicant then would be forced into
building all 32 slips.
The executive director said the purpose of Ordinance 123 is
for control when applications are made for multiple docks with no
intent to build in the immediate future.
Foster's motion for approval was not seconded.
Thibault said there have been 32 slips at the site in the
past. Foster said it is a seasonal dock and they put out only as
many sections as needed for their tenants. Babcock said there
have been about 14-16 slips installed over the past five years.
Reese said by approving this application the District if perpetu-
ating a grandfathered situation. He thought the District had
intentions to eliminate the grandfathered multiple docks. Bloom
agreed with Reese's comments.
LeFevere said this a unique situation. They have a special
density license acquired before the code was changed to prohibit
special density licenses to facilities not open to the public.
There was discussion on other locations on the Lake, such as
Chapman Place, which had to conform to LMCD requirements for a
commercial marina to maintain non-conforming, grandfathered boat
storage density. LeFevere pointed out that there are no vested
rights in any multiple dock license, as the District can change
the Code at any time.
MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to table the applica-
tion of Lord Fletchers Apartments and refer the matter to the
committee. Bloom and Markus voting nay.
VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop,
Babcock abstaining.
Foster turned the chair back to Babcock.
H. City of Wayzata's Preliminary Plans for the Lakewalk
Scott Richards, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. and
James Robin Landscape Architect, exhibited the proposed plans
' - continued
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 25, 1994
for a Lakewalk on the downtown Wayzata shoreline, Wayzata Bay. A
presentation was made initially at the 5/14/94 Water Structures
Committee meeting, as detailed in its minutes. The committee
recommended approval of the concept.
Babcock said the presentation to the Board was informational
only. There are a number of steps to be accomplished such as a
variance for the dock width. A multiple dock license would have
to be approved along with a special density license to add trans-
ient and overnight boat slips. An EAW would be required and
other technical matters considered before there can be any indi-
cation of approval.
The ownership of the shoreline was clarified. The City of
Wayzata owns the land to the Lake. The Burlington Northern
Railroad (BN) has an easement over it.
Rascop asked how this plan ties in with the handicapped
access for the City of Wayzata discussed earlier in the meeting.
Robin said the Lakewalk will meet ADA requirements, current or
pending. Foster said the Lakewalk will solve the City of Wayzata
ADA requirements. Babcock said the City has two years to meet
ADA requirements.
Penn asked why this had to be built over the water. Robin
said it is because BN requires a 25' setback from its center line
and that prohibits use of the land along the shoreline. A dock on
the land would require fill in the Lake. A fill permit will not
be given by the State.
Bloom asked for further information regarding BN's refusal
for use of its easement. It was explained the BN tracks are
heavily traveled. There was a fatal pedestrian accident on the
tracks two years ago. The city is unwilling to compromise BN's
safety standards.
Penn said the concept is fine but he cannot support a 1000'
dock.
Johnstone asked if other plans were considered using the
area near the depot to avoid building in the Lake. Robin said
there is always some other possibility. They are addressing the
need to get from Broadway to where they can get back on land near
the Depot.
Babcock said the committee discussion concerning the Lake-
walk favored putting in a fishing pier and gaining more access
for transient boats to relieve congestion on other parts of the
Lake.
Johnstone asked about costs and funding sources. Robin said
the estimated cost is $2,000,000. The City of Wayzata, through
Tax Increment Financing, has provided $250,000 for the planning
stage. The Wayzata Improvement Foundation plans to have fund
raising programs.
Grathwol asked what uses are being made of the shoreline
now. Robin said people tend to walk down the BN right-of-way.
Richards said the City has looked for years for some plan to get
the public down to the Lake view.
The next steps are to discuss this with all concerned agen-
cies. A concurrence by the District with the concept would be
appreciated.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 25, 1994
The Lakewalk will be lighted according to LMCD regulations
for safety purposes on the walkway.
Bloom would like to see a plan getting it out of the Lake
and on to the shore.
Grathwol said this is a creative solution for getting people
access to the lake and for safety purposes.
MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to give concept approv-
al to the Wayzata Lakewalk plan.
DISCUSSION: Bloom said he has concern that concept approval
would be on the plan, rather than the District approving the use
of the Lake. Grathwol said, despite the variances need for dock
width and distance into the Lake, it is a good idea. Penn said
the plan is fraught with problems and he does not believe the
District should give a green light on this plan. There is a list
of issues to be addressed. Bloom said he would be uncomfortable
voting on something as important as this without discussing it
with his city. ·
LeFevere said perhaps this should go back to the committee
He said it may be a great idea, but is different than anything
the District has seen before. For one thing it is taking unusa-
ble shoreline and making it usable. It is a closed-in system and
blocks off part of the Lake. There may be other applications on
other Lake shoreline where it does not make as much sense as this
one. Applied elsewhere the idea would not be wise. LeFevere
said, typically, over the years, the District has been faced with
docks going out into the Lake to create boat slips. That kind of
use is desirable for marinas. This idea, applied by a marina to
get access to some other part of the Lake, would not be desira-
ble. Land developers might want to use the same concept. The
District may find a need to include something in its code to
cover this kind of activity. He said there is a risk in setting
a precedent by using the current code. LeFevere advised the
Board to anticipate the problems and by trying to use the current
Code the District may have a hard time turning the plan down.
Foster said he can support Code changes to accommodate a
governmental-tYpe public accommodation. It would be a benefit to
Wayzata and the public.
Bloom asked that there not be a vote at this time, after
just the first viewing. He wants to see if his views are the
same as his council's. Richards said they are not pressing for a
vote of approval. Johnstone said he is not ready to vote at this
time. He would like time to review the plan and come back with
constructive comments. Partyka said he would like to see ordi-
nances created to deal with this type of improvement rather than
dealing with many variances o[ the current code.
Foster and Grathwol withdrew the motion.
MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to table the proposal and
refer it to the Water Structures Committee for further study.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 25, 1994
2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster
B. Draft Ordinance Relating to Lighting on Docks, Amending
Section 2.03 and Section 2.12.
MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve the second
reading of the draft ordinance relating to lighting on docks,
amending Section 2.03 and 'Section 2.12 of the LMCD Code.
DISCUSSION: Babcock said Spring Park does not feel the District
should be spending time and money discussing lighting on docks.
Rascop said he does not believe it is a good law, that it
does not have the proper wording and definition of lighting.
gwak and Markus agreed with Rascop's statement.
Rascop said he wants it understood he supports the idea of
an ordinance to control lighting on docks. He explained that he
has talked to several experts in the lighting field. It is his
feeling that the proper wording for light description should be
in "foot candle power"
Johnstone expressed concern about the differences on the
Board as to whether this is the right way to accomplish the goal
of reducing objectionable lights on the Lake.
Bloom said perhaps the wording is not perfect. The commit-
tee used the language it did to make it understandable to the
average person who knows what a 100 Watt bulb is. Bloom said he
is getting an impression that some member cities feel the Dis-
trict should not do this because it is encroaching on the land.
He asked if this subject came up at the mayor's meeting. John-
stone said he believes there are a couple of cities which do not
support it, and feel that it is not important enough for the
District to spend time on it. Bloom said he would not have an
objection to taking this back to the committee if the members
objecting could give some other language.
Babcock, as the person charged with developing an envelope
concept, said he finds the requirement for detailed plans for
lighting as not fitting into the envelope concept.
Penn asked whether there has been contact with the cities on
this. Up front involvement with the cities is necessary. There
is a perception of infringing on city authority.
Babcock said Spring Park feels the District is getting too
detailed for what it is trying to achieve. He believes it is
going too far.
LeFevere clarified that the proposed ordinance, amending
Sect. 2.03, Subd. 12 refers to lighting on multiple docks and
Sect. 2.12, new Subd. 14 refers to all dock lighting. Sect.
2.03, Subd. 12 of the proposed ordinance, in asking for a light-
ing plan, is typical of land planning requirements.
Gabriel Jabbour, Orono, said as he is in a business special-
izing in lights and lighting control, he has expertise to offer
the Board. He said a 100 Watt bulb can have a variety of inten-
sities. The manner of measuring intensity is a complicated,
mathematical formula involving the use of light meters. He said
the ordinance does not address the dispersion of lighting, indi-
rect lighting, clustering of lights or cumulative lights. Jab-
hour offered to put up a display of various lights at his marina,
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 25, 1994
Tonka Bay Marina, to show the Board the difference in various
types of lights. He furnished the executive director with addi-
tional information. Foster thanked Sabbour for the effort he has
put forth. He disagreed with Jabbour in that he believes the
ordinance has made a complicated matter simple and understandable
by having the offensive lights shielded.
Grathwol said he believes it is important to build a consen-
sus about lights on the Lake before going ahead with the ordi-
nance adoption. He would like to see both ordinances, this one
and the one for the cities to adopt, come forth at the same time.
MOTION: Babcock moved', Zwak seconded, to table the discussion
and refer the matter back to the committee.
VOTE: Motion carried, Fo~ter, Bloom and Reese voting nay.
C. Draft ordinance Relating to Huntington Point Quiet
Waters Areas, Lower Lake North
MOTION: Foster moved, Bloom seconded, to waive the second and
third readings and approve the adoption of the draft ordinance
establishing two Quiet waters Areas near Huntington Point.
VOTE: Motion carried, Markus and Babcock voting nay.
D. Draft ordinance Relating to Special Event Permits,
Amending Code Sect. 3.09.
The Board received a draft ordinance which will allow the
Water Patrol to issue special event permits in lieu of both the
District and the Water Patrol issuing permits.
LeFevere said the ordinance before the Board is a mixture of
the one he prepared with changes recommended by the Water Patrol
incorporated into it. Le?evere said it will not work in the form
submitted. He said Subd. 4 of the proposed ordinance provides
for an appeal of a Water Patrol decision that says the Board,
after consideration by the appropriate committee, can affirm,
reverse or modify the decision of the Water Patrol. LeFevere
said that in delegating the power of issuing special event per-
mits to the Water Patrol, the District still is responsible even
if it doesn't review the application. LeFevere said there was a
misunderstanding with the Sheriff's Department in that Subd. 4
might be interpreted as giving the District power over the per-
mits the Water Patrol issues under State Statutes.
LeFevere said the amendment to Subd. 2 includes the deletion
of the application fee charged by the District as the Water
Patrol has no authority to charge fees. He said if the District
wants to continue to collect fees for the special event permits a
method has to be developed so the District can collect a fee
while the Water Patrol issues the permit.
MOTION: Foster moved, Babcock seconded, to refer the draft
ordinance re special event permits back to the committee for
clarification of the matters mentioned by LeFevere.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 25, 1994
E. Draft Ordinance Relating to Marine Toilets
MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded, to approve the first rend-
ing of a draft ordinance relating to marine toilets, amending
Sect. 3.04, Subd. ? of the LMCD Code.
DISCUSSION: Thibault explained the ordinance is an update re-
quested by the Water Patrol. The current ordinance refers to
Pollution Control Agency approved treatment devices for marine
toilets, and there is no such approved device. The PCA and MnDNR
have seen the ordinance and have not offered any objections.
Babcock questioned whether this ordinance would prohibit him
from having an over-flow vent on his boat. LeFevere said he
probably would be in violation if it is an over-flow drain that
discharges outside of the boat. Babcock said he would be opposed
to adopting an ordinance placing 95% of the boats on the Lake in
violation. Johnstone wondered why, if this is covered by State
law, the District has to have a separate ordinance. LeFevere
said he believes the discharge into the Lake is covered by State
law which prohibits portable toilet facilities on boats but they
are informally accepted. Babcock said he believes the wording
prohibits over-flow vents. He understands that discharge into
the Lake would be illegal.
Foster said he is troubled by the use of the word "drain"
rather than "vent"
LeFevere suggested, as this is the first reading of the
ordinance, he will take a look at what the State law says and how
it is interpreted. There will be time before the second reading
to get answers to the questions raised.
VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock voting nay.
COMMENT: Babcock said he has observed excessive speeds at night
on the Lake. The executive director will discuss it with the
Water Patrol.
3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Strommen for Moiler
A. Minutes
The executive director reviewed the minutes of the Save the
Lake Advisory Committee of 5/5/94. He commented on the "Lake-
watch" report. Gabriel Jabbour was applauded for his contribu-
tions to the Lakewatch water clarity and temperature monitoring
program which kicked-off its program 5/14/94 at the Tonka Bay
Marina.
B. Revised Budget
The executive director called attention the committee's
recommendation that the lakeshore lighting expenses of $5,000 be
drawn from LMCD public funds rather than from the Save the Lake
budget. It is the committee's belief that ordinance preparation
is a function of the General Fund.
MOTION: Zwak moved, Markus seconded, to move the $5,000 for
lighting from the Save the Lake Fund to the General Fund.
DISCUSSION: Babcock said Spring Park is not in favor of spending
money on this lighting ordinance. Babcock further said it does
not favor spending General Fund money on it, so he plans to vote
against this motion. Partyka asked Reese how much money he
1 o
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 25, 1994
thinks is needed for the lighting ordinance study, commenting on
the need to keep the budget down. Reese responded that he
thought the Board had placed its trust in he and Foster to
develop the ordinance. Penn said he understands the committee
does not except to spend $5,000 on legal and consulting fees. He
asked why is it being put in the general fund. Reese responded
that the committee is not any where near a solution, so the fund-
ing should not be taken away.
The executive director said the proposed transfer of budget
funds will not require a budget amendment. The only expenditures
so far have been for legal services. Those costs could be ab-
sorbed into the already budgeted legal costs. Consulting service
has come at not cost to the LMCD from volunteers, thanks to
contacts made by Reese and Foster.
Reese said very little has been achieved to date in an
attempt to control light pollution. The publicity has produced
an interest on the part of the public. By taking away the fund-
ing and referring the ordinance back to the committee the message
to the public is that the District is not interested. If the
funding is taken away, Reese said he will not have anything to do
with the program.
Penn suggested obtaining some dollar estimate of what it
will cost to complete the program. Grathwol said it is possible
that the Save the Lake committee does not fully understand the
problem and therefore it has a concern about spending $5,000.
Reese said there is still a need for a test site. By deleting
the funding the impetus is being taken away. Partyka asked if
$2,000 would be sufficient to complete the program. Reese said
it is a matter of trusting the lighting subcommittee. Johnstone
responded that it is not a matter of trust, rather it is the
matter of whether $5,000 is needed. Rascop said the message he
sees is that if the lighting subcommittee does not spend the
money it will be taken away [rom them. There will be additional
costs when the ordinance for adoption by the municipalities is
drafted. Babcock asked fbr a budget covering the lighting ordi-
nance adoption costs. Rascop said he believes these special
project costs should come out of the Save the Lake Fund.
MOTION AS RE-WORDED: Zwak moved, Markus seconded, that the
budget item of $5,000 for lakeshore lighting expenses be removed
from the Save the Lake Fund and the funding come from the General
Fund for the purpose of developing a lakeshore lighting program.
VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop, Foster, Babcock and Reese voting
nay.
C. Save the Lake Fund Reserve Level
The committee discussed the existing Save the Lake Fund
balance and asked that the Board consider a policy on how much of
a reserve should be retained. It was discussed at the Adminis-
trative Committee meeting of 5/25. The committee recommendation
is to have the current expenditures drawn out of current earnings
and the earned interest stay in the Fund Balance. There was also
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 25, 1994
discussion about building the Fund by a certain percentage each
year to have funds for any emergency. Babcock suggested spending
current year contributions plus 1/2 of the accrued interest on
current year projects.
The consensus of the Board is to prepare a policy of not
invading the principal of the Save the Lake Fund, making the
annual contributions avaiJable for current projects. The execu-
tive director was asked to draft a policy statement for Board
approval.
The executive director reported $4,500 has been received
from the current year 1994 mail solicitation which went out May
19, including $2,000 from the Norwest Bank E-Z Race.
4. LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol
A. Lake Access Task Force Meeting 5/11/94
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded to approve the
report of the Lake Access Task Force meeting of 5/11/94 as sub-
mitted, correcting the meeting date and adding Mike Markell to
those present. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Presentation of the Lake Access Task Force Report
Grathwol presented the May 11, 1994 Draft Report of the Lake
Access Task Force to the Board. Grathwol expressed thanks to the
Task Force members from the DNR, David Cochran, Gabriel Jabbour,
Bert Foster and Eugene Strommen.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to receive the Lake
Access Task Force report draft and refer it to the Lake Access
Committee for recommendation to the Board at its next meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Markus said he has observed cars and trailers with three
personal watercraft parked at ramps. He understands there are
more such trailers being built. He said this activity could add
200 to 300 more boats on the Lake, using 100 car/trailer parking
spaces. Penn said that is an issue the Lake Use and Recreation
Committee is going to have to take up.
Johnstone expressed thanks to 6rathwol, on behalf of the
Board, for having undertaken the long and difficult process of
preparing the report and completing it.
5. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn
A. There was no meeting in May
B. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee
Penn reported the Task Force has established a Zebra Mussel
and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee. A report of its 5/19/94
meeting was distributed He said " low is
,,p · s down" better than
revent" as a reference in the first paragraph. He said the
purpose of the subcommittee is to slow down the introduction and
spread of zebra mussel and other aquatic exotics. Participants
in the subcommittee are the blnDNR, Hennepin Parks, LMLOA, MN Sea
Grant and the MN Lakes Association.
The subcommittee was formed because of Lake Minnetonka's
proximity to the Mississippi River where Zebra Mussel has been
found. Its purpose is information gathering, development of a
May 25, 1993
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
realistic plan for control,/ review the actions of the MnDNR to
date, to be pro active on the programs and to bring other organi-
zations into the study, such as the fishing community.
Babcock said there has to be some way of putting the respon-
sibility for slowing the spread on the people using the water
facilities.
6. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone
Johnstone reported on the meeting with Mayors and Council-
members held on 5/4. Seven Mayors and 3 Councilmembers were
present. A general review and oversight of the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District was given, including what its responsibili-
ties are. The meeting response was positive with good questions.
The disappointment was that there were not more councilmembers
present. Johnstone suggested invitations be sent to councilmem-
bets for the next Mayors' meeting.
Johnstone reported the City of Orono has approved payment of
its past due levies at its May 23, 1994 Council Meeting. The city
has not appointed a representative to the Board.
The annual lake tour is scheduled for 7:30 PM, Tues.,June 7.
Detailed information will be sent out.
6. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop
A. March and April balance sheets were distributed and
ordered filed. The financial summary as of 4/30/94 is available.
It shows the District is within its budget limits.
B. Payment of Bills
It was explained the larger amounts were levy refunds to
cities which paid in full for 1994 and the shoreland Grant reim-
bursement, painting the harvesters and the General Liability
Is
Insurance.
MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded, to approve payment of bil
in the amount of $66,173.48, Payroll checks #1211 through #1218
and checks #9678 through 9759.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. 1993 Audit Report
The Babcock, Langbein and Company 1993 LMCD audit and man-
agement letter were received. The recommendations in the manage-
ment letter are being complied with. The executive director said
he is investigating off-site storage of records. Rascop compli-
mented the auditor for the timeliness and thoroughness of the
audit.
D. Draft of 1995 Budgct
Rascop said the draft budget for 1995 is the second year of
the program to reduce the fund balance to a six month appropria-
tion. The District is funded within the .00242% levy to the
cities. Rascop said 1995 does not present a problem, but in 1996
and future years the levy limit will not support current pro-
grams. There may be a need to reduce some management activity
and some milfoil work.
LNCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS Nay 25, 1994
Babcock said he would like to see a five year plan with a
capital expenditure program.
Rascop said he has talked to some Lake area assessors and
there will be increases in the city valuations. Jabbour said
Mound and Orono are leveling off in valuation. Jabbour suggested
getting the private sector to join with the District in joint
ventures.
Rascop asked for any reductions or additions. This draft
will be sent to the cities for their comments. Final approval of
the 1995 budget will be made at the Sune Board meeting. The
final budget will be in the hands of the cities by Suly 1. The
cities may still ~all for a hearing on any objection to the
budget before the city certifies the LMCD levy amount in its
budget.
The executive director announced he will separate the Save
the Lake Fund from the puSlic General Fund and milfoil budget.
MOTION: Babcock moved, iwak seconded, to approve circulation of
the draft budget to the cities.
VOTE: ~otion carried unanimously.
Johnstone asked members to attend the meetings at which
their respective city councils discuss the LMCD budget.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen
The executive director reported he is pleased with the
progress of the personnel and their commitment to expanding
obligations. All approved multiple dock licenses have been sent
out. Charter boat licenses have all been processed.
Strommen thanked Foster for his assistance in editing the
Lake Access Task Force Report.
Foster thanked Jim Wyer and Randy Shutt for their work on
the wake brochure.
Bloom reported he is filing a charge against a 41' boat for
creating an excessive wake which threw water into his boat and
almost swamped some fishing boats.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnstone declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM.
Wm. Johnstone, Chair
Douglas Babcock, Secretary
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:30 PM, Wednesday, May 25, 1994
Tonka Bay city Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone
READING OF MINUTES - 4/27/94 Board Meeting
PUBLIC 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.
* D.
~o keep the sixth slip for the owners use.
Approval of minutes, 5/14/94 meeting
B. Michael G. Arvidson new multiple dock license application,
Shorewood, Gideons Bay; Public hearing report with findings and
recommending approval of a multiple dock license for 7 BSU at
Lot 293, Auditors Subd. 135, with the stipulation that the
granting of this licens~ does not authorize anything prohibited
by the city of Shorewood Ordinances.
C. Minnetonka Boat Works, multiple dock license, special density
license and length variance applications, 294 E. Grove Lane,
Wayzata, Wayzata Bay; Public hearing report with findings and
recommendations as follows: 1) recommending Findings and Order
be drafted for denial of the variance application,
2) recommending extension of the temporary low water variance
(for the nine slips extending to 238') for one year to 4/26/95,
subject to execution of a cooperative agreement with the City
of Wayzata for the use of the handicapped accessible slip, with
nine inside slips being taken out of service, and 3)
recommending the applications for a new multiple dock license
and special density license be tabled
Carlson Dock Length Variance, 21650 Fairview Street, Greenwood,
Lower Lake South; recommending approval of the draft Findings
and Order granting approval of the dock length variance
E. Sandy Beach Place, 3995 North Shore Drive, Orono, West Arm; new
dock license to reduce the slips from six to five to comply
with city of Orono requirements, eliminating slip 4, which is
to be signed "no parking"; the city of Orono denied the request
'CD Board of Directors Agenda, 5/25/94, Page 2
* F. Bean's Greenwood Marina, 21945 Minnetonka Blvd., Greenwood, St.
Albans Bay, new dock license for minor change in location of
slips; recommending 1) approval of the relocation of slip $104
to the space next to slips #55-58 2) relocation of slip #110
next to Slip #7, 3) denial of the relocation of slips Tl12 and
Tl13, and 4) that the dock ends next to slips #80 and #84 be
signed "no boat docking,,
G. Lord Fletchers Apartments, 4400 West Arm Rd, Spring Park, West
Arm, new dock license for reconfiguration of slips with no
increase in slip size, and request for partial construction of
dock; recommending approval of the revised site plan for
relocation of slips with no increase in slip sizes, with a
request for clarification of Ordinance 123 as it relates to
this application for partial construction of a dock with a
special density license
H. City of Wayzata,s Preliminary Plans for the Lakewalk on Wayzata
Bay; recommending concept approval of the Lakewalk in Wayzata
* I. Deicing License Deposit Refunds @$100 each; recommending
approval of deposit refunds per minutes
J. Additional Business
LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster
* A. Approval of minutes, 5/16/94 meeting
B. Draft Ordinance relating to Lighting on Docks, amending Sect.
2.03 and Sect. 2.12; recommending approval of the second
reading as submitted
C. Draft Ordinance relating to Huntington Point Quiet Waters
Areas, Lower Lake North; recommending approval and adoption of
the draft ordinance establishing two Quiet Waters Areas near
Huntington Point, waiving second and third readings
D. Draft Ordinance relating to Special Event Permits being Issued
by the Sheriff for the LMCD, amending Sect. 3.09; recommending
the Board review the revised draft with changes recommended by
the Water Patrol incorporated
Draft Ordinance relating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect.
3.04, Subd. 7; recommending approval of the first reading as
submitted
* F.
Special Event Deposit Refund of $100; recommending approval of
the deposit refund for the Holiday/Johnson Crappie Contest
4/23/94
* G.
Requests for Quiet Waters Areas around Deering Island and Cedar
Point; a lake tour will be scheduled to review these two sites
for consideration of slow buoy placement (tour tentatively set
for 7:30 PM, Tuesday, June 7)
LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 5/25/94, Page 3
* H. Excelsior Park charter Boat wine and Beer License applications;
recommending approval subject to satisfactory background check
by Sheriff
* I. Hennepin county Sheriff's Water Patrol Report
j. Additional business
SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, chair Mollet
* A. Approval of minutes, 5/5/94 meeting
B. Presentation of revised budget per Board's 3/23/94
recommendations, with request for reconsideration of lakeshore
lighting allocation to general fund
C. Policy on reserve level of Save the Lake fund requested
LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol
A. Report of 5/11/94 Lake Access Task Force meeting
B. Presentation of the Lake Access Task Force Report
EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, chair Penn
A. No meeting held in May
B. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee Report, 5/19/94 meeting
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone Approval of minutes, 4/27/94 meeting
Be
Report of 5/25/94 meeting
C. Additional business
FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop
A. March and April Financial Summaries
B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (meeting handout)
C. 1993 Audit Report
D. Draft of 1995 Budget
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Str~mmen
A. Personnel progress and commitment to expanding obligations
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
5/19/94
RECEIVEE)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Action Report:
Meeting:
Water Structures Committee
7:30 AM, Saturday, June 11, 1994
Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata, Room 135
Members Present: Bob Rascop, acting chair, Shorewood; Tom
Reese, Mound; Jim Grathwol, Excelsior; Gene Partyka,
Minnetrista. Also present: Eugene Strommen, Executive
Director; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician.
Acting Chair Rascop called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM.
1. Bayshore Manor Condominiums, Excelsior, Excelsior Bay,
multiple dock license application for revised site plan which
reflects existing structures.
Thibault distributed an aerial photograph from 1983 that
confirmed the dock configuration of the new site plan
submitted 4/5/94 showing the actual dock layout.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded to recommend
approval of the 4/5/94 site plan for Bayshore Manor
Condominiums.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
In order to process Item 2, the application from Lord
Fletchers Apartments, clarification of the Board's intention
regarding partial construction of docks with special density
licenses was needed. Therefore, Item 3 regarding Ordinance
123 was taken before Item 2.
3. Ordinance 123, relating to Special Density Licenses and
the effect of failure to construct licensed docks within a
specified time;
Staff's understanding was that Ordinance 123, relating to
abandonment of a special density license, was written to
include a provision for the Board to approve partial
construction of a multiple dock with a special density
license. This would allow the facility not to put in all its
dock slips if they were not all needed. However, the
committee chair had expressed the opinion that the ordinance
intended that if the licensee did not put in all the slips
for a two year period, the slips not installed would be lost.
Thibault said there wsre two options: 1) to allow the
licensees to partially construct the docks, putting in only
what they need, or 2) force them to put in all the licensed
slips every year or they lose the slips.
Reese asked for a review of why the ordinance was
drafted. There was concern that a particular facility, which
was granted a special density license in a close vote, had
never constructed its docks, yet was able to maintain its
special density license. The facility has not been built,
nor the amenities provided. The intent of the ordinance was
to have the special density license expire after two years if
the docks were not constructed by that time.
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
Grathwol said he feels the language in ord. 123 is broad
enough. He doesn't have a problem with partial construction
if the slips aren't needed. Reese and Rascop added that the
primary structure should be in place. Thibault pointed out
that the full amenities are required even for partial
construction- Also, site~ with special density licenses are
conforming.
Partyka asked if there was any intention when the
ordinance was drafted to reduce the number of slips over time
if they were not used. It was pointed out that Lord
Fletchers Apts. has a special density license with 1:13'
density, but would not qualify for a special density license
under the current code. Grathwol said that he did not
understand that conforming special density licenses (1:10')
were ever intended to be brought into compliance with 1:50'.
No action was taken.
2. Lot4 Fletchers Apartments, spring Park, West Arm,.
multiple dock license application for 1) reconfiguratlon with
no increase in slip sizes per 5/6/94 site plan, and 2)
approval of partial dock construction for 14 of 32 slips.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded to recommend
approval of partial construction of the Lord Fletcher's
Apartment docks.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously-
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded to recommend
approval of the minor reconfiguration of the Lord Fletchers
Apartment docks per 5/6/94 site plan.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously-
4. Facilities with unrestricted watercraft affected by
Resolution 90.
Rascop asked if the resolution stated that the change in
fees was retroactive or that any refunds would be made.
Strommen pointed out that the resolution was adopted April
27, 1994, at the start of the boating season. Grathwol said
he didn't remember it ever coming up. There was only
· ' ness of charging equally. Rascop said
discussion on the fair ....... ~ ~ effective starting
he understood that the resolution wuux~ we
with the 1995 season.
It was pointed out that some licensees can now store
additional unrestricted watercraft under the new ordinance,
but have not paid. other sites, as noted in the memo, have
been licensed and have been paying for years for unrestricted
watercraft-
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, that Resolution
90, adopted 4/27/94, be effective for the 1995 license year.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
staff asked if those who haven't paid in the past should
pay for the 1994 season. Examples noted were Rockvam who has
six fishing boats for an amenity, Wayzata Yacht Club has
sailing school prams, Deephaven has canoes on racks. Reese
suggested that the District leave the fees has they have been
charged in the past since all the fees have been collected.
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
5. Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures
The committee received a staff.memo dated 6/1/94
summarizing the current status of temporary structures.
Thibault reviewed, advising that Code Sect. 2.01, states that
no structures may be placed beyond the authorized dock use
area (DUA) unless otherwise permitted by the Code. Sect.
2.07, Temporary Structures, addresses temporary structures
surrounded by navigable water, allowing them out to 200' with
a permit from the executive director. Her experience is that
historically, since 1990, no permits have been issued for a
temporary structure such as a swim raft or a ski jump, etc.
Thibault,s understanding is that the reason is because the
Water Patrol issues permits. When questioned, the Water
Patrol said that they do issue permits, but only out to 100',
unless it is too shallow. Then they would allow out to a
maximum of 150' because this is within the shorezone. They
are not comfortable allowing structures beyond 150'. The
Water Patrol is mandated by the state to issue permits for
temporary structures.
The committee agreed that the distance in the Code should
be changed from 200' to 150', and that the Code should
authorize the Water Patrol to issue permits for the LMCD.
MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend to
the Board that an ordinance be drafted changing the distance
in Sect. 2.07, from 200' to 150' and that the LMCD get out of
permitting temporary structures as long as the Sheriff's
Water Patrol will issue under LMCD ordinances.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
6. City of Wayzata Lakewalk plans - held for Scott Richards
7. Envelope subcommittee meeting report, referred to next
committee meeting per request of Chair Babcock
8. Consideration of 10' gas dock width and shelter for
electronic equipment on gas dock
Rascop pointed out that on the Lake Inspection Tour
6/7/94, the Board had an opportunity to view Tonka Bay
Marina's gas dock facility which prompted the request.
Thibault pointed out that there were two items to
consider. One was the gas dock width, and the second was the
shelter on the gas dock. Don Ponto, Vice President of
Howard's Point Marina, was present to discuss the gas dock
width. He advised that he supports the 10' width for gas
docks from a safety standpoint. Grathwol said that he also
supports the 10' width. He has had input that the 10' width
is more stable for the boats coming up to the dock which go
up against the pilings.
Grathwol said that he has different concerns about the
console structure on the dock. There is an ordinance
limiting advertising signs and prohibiting sales of
merchandise other than gas related items on the dock. He
believes these rules should be left in place. He does not
have a concern with a different type of console structure.
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
Thibault suggested putting a length limit on the other
direction for gas docks, so the gas dock doesn't extend the
full length of the dock. Ponto pointed out that their gas
dock is currently 40'. Many boats on the lake are 25' long
or more. Thibault suggested doing a survey of what is out
there to determine what is practical.
MOTIOn: Reese moved, Partyka seconded, to recommend
approval (and drafting of an ordinance) of a 10' gas dock
width, with the stipulation that some linearity be included
upon recommendation of the staff.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously-
MOTIOn: Reese moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend
approval of a weatherproof shelter for cover and security of
electronic equipment with size to accommodate one or two
people as recommended by staff.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
6. city of Wayzata's Lakewalk plan
Scott Richards, city planning consultant from Northwest
Associated Consultants, Inc., introduced Barry Petit, Wayzata
city council, Jerry Carisch, Wayzata improvement Association,
and James Robin, Architect. ,
Richargs referred to the executive director s memo of
. . . oints made at the 5/25/94 Board
~/~n;q4 which summarizes ~he_p ......... ~ 1. Strommen's
meeting re¥1e~ ~ "~5.~.=] ~.nn~d rations o~tereu ~y ~"~
memo also includes auuxu~..
Attorney LeFevere.
Richards asked for suggestions and a recommendation to
the Board to have the LMCD attorney work with them to draft
ordinances that would allow the Wayzata Lakewalk dock
proposal. Rascop asked if the city would pay for some of the
LMCD attorney's time spent on this. He pointed out that
there are no funds in the LMCD budget to handle attorney's
fees for this project. Richards suggested that they could
draft the ordinances for the LMCD. Reese said that he has no
objections to having Richards draft the ordinances.
Rascop asked Richards to go through the executive
director's letter and comment on what was said.
Richards and Robin started out explaining how they plan
to locate the transient slips. There are two 200' sections,
one on each end, for transient slips. These areas would
accommodate approximately 15-20 boats each. They also plan
to have a dock for overnight storage of 20 boats. Rascop
asked how many feet of shoreline the City of Wayzata has.
Thibault advised that the city has 3460' of shoreline with
116 boat storage units (BSU), including 16 transient. The 12
transient slips at the Broadway site would be incorporated
into the Lakewalk transient spaces. The 20 storage slips
would be rented out to the general public on a first-come
first-served basis. The storage slips are proposed to
accommodate a 30' boat. The revenue from these slips is to
help defray the cost of maintenance-
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
Reese said he has a problem with overnight storage at
this site. The LMCD is looking f0r destinations on the lake,
rather than additional storage slips. Carisch said that one
of the city's main concerns is that the Lakewalk be
maintained properly. The single purpose of the 20 storage
slips is to collect revenue for maintenance, and the plan is
to have them open to the public.
The density of boat storage on Wayzata's shoreline was
discussed. It was determined that they currently have 1:30'
boat storage density, and are eligible for a special density
license to a maximum of 1:10' or 346 boats.
Carisch described the fencing near the transient areas.
They are keeping the transient areas near the ends because
people would use the docks to access Wayzata.
Rascop asked about the controls on the walking path
crossing the railroad tracks. Carisch said that Burlington
Northern, and Burlington Northern Foundation was working with
them on funding and designs for a controlled gate.
A dock length variance is required for a dock extending
beyond 100' from shore. Carisch explained that they tried to
keep the dockage within 100', but the pier for the Minnehaha
would not be long enough at 100'. They wanted to make sure
the dock was long enough for tie offs on the stern and
adequate water depth for a 5-6' draft in the rear. Richards
asked if a dock beyond 100' for this purpose would be
acceptable. Rascop advised that the 100' length limit has
been passionately defended by the committee and the LMCD
prefers keeping people within 100'.
The dock width limit of 6' was discussed. The dock for
rental slips would be 6' or less. The reason for the 16'
walkway width is to make it comfortable for walking and
usable by maintenance vehicles. A variance would be required
for this also.
Reese said he felt that there should be more transient.
He would support all the slips being transient, rather than
having some storage slips.
Petit said that the goal of the lakewalk is to provide a
place for pedestrians to get access to the lake, as well as a
destination for boaters. Reese said that this is why the
LMCD would support this type of project. Grathwol said that
in concept he supports, and there are details that need to be
worked out. He feels that this proposal can only be
justified as a public project. This type of project must be
differentiated from private projects.
Location of dock on the water instead of on land. They
must maintain the 25' setback from the centerline of the
railroad. Grathwol questioned the ownership of the
shoreline. Richards advised that the land is owned by the
City of Wayzata, but the railroad has a permanent easement on
it. Grathwol asked for clarification that at the ends, the
land on which the walkways crossed was not in the railroad
easement.
Richards confirmed that the entire Lakewalk would meet
ADA requirements.
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
Richards said that the 1000' length of the dock was to
provide a shoreline walking loop from one access point on
land by Broadway to the other near the Depot. Carisch
pointed Out there is parking on the Broadway end, but not
near the Depot.
Public fishing is planned to be provided on the west end.
Either a permanent dock or a floating pier. This will be one
of the few handicapped accessible fishing piers on the lake.
Rascop asked if deicing of the structures would be
required in the winter. The response was that it probably
would be.
Richards continued that lighting has not been specified
at this time, but they will work on this to meet city and
LMCD requirements. Richards was advised that the key is to
have the lighting shielded.
Richards next reviewed some of the comments offered by
LeFevere. This dock concept is different from anything the
District has seen before, which is the reason specific
regulations are needed for it. Richards addressed the
comment that the dock isolates part of the lake surface
behind the docks rendering it unusable by the public by
stating that the shoreline is unusable now. It the city's
opinion it makes the shoreline useable in a safe manner.
Richards continued that to avoid setting a precedent, it
is necessary to write the ordinances so that they will only
apply to similar situations, and not where this type of
project is not as desirable. Carisch asked for guidance as
to whether the District would rather handle this project
through variances or ordinance amendments.
Partyka suggested that there be a separate ordinance,
but that it be in a form similar to a PUD as used by cities
for a specific property. There was support for this idea.
· hat the attorney has said that there is a
Strommen saddle__- ~d and water in using a ~UD. ~he
difference De~we~ ~.. ~_ _~^ *o work something ou~.
attorney will proDaD£Y De ~= ~ .
The long dock idea could be used by a marina or a
multiple dock licensee. Richards said that this should be
allowed for public use only.
Grathwol expressed concern that this is a structure 1000'
long by 100' deep, totalling over 100,000 square feet of
lake, which is a problem that needs to be looked at. It will
require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Deicing
of 1000' feet of shoreline needs to be addressed as a safety
factor. Rascop pointed out that there are two other large
deicing installations nearby. Reese said that this much
deicing will have an environmental impact.
Gabriel Jabbour, Orono city council, stated that
personally he is in favor the project. However, for the last
three years he has been concerned about growth of
· the lake. He feels that the cities are
ici alities use of .. ---~- ~evenue to subsidize
mun P . can ene£~ ~ .
tr ing to find out ~ow t~y -g-:th the LMCD code allowing
their budgets. He G?e~n t_agr~_~x~_ -et the benefit of boat
ula~e s~orelln~ ~ ~ '
the cities to accum ..... 1-50' His concern is that in
storage density greater ~n~n · ·
~. ~he 70's the District worked to limit growth at marinas.
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
The majority of growth is now from municipalities. Whatever
the LMCD allows, he urges the Board to distinguish between a
boardwalk style public access and a place for storage of 50
to 200' boats to subsidize a city budget.
Partyka said that this is what Reese was saying about
rental slips. He doesn't think the LMCD should allow the
cities to make a lot of money by having rental docks in a
situation like this. Carisch suggested that the revenue
could be put into a trust fund for Lakewalk maintenance only.
These slips would not be for profit. Partyka said he was
concerned not only with this project but other communities
as well. '
Richards continued reading from Strommen's memo which
mentioned the idea of adding a Code section to cover this
type of structure with a list of items to be included. The
memo pointed out there are implications for a similar
facility on the lake. Richards said they need to consider
how this particular situation applies to others. The last
item in the memo was to consider the intent of the Management
Plan and how it looks at the lake and its uses. Richards
said they would look at all these issues.
Rascop asked for any other comments from the committee
and the public. Reese asked how the Board wanted the
committee to act on this. Strommen said that this review is
to start the process towards making recommendations on
drafting Code amendments to accommodate this project. The
committee may want to make specific recommendations and have
the Board direct the attorney to draft ordinances or work
with the planning consultant. Rascop said he doesn't think
the committee is ready to address specifics. He would like
to generate a process for developing a PUD-type ordinance to
allow this to happen. The other decision is that if the
committee doesn't want this to happen, then it should not get
involved with that process. Reese asked what the city's time
frame is. Carisch said that their time frame corresponds
with the Minnehaha's which will go on board to the public in
1996. The boat will actually be ready for training in 1995.
Richards suggested that they draft out a time line. Robins
said they had two options, one to build the docks through the
ice, or the second would be to build from a barge.
Reese said he would like a time line in writing with
schematics showing design development, construction, and
approvals needed so the LMCD knows when they have to act on
it. Rascop asked if the funding was in place. Carisch
responded that the city has dedicated $250,000 and they have
contracted a fundraiser, John Fisher. They are confident
they can raise the $2,000,000 needed for the project.
Richards added that approvals of the project are needed for
fund raising.
MOTION: Reese moved, Partyka seconded to recommend
initial concept approval, to direct staff to work with
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. and the city to
further the PUD concept, and to work with the text language,
which will eventually be reviewed by the LMCD attorney.
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
DISCUSSION: Grathwol said the concept he is approving is
not for a 100,000 square feet of docks in the lake. He is
thinking of approval for a public project, sponsored by a
public body open to the general public.
Rascop said that the LMCD's charge is to administer the
public waters of the state on Lake Minnetonka. Concept
approval is saying this is a legitimate use of those waters.
Petit expressed concern that the 100,000 square feet number
is in reality 16,000 square feet of dock. Strommen said that
for an EAW the entire square footage of water surface used,
including maneuvering space, is counted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
The committee asked for the time line by the Board meeting.
Due to his arrival after the committee discussion on Item
8, a shelter for electronic equipment on the gas dock, the
committee reviewed its earlier action with Jabbour. Jabbour
said that the shelter he would need would be about 6' x 6' or
8' by 8' enough to hold two people and a desk.
9. DNR proposal to enter into a cooperative agreement with
the LMCD, to have the LMCD issue dock permits for the DNR.
Rascop pointed out the 6/3/94 letter from the DNR.
MOTION: Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend a
letter be drafted to the DNR that the LMCD is interested and
would like to enter into a cooperative agreement.
Rascop said the other thing that needs to be done is to
have staff make a list of those areas where there is co-
responsibility and where LMCD could issue permits in lieu of
the DNR for the next committee meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
10. Minnetonka Yacht Club (MYC), new multiple dock license
application-pending resolution of issue regarding shoreline
ownership (not ready for action).
Thibault said that staff recommends that the committee A)
address the concept of converting slides to dock slips and B)
approve a MYC license for a renewal without change for 1994.
B. MYC multiple dock license renewal without change
MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded to recommend
approval of a multiple dock license renewal without change
for the Minnetonka Yacht Club for 1994. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
A. Conversion of slides to slips ' n
Strommen explained that the converslo of slides to slips
is an issue that was addressed but not answered as part of
the MYC application for a new dock license and special
density. MYC has a certain number of slides that they have
paid a fee on that could potentially hold up to a 10' x 20'
watercraft.
Partyka asked for a description of slides vs. slips.
Strommen explained that slides is a structure in the water
which is basically a wood ramp or an area of shore where
boats are pulled up. Slides are designed for a fishing
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
boats, prams or dinghies. A slip is a watercraft storage
unit (WSU) space starting with 10' wide x 20' long area of
the lake at 1 WSU. For fee purposes, slips over 10' x 20'
get charged higher fees.
Strommen continued that MYC has slides that have been
used for dinghies to access sailboats on mooring buoys. They
originally wanted to bring the mooring buoys in to the docks
and to take the slides and convert those slide spaces on
shore to dock slips larger than 10' x 20' on the water. The
Code does not address conversion of slides used for dinghies
or canoes to slips in the water. Strommen was asked if MYC
is paying the same fee for slides as for slips. He said they
are for fee purposes. This does not address the use. Ten
slips for motorized runabouts or sailboats is a more
intensive use of the lake than a dinghy which services the
buoys.
Thibault pointed out that the committee voted previously
that in concept it does not support conversion of slides to
slips.
Grathwol said that he would prefer to wait to address
this issue lakewide until someone presents it to the
District. Grathwol said that he believes slides used to
access buoy fields or for fishing boats are valuable. He
does not support eliminating slides.
Buoy fields or District Mooring Areas were explained to
Partyka.
Strommen pointed out that the cities have a large number
of slides. They may decide to convert their slides to slips,
to generate more revenue.
Partyka said that it sounds to him like the District does
need to make a statement that it doesn't support the
conversion of slides to slips or this could create much more
density on the lake. He asked if the District wanted to be
reactive or proactive. However, Partyka was not ready to
make a motion.
The consensus of the committee was that there is a
reluctance to convert slides to slips, and it will be dealt
with on a case by case basis.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
A. Scientific buoy in Smithtown Bay per letter received
5/31/94 from the University of Minnesota. The buoy has been
placed in an 80' deep area per map of Smithtown Bay
submitted. Strommen said that he had been contacted about
the buoy several months ago in a general discussion.
Strommen advised them that the Water Patrol issues permits
for buoys in the lake. Thibault pointed out to Strommen that
the Code requires a special event permit for temporary
structures beyond 200'. This usually refers to water ski
course buoys or a judges platform. A fee is required, plus a
daily fee for each day the structure is in the water. This
wouldn't apply to a situation like this.
Reese pointed out that milfoil buoys are being put in the
lake all the time.
9
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 11, 1994
MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to recommend to
the Lake Use and Recreation committee that a special event
permit be issued with no fees for this scientific buoy.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Rascop asked for any other additional business.
B. Launch ramps. Thibault said that the code states
that along with multiple docks, a license is required for
launch ramps not associated with a multiple dock.
Historically, launch ramps have not been licensed separately,
such as Hendrickson Bridge access.
Rascop said that in light of lake access being a big issue,
the District should keep any authority it has to license
launch ramps. Grathwol said he had not considered licensing
launch ramps. He does not want to give up any authority, but
does not want to make it ~nto an issue. He recommends
referring this to the Lake Access Committee, which eventually
will be taken over by the Lake Use & Recreation committee.
Rascop asked staff to put together a list of all public
and private launch ramps for the next committee meeting.
As a last item, Thibault asked for confirmation that
there are no additional regulations for pump out machines on
gas docks. Rascop said that the city regulates pump outs in
addition to the sanitary sewer system.
ADJOUR~MENT: Rascop declared the meeting adjourned at
9:35 AM.
FOR THE COMMITTEE:
Eugene Strommen, Executive Director
Douglas Babcock, chair
10
RECEIVEO .... 0
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Action Report:
Meeting:
Members Present:
Lake Use and Recreation Committee
5:30 PM, Monday, June 13, 1994
Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; Jim
Grathwol, Excelsior; Tom Reese, Mound; Bob Rascop, Shorewood;
Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Joe Zwak, Greenwood. Also
present, Gene Strommen, Executive Director; Rachel Thibault,
Administrative Technician.
DRAFT
Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 5:40 PM.
Item 2 and 3 were taken first to accommodate Gabriel
Jabbour, Orono city council and Tonka Bay Marina, who was
present to give a lighting demonstration.
2. and 3. Draft Code amendment relating to Lighting on Docks
and draft model city ordinances.
Jabbour made a presentation demonstrating the different
intensities of 90 and 100 watt lights. The lights exhibited
by Jabbour included a 90 watt metal halide lamp that is
available at home improvement stores, and an incandescent 100
watt bulb. The committee noted the extreme briqhtness of the
90 watt metal halide lamp. It was much brighte~ than the 100
watt incandescent light.
Jabbour also demonstrated the effectiveness of diffusers
which focus the light and a barn door shield which can be
adjusted to shield the light spillage.
Jabbour's recommendation is to have the ordinance
require lake residents to keep their dock lights within the
authorized dock use area (DUA), including setbacks, and set a
candle power limit. Foster said this would make a lot more
sites non-conforming. Jabbour said if the ordinance is not
simple, people will put the lights on shore, out of the
LMCD's jurisdLction. Foster said the LMCD plans to work with
the cities to develop similar light ordinances to prevent
offensive lights on shore. Foster said to keep the ordinance
simple, use the ordinance as drafted plus a maximum lumens or
foot-candle spillage.
Reese suggested taking another lake tour to find
"offensive" lights and measure the lumens to see what level
is too high. Rascop said a distance from the light would
need to be determined as well. Partyka said an acceptable
light level should be measured to determine what is the right
limit. Foster pointed out that Tom Line recommended 50 watts
as a better wattage that 100, because most of the lights
below 50 are generally not a problem.
Jabbour said that he thinks that the District can work
with multiple docks on their lighting. Multiple docks have
most of the permanent type docks. People with seasonal docks
are less likely to have lights on their docks. These people
would probably put their lights on shore, which falls under
the cities' jurisdiction. He thinks the city councils need
to be encouraged to adopt lighting ordinances.
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 13, 1994
Foster would like to go to the cities with a simple
ordinance which is relatively easy to define, that the cities
would accept.
Foster asked for feedback from committee members who
attended the 6/7/94 Lake Inspection Tour on lighting
observed. Zwak said that there are some problem lights and
he feels the LMCD has a right to regulate lights on docks.
He has a problem with areas that fall into the cities'
jurisdiction. Looking at the draft city ordinances, he feels
that they will not be accepted. Grathwol thinks the
ordinance should be held until the LMCD has all the
information it needs. He agrees with Jabbour about working
with the multiple dock owners to get cooperation in
developing an ordinance that is workable. Then the District
can go to the cities to address lights shining on the lake.
Foster asked the committee members and Jabbour if they
would be willing to go out on another evening lake tour and
measure lights. There was consensus to go out again. No
date was scheduled. Foster said he would set up a time with
Reese, Jabbour and other committee members who are
interested. The lighting ordinances are to be held for
additional field work by committee members.
1. Review of 4/18/94 minutes.
Strommen said that Foster had a question on the lighting
portion of the April 18th minutes at the April Board meeting.
Foster said that he no longer had any comment and recommended
the Board approve the minutes at the June Board meeting.
2. & 3. Lighting ordinance discussion continued.
Foster said that the lighting should be measured from
the dock or the shore. If there is no dock, measure from
shore. If there is a dock, measure from the end of the dock.
Rascop supports keeping the light spillage within the DUA.
Partyka said that the lighting should be kept around the
dock. He feels that 150' is too much. The lights should be
shielded so they are cast downward. Partyka said he does not
see a simple way to define the ordinance.
Foster said that the committee needs to do the field
testing before further deliberation.
Rascop said that he would like to have the minutes
reflect a recommendation to change the wattage in the draft
ordinance from 100 to 50 as the number above which lights are
regulated. He also wants to reference the DUA of the site.
Grathwol suggested setting up some samples of shielded
lights for the tour. Fred Bruntjen, Excelsior Park Tavern,
would probably be willing to participate, as well as Marlow
Peterson, NSP.
Reese commented that more emphasis should be placed on
motion detectors as a good way to control lights for
security.
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 13, 1994
4. Draft Code amendment relating to Charter Boats, amending
Section 3.07 Watercraft for Hire.
Thibault advised that the draft ordinance was sent to
all the registered charter boat operators for comment. Two
responded, Leo Meloche for the Minnehaha and Dave Wittmer
Holiday Fair. '
Wittmer's first question referred to Subd. 8 of the
ordinance, asking who at the Water Patrol or the LMCD is
qualified to determine what constitutes a major repair or
alteration, as well as to conduct the inspection. Thibault
contacted Sgt. Chandler of the Water Patrol who responded
that they would hire a marine expert as a consultant. Rascop
asked if there was a dollar value of the repair noted in the
ordinance. Thibault said there was not.
Wittmer's second question was whether the bluewater
charter boats met the 36" minimum rail height.
Foster asked if the ordinance should be held for answers
to the questions.
Strommen asked about making a determination on approving
alterations. He suggested that approving alterations and
inspections should be delegated to the Water Patrol. Foster
suggested changing Subd. $ deleting LMCD from the ordinance,
and delegate it to the Water Patrol. Partyka said that the
Water Patrol should handle this because they conduct the
inspections. He agreed that LMCD should be deleted.
Grathwol believes the LMCD does not want to give up its
authority, even though it wants to delegate certain powers to
the Sheriff. Strommen said that the District is not giving
up any power, as it has a cooperative agreement with the
sheriff. The committee agreed to take out "LMCD and" from
Subd. 8.
Foster said the other issue is the 36" rail height in
Subd. 10. Thibault said that the Water Patrol has already
said that all charter boats meet these requirements, but she
will check again before the Board meeting.
Thibault read the comments from Leo Meloche,
representing the Minnehaha. Under Subd. 5, regarding the
requirement to have the full name of the watercraft and port
of call displayed on the hull, they would like to have an
exception for historic vessels where the port of call is not
originally shown. The committee recommended deleting "and
port of call" from Subd. 5.
Meloche also asked about Halon fire extinguishers and if
they are still available or allowed. Thibault advised that
Deputy Schmidt of the Water Patrol said Halon extinguishers
are allowed. It was the people servicing the units that were
releasing ozone damaging gas. Now there is a new
encapsulated system for servicing that is legal. Partyka
said that Halon fire extinguishers should be prohibited
because they release ozone damaging gas when they are used.
He would not like to see any new boats using Halon systems.
Foster does not want to be overly restrictive, if boats
already have these in place. Reese suggested deleting the
3
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 13, 1994
reference to Halon or Carbon Dioxide out of the ordinance.
Then the LMCD is not designing systems. The committee agreed
to delete "Halon or Carbon Dioxide" from both places in Subd.
7. a. Thibault continued with Meloche's comments. Under Subd.
7, eighth line, "that where the engine room(s) are so open to
the atmosphere, he would like to add "or the public".
The committee did not feel that this change was necessary,
because "open to the atmosphere" applies to the Minnehaha.
MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to recommend the
Board approve the first reading of the ordinance relating to
Watercraft for Hire, Section 3.07 adding new subdivisions 5
through 9, as amended by committee.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
5. Draft code amendment relating to Special Events,
amending Section 3.09.
Thibault said that the Water Patrol asked that this
ordinance be held until the Sheriff's legal counsel had time
to review Subd. 4 and 5.
6. Draft code amendment relating to Marine Toilets,
amending Section 3.04, Subd. 7.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Zwak seconded to recommend
approval of the second reading of the draft ordinance
amending Section 3.04, Subd. 7, Marine Toilets.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
7. Request for a quiet waters area south of Deering Island
in West Arm
Farnes distributed additional information to the
committee which included a map showing a comparison of the
Deering Island shoreline in 1913, 1960 and 1994. The map was
presented to indicate that the island has been reduced in
size over the years by erosion. His records show that the
lake level was 928.4' in J6ne 1913, between 927.88' and
928.39' in mid-April to mid-May 1960, and the lake was at
929.57' when the island was surveyed by Farnes in June 1994.
Farnes believes that boat wakes are eroding the shoreline
much faster than would occur naturally.
Reese pointed out that in the 1930's, a correction was
made to the elevation datum and the 928.4' figure from 1913
may not be correct. Farnes said that even between 1960 and
1994 significant erosion has taken place.
Reese said that he is convinced that erosion is taking
place, but not that it is all due to boat wakes.
Grathwol questioned is how the Board can justify
protecting lakeshore owners' property from wave action and
erosion. Erosion was used as justification for a quiet
waters area in Minnetonka Beach. But it was not the only
basis on which it was approved. There are broader issues
that need to be considered for quiet waters areas other than
lakeshore erosion. Grathwol suggested Farnes make his case
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
June 13, 1994
to the DNR for rip rap and shoreline restoration, but this
would be his private responsibility.
Partyka advised that he had a 1913 survey of his
property and there is a 50% difference between the amount of
land he has now and what was shown then. Fames said maybe
it has changed due to erosion. Partyka said there has been
erosion, but not that much. His point is that the 1913
survey cannot be compared to the 1960 or 1994 surveys.
Zwak stated his concern is that on a Weekend it is
difficult to go through the area south of Deering Island at
closed throttle. He understands the problem and that the
boats may be contributing to the erosion. However, if the
District starts making quiet waters areas based on shoreline
erosion, where Would it stop. Zwak continued that part of
the problem could be solved through rip rapping the existing
shoreline, which he understands is an expensive proposition.
Fames said that islands like Deering are what make Lake
Minnetonka desirable. It Would be a shame if the island were
allowed to erode away. He concluded with saying that it is
reasonable to assume that most of the erosion is due to boat
wakes. And the reasons for a quiet waters area east of
Deering Island would appl~ to his request, such as boat
congestion, noise.
Reese was excused.
Foster asked if there were any other comments Rascop
said that he feels the answer is a restoration permit from
the DNR. '
Thibault said she talked to Denis Bailey, Hennepin
County Lake Improvements, and he had no comment on adding
slow buoys in this area.
Foster said he was not hearing a consensus on the
committee in favor of adding slow buoys in this area.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded to recommend
that no quiet waters area be established south of Deering
Island based on the justification presented to the committee.
DISCUSSION: Fames asked what the justification was for
the quiet waters area east of Fagerness point. He was
advised that the area around Coffee Cove is very congested
with boat traffic and it is a bottle neck going into Crystal
Bay. Thibault said that records are available on the public
hearing for establishing the Coffee Cove quiet waters area
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. ·
Foster advised Fames that there is a effort on the part
of the board to avoid putting in quiet waters areas. The
board has to look at the overall view and balanced interests
on the lake. Grathwol told Farnes that there is a procedure
for restoring and protecting the shoreline through the DNR.
8. Proposed litter control signs
Foster said he would like to discuss signs on the lake.
Reese left a request with Foster asking for no more signs.
Foster said years ago there was a campaign that said, "What
you take to the lake, take it back,,. There were signs and
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 13, 1994
bumper stickers for this campaign. Foster believes that this
was enormously helpful. He asked the committee for input on
signage. Zwak said it is appropriate to put signs at the
lake access points.
Strommen said there have been complaints about litter
under bridges, particularly under Black Lake bridge.
Rascop asked about a fence that was placed at the Black
Lake bridge which makes it difficult to get to the best
fishing areas. Because it is difficult to get around, people
leave their trash there. Rascop said if the fence was
removed there would be less of a litter problem there. Staff
was asked to check with the city and the county about the
possibility of having the fence removed.
Strommen said that another question is whether signage
should be placed around accesses and under bridges to
encourage compliance with litter control. Rascop asked if
this is the year that no trash barrels are being placed at
access. Strommen said this is the second season of having no
trash dumpsters at accesses. Strommen advised that Hennepin
County places small trash cans under its bridges. Rascop
noted that a new trash can was recently added at the Phelps
Bay (Tuxedo Road) access. Partyka said it was added last
year at his request because the access was a mess and the
neighborhood was complaining about the trash. The City of
Minnetrista placed a trash barrel and hired a hauler to empty
it out once a week. It has solved the problem at this access.
Partyka pointed out that the Management Plan states that
trash cans should be placed at accesses. Strommen advised
that the Environment committee and Board voted last year to
eliminate trash dumpsters at accesses as an experiment.
Strommen said that it is working in areas where they have
been removed except for some small trash bags. Partyka said
a 55 gallon can should be placed at access ramps because
boaters leave their trash.
Foster believes that an LMCD campaign that says,
"What you take to the lake, take it back", and having those
signs around the lake at accesses would be very helpful.
Grathwol favors having such a sign, but the signs at the
accesses need to be coordinated. Grathwol said there was a
lot of discussion about the trash dumpsters. People were
disposing of sofas, batteries and tires. The environment
committee got the idea that it was better without any
dumpsters at all, so this experiment was implemented. It is
continuing at three accesses. The DNR by policy does not
place trash containers at its accesses state-wide. Strommen
said that it is working at the 101 Causeway access. Thibault
said Denis Bailey reported that trash has been left at the
two county accesses and the Narrows channel. Partyka said a
small barrel would be better than a dumpster. Strommen said
whatever size trash barrel is placed, people will fill it up
and leave excess trash in the area. A trash container
invites trash being left behind.
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 13, 1994
Foster again said he supports a sign that says "What you
take to the lake, take it back". Rascop said he favors signs
at accesses, under bridges, so they are not a distraction to
drivers, and positioned so people fishing can see them.
Foster suggested that staff put together a plan. Strommen
offered to call Bailey and ask the county to help on the
signage.
9. Monthly Water Patrol Activity Report
The June monthly report was updated by Strommen who
reported there were four more BWIs over the weekend, a year-
to-date total of 20. Foster added there was a drowning
6/11/94 south of Big Island.
10. Consi4eration of change in meeting time from 5:30 to
5:00 PM.
Staff asked if the committee would consider changing the
meeting time from 5:30 to 5:00 PM. Zwak and Foster said that
the earlier time would not work for them. The consensus was
to leave the time at 5:30 PM.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 PM.
FOR THE COMMITTEE:
Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director
Bert Foster, Chair
7
RECEIVED JUN
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Save the Lake Advisory Committee
Minutes
5:00 pm, Thursday, June 2, 1994
LMCD Conference Room 160, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata
Present:
Chair Craig Mollet, Stuart Frick, Len Kopp, Frank
Mixa, Bob Pillsbury, Executive Director Gene
Strommen;
MINUTES. Kopp moved, Mixa seconded that the minutes of May 5
be accepted as mailed.
SOLICITATION MAILING. S~rommen reported that the mailing had
been sent May 19 to 1,634 prospects. Receipts through 5/31
were $6,222 from the mailing, plus $2,000 from the Norwest
Bank Half Marathon Easy Race. An additional $1,445 has been
received in donations since 1/1/94 from responses to the 1993
mail request. Total receipts through 5/31/94 are $9,667.
BOARD AMENDMENT TO SAVE THE LAKE BUDGET. Strommen reported
that the board voted to amend the Save the Lake budget by
transferring the $5,000 approved for legal and consulting
fees for developing a lighting ordinance back to the general
administrative budget. The committee agreed it would monitor
response to the solicitation mailing before recommending an
expenditure in place of the lighting project.
SAVE THE LAKE FUND BALANCE. In response to the Save the Lake
Advisory Committee request for board direction on how the
fund balance should be considered in current operations, the
Administrative Committee reviewed the subject. It
recommended to the board that expenditures be drawn from
current solicitation revenue with interest staying in the
fund balance to help build the balance each year. The board
concurred with that recommendation, agreeing that the basic
fund not be invaded. The board asked the executive director
to draft a fund balance policy statement for board
consideration.
COMMITTEE PROGRAM PROGRESS:
a. Divers Lake .Bottom Clean Up.
PROMOTIONAL PROGRESS. Pillsbury presented a flyer
announcing the event for Sunday, June 19, with a 9:00 am
organizational meeting at the Excelsior Park Tavern. The
event is officially called the 1994 Diver's Treasurer
Hunt on Lake Minnetonka. Directions to six dive sites
will be provided at the meeting which runs to 10:00 am.
Divers are to provide all dive gear and a team mate. A
goody bag to hold the "treasure" will be provided by the
committee.
" " 1, I,
SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COPLMITTEE, Minutes, 6/2/94, p. 2
A T-shirt to promote the event featuring art work used in
the flyer was presented. Pillsbury advised he has
ordered 500 T-shirts in three colors priced at $6.00
each. Pillsbury stated he has been in touch with
clothing store owners who are definitely interested in
selling the T-shirts. He also intended that 50 of the
T-shirts be used for recognition of the diver
participation in the event. Sizes will be L and XL.
The committee proposed that a $1.00 mark-up be added to
the T-shirts sold to stores for subsequent resale. This
would cover the cost of the diver T-shirts. Since there
will be no net cost to the Save the Lake fund, it was the
committee's consensus to order up to 500 T-shirts.
Pillsbury agreed that he would sell the T-shirts at no
liability from the Save the Lake fund. Suggestions for
additional stores included Chico's,. Sea Gear and Westin
Sports, Wayzata, Olds and Leipold's Gifts in Excelsior
and Club Scuba, Long Lake along with possibly other scuba
equipment stores. Strommen noted Excelsior has its Art
Fair on June 11. T-shirts are to be ready in a week.
Costs to date on the program is $]00 for the flyer and
T-shirt art.
EVENT ORGANIZATION, SPONSORSHIP. The committee discussed
the event sponsorship. Diving participants were not
prepared to sign on as event sponsors according to
Pillsbury. Upon discussing the event with LMCD attorney
Charlie LeFevere, Mollet and Pillsbury supported the LMCD
taking the responsibility to carry through with the
event. Strommen pointed out that the committee has
reported the event planning to the LMCD board since the
February meeting, the board accepting each committee
report. The committee should therefore be proceeding
with the board's recognition of the event.
A Special Event application to the Sheriff's Water Patrol
providing evidence of insurance is next. Strommen noted
he would verify LMCD's insurance coverage with the League
of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The committee also
agreed a "hold harmless waiver" should be required of
each diver. Pillsbury will add that stipulation to the
diver registration card. Frick has a "hold harmless"
statement used on the Norwest Bank Easy Race application.
Pillsbury will distribute flyers and application cards
among scuba equipment dealers immediately upon the
executive director's verification that LMCD insurance
covers the event.
SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 6/2/94, p. 3
Lake areas suggested by the Water Patrol for dive sites
are Wayzata Bay, North Arm, West Arm, Excelsior, Carsons
and Grays Bay. It was suggested the bays be kept closer
to Excelsior since the boats will be starting from Excel
Marina in St. Alban's Bay. Parking for the diver and
team mates has been arranged at the former Mai Tai (now
known as Freddie's) lot on Excelsior Blvd.
The committee complimented Pillsbury on the extent of
work he has carried out in bringing the event along to
this point.
b. ~dopt-A-Shorelin~ ~lean Up. Scout troops have been slow
to respond to the shoreline clean up due to the vast
extent of shoreline requiring attention. Distinguishing
public from private shoreline is difficult.
Strommen pointed out that calls are coming in regarding
the extensive litter which is accumulating under bridges
where shore fishing takes place. He noted that Hennepin
County personnel are assigned to clean around bridges,
but the accumulation is heavy and frequent.
c. "Lakewatch" water clarity monitoring got underway in May.
Tonka Bay Marina hosted the event and is a sponsor with
the Freshwater Foundation. It is believed some bays
still need monitors. Strommen will advise where help is
needed.
de
Historical Video development will be an extensive under
taking according to Strommen who viewed some video
samples. Scott McGinnis, a consultant for historical
programs, made a presentation to the Excelsior Historical
Society which Stromme~ attended. Mollet and Strommen
will contact McGinnis to ask his recommendations.
ctful
e. Homeowner Listinqs from bMCD Member ~ities. Alice
Bronstad submitted a list of cities and how LMCD may
obtain lakeshore owners names from them. Bronstad will
develop this information further for the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING, ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting was confirmed
for Thursday, July 7. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm.
Strommen
Executive Director
RECEIVEO,JU/; Z 0
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
Minutes
8:30 am, Friday, June 10, 1994
Norwest Bank Bldg. Rm. 135, Wayzata
Present:
Chair Tom Penn, LMCD Board; John Batten, Hennepin
Parks; Tom Frahm, LMLOA; Dr. Ray Newman, U of MN
Fisheries; Rick Walsh, MN DNR Fisheries; Chip
Welling, MN DNR Ecological Services; Executive
Director Gene Strommen; guest Steve McComas Blue
Water Science; ,
MINUTES. Minutes of 4/1~/94 were a
MCCOMAS PRESENTATION ON "LAKESMARTS
PLANT REPORT. Penn amended the age]
McComas to make a presentatio
d~velop, "LakeSmar ,. n on a
ts , a lake ma'
· t-yourse]f guide ~- ' _ znt~
Au so~ving lake pz
McComas reported that the handbook i
for near-shore aquatic plant control
tested, easy and affordable projects
maintain lakes and ponds. It contai.
designed to save time and money by u~
for other purposes. It tells where
including costs. Tips and illustrat
McComas, manager of Blue Water Scien,
affiliate of Bonestroo, Rosene, Ande]
aquatic scientist specializing in la~
management. He has field- tested pre
over a decade of work in MN and WI az
(LMCD purchased a copy for reference
McComas also commented on curly leaf
he is conducting. This research is l
available nutrients for the plant. T]
sediment samples testing for
' phosphoz
and other nutrients to see what is in
fosters CLP growth. At this point it
high calcium and potassium soils. Thi
determining the potential of future CL
lake. Soils tests in a lab analysis a
since metals tests are avoided. A who
be done very inexpensively according t
Newman spoke of natural declines of mi
they are associated with nutrient decl
or due to other impediments, such as f~
conclusion on this point.
ccepted as mailed.
PUBLICATION AND AQUATIC
da to invite Steve
publication he helped
,nance handbook and a do-
oblems.
s designed for homeowners
It contains field
to clean up, improve and
s lake-saving projects
zing equipment designed
:o get the equipment
.OhS guide the user.
e, St. Paul, and an
lik& Assoc., is an
e and watershed
jects in the handbook
~ other states.
Jse. )
~ondweed (CLP) research
~oking at biologically
~at involves taking lake
us, sulphur, nitrogen
the sediment which
is known that CLP needs
s data will allow
P colonization in a
~e very economical,
e lake soils test can
McComas.
foil and wondered if
.ne in the lake soils
[ngus. There was no
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Minutes, 6/10/94, p. 2
Penn thanked McComas for introducing his LakeSmarts handbook
and sharing his experiences on milfoil, other aquatic
vegetation control and lake maintenance ideas.
MN DNR REPORT, Chip Welling
a. C°r~ °~f ~ Garl°n 3-~A ltricl°pYr---k T--est -- Research
will be conducted in portions of Phelps and C-arsons Bay
south of Minnetonka Blvd., with a control site in Carmans
Bay, starting June 15. The primary purpose of the study
is to provide additional information to the U. S. EPA on
the prospect of Gar/on 3A (triclopyr) being used in lake
water to control Eurasian water milfoil. The EPA will
use this information to determine whether to register
this herbicide for use in lakes and wetlands to control
certain aquatic plants.
An informational meeting arranged by the LMCD for the
and DNR is scheduled June 14 with n . CoE
affected bays. Actual ~-~ .... earby residents of the
~=~men~ ls Planned for June
and 23 depending upon favorable weather conditions. 21
Re-registration of 2.4-D, the current herbicide to
control EWM and other aquatic plants, is being held
pending the outcome of this testing. Lake Minnetonka was
selected in 1993 by the CoE as a representative site.
b. ~ ~°ntr°% U d~ ~ Dr---~' Al---fred Cofrancesco -
A special presentation by Dr. Cofrancesco, ~S. Army
Corps of Engineers (CoE) was held in May for a variety of
agency officials to demonstrate the role of biocontrol in
controlling aquatic vegetation. Significant point made:
* Biocontrol agents do not eliminate plants, but rather
they reduce their abundance to a tolerable level.
* It takes a long time to identify biological agents
and to implement their use. Once biological agents
are established as a control, there is little need for
follow-up or annual "re-treatment'. as they do their
control work on target plants as nature allows.
Cofrancesco's presentation was video taped, and the LMCD
has a copy to loan, as well as DNR having copies.
c. Lake treatment ~ Dpdate_~_.
* Surveys are being done in anticipation of
treatment on various lakes in an attempt to eradicate
milfoil according to Welling. Bald Eagle, Dutch and
Christmas Lakes are the targets
No new EWM infestations have yet been reported.
* Sonar treatment is done at East Parkers and
Zumbra Lakes. The effect is noticeable at this point
with some injury 'to coontail and water lily. Curly
leaf pondweed has not been affected. Welling noted
that some initial injury to native plants, followed
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Minutes, 6/10/94, p. 3
by healthy regrowth, is an acceptable level of damage
by a herbicide, and in this case, Sonar.
ZEBRA MUSSEL/EXOTICS ACTION PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE. Penn reported
on the subcommittee initial meeting as detailed in the May 5
meeting report. The draft DNR zebra mussel control plan will
be looked at for how it can be adapted in part or fully to
the preventive measures needed for Lake Minnetonka
added. , Penn
NEXT MEETING, ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting was recommended
for Friday, July 15. There being no further business the
meeting was adjourned at 10:05 am. '
Respectful L~_ submitted,
Ex~utive Director
RECEIVED JUN 2 O
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee
Minutes
8:30 am, Wednesday, June ]5, 1994
LMCD Conference Rm ]60, Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Present: Tom Penn, LMCD board, chair; John Barren,.
Hennepin Parks; Tom Frahm, LMLOA; Michae] McLean,
MN Sea Grant; Gary Montz, MN DNR; Dick Nelson, MN
Sportsfishing Congress; Gene Strommen executive
director; ·
MINUTES REVIEW. Minutes of 5/5/94 were accepted, Month
commenting on last para, p. 2, as to the WI DNR being
difficult to deal with. The committee agreed no criticism
was intended of the DNR structure, just its unusual make-up
compared to the MN DNR skructure.
ZEBRA MUSSEL DRAFT CONTROL PLAN. Discussion was invited on
the draft plan which was mailed to subcommittee members.
Montz noted that he was still awaiting a reply from Jay
Rendall, DNR exotics coordinator.
Question was raised as to whether this plan will serve Lake
Minnetonka needs in its entirety or if Lake Minnetonka will
need its own plan or this plan with modifications. The
discussion which followed touched on this question which was
not immediately answered.
On the point of cleaning boats to remove zebra mussel adults
and larvae (ZM/L), it was proposed that mobile stations be
developed to move from access to access. Montz believes
money can be provided for this purpose to have ready for
1995. Stations would be placed at infested waters accesses.
The highest risk of boats carrying ZM/L is when boats are
kept in infested waters (Mississippi River) for a longer
period of time. A one or two day use is not likely to result
in adults or larvae attaching to a boat. Larvae carried in a
boat will not survive temperatures above 85 degrees F.
Barren pointed out that the potential transport of ZM/L is
still unknown, therefore who is to be targeted for control?
McLean offered to do a boat transportation survey to find out
where people are moving their boats. He has resources to
start this year. Assistance can be drawn from:
* Humphrey Institute which designs similar surveys
* County Extension agents
Such a survey could provide information on boat traffic from
the river to all other lakes around the state. Montz has a
data base on marina slip renters on the Mississippi River
showing where they take their boats.
Zebra Mussel/Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee, 6/14/94, p. 2
Montz noted that day user boats carrying infested water are
the most immediate threat. The next threat are boats in
infested waters a long time moving to new water bodies.
These boats require thorough cleaning and inspection.
Literature studies have been made to determine the survival
rate of veligers in bilge/wet well water. Moritz can get this
data for the subcommittee.
WI Sea Grant monitors ZM/L on Lake Superior and Lake Michigan
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife monitor ZM/L as well. They are
the lead agency on the Mississippi river from St. Paul to
St. Louis. The Corps of Engineers and NSP also monitor the
Mississippi. The St. Paul Power Squadron has offered to help
ZM/L monitoring on the Mississippi as well.
EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES.
a. ~xotics ~ Advisor[ ~ign. Montz contacted Rendall
concerning the sign placed at public accesses. Sign
content definitely needs review in the subcommittee's
opinion. A 6/8/94 memo from Rendall received after this
meeting invited written con%ments so he can consider them
with recommendations on standardized messages developed
by the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species.
The DNR I & E Dept may be able to help on this sign.
b. MN ~°nservation ~orps Access ~onito~nq/inspections.
This group of access monitors may be able to help in
asking some basic survey questions, such as the message
on the Exotics Species Advisory Sign. Supervisor Tom
Hagel would have to review such a proposal.
c. Determine where boaters are learning about ZM and
concentrate efforts on this form of communication.
ZM/L CONTROL PROPOSED BY TOM FRAHM, LMLOA. Frahm requested
the minutes reflect his observation on Zebra Mussel spread:
a. Limit lake access
b. Clean boats ·
c. Levy a heavy fine for violations (in the thousands)
Discussion on Frahm's suggestion:
> Strict measures such as these will not totally stop ZM/L
from entering a water body.
> Legislative support for new laws is required to put any of
these suggestions into action.
> Montz favors the law being changed to make it unlawful to
transport any aquatic plants on a boat/trailer because
ZM/L can attach to any aquatic plant.
ASSIGNMENTS. McLean confirmed that he will have a survey
proposal developed by the next meeting through his staff.
Zebra Mussel/Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee, 6/14/94, p. 3
EXPANDING SUBCOF~MITTEE PARTICIPATION. Montz reported that
the Upper Mississippi River Basin group is not able to
participate at this time since it does not fit in with their
program. The WI DNR, LaCrosse, wants to be kept informed but
they are unable to attend meetings.
Mn Sportsfishing Congress is now being represented by Dick
Nelson. The Lake Minnetonka Multiple Dock Owners Assn. is
still trying to locate a person to represent them on the
subcommittee.
PUBLIC ACCESS OPENINGS ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. From stated
his reaction to the DNR's recent announcement of three new
accesses on the Mississippi River as irresponsible when zebra
mussel spread is being studied to prevent its spread to other
water bodies. He requested a letter be sent to the DNR
expressing this observation.
Committee discussion suggested that a letter asking for an
explanation of the accesses being opened in light of the
zebra mussel might be appropriate, asking for an explanation
of how they considered zebra mussel in these access
additions. LMCD staff could draft such a letter more as an
inquiry rather than expressing an opinion on the subject.
NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting was agreed for
Wednesday, July 20, The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 am.
pect fu~t_ed,
~t rommen
Executive Director
~ M~N~ONKA CONSeRVAtiON
A~ministrative Committee
6:30 PM, Wednesday, May 25 1994
Tonka Bay City Hall '
Members Present: Bill Johnstone-Chair, Bob Rascop, Tom
Reese, Joe Zwak, Jim Grathwol, Gene Partyka, Tom Penn, Doug
Babcock, Bert Foster, Mike Bloom, staff members Rachel
Thibault and Gene Strommen
1. The minutes of the 4/27/94 meeting were accepted.
Evaluation of the Mayor/City Council Report meeting held
5/4/94
Johnstone advised that two council members and seven
mayors were present at the meeting. The attendance of city
council members was disappointing. The meeting went well and
there were good comments from those present. Johnstone
believes that council members should be invited to future
quarterly mayor meetings.'
Johnstone advised that the City of Orono voted to pay the
balance of the 1993 LMCD levy. There was no vote to have an
LMCD representative. Rascop advised that Mayor Callahan said
they have not found a qualified candidate.
3. Consideration of a policy for the Save the Lake fund
balance
Strommen reported that the Save the Lake committee asked
the board for guidance on a fund balance amount. Rascop said
the committee recommended $48,000 in expenditures for 1994.
In 1993, the LMCD received $23,000 in private donations. At
the April meeting, the consensus of the board was that it is
inappropriate to spend more money than was collected the
previous year.
Rascop continued that Bob Pillsbury, former LMCD board
member and originator of the Save the Lake fund, had a goal
of building the fund to a $100,000 endowment. Then the
interest could be used for special projects. Originally the
funds were raised to help the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) with lake projects. Now there is the 509
Plan, the MCWD can raise funds.
Rascop pointed out that any special projects that the
LMCD needs to conduct for the lake would need to come from
funds at hand. Grathwol pointed out that the LMCD has
restrictions on raising funds and cannot get a loan or issue
bonds.
Johnstone said that he supports keeping a balance and
spending new contributions and interest. The demand for
money is great and there are going to be projects.
Restricting how much can be spent makes it easier to set
limits on how the money is spent.
Penn said he feels the Save the Lake money should be for
zebra mussel control and pollution concerns as opposed to
things like fishing piers and steam engines.
Rascop recommended the District set a budget for
DRAFT
Administrative Committee Meeting Report, 5/25/94, Page 2
expenditures for the present year based on income from the
previous year. Another suggestion was to spend only the
interest and the previous years contributions.
MOTION: Reese moved, Rascop seconded to recommend as a
guideline for the Save the Lake fund expenditures, that the
budget for 1995 is to be based on 1994 donations.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Babcock and Foster arrived
4. Review of draft 1995 LMCD Budget
Johnstone pointed out that the 1995 draft budget reflects
the second year meeting expenses by drawing down reserves.
His concern is that there may not be enough revenues to cover
the budget in future years.
Johnstone asked if the draft budget reflected the
maximum levy to the cities. Rascop said he heard that city
assessments will probably go up 10-16% which will increase
the LMCD levy amounts. Strommen suggested either reducing
spending on special projects, or asking the cities to fund
specific projects. Johnstone asked if, after the 1995
allocations from the fund reserves, the fund balances will be
down to a 6 month reserve. Strommen said that is correct
unless the revenue changes. Johnstone asked if any revenue
would be carried over from 1994 into 1995. Strommen said the
$10,000 budget item for the school district boater education
program would probably not be spent in 1994. Only $1,500 of
the Management Plan Environment Implementation budget item
for $15,000 has been spent. Bloom arrived.
Johnstone asked for verification that $18,500 will be
allocated from the EWM fund balance for the harvesting
program and $35,000 for equipment reserve, leaving a one year
reserve in the EWM fund balance. Strommen advised that the
$40,000 from the public agencies is not secured yet. He
needs to contact the DNR and Hennepin Conservation District.
$. Review of 1993 Audit and management letter
Strommen said that staff is working on getting the budget
and the Peachtree accounting system coordinated. The off
site storage of records is being implemented. Rascop said he
was happy to get the audit so early in the year.
6. June Lake Inspection Tour
The date for the board's June lake inspection tour was
set for Tuesday, June 7th at 7:30 PM. Strommen said he is
working on getting a boat.'
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 PM.
For the subcommittee:
~ ,A,dministrative Technician
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Peter
Meyer, David Steinbring, Janis Geffre, Mary Goode, and Bill Darling, Council Representative Andrea
Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James.
The following persons were also in attendance: Michael Henry, Bob Riebe, Sharron Riebe, John
Blumentritt, and John Boyer.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Goode to approve the Park and Open Space
Comm. isslon Minutes of May 12, 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously.
~AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Schmidt added the following items to the agenda:
6.A. 1995 BUDGET: STAIRS, WlNTERFEST, LOST LAKE, TILLER.
6.B. CELEBRATE SUMMER IN THE WINTER
PELI AN POINT DEVEL PMENT: PARK DEDICATION
John Boyer of Boyer Building Corporation, addressed the commission in response to the memorandum
to the Park Commission from Mark Koegler, City Planner, dated June 2, 1994. Staff recommended
that the Park and Open Space Commission recommend that the City Council require a cash payment
in lieu of land dedication for Pelican Point. The 1994 Tax Book identifies a total land valuation for
Pelican Point of $1,240,000. Under the terms of the ordinance, this would result in a total park
payment of $124,000. Subd. 5 of the Ordinance further requires that cash contributions are to be
made prior to the filing of the final plat.
Mr. Boyer informed the Commission that he would like to discuss two items, 1) the amount
recommended for payment and how it relates to other area communities, and 2) the timing of the pay
out of the fee. Mr. Boyer questioned why the fee had to be so high. He explained that 8oyer is not
new to this business, and they were not expecting such high park dedication fees in Mound. Mr.
Boyer portrayed on the overhead projector a table showing park dedication fee comparisons for area
cities, which indicated the fees per unit, as follows:
Chanhassen $1,200
Chaska 750
Minnetonka 450
Minnetrista 3,000
Mound 3,000
Orono 750
Plymouth 1,000
Shorewood 750
Tonka Bay 600
Only Minnetrista is as high as Mound.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes
June 9, 1994
The Parks Director explained that the City Council sets the fees, and they have not changed in years,
however, he believes there has been some discussion by the Council to look at modifying the
ordinance.
Mr. Boyer requested that they also be allowed to pay the fees on a per unit basis when they are sold.
He stated that is a hardship for any developer to have to pay the entire fee up-front.
(Bill Darling arrived.)
There was some discussion about how staff determined the fair market value, and it was clarified that
the "Taxable Market" value as identified in the 1994 Tax Book was used. Ahrens confirmed that the
Hennepin County Assessors, during Board of Review, ascertain the value listed in the tax books to
be the "Fair Market Value." Fackler clarified that the Park Commission is given the opportunity to
make a recommendation on the issue of park dedication only to determine if land or cash should be
retained, not to debate the value and the amount as this is clearly delineated in the ordinance. Ahrens
confirmed that the 10% rule is currently being questioned by the City Council.
Casey stated that he cannot vote in favor of staff's recommendation. He would like to see an
appraisal on the property, or and offer to sell the property to the City at $1,240,000 if that is what
the fair market value is determined to be. Casey would also like to see what portion of land could
be donated in lieu of the fees.
Ahrens again noted that the City has been consistently using the taxable market value listed in the
tax books, and she does not think it would be wise to change this practice now and require an
appraisal. '
John Blumentritt, also of Boyer Corporation, summarized what they are asking the Park Commission
to take into consideration in their recommendation, which is:
1) Be more reasonable with the amount; why is there such a difference in the fees from other
area communities?
2) Does Boyer need to pay the fee up-front?
Schmidt commented that she is excited about the development, and excited about receiving the funds
to help enhance and develop existing park property within the City. She does not have a problem
deferring the payment.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Darling to recommend to the City Council that
cash payment be received in lieu of land dedication for Pelican Point, totalling
$124,000, and that the City Council work with the City Attorney to find a way to defer
the park dedication payments.
Casey moved to amend the motion to recommend that an appraisal be done to clarify
the fair market value. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed.
MOTION carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Schmidt, Darling, Goode, Byrnes,
Meyer, Steinbring, Geffre, and Ahrens. Casey opposed.
This issue will be addressed at the June 14, 1994 City Council meeting.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes
June ~ 1994
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS: DOCK SITES 02665, 12550, 13810, 22360, 31360, 31390, AND 5103o
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The City of Mound is updating the permits for
structures located on public lands. Staff recommended approval of the Public Land Permits as shown
on Exhibit A, below, subject to the following conditions:
Permits shall be approved according to the "Recommendation/Comments-noted on Exhibit
A.
0
The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
The applicant's dock license will not be issued if compliance to these conditions has not been
achieved within one year of the date of approval of the permit.
The Park Commission reviewed each site separately.
The Parks Director explained that this is a new stairway to an existing dock site.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval of the
stairway, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
LBIE TYPE D
UNTIL STAIRWAY ISSUE IS RESOLVED.
The Parks Director explained that the Building Official has discussed this issue with Ms. Bialon, and
she will try to arrange to have the blocks removed.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens, to recommend that the City work with
Mrs. Bialon to remove the cement block stairway, and that the applicant's dock license
not be issued if compliance has not been achieved within one year of the date of
approval of the permit. MOTION carried unanimously.
3
Park & Ot~en Space Commission Minutes
June ~ 1994
The Parks Director explained to the Commission that staff determined the light, outlet, and pump
should be removed from the commons, as it is inconsistent with the guidelines. When staff applied
the flow chart to this request, they determined the light, outlet and pump will not "enhance and
encourage the use of the public lands by the general public." Both Goode and Ahrens disagreed and
feel a permit should be granted for three years, and renewable. Goode noted that the light is not
obtrusive, and the pump and outlet are used to water the lawn which is not a negative impact.
Ahrens emphasized that abutters are also part of the "general public". The Parks Director asked the
Commission to consider how this approval could set a precedence for other cases. Schmidt
suggested that the pump and electric be allowed to remain, but that the light be moved to private
property. Meyer noted that the electric in the light post could be capped within a box that could be
level with the grade, and an extension cord of about 4 feet long could then be extended to the pump
on the dock.
MOTION made by Casey to recommend that the light, outlet, and pump be removed,
as recommended by staff. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed.
Geffre noted that the Commission has already recommended approval of pumps on other docks.
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Steinbring to recommend that the pump and
outlet be allowed to remain with the outlet box flush to the ground, and that the light
be relocated onto private property.
It was noted that this light is a good 70 feet +/- from private property. Ahrens stressed that this
area is different, and the light is not obtrusive and it should be allowed to remain. The Guidelines for
Lights on the Commons were reviewed and Ahrens noted that she does not agree with the guidelines.
Goode emphasized that this light is existing, and it should be allowed to remain, but if it were a
request for a new light she would look at it differently.
Darling withdrew his motion.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt to recommend approval of the outlet,
light, and pump according to #14 on the flow chart, which states, "Grant permit up to
5 yea[s and renewable. The motion was subsequently withdrawn by Ahrens.
MOTION made by Geffre, seconded by Darling to recommended approval of the light
and outlet accoarding to #16 on the flow chart, "Grant permit up to 3 years, not
renewable. To be checked annually."
Byrnes stated that she in not in favor of the motion because of the "not renewable." It was
discussed that the option should be available to have the light and electric renewable.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes
June ~ 1994
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens to recommend the outlet, light, and
pump be permitted according to #15 on the flow chart, "Grant permit up to 3 years
and renewable.' MOTION carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were: Goode, Ahrens,
Byrnes, Schmidt, Steinbring, and Geffre. Darling, Casey, and Meyer were opposed.
Casey commented that he was in favor of staff's recommendation.
This request will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
The Parks Director informed the Commission that this items has been withdrawn as the outlet has
been removed from the Commons, and the Building Official has confirmed the removal.
The Parks Director explained that this will be a new stairway to be shared between two dock site
holders.
MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval as
recommended by staff. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Darling,
Goode, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbring. Casey abstained.
Casey explained that he did not get a chance to look at the site.
The Parks Director explained that this request is to replace an existing dilapidated stairway.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval as
recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
5
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes
June ~ 1994
HORELANDRE T RATI N
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a permit to lower the
height of the existing retaining walls, install a new stairway, modify the slope to a more natural grade,
and fill in the old boathouse area using materials from the site, as shown on the attached plan. The
proposed work is a combination of the applicant's initial request to extend the expired permit
(Resolution//93-68) and the City's staff recommendations.
The City and the previous owner at 4729 Island View Drive, Mr. Dean Hanus, were involved in
litigation in which the City prevailed and obtained an order for removal of the boathouse on the
abutting commons. The boathouse was partially removed by Mr. Hanus and restoration is still
incomplete. After resolution of this lawsuit, a Lis Pendens was filed with the County and this put a
restriction on the sale of the property. The applicant and staff met on several occasions working out
a compromise that we feel is achievable by the applicant and minimizes the level of private
encroachment on the public land. Please note the attached background information including:
Staff recommended approval of a one year permit to complete the alterations on the commons
according to the plans and specifications as submitted, with the following conditions:
1. Full compliance with the escrow agreement dated June 1 1994 as prepared by the City
Attorney. ·
The new stairway shall be installed to code as required by the Building Official.
The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance of the
retaining walls and stairways.
If compliance has not been achieved within one year of date of approval of the permit, the
applicant's dock license will be revoked until all provisions in the permit are met. If the
applicant has not completed all the necessary work set out in the permit, any rights to
construct or maintain these allowed improvements on public land shall be considered revoked
and City staff is authorized and directed to proceed to remove all improvements not authorized
and approved by the City Council.
5. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, in the event full
compliance with the resolution is achieved within one (1) year.
6. The permit must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
Chair Schmidt confirmed that the applicant is in agreement with staff recommendation.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend approval of the
request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
The applicant was informed that this recommendation will be reviewed by the City Council on June
28, 1994.
6
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes
June ~ 1994
EVIEW F W RK H P MEETIN HELD N MAY 24 I 4- PLANTING POLIC_Y
Darling handed out a draft of the "Mound Parks and Open Space Commission Policies for Plantings
on Traversable and Non-Traversable Commons".
Schmidt referred to "C." which relates to native plants, and suggested that a list of native plants
conducive to our zone be obtained and kept on file at City Hall and available to the public upon
request.
(Ahrens was excused from the meeting.)
Casey commented that this policy should not be limited to abutting property owners only, and a
nonabutter should be able to request to plant on the public lands.
Staff noted that this policy should be utilized as a guideline only, and utilized when reviewing permit
requests which involve plantings on the public lands. The Parks Director clarified that a permit is
required for I~lanting/land alterations on public lands. Staff also suggested that the policy pertain to
all the public, not just the abutters.
Bill Darling will work on revising the policy and will have it available for review at the next meeting.
1~995 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Schmidt clarified with the Parks Director that requests for capital outlay items need to be submitted
to the City Manager at the end of this month. The list of 1995 budget items shown in the Park
Minutes of May 12, 1994 was reviewed. Fackler noted that a couple of items have been deleted,
such as the volleyball courts, and he has added a request of $7,000 for a playground structure at
Edgewater Park as requested by the neighbors. The Commission reviewed other possible
improvements to Edgewater Park, including, benches, a new stairway to the road, and possibly
reducing the size of the parking lot.
Byrnes questioned when the riprap at Wychwood can be repaired, and Fackler noted that other areas
need to be completed first, then they will begin repairing existing riprap.
~. Schmidt noted that Ahrens had some questions regarding the funds for stairways on
public lands, however, Ahrens was no longer in attendance. Fackler reviewed that $10,O00has been
requested in the budget, and they hope to complete 2 to 3 stairways on the commons, starting with
the stairway at Devon Commons. The Stairways are proposed to be concrete.
~. The Commission noted that nothing was listed to budget money to develop the Lost Lake
property into a park. Fackler indicated that he can include this item in his budget request. The
Commission envisioned the park development to include a bike path.
Til_[[~l r. The Commission requested if a tiller could be purchased in 1995 for the planting areas in the
Adopt a Green Space Program. Fackler commented that each year they rent a tiller, and that the
planting areas at Mound Bay Park were tilled this spring.
Mound Bay Par_k. Schmidt requested that more picnic tables be placed at Mound Bay Park, and that
some shade trees be planted about 15 feet back from the tie wall at the beach.
7
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes
June 9, 1994
_CELEBRATE SUMMER (IN THE WINTER}
Schmidt distributed a drafted outline for "a MULTI-Seasonal Celebration in our Mound City Parks,"
to have a winter event at Mound Bay Park through the Celebrate Summer program. The suggested
date is Sunday, January 29. It was questioned if this date will conflict with the Super Bowl. The
suggested time is 1 pm to 5 pm. Proposed activities include:
- a plowed skating rink on Cooks Bay
- kite flying
hot air balloon rides
- dog sled demonstrations
' ice fishing contest
ice diving
concessions by Mound Youth Group
- hay/sleigh rides
broom ball
bon fire (Christmas tree burn at Lost Lake Park?)
This item is to be brought back for discussion at the August Park Commission meeting.
2N8.~9'4S: CITY COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS AT COW ON 6-21-94 AND AT COUNCIL MEETING ON 6-
The Commission discussed the need for a Commissioner to attend one or both of the meetings.
P__ark Director's Report_
Jim Fackler reported that the pier at Centerview Beach is installed. The city beaches will be open full
time at the end of this week. He will be busy this month with the Around Mound Run/Walk and City
Days. The playground structure has been completed at Mound Bay Park.
Pock Inspector's Report_.
Tom McCaffrey reported that he has been working with the LMCD on determining the amount of lake
usage by Mound's dock program.
Celebrate Summp~
Byrnes reviewed the upcoming Celebrate Summer events.
Byrnes reported that her and Schmidt are in the process of applying for a grant to help pay for future
entertainment for the Celebrate Summer program.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Darling to adjourn the Park and Open Space
Commission Meeting at 10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
8
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1994
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland,
and Mark Hanus, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland and
Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Lisa Bird.
The following people were also in attendance: Mike Johnson, Gert Gerold, Tracy Walstrom,
Paul Host, Dustin Frantsen, Ann Eberhart, Greg Keller, Diane Akey, James Peterson, Paul &
Virginia Erickson, Bill Knosolla, Michael & Carol Johnson, Curtis & Marjorie Olson, Debbie &
Thomas Hall, Louis & Sharron Szabo, and Tim Szabo.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 1994 were presented for approval.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of May 23, 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously.
_BOARD OF APPEAL~
~ ~M_ 4872 LESLIE ROAD LOTS&E 12OF9. BLOCK
21 WYCHWOOD PID #24-117-2441 021. VARIANCE FOR FENCE.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a 2 foot
fence height variance for a portion of the yard fronting on Monmouth Road. This portion of
the site is functionally the rear yard. The applicant's concern is lighting from houses on
Monmouth create a nuisance for this property.
The applicant has a reasonable concern due to topography. The houses and lights to the north
appear to create a negative impact. There are other properties in this area with similar
situations, and they have established tree and bushes and other growth to minimize this
negative impact of the neighboring lighting, etc. Staff's main concern is the impact of a 6 foot
fence this close to the right-of-way. The lot line is situated virtually up to the paved
Monmouth Lane, and it appears that establishing a buffer of tree or other growth is preferable
to a 6 foot fence in this location.
Staff recommended denial of the request as it is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance
provisions regarding fences and other alternatives are available.
Mrs. Wahlstrom stated that they have no privacy in their backyard from the street and
neighbors due to topography. They would like to install a 6 foot high fence at their property
line which, is 1 foot from the wood retaining wall, on the street side. She emphasized reasons
for needing a 6 foot fence, as follows:
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
The topography creates a hazardous situation for her children.
- To keep the neighbors dogs out.
To filter the lights from neighboring properties which shine into their house.
Mrs. Wahlstrom also stated that if trees were planted, they do not provide much privacy in
the winter.
Mueller commented that he does not think 2 feet more of fence height will make much of a
difference. Weiland confirmed with the applicant that there is about 3 feet between their
property line and the curb.
Hanus commented that he would prefer a fence over foliage in this instance because of the
limited space between the retaining wall. Also, the fence is better than seasonal buffering.
Jensen commented that she does not want to see the City walled-off.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend denial of the
variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
CASE #94-31 ~_0._L JOHNSON 1773 SHOREWOOD LANE. LOTS 13 &
14 BLOC. K 5 SHADYWOOD POINT PID #13-117-2411 0030. VARIANCE FOR PORCH.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicants are seeking approval of a variance to construct a 12' x 20' three season porch.
The proposed porch meets all setback requirements. This case involves the following
variances:
Existin.q/ProDosed ~ ~
Front Yard - House 27.8' 30' 2.2'
Side Yard - Garage 3.0' 4' 1.0'
Rear Yard - Shed 2.0' 4' 2.0'
Hardcover 32% 30% 2%
The hardcover variance on this lot results from the existing facilities, the new porch, and
particularly, the extensive concrete parking area that is proposed. It appears as though it
would be relatively easy to remove a portion of the proposed concrete parking area in order
to achieve conforming impervious surface coverage.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the
variances relating to the existing front yard setback of the house, the existing side yard
setback of the garage, and the existing rear yard setback for the shed conditions upon the
following: The proposed concrete parking area shall be reduced in size in order to not exceed
the maximum impervious cover limitation of 30%. Furthermore, the applicants shall revise
their site plan accordingly and submit a new Hardcover Calculations sheet for review and
approval by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit.
Michael Johnson, applicant, addressed the Commission and requested that they take the 9
foot wide boulevard area into consideration when reviewing the hardcover. Mr. Johnson
emphasized the need for the addition parking area, he has two cars and a boat that need to
be parked outside. He also noted that he gets water in his basement and the concrete area
helps deter seepage.
Mueller noted that the hardcover would need to be reduced by 275 square feet in order to
conform to the 30% requirement. The Commission discussed many different options to help
the applicant meet the hardcover requirement. Jensen suggested that the applicant work on
his site plan to make it work.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the
variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
~ AMES PETERSON 2561 WEXFORD LANE LOTS 4 - I BLOCK 7
SETON PID #24-117-24 14 0001. VARIANCE F R DECK.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a permit
in order to construct a nonconforming deck on the lakeside of the property. A corner of the
deck is 7 feet nonconforming to the required 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water
(OHW). This encroachment is minimal in this case and buffered by the substantial wetlands.
As noted on the plans, the deck is Iow to the ground and if not attached to the dwelling would
not require a building permit. A guardrail is not planned and this lessens the visual impact
from the lake.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is a minimal
encroachment due to the specific conditions and is a reasonable use of the property.
Jensen questioned if the Building Official has confirmed compliance to the conditions listed
in Resolution #93-128, specifically, "The driveway shall be located so that the impact of the
encroachment is minimal and shall not exceed a 12 foot variance from the required 50 foot
setback." The Building Official suggested that this could also be made a condition in this
resolution, and he can verify.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the
variance, as recommended by staff, and Including required compliance to the
conditions listed within Resolution #93-128. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
~ CURTIS & MARJORIE OLS N 4801 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT I & E
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking variances
in order to reconstruct an existing nonconforming deck on the property. The deck is
nonconforming to the 50 foot lakeshore setback by approximately 10 feet and also to the rear
yard setback by approximately 9 feet. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the 20 foot
front yard setback by 19.85 feet. This site grossly exceeds the maximum hardcover due to
the minim, al lot size of 4,300 square feet +/-. The additional green space on the right-of-way,
the commons, and the commons access to the east lessens the impact of this excessive
hardcover.
A minimally sized deck is a reasonable use of this riparian property. The deck is existing and
this is the only logical location for replacement. The lot corners and the City utility easement
are not clearly located on the survey,
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a maximum 10 foot
wide deck with the condition that an updated survey be submitted that verifies the conditions
as submitted and includes the location of the City easement on the lakeside for utilities.
Weiland commented that the survey is a good idea, and it will verify any encroachments onto
the easement. The Building Official confirmed that the setback noted to the shoreline is
approximate, and it needs to be confirmed.
Mueller does not think it should be the applicant's responsibility to locate the easement; it is
a city easement on public property. Hanus stated that he understood the recommendation to
mean that the applicant only needs to verify the easement is not on his property.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff, with the exception that a 12 foot deck be
allowed to be constructed as long as the deck does not encroach over the
property line.
Hanus questioned if a 10 foot deck is not a functional size, and suggested that because of the
location of the doors entering onto the deck, this could be a hardship to allow the 12 foot
deck.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
Mueller stated that he feels the City should assist in locating the easement. Sutherland
commented that both the City Engineer, John Cameron, and Public Works Superintendent,
Greg Skinner, recommended that the easement be located by the applicant.
Jensen feels a 10 foot deck is functional and it would also improve the setback to the lake.
Michael emphasized that the existing 12 foot deck has been there for a very long time.
MOTION carried 3 to 2. Those in favor were: Weiland, Hanus, and Michael.
Mueller and Jensen opposed,
This case' will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
CASE #94-34 DUSTIN FRANTSEN 2901 MEADOW LANE LOT 1 & 9 BLOCK 5
MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY PID #23-117-24 42 0104. VARIANCE FOR
GARAGE.
Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This property is located in the R-2
zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, lot frontage of 40 feet, a 20
foot front yard setback to Meadow Lane, a 10 foot front yard setback to the unimproved
Glenwood Drive, a 6 foot side yard, and a 15 foot rear yard setback. The existing dwelling
is nonconforming by 7.5 feet to the required 10 foot setback to Glenwood Road, and lot
frontage is nonconforming by 1.4 feet.
The applicant is seeking a building permit for a garage that is conforming to setbacks and
impervious surface requirements. The parcel is an odd shaped corner lot further complicated
by the unimproved Glenwood Road. A Construction on Public Lands Permit, as required by
City Code Section 320, will need to be issued as part of this request for the proposed
driveway.
The original application was for a street vacation, however, due to the City utilities located in
the right-of-way and the adjacent undeveloped Lots 13 - 17, staff suggested to the applicant
that a vacation would receive a negative recommendation from staff. This variance request
was another option available in seeking approval to construct a garage. The logical, and
preferred solution, is to have Glenwood Road improved to City standards, however, this
results in a considerable cost to the abutting properties and is not feasible to the applicant at
this time.
Staff Recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to allow
construction of a 26' x 30' detached garage, subject to the following:
1. Liability concerns need to be addressed, possibly through a hold harmless agreement
prepared by the City Attorney.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 1~ 1994
The City shall not be responsible for reimbursement for any improvements made by the
applicant to the right-of-way, in any case.
In 'the event the right-of-way is disturbed at any time by the City, the City will not be
responsible for restoration, other than that as approved by the Public Works
Superintendent.
The recommendation of the City Engineer as listed in his memorandum dated June 8,
1994.
Mueller noted that the hardcover calculations did not include the driveway, however, it
appears that the hardcover will still be conforming including the driveway. Mueller expressed
a concern about possible future deck construction, and that with the hardcover maxed out,
it would not be conforming.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mu,lief, to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
CASE #94-35 LOUIS SHARRON & TIMOTHY SZABO 5135 DRUMMOND ROAD
LOTS 9 & 10 BLOCK 14 WHIPPLE PID 825-117-2412 0114. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION.
Building Qfficial, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This property is located in the R-
lA zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback,
6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback.
The applicant is seeking variances as listed below in order to add a bedroom, enclose an
exterior stairway to the basement, and install a driveway to the existing garage in the rear
yard. All structures on the property are nonconforming. The foundations of all buildings are
in good condition, otherwise they all need maintenance. The existing dwelling, other than the
foundation, is in very poor condition. The applicant intends to resolve some of these problems
as part of this proposal.
Reauired Variance~
The existing dwelling requires recognition of a 6.6 foot front yard variance and a 3.4
foot west side yard variance.
The existing garage requires a 0.1 foot west side yard variance. The existing shed
requires a 1.0 foot side and rear yard variance.
The proposed bedroom is nonconforming to the required 20 foot front yard setback by
2.8 feet.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 1~ 1994
The proposed enclosure for the stairway is nonconforming to the west side yard
setback by 2 feet.
Be
The proposed driveway creates an impervious surface variance of 124 square feet
(including the existing shed).
This property is a hodgepodge of buildings that results in a poor layout on the property. An
alternative is demolition and reconstruction of conforming structures and a more suitable
layout for the site.
The former owner used the property in a non traditional manner. The garage had been used
as a workshop and general storage, and not to park vehicles. There is currently no driveway
other than the slab used as a parking area. The proposed driveway dissects the parcel and
creates the excess hardcover.
The applicant's proposal does not encroach a great deal more than the existing conditions,
with the exception of 124 square feet more of hardcover, however, it does not improve any
of the nonconformities and extends them. The enclosure over the stairway encroaches into
the normal 6 foot building code separation of structures of this type.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as it is
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and this proposal increases the
intensity and extends the nonconforming use of the property.
An alternative to a recommendation of denial is to table the request to give the applicant the
opportunity to evaluate other possibilities for development of the site that will be consistent
with the zoning ordinance and improve the nonconforming status.
Applicant's Louis and Tim Szabo, informed the Commission that they would like to address
each variance situation as outlined in staff's report, and explained that they have made some
modifications to their plan. They confirmed that the shed has a concrete floor.
1. The existing dwelling requires recognition of a 6.6 foot front yard variance and a 3.4
foot west side yard variance.
The applicant cannot change this item.
The existing garage requires a 0.1 foot west side yard variance. The existing shed
requires a 1.0 foot side and rear yard variance. Staff also noted that in order to qualify
the garage as an accessory building and be permitted to have a 4 foot side yard
setback, it must be setback 5 feet from the principal dwelling, and the Building Code
requires a 6 foot separation unless there is fire wall construction.
7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
- They are willing to move existing detached garage to the south, away from the
house, to allow for a 6 foot separation.
- Will remove the shed which will also improve hardcover.
The proposed bedroom is nonconforming to the required 20 foot front yard setback by
2.8 feet.
The addition can be moved back to meet the 20 foot setback requirement.
The proposed enclosure for the stairway is nonconforming to the west side yard
setback by 2 feet.
The stairway addition can be moved over to meet the 6 foot side yard setback
requirement.
o
The proposed driveway creates an impervious surface variance of 124 square feet
(including the existing shed).
The 10.2' x 11' shed will be removed, resultingin a very minor hardcover
variance.
The Building Official supported the proposed changes, and stated that it is reasonable to allow
a minimal side yard encroachment for the stairway enclosure as a minimum 3 foot landing at
the top must be provided.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the
variance according to the proposed plan amendments as noted by the applicant.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
~ ?H.,O~Ss_ _._~_~_ .. B^,T.ET~ B'VD.. 'O~ 4. ,L CK 30.n S.
C^.'SO .. ^D~mO. ,~ #~3.~ ~7-244~ 0040. V^,~^NCE "O. D~CK.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking approval (recognition) of variances to construct a conforming deck on the
front of the home. The subject property is a through lot with frontage on both Bayport Road
and Bartlett Blvd. The proposed deck addition conforms to all setback requirements. The
existing home and a shed building are currently nonconforming due to setbacks. Total
hardcover on the site is 23.3%. This case involves the following variances:
8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
_Existin.q/ProDosed ~ Variance
Side Yard - House 5.3' - 6' .7'
Front Yard - Shed 15' 20' 5.0'
The shed is 144 square feet. It may be possible to move the shed into a conforming position
on the lot,, however, its current location does not impact sight distance along Bayport Road
nor does it pose any other practical problem.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the
variances related to the side yard setback of the existing house and the front yard setback for
the existing shed in order to construct a conforming deck as shown on the applicant's site
plan.
Weiland questioned the applicant if he could move the shed. Mr. Hall informed the
Commission that due to topography it would be difficult to relocate, however, it could be
done. Jensen noted that there is a 14 foot wide boulevard from the properly line to the curb.
The applicant stated that there are no visual problems with the shed location.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
CASE#94-38 MICHAEL JOHNSON 1721 GULL LANE LOTS 5 6 7 BLOCK 14
DREAMWOOD PID #13-117-24 13 0014. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking a front yard setback variance to add an entry deck at the southeast corner
of the structure and construct a new 28' x 24' garage addition. The garage conforms to
required setbacks. The proposal includes construction of a 10.3' x 13.9' entry deck. The
proposed entry deck will continue the front wall line but will not further encroach into the front
yard area. According to the elevation drawing submitted, the deck will not contain a roof.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard
setback variance of 9.2 feet for the construction of an open entry deck and an attached
garage measuring 28'x 24'.
Staff noted that two garage sizes were identified in the application, one measuring 28' x 24'
and the other measuring 30' x 26'. The applicant clarified that the proposed garage is 28' x
24', and the other size included the overhangs.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff, and including a condition that the front
porch area not be roofed or enclosed in the future. Motion carried unanimously.
9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
~ DIANA AKE¥ I 20 SHREW D LANE L TBL K 2
Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking approval of a number of variances in order to construct a detached garage.
At the present time, there is no garage on the site. Below are the variances involved in this
case:
Existin.q/Proposed ~ ~
Front Yard - Garage -- ' -
2.' 8.' 6.'
Side Yard - Shed 1.65' 6.' 4.35'
Street Frontage 50.' 60.' 10.'
Lot Width 50.' 60.' 10.'
Lot Size 7,639 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 2,361 s.f.
Hardcover 37.49 % 30% 7.49 %
The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' x 24' detached garage with the door facing the
ease (side). Such structures are required to maintain an 8 foot front yard setback. Because
of the location of the existing home and the existing topography of the site, the proposed
garage sits two feet inside the property line, and 8 feet from the curb. At the present time,
hardcover surfacing covers 44.32% of the site. With the proposed garage, the total hardcover
is reduced to 37.49%.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances noted
above in order to allow the construction of a detached garage with a side facing door. In its
deliberation on this matter, the Planning Commission may want to consider whether or not the
garage size as proposed represents a minimum situation. If the Commission concurs that a
variance for a garage should be granted, there should be conditions on the removal of the
existing driveway apron and bituminous area that lies immediately south of the proposed
garage building.
Mueller questioned if a 22' x 22' garage would be preferred. He noted that if 2 feet were
removed on the depth it would not change the amount of hardcover as it would increase the
driveway coverage, and removing 2 feet on the width would reduce the hardcover by only 48
square feet.
Applicant, Diane Akey, explained to the Commission that if the width was reduced to 22', the
doorway ~Nould have to be moved from the front to the side, which would then require an
additional landing and walkway resulting in more hardcover.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Jensen, to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff, for a 24' x 24' detached garage. Motion
carried unanimously.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
Jensen confirmed with staff that the Commission's findings would be included in the
resolution.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
CASE #94-42 PAUL & VIRGINIA ERICKSON I 64 ANARY LANE L TS 7 & 8
BLOCK 4' WOODLAND POINT PID #12-117-2443 0 1 . VARIANCE F R POR H.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking a hardcover variance in order to remove an existing deck and replace it
with a 3 season porch. If the proposal is approved, the total impervious surfacing on the site
will be 33.3%. The existing home and the proposed porch conform to setback requirements.
The subject site is somewhat unique in that it is surrounded by City owned open space on two
sides. A 20 foot parcel to the north of the site and the lots behind the existing home are
owned by the City of Mound for drainage purposes. In the past, the applicant has inquired
about purchasing all or a portion of the City owned land. To date, the City has elected to
retain the title to these land areas. The proposed construction exceeds the maximum hard
coverage allowed by a small margin. The additional 3.3% hardcover is more than
compensated by the amount of permanent open space abutting this parcel.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that strict interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance in this case constitutes a practical difficulty, in light of the fact that permanent open
space abuts the property on two sides. As a result, hardcover variance approval is
recommended to allow construction of the porch.
The Commission questioned if the adjacent City property may some day be sold to abutting
land owners. The Secretary stated that the property has been retained for drainage and utility
purposes and has not be released for sale. It was clarified that the existing deck is 8' x 17'.
The Commission discussed the possibility of the owner wanting a deck in the future to replace
the deck that is now being converted to a screen porch.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen, to recommend approval of the
variance, as recommended by staff, and including the following:
1. It is not the intention of this variance approval to allow a new deck in the future
to replace the existing deck that is being eliminated by the new porch.
2. This approval includes the finding that the adjacent City owned property will not
be developed in the future and therefore is taken into consideration as additional
green space for the nonconforming hardcover.
Motion carried unanimously.
11
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1994
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
~ WILLIAM & DEDRA KN ALLA 17 EA LE LANE L T I & 2
BLOCK 12 DREAMWOOD PID #13-117-2412 0064. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Planner. The
applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a 24' x 24' garage addition. The proposed
garage meets all setback requirements. The existing home is on a corner lot and as such, is
required to observe a 20 foot setback from Three Points Blvd. The existing house is located
12 feet from the property line resulting in an 8 foot variance. In addition to the home, the lot
also contains a 10' x 10' shed which appears to conform to side and rear setback
requirements. The amount of proposed impervious cover will total 33.3%.
In considering this case, the Planning Commission may want to comment on whether or not
a 24' x 24' garage is truly a "minimum" situation.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the
side yard setback variance for the existing home and a hardcover variance in order to allow
the construction of an attached garage. In its deliberation on this matter, the Planning
Commission may want to consider whether or not the garage size as proposed represents a
minimum situation.
The Commission confirmed that the 8' x 16' portion of the house as shown on the survey is
actually a deck.
Abutting neighbor, Ann Eberhart, expressed a concern about increased drainage onto her
property, as she already has problems. The Building Official commented that staff can review
the drainage issues and can offer corrective measures, such as gutters to direct drainage to
the front of the lot, or re-grading if necessary. He added that this is the time to improve these
conditions, and this can be worked out before the building permit is issued. The applicant
stated that he is willing to work on the drainage issues and make any corrections necessary.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the
variance upon the following conditions:
1. The shed be removed.
2. Drainage and grading issues be reviewed by staff and corrected accordingly.
The maker of the motion confirmed that this motion does not condone that a 24' x 24' garage
is considered "minimum".
Motion carried unanimously.
12
Planning Commission Minutes
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 28, 1994.
IT¥ OUN IL REPRE ENTATIVE' REP RT
Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council Meeting Minutes of May 24, 1994.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Jensen, to adjourn the meeting at
10:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
June 1~ 1994
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:
13
Metropolitan Council
Advocating regional economic, societal and en?~.~.nmental issues and solutions
June 17, 1994
Francene Clark Leisinger
Clerk
City Of Mound
5341 Ma)wood Rd
Mound, MN 55364-1627
Dear Ms. Leisinger:
The Metropolitan Council staff has prepared a prelim/nary population and household
estimate (April 1, 1993) for your community. Enclosed for your review is a 1993
worksheet which includes 1990 Census background data.
The estimates are used by the Council to monitor population and household change in the
region. We strive to provide estimates that are accurate and that treat each municipality
consistently. If you have questions about the estimates, please contact Kathy Johnson at
291-6332. If you prefer to submit written comments, please direct these to Ms. Johnson as
well.
We would like to send the estimates to the State Department of Revenue by m/d-July for
use in their local aids formulas. 'If you have questions about how local aids are calculated,
please address them to Rich Gardner, Minnesota Department of Revenue, 296-3155. If
possible, we'd like to finalize the numbers before Submitting them to the Department of
Revenue. To do so, we need to hear from you by July 8, 1994. Thank you for your
prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dottie Rietow
Chair
r P./kj
Enclosure
~ M
...................... . ......... ~ ~ ~n t:qual Opportunitg Ernp[oc, er ax 291-6550 TDD 291-0904
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
PROVISIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATE
APRIL 1, 1993
Housing By Type
Single-Family
Multifamily (incl. Townhouse)
City or Township: Mound
1993 Housing Units
1993
Estimated
1990 Census Corn pleted
Hous. ing Units Housing Units
__ 3,119
884-1--
886
1993
Estimated
Occupied
Households
733
HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATE
1990 Census Households
1993 Household Estimate
POPULATION ESTIMATE
1990 Census Total Population
1990 Group Quarters Population
1990 Population in Households
1993 Population Estimate
1993 Group Quarters Population
1993 PoPulation in Households
.ERSoNs HOUSEaOLD
1990 Census Persons per Household
1993 Persons per Household
3,710
3,741
9,634
0
9,634
9,643
0
9,64)
All numbers are as of April 1 of each year.
This total includes 11 units listed in "other" housing in the 1990 Census data. The Census defines these units as those
not fitting the defined housing categories, such as houseboats, railroad cars, campers and vans. Since no information on
"other" units is available between censuses, for purposes of 1993 population and household estimation, these units have
been allocated to the single and multiple family categories. This was done based on persons per "other" household and
the ratio of single-fatnily to multifamily housing in the jurisdiction.
June 17, 1994
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Sirs:
I would like to apply for the opening on the planning commission. I
have resided in the Mound area for 47 years.
I was on the planning & park commission for ten years and on the
Mound council one year. A member of the Mohawk Jaycees for 12 years.
I was in the construction business for 45 years and have now retired.
I feel with my previous experience on the planning & park commission
and my knowledge of the construction business I am qualified for this
position.
Sincerely,
Cklair Hasse
6627 Bartlett Blvd
Mound, MN 55364
Phone 472-1938
Edward Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RECEIVED JUN 2
Edward W. Surko
2314 Chateau Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Tel.: 472-7045
June 1, 1994
Dear Edward:
I was very pleased to see the article concerning a planning commission vacancy in the May 30th
Laker. I would like to apply for that position having recently moved into Mound and being very
interested in involving myself in the community. This particular position is one in which I have
experience. Although it was a few years ago, I served with the New York City Planning
Commission while in college. I worked with them in re-developing the Manhattan theater district
and attempting to attract more tourist traffic. I also assisted in work having to do with waterfront
property development on the North Shore of Long Island. I am Particularly interested in helping to
economically and aesthetically develop Mound. I have read some of your plans and they are very
exciting.
I believe that my background can provide real value to you. I am a Political Science graduate with
an MBA in finance. As I mentioned above, I have worked with the NYC Planning Commission, the
New York City Metropolitan Museum of Art and for the past 14 years in the banking industry. My
assignments in banking include both domestic and overseas assignments and I am currently
employed with First Bank.
I have lived in Minnesota for over three years and am a father of two. Although I have traveled
much in the past, I have settled and wish to call Mound my home. I very much would like to
contribute to its growth and continued vitality.
I have included my resume for your review and look forward to meeting with you shortly.
Edward W. Surko
EXPERIENCE
1991-Present FIRST BANK SYSTEM, Minneapolis, MN
Vlce President, Retail Product Group 1993-Present
Responsi.biliti.e.s inc!.ude .creating th.e organizational design and system support
structure tot ali reta~ ancl commercial revolving and non-revolving credit
products.
· Defined organizational processes and system requirements necessary to
support all revolving and non-revolving credit products in order to reduce
product development time, improve speed of response to customers, and
reduce operations and system support costs.
· Identified software solution necessary to satisfy those requirements.
Vice President & Business Manager, Agent Services 1991-1992
Responsibilities included total accountability for the Agent Services Business
which provides retail payment product services to financial institutions and has
over $1 I0 million in assets.under management.
· Consolidated First Bank System Agent Services business into Rocky
Mountain Bank Card/ne., which will yield a $2.3 million cost savings during
1993.
· Reduced attrition rates by over 20% through focusing on retention
and converting accounts to variable rate pricing, programs
· Grew Agent Services distribution units over 100% via acquisitions and new
sales initiatives.
· Preserved asset levels and sales volumes of portfolios during a period of
significant economic decline.
1990-1991
CORESTATES BANK OF DELAWARE, Wilmington, DE
Vice President and Manager,
Corporate/Business/Procurement Card Products
Responsible for the development of Strategic Plan for CoreStates' new credit card
products. Implemented Phase I of Strategic Plan.
Edward W. Surko
Page 2
CORESTATES BANK OF DELAWARE (cont.)
· .Develope~l.. product and system specifications to support commercial and agent
bank credit card businesses.
· Identified internal and external distribution channels and created and
implemented cross selling s~*ategics for credit card products.
1987-1990
CHEMICAL BANK, New York, NY
Manager, Business Card Products
* Developed and implemented the strategic plan for commercial revolving and
non-revolving credit product~.
Identified appropriate systems support solutions for credit card r
Selected third pan',., "rocessor fo ........ ' p oducts.
---.r t' , ,at r~tall anO commercial credit
Member of MasterCard s B ' . card products.
· usmessCard Adv~so Committee '
determm? roduct . ~.. which
members P development and marketing tmaativcs for the association
1980-1987
CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, New York, NY
Financial Controller
Managed the financial reporting and evaluation of various business segments,
including retail, commercial, corporate, and mast services.
* Integrated accounting system of newly acquired banks located in Spain and
h .Cha
· ~.,~-~,upea ~o__n)~_ agea new accounts navable ,,,,;, .... u:~. __ .
approxlmate~ $10 milli ' ,~., ,,.,,o~,.~ ,,,,,,.;. cssea
y on m annual payments and resulted in mFm~ased
control and operating efficiencies and reduced operatin ex nses
· Man. aged divestiture of Merchant Servia.-- ~...-. .....g.. pe . ~
savings. ,,ua uu~m¢$s to acmeve significant cost
1978-1980
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, New York, NY
Securities Lending Manager
Managed the museum's securities' lending operation as well as all National
Endowment for the Arts (NF, A) grants used for financing special exhibitions for
the public.
EDUCATION
M.B.A., Long Island University: New York
· B.A., Political Science, St. John s University, New York
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
June 16, 1994
RECEIVED
TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners will be considering amendments to
Ordinance 13, the County's recycling ordinance, at its Public Service Committee meeting
on June 30, at 9 a.m. in the Hennepin County Board Room, A-2400 at the Government
Center, 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415. If approved, the Board is
expected to take final action to amend Ordinance 13 at the official Board Meeting
scheduled for July 12, at 10 a.m. at the same location.
The proposed amendments to Ordinance 13 require commercial waste generators to
separate high grade office paper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans, glass bottles and
jars, and wood pallets from their normal trash for recycling. Exemptions to the separation
requirement are provided for commercial waste generators that produce minimal quantifies
of high grade office paper, corrugated cardboard, and wood pallets.
The proposed amendments are the result of discussions with commercial waste generators
and recycling haulers about the means of ensuring the recycling of certain materials
without placing an undue financial burden upon commercial waste generators.
Written comments on the proposed amendments to Ordinance 13 are welcome and should
be submitted to the Board of Commissioners on or before July 12.
Please contact Carl Michaud at 348-3054 for questions regarding the proposed amendments
to Ordinance 13.
, Si~erely, .
]~//Janet Leick
IDivision Manager
~ Department of Public Works
Attachment '-----'
417 North Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1309
(612) 348-6846 FAX: (612) 348-8532
Recycled Paper
Hennepin County
Residential Recycling
Funding Policy
January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999
Hennepin County
Department of Public Works
Environmental Management Division
July 1994
.... ,2 ?/3
I. POLICY DESCRIPTION
Hennepin County has adopted a policy to provide grants to municipalities for curbside collection of residential
recyclables. The Residential Recycling Funding PolicY covers the period from January 1, 1995, to December
31, 1999, and provides fOr the distribution of 100 percent of SCORE funds, which the County receives from
the State, to municipalities.
A municipality shall receive SCORE funds proportional to the number of eligible residential housing units in
its curbside collection program on January 1 of each funding year compared to the number County-wide.
Eligible residential housing units are defined as single family through eight-plex residential units or other
residential units with separate entry and where the individual residential unit sets out its own refuse and
recycling container, such as a townhome. The funds can be used for all recycling program expenses including
capital and operating costs.
SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State from a sales tax on garbage collection and disposal
fees.. SCORE funds are su.b~ect.~ cha~..ge based on revenue received and allocated by the Legislature. Funds
available for grants to mumc~pahlaes will be based on SCORE funds received by the County in the State's fiscal
year which corresponds to that calendar year (i.e., fiscal year 1995, July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1995,
corresponds to the 1995 calendar year).
Ae
!1. RESPONSIBILITIES OF MUNICIPALITIES
Application for Funding
1. Application for a grant must be received by October 1 to receive funding for the following year. The
application must be accompanied by a,city.counc.il resolution authorizing submittal of the application.
2. Each municipality applying for grant tunas must sign an agreement to receive payments.
B. Minimum Program Requirements
1. Recycling Performance,
Municipalities must recycle 18 percent of theft residential waste stream. Hennepin County will
determine the residential generation upon which this percentage is calculated, unless a
municipality is able to measure its residential generation amount. Failure to achieve this
percentage goal will result in the requirement that a plan to increase abatement be submitted for
Hennepin County approval within 90 days of the submittal of the municipal year-end report.
Materials to be Collected
At a
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
minimum, the following materials must be collected at curbside:
Newspaper and advertising supplements;
Corrugated cardboard;
Clear, brown, and green glass food and beverage containers;
Metal food and beverage cans; '
All plastic bottles with a neck except bottles that previously contained hazardous materials or
motor oil; and
Magazines and catalogs.
3. Participation Rates
The city must measure the set-out participation rate of its residents in curbside recycling programs
in the month of October. A method for measuring participation at least as reliable as a click count
or tallying method must be used. Methodology for measuring participation must be approved by the
County prior to execution of a grant agreement.
4. R_eporting Requiremen!.~
A Semi-Annual and a Final Report must be submitted to the County by July 31 of the grant year and
February 15 of the following year, respectively, on forms provided by the County.
a. All grant funds accepted from the County must be used for waste reduction and recycling capital
and operating expenses in the year granted; cities will not be reimbursed any funds in excess
of actual expenses.
b. A municipality or township may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees or any
other method for that portion of the costs of its recycling program funded by County grant
funds.
c. The municipality or township must establish a separate accounting mechanism such as a project
number, activity number, cost center, or fund that will separate recycling revenues and
expenditures from all other municipal activities including solid waste and yard waste activities.
d. All recycling and waste reduction activities, revenues, and expenditures are subject to audit.
e. Municipalities that do not contract for curbside recycling services will receive grant funds
provided that at least 90% of the grant funds are credited back to residents and the city meets
all minimum program requirements. The additional 10% may be used for municipal
administrative and promotional expenses.
III. RESPONSIBIIJTIF_,S OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
Grant payments will be made to a municipality or township. In 1995, the first grant payment, amounting
to one half of the grant application amount, will be made following the County Board approval of the
grant application and execution of the grant agreement. The second payment will be made upon receipt
of the Semi-Annual Report. In subsequent years, the first grant payment will be made upon submittal of
the Final Report for the preceding year in addition to County Board approval of the application and
execution of the grant agreement.
Hennepin County will continue this funding policy through December 31, 1999, or as long as SCORE
funds are available to fund this program.
2
9t,5"
ORDINANCE NUMBER 13
SOURCE SEPARATION AND RECYCLING
FOR
HENNEPIN COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION
ADOPTED BY THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF CONIMISSIO~
OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ON OCTOBER 24, 1986
AMENDED ON
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTERS 115A.551 AND 473.801
ORDINANCE NUMBER 13
SOURCE SEPARATION AND RECYCLING
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY
An ordinance regulating the separation of materials which must be separately managed
from mixed municipal solid waste by generators, before collection of such materials within
Hennepin County; establishing source-separation procedures and principles to be followed by the
various subdivisions located in Hennepin County in order to meet recycling goals and in order to
promote the health, welfare and safety of the public pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.551 et seq.
and 473.801 et seq.
The County Board of Hennepin County, Minnesota, does ordain:
SECTION I DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases, when used in this ordinance, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section.
Subsection 1 "Aluminum Recyclables" means all disposable containers fabricated
primarily of aluminum and commonly used for soda, beer or other beverages.
Subsection 2 "Can Recyclables" means all disposable containers fabricated primarily out
of metal or tin.
Subsection 3 "Cities" means statutory and home rule charter cities and towns authorized
to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364.
Subsection 4 "Collection" means the removal of recyclables from the place at which they
are generated and includes all activities up to the time the waste is delivered to a waste facility.
Subsection 5 "Collector(s)" means any person(s) who owns, operates or leases vehicles
for the purposes of collection and transportation of any type of mixed municipal solid waste,
and/or recyclables.
Subsection 6 "Commercial Waste" means waste generated by stores, offices, businesses,
restaurants, warehouses, and other non-manufacturing activities, and non-process wastes such as
office and packing wastes generated at industrial facilities.
Subsection 7 "Corrugated Cardboard" means any clean, uncoated, sorted, stiff,
moderately-thick paperboard with internal alternating ridges and grooves commonly used to ship
merchandise to stores, offices, businesses, restaurants, warehouses and other non-manufacturing
activities.
Subsection 8 "County Board" means the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and
their authorized representatives.
Subsection 9 "Department" means the Hennepin County Department of Public Works,
Division of Environmental Management.
Subsection 10 "Generation" means the act or process of producing waste. (as defined
in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, sub& 11.)
Subsection 11 "Generator" means any person who generates waste. (as defined in Minn.
Stat. 115A.03, subd. 12.)
Subsection 12 "Glass Recyclables" means jars, bottles and containers, which are
transparent or translucent and primarily used for packaging and bottling of various matter.
Subsection 13 "Hauler" is a person engaged in the business of collecting, transporting,
or disposing of recyclable materials, or a self-hauler who disposes of recyclable materials in
excess of five (5) tons per month.
Subsection 14 "High Grade Paper" means clean, dry, uncoated, gmundwood free,
sorted, primarily white ledgers, envelopes, computer and copy paper from offices.
Subsection 15 "Metropolitan Council" means the council established in Minn. Stat.
Chapter 473.
Subsection 16 "Mixed Municipal Solid Waste" means garbage, refuse, and other solid
waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of the
waste aggregates for collection, but does not include auto hulks, street sweepings, ash,
construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes, fires, lead acid batteries,
used oil, and other materials, collected, processed, and disposed of as separate waste streams.
(as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 21.)
Subsection 17 "Municipality" means any incorporated city within the boundaries of
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Subsection 18 "Paper Recyclables" means paper of the type commonly referred to as
newsprint. Expressly excluded, however, are all magazines or similar periodicals.
Subsection 19 "Person" means any human being, any municipality or other governmental
or political subdivision or other public agency, any public or private corporation, any partnership,
firm, association or other organization, any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent or other legal
representative of any of the foregoing, or any other legal entity, but does not include the pollution
control agency. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 116.06, subd. 17.)
Subsection 20 "Political Subdivision" means any municipal corporation, governmental
3
subdivision of the state, local government unit, special district, or local or regional board,
commission or authority authorized by law to plan or provide for waste management. (as defined
in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 24.)
Subsection 21 "Recyclable Materials" means mat~-:-'- -~ -
.... c~ats mat are separated from mixed
municipal solid waste for me purpose of recycling including paper, glass, plastics, metals,
automobile oil and batteries. Refuse-derived fuel or other material that is destroyed by
incineration is not a recyclable material. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 25a.)
Subsection 22 "Recycling" means, in addition to the meaning given in Minn. Stat. §
115A.03, subd. 25b, yard waste, composting and recycling that occurs through mechanical or
hand separation of materials that are then delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in
manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction of recyclable materials in a manner that
precludes further use.
Subsection 23 "Recycling Container" means any receptacle that is used to collect
recyclable materials and meets the specifications adopted by the County Board.
Subsection 24 "Recycling Facility" means a facility at which materials are prepared for
reuse in their original form or for use in manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction
of the materials in a manner that precludes further use. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd.
25c.)
Subsection 25 "Solid Waste" means garbage, refuse, sludge from a water supply
treatment plant or air contaminant treatment facility, and other discarded waste materials and
sludges, in solid, semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form, resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not
include hazardous waste; animal waste used as fertilizer; earthen fill, boulders, rock; sewage
sludge, solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other common pollutants in water
resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial waste water effluents or
discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or source,
special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 116.06, subd. 22.)
Subsection 26 "Source-Separation" means the separation of recyclable materials from
mixed municipal solid waste at the source of generation.
Subsection 27 "Waste Tire" means a tire that is no longer suitable for its original
intended purpose because of wear, damage or defect. (as defined by Minn. Stat. 115A.90, subd.
ll.)
Subsection 28 "Wood Pallets" means any portable wood platform or crating on which
goods are placed for storage or transportation.
4
SECTION V SALE OF RECYCLABLES
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to preclude a person generating or collecting
solid waste from delivering recyclable materials to a recycling facility of the generator's or
collector's choice. Recyclable materials must be taken to markets for sale or to a recycling
facility that has the capability of processing the materials.
SECTION VI SOURCE SEPARATION PROVISIONS
Thc County Board may implement any of the provisions contained in this section within
the boundaries of a municipality, if said municipality fails to meet the requirements established
in section II of this ordinance.
A. PRE-COLLECTION AND COLI,ECTION
Subsection 1 Pre-collection. All persons who are owners, lessees, and occupants of any
building, commercial or residential, within Hennepin County, which generates mixed municipal
solid waste, shall separate from all solid waste the designated recyclable materials before disposal,
removal or collection.
Paper recyclables, which shall be bundled separately and/or secured in such
a manner as to prevent them from being blown or scattered, and shall be
maintained in a dry condition free of any other substance and shall not be
placed in plastic bags.
Aluminum recyclables shall be clean of all contents and such recyclables
shall not be placed in plastic bags.
Glass recyclables shall be clean of all contents. Caps, lids and all metal
shall be removed prior to collection and such recyclables shall not be placed
in plastic bags.
Can recyclables shall be clean of all contents. Can recyclables shall not be
placed in plastic bags.
===================================== .:.:.5:::::::::::::: 5.~::::::::. ================================== :':':':':.:.:.:.:.:.5:::.. ==========================================================
6
All aluminum, glass and can recyclables shall be placed into containers and not
mixed with other forms of solid waste or mixed municipal solid waste in a manner consistent with
the rules, regulations and procedures adopted by the County Board.
Subsection 2 Container Requirements. Containers shall be provided by all persons
who are owners, lessees or occupants of any building, commercial or residential, and shall be:
a. maintained in a clean and sanitary condition in accordance with all pertinent
health statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations;
b. located in such a manner so as t°prevent them from being overturned or
obstructing pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic or being in violation of any
statute, ordinance, rule or regulation; and
c. adequate and substantial enough to contain the recyclables therein.
Subsection 3 Collection. The collection, removal and disposal of recyclables shall
be supervised by the County Board, which shall have the power to establish the time, method and
routes of service. Special times for large item pick-up may also be established. Collection
provisions shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Notice of dates and times of collection will be published or otherwise made
available to persons affected herein.
b. The Department may establish drop-offor collection sites where any person
may deposit recyclables at such times and locations as determined.
c. It shall be unlawful for any person other than employees of the Department,
or authorized persons, collectors or haulers to distribute, collect, remove
or dispose of recyclable materials after said materials have been placed or
deposited for collection.
eo
Nothing in this Ordinance shall abridge the right of any person to give or
sell their recyclable materials to any recycling program lawfully operated
for profit, non-profit or charitable purposes.
Nothing in this Ordinance shall abridge the right of any authorized
recycling program to lawfully operate within Hennepin County, subject to
such other licenses or other regulations as may be required by law.
It shall be unlawful for a pe;son to collect, remove or dispose of mixed
municipal solid waste which consists of recyclables combined with other
forms of mixed municipal solid waste.
7
B. ..VIOLATION AND PENALTY
Subsection 1 Misdemeanor. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions
of this Ordinance may be charged with a violation not exceeding a misdemeanor and upon
conviction shall be punished as provided by law. A separate offense shall be deemed committed
upon each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues.
Subsection 2 Remedies Cumulative. No remedy set forth in this Ordinance for
violation of this Ordinance is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies,
but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other
remedy given under this Ordinance or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute.
No delay in the exercise of any remedy for any violation of this Ordinance shall later impair or
waive any such right or power of the County.
Subsection 3 Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation or a threat of violation
of this Ordinance, the County may institute appropriate actions or proceedings including
application for injunctive relief, action to compel performance or other appropriate action to
prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations or threatened violations.
Subsection 4 Costs and Special Assessments.
If a Hauler or any Person within said County collects or disposes of
recyclables in violation of this Ordinance, the County may take the
necessary steps to correct such violations and the costs thereof may be
recovered in a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction or, at the
discretion of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County
Auditor as a special tax against the real property owned by such hauler or
person.
be
If any municipality, unincorporated area, or political subdivisiOn within the
geographical boundaries of Hennepin County fails to meet the requirements
established in Section II of this Ordinance, the County Board, to the extent
that it has assumed the responsibilities that the local unit has failed to
assume pursuant to Section II, may seek reimbursement in any court of
competent jurisdiction, for all costs, expenses and expenditures which the
County has incurred incident to the adoption, implementation,
administration and enforcement of a source-separation ordinance within the ·
boundaries of a local unit.
C. ENFORCEMENT
Subsection 1 Warnings. The Department or any of its duly authorized
representatives and collectors and haulers of recyclables may issue a warning notice to any person
8
observed not in compliance with any provision of this Ordinance.
a. The warning notice shall be on such form(s) as
Department.
provided by the
Forms shall be provided to collectors and haulers who may issue such
warning notices by placing or attaching them to waste containers or on the
premises where the violation occurs.
c. A copy of any warning notice as issued by a collector or hauler shall be
forthwith sent to the Department.
Subsection 2 Collection Refusal. A collector or hauler may, upon issuance of a
warning notice for noncompliance, not accept for collection the noncomplying waste materials.
Subsection 3 Costs for Compliance. A collector or hauler may, upon issuance of
a warning for noncompliance, undertake to render any noncomplying recyclables placed for
collection to be in compliance and a reasonable fee for undertaking shall be allowed and reported
to the Department. The Department may certify the fee as costs to the County Auditor as a
special tax to be assessed against the real property of the person in noncompliance.
Subsection 4 Citations. The Department or any of its duly authorized
representatives shall have the power to issue citations for violations of this Ordinance, but this
shall not permit such 'representatives to physically arrest or take into custody any violator except
on warrant duly issued.
Form of Citations: Citations shall contain at least the following:
1. The name and address of the person charged with the violation or
the owner or person in charge of the premises at which the violation
occurs.
The date and place of the violation.
A short description of the violation followed by the section of this
Ordinance violated.
The date and place at which the person receiving the citation shall
appear and a notice that if such person does not respond, a warrant
may be issued for such person's arrest.
The name of the person issuing the citation.
Such other information as the Court may specify.
Co
bo
Issuance of Citations: Whenever any representative of the Department
discovers any violation of this Ordinance, he may issue a citation to the
person alleged to have committed the violation and such citation shall be in
the form specified in paragraph A. of this subsection. Such citation shall
be made out in quadruplicate (4). One copy thereof shall be issued to the
person alleged to have committed the violation; one copy shall be filed with
the Department; two copies thereof shall be filed with the County
Ordinance Violation Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Bureau).
Issuance: The citation shall be issued to the person charged with the
violation, or in the case of a corporation or municipality, to any officer or
agent, expressly or impliedly authorized to accept such issuance.
Appearance: After the issuance of the citation and within such time as shall
be fixed by court rule, the person charged with the violation shall report to
the Violations Bureau.
eo
Complaint: If the person charged with the violation does not appear at the
Bureau within the time specified by court rule, the Bureau shall send him
a notice directing him to respond to the citation within seven days of the
date of the notice and if such person fails to respond, the Bureau shall cause
a complaint to be signed and a warrant to be issued for the arrest of such
person to compel his appearance in court.
SECTION VII SEVERABILITY
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the County Board that the several
provisions of this Ordinance are separable and if any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge
any provision of this Ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision
of this Ordinance not specifically included in said judgment.
SECTION VHI PROVISIONS ARE CUMULATIVE
The provisions of this Ordinance are cumulative to all other laws, ordinances and
regulations heretofore passed, or which may be passed hereafter, covering any subject matter in
this Ordinance.
10
. day of
SECTION VIV EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage by the County
Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County this
., 1994.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
BY:
Chair of the County Board
ATTEST:
Clerk of the County Board
APPROVED:
Assistant County Attorney
11
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
June 16, 1994
Mr. Edward J. Shu~e Jr.
City of Mound
5341MaywoodRoad
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Shukle:
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners will consider two items in committee on
June 30 which may be of interest to you. They are: 1) a revised Recycling Funding Policy
for 1995-1999; and 2) an amendment to Ordinance 13, Source Separation and Recycling.
The revised Recycling Funding Policy proposes that recycling grants from Hennepin County
to municipalities be limited to a distribution of the annual SCORE revenue which Hennepin
County receives from the State. The policy also allows municipalities which do not contract
for curbside recycling services to retain up to 10% of the grant funds for administrative and
promotional expenses.
The proposed amendment to Ordinance 13 requires large quantity commercial waste
generators to source separate high grade paper, wood pallets and corrugated cardboard for
recycling. Small quantity generators are exempt from the requirement.
Copies of both proposals are attached for your review. Written comments directed to the
Commissioners prior to the committee meeting on June 30 would be most welcome.
I would be happy to discuss any aspect of these proposals with you.
f//J~a.net Leick1 Director
c: Recycling Coordinators
Department of Public Works
417 North Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1309
(612)348-6846 FAX: (612)348-8532
Recycled Paper
Hennepin County
Residential Recycling
Funding Policy
January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999
Hennepin County
Department of Public Works
Environmental Management Division
July 1994
I. POLICY DESCRIFrION
.tennepin County has adopted a policy to provide grants to municipalities for curbside collection of residential
recyclables. The Residential Recycling Funding Policy covers the period from January 1, 1995, to December
31, 1999, and provides for the distribution of 100 percent of SCORE funds, which the County receives from
the State, to municipalities.
A municipality shall receive SCORE funds proportional to the number of eligible residential housing units in
its curbside collection program on January 1 of each funding year compared to the number County-wide.
Eligible residential housing units are defined as single family through eight-plex residential units or other
residential units with separate entry and where the individual residential unit sets out its own refuse and
recycling container, such as a townhome. The funds can be used for all recycling program expenses including
capital and operating costs.
SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State from a sales tax on garbage collection and disposal
fees. SCORE funds are subject to change based on revenue received and allocated by the Legislature. Funds
available for grants to municipalities will be based on SCORE funds received by the County in the State's fiscal
year which corresponds to that calendar year (i.e., fiscal year 1995, July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1995,
corresponds to the 1995 calendar year).
Be
Il. RESPONSIBILITIES OF MUNICIPALITIES
Application for Funding
1. Application for a grant must be received by October 1 to receive funding for the following year. The
application must be accompanied by a city council resolution authorizing submittal of the application.
2. Each municipality applying for grant funds must sign an agreement to receive payments.
Minimum Program Requirements
1. ..Recycling Performanc~
Municipalities must recycle 18 percent of theft residential waste stream. Hennepin County will
determine the residential generation upon which this percentage is calculated, unless a
municipality is able to measure its residential generation amount. Failure to achieve this
percentage goal will result in the requirement that a plan to increase abatement be submitted for
Hennepin County approval within 90 days of the submittal of the municipal year-end report.
Materials to be Collected
At a
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
minimum, the following materials must be collected at curbside:
Newspaper and advertising supplements;
Corrugated cardboard;
Clear, brown, and green glass food and beverage containers;
Metal food and beverage cans;
All plastic bottles with a neck except bottles that previously contained ba?axdous materials or
motor oil; and
Magazines and catalogs.
3. Participation Rate~
The city must measure the set-out participation rate of its residents in curbside recycling programs
in the month of October. A method for measuring participation at least as reliable as a click count
or tallying method must be used. Methodology for measuring participation must be approved by the
County prior to execution of a grant agreement.
4. Reporting Requirements
A Semi-Annual and a Final Report must be submitted to the County by July 31 of the grant year and
February 15 of the following year, respectively, on forms provided by the County.
a. All grant funds accepted from the County must be used for waste reduction and recycling capital
and operating expenses in the year granted; cities will not be reimbursed any funds in excess
of actual expenses.
b. A municipality or township may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees or any
other method for that portion of the costs of its recycling program funded by County grant
funds.
c. The municipality or township must establish a separate accounting mechanism such as a project
number, activity number, cost center, or fund that will separate recycling revenues and
expenditures from all other municipal activities including solid waste and yard waste activities.
d. All recycling and waste reduction activities, revenues, and expenditures are subject to audit.
e. Municipalities that do not contract for curbside recycling services will receive grant funds
provided that at least 90% of the grant funds are credited back to residents and the city meets
all minimum program requirements. The additional 10% may be used for municipal
administrative and promotional expenses.
Ae
Bw
IlL RESPONSIBILITIF~ OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
Grant payments will be made to a municipality or township. In 1995, the first grant payment, amounting
to one half of the grant application amount, will be made following the County Board approval of the
grant application and execution of the grant agreement. The second payment will be made upon receipt
of the Semi-Annual Report. In subsequent years, the first grant payment will be made upon submittal of
the Final Report for the preceding year in addition to County Board approval of the application and
execution of the grant agreement.
Hennepin County will continue this funding policy through December 31, 1999, or as long as SCORE
funds are available to fund this program.
2
ORDINANCE NUMBER 13
SOURCE SEPARATION AND RECYCLING
FOR
HENNEPIN COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION
ADOPTED BY THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNF, SOTA
ON OCTOBER 24, 1986
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTERS 115A.551 AND 473.801
ORDINANCE NUMBER 13
SOURCE SEPARATION AND RECYCLING
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY
An ordinance regulating the separation of materials which must be separately managed
from mixed municipal solid waste by generators, before collection of such materials within
Hennepin County; establishing source-separation procedures and principles to be followed by the
various subdivisions located in Hennepin County in order to meet recycling goals and in order to
promote the health, welfare and safety of the public pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.551 et seq.
and 473.801 et seq.
The County Board of Hennepin County, Minnesota, does ordain:
SECTION I DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases, when used in this ordinance, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section.
Subsection 1 'Aluminum Recyclables' means all disposable containers fabricated
primarily of aluminum and commonly used for soda, beer or other beverages.
Subsection 2 "Can Recyclables" means all disposable containers fabricated primarily out
of metal or tin.
Subsection 3 "Cities" means statutory and home rule charter cities and towns authorized
to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364.
Subsection 4 "Collection" means the removal of recyclables from the place at which they
are generated and includes all activities up to the time the waste is delivered to a waste facility.
Subsection 5 'Collector(s)" means any person(s) who owns, operates or leases vehicles
for the purposes of collection and transportation of any type of mixed municipal solid waste,
and/or recyclables.
Subsection 6 "Commercial Waste' means waste generated by stores, offices, businesses,
restaurants, warehouses, and other non-manufacturing activities, and non-process wastes such as
office and packing wastes generated at industrial facilities.
Subsection 7 'Corrugated Cardboard~ means any clean, uncoated, sorted, stiff,
moderately-thick paperboard with internal alternating ridges and grooves commonly used to ship
merchandise to stores, offices, businesses, restaurants, warehouses and other non-manufacturing
activities.
Subsection 8 "County Board" means the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and
their authorized representatives.
Subsection 9 "Department" means the Hennepin County Department of Public Works,
Division of Environmental Management.
Subsection 10 "Generation" means the act or process of producing waste. (as defined
in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 11.)
Subsection 11 "Generator" means any person who generates waste. (as defined in Minn.
Stat. 115A.03, subd. 12.)
Subsection 12 "Glass Recyclables" means jars, bottles and containers, which are
transparent or translucent and primarily used for packaging and bottling of various matter.
Subsection 13 "Hauler" is a person engaged in the business of collecting, transporting,
or disposing of recyclable materials, or a self-hauler who disposes of recyclable materials in
excess of five (5) tons per month.
Subsection 14 "High Grade Paper" means clean, dry, uncoated, groundwood free,
sorted, primarily white ledgers, envelopes, computer and copy paper from offices.
Subsection 15
Chapter 473.
"Metropolitan Council" means the council established in Minn. Stat.
Subsection 16 "Mixed Municipal Solid Waste" means garbage, refuse, and other solid
waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of the
waste aggregates for collection, but does not include auto hulks, street sweepings, ash,
construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes, tires, lead acid batteries,
used oil, and other materials, collected, processed, and disposed of as separate waste streams.
(as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 21.)
Subsection 17 "Municipality" means any incorporated city within the boundaries of
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Subsection 18 "Paper Recyclables" means paper of the type commonly referred to as
newsprint. Expressly excluded, however, are all magazines or similar periodicals.
Subsection 19 "Person" means any human being, any municipality or other governmental
or political subdivision or other public agency, any public or private corporation, any partnership,
firm, association or other organization, any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent or other legal
representative of any of the foregoing, or any other legal entity, but does not include the pollution
control agency. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 116.06, subd. 17.)
Subsection 20 "Political Subdivision" means any municipal corporation, governmental
subdivision of the state, local government unit, special district, or local or regional board,
commission or authority authorized by law to plan or provide for waste management. (as defined
in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 24.)
Subsection 21 "Recyclable Materials" means materials that are separated from mixed
municipal solid waste for the purpose of recycling including paper, glass, plastics, metals,
automobile oil and batteries. Refuse-derived fuel or other material that is destroyed by
incineration is not a recyclable material. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 25a.)
Subsection 22 "Recycling" means, in addition to the meaning given in Minn. Stat. §
115A.03, subd. 25b, yard waste, composting and recycling that occurs through mechanical or
hand separation of materials that are then delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in
manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction of recyclable materials in a manner that
precludes further use.
Subsection 23 "Recycling Container" means any receptacle that is used to collect
recyclable materials and meets the specifications adopted by the County Board.
Subsection 24 "Recycling Facility" means a facility at which materials are prepared for
reuse in their original form or for use in manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction
of the materials in a manner that precludes further use. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd.
25c.)
Subsection 25 "Solid Waste" means garbage, refuse, sludge from a water supply
treatment plant or air contaminant treatment facility, and other discarded waste materials and
sludges, in solid, semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form, resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not
include hazardous waste; animal waste used as fertilizer; earthen fill, boulders, rock; sewage
sludge, solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other common pollutants in water
resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial waste water effluents or
discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or source,
special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 116.06, subd. 22.)
Subsection 26 "Source-Separation" means the separation of recyclable materials from
mixed municipal solid waste at the source of generation.
Subsection 27 "Waste Tire" means a tire that is no longer suitable for its original
intended purpose because of wear, damage or defect. (as defined by Minn. Stat. 115A.90, subd.
Subsection 28 "Wood Pallets" means any portable wood platform or crating on which
goods are placed for storage or transportation.
4
SECTION H GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subsection 1 It shall be the responsibility of each municipality to adopt an ordinance or
ordinances relating to the separation of recyclables within the boundaries of the municipality, the
purpose of said ordinance being to reduce the amount of solid waste generated within the
......................... iii ....................... i!i:::::::::iii! ................... '::::i~i fi j ....... C,G.~ 0.?,h2..,~Ig.ca ~,y
Subsection 2 The implementation and enforcement of said ordinance shall be the
responsibility of each respective municipality. If a municipality should fail to implement a
~..!?Y January 1, 1988, or implement a program which fails to'meet the
............................................................................................ i ............... ~:..-::::::::::::ii ............... - ......................... ~ ......................... il ....................... '::~ ........................
.... the p isions
appearing in Section V of this Ordinance shall come into effect. This Ordinance shall not prohibit
a municipality or municipalities from entering into agreements relating to any facet of source
separation of recyclables.
SECTION HI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Subsection 1 Each municipality shall report all information relating to waste generation,
collection and disposal within its boundaries to the Hennepin County Department of Public Works,
Division of Environmental Management. Such information shall include but not be limited to:
data on tonnage generated in the municipality; data on recyclable materials generated and
collected within the municipality; and such additional information as is requested by the
Department. Such information shall be provided on an annual basis by or on March 1 st of each
year, or as otherwise directed by the Department.
SECTION IV
MUNICIPAL FAILURE TO MEET STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED IN SECTION H
If any municipality fails to establish or implement an ordinance as provided in Section II,
the County Board may implement a recycling program which includes source separation provisions
within the boundaries of said municipality pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115A.92, subd. 5. If such
a program is implemented, it shall be enforced upon all persons residing in said municipality.
This ordinance shall be applicable to all municipalities, unincorporated areas and political
subdivisions within the geographical boundaries of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
SECTION V SALE OF RECYCLABLES
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to preclude a person generating or collecting
solid waste from delivering recyclable materials to a recycling facility of the generator's or
collector's choice. Recyclable materials must be taken to markets for sale or to a recycling
facility that has the capability of processing the materials.
SECTION VI SOURCE SEPARATION PROVISIONS
The County Board may implement any of the provisions contained in this section within
the boundaries of a municipality, if said municipality fails to meet the requirements established
in section II of this ordinance.
A. PRE-COLLECTION AND COLLECTION
Subsection 1 Pre-collection. Ail persons who are owners, lessees, and occupants of any
building, commercial or residential, within Hennepin County, which generates mixed municipal
solid waste, shall separate from all solid waste the designated recyclable materials before disposal,
removal or collection.
Paper recyclables, which shall be bundled separately and/or secured in such
a manner as to prevent them from being blown or scattered, and shall be
maintained in a dry condition free of any other substance and shall not be
placed in plastic bags.
Aluminum recyclables shall be clean of all contents and such recyclables
shall not be placed in plastic bags.
Glass recyclables shall be clean of all contents. Caps, lids and all metal
shall be removed prior to collection and such recyclables shall not be placed
in plastic bags.
Can recyclables shall be clean of all contents. Can recyclables shall not be
placed in plastic bags.
3..
::::::5:::::
6
All aluminum, glass and can recyclables shall be placed into containers and not
mixed with other forms of solid waste or mixed municipal solid waste in a manner consistent with
the rules, regulations and procedures adopted by the County Board.
Subsection 2 Container Requirements. containers shall be provided by all persons
who are owners, lessees or occupants of any building, commercial or residential, and shall be:
maintained in a clean and sanitary condition in accordance with all pertinent
health statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations;
bo
located in such a manner so as to prevent them from being overturned or
obstructing pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic or being in violation of any
statute, ordinance, rule or regulation; and
c. adequate and substantial enough to contain the recyclables therein.
Subsection 3 Collection. The collection, removal and disposal of recyclables shall
be supervised by the County Board, which shall have the power to establish the time, method and
routes of service. Special times for large item pick-up may also be established. Collection
provisions shall include but not be limited to the following:
Notice of dates and times of collection will be published or otherwise made
available to persons affected herein.
The Department may establish drop-off or collection sites where any person
may deposit recyclables at such times and locations as determined.
It shall be unlawful for any person other than employees of the Department,
or authorized persons, collectors or haulers to distribute, collect, remove
or dispose of recyclable materials after said materials have been placed or
deposited for collection.
Nothing in this Ordinance shall abridge the right of any person to give or
sell their recyclable materials to any recycling program lawfully operated
for profit, non-profit or charitable purposes.
Nothing in this Ordinance shall abridge the right of any authorized
recycling program to lawfully operate within Hennepin County, subject to
such other licenses or other regulations as may be required by law.
..
It shall be unlawful for a person to collect, remove or dispose of mixed
municipal solid waste which consists of recyclables combined with other
forms of mixed municipal solid waste.
7
B. VIQLATIQN AND PENALTy
Subsection I Misdemeanor. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions
of this Ordinance may be charged with a violation not exceeding a misdemeanor and upon
conviction shall be punished as provided by law. A separate offense shall be'deemed committed
upon each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues.
Subsection 2 Remedies Cumulative. No remedy set forth in this Ordinance for
violation of this Ordinance is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies,
but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other
remedy given under this Ordinance or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute.
No delay in the exercise of any remedy for a0y violation of this Ordinance shall later impair or
waive any such right or power of the County.
Subsection 3 Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation or a threat of violation
of this Ordinance, the County may institute appropriate actions or proceedings including
application for injunctive relief, action to compel performance or other appropriate action to
prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations or threatened violations.
Subsection 4 Costs and Special Assessments.
ao
If a Hauler or any Person within said County collects or disposes of
recyclables in violation of this Ordinance, the County may take the
necessary steps to correct such violations and the costs thereof may be
recovered in a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction or, at the
discretion of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County
Auditor as a special tax against the real property owned by such hauler or
person.
If any municipality, unincorporated area, or political subdivisiOn within the
geographical boundaries of Hennepin County fails to meet the requirements
established in Section II of this Ordinance, the County Board, to the extent
that it has assumed the responsibilities that the local unit has failed to
assume pursuant to Section II, may seek reimbursement in any court of
competent jurisdiction, for all costs, expenses and expenditures which the
County has incurred incident to the adoption, implementation,
administration and enforcement of a source-separation ordinance within the ·
boundaries of a local unit.
C. ENFORCEMENT
Subsection 1 Warnings. The Department or any of its duly authorized
representatives and collectors and haulers of recyclables may issue a warning notice to any person
observed not in compliance with any provision of this Ordinance.
ao
The warning notice shall be on such form(s) as provided by the
Department.
Forms shall be provided to collectors and haulers who may issue such
warning notices by placing or attaching them to waste containers or on the
premises where the violation occurs.
A copy of any warning notice as issued by a collector or hauler shall be
forthwith sent to the Department.
Subsection 2 Collection Refusal. A collector or hauler may, upon issuance of a
warning notice for noncompliance, not accept for collection the noncomplying waste materials.
Subsection 3 Costs for Compliance. A collector or hauler may, upon issuance of
a warning for noncompliance, undertake to render any noncomplying recyclables placed for
collection to be in compliance and a reasonable fee for undertaking shall be allowed and reported
to the Department. The Department may certify the fee as costs to the County Auditor as a
special tax to be assessed against the real property of the person in noncompliance.
Subsection 4 Citations. The Department or any of its duly authorized
representatives shall have the power to issue citations for violations of this Ordinance, but this
shall not permit such representatives to physically arrest or take into custody any violator except
on warrant duly issued.
a. Form of Citations: Citations shall contain at least the following:
The name and address of the person charged with the violation or
the owner or person in charge of the premises at which the violation
occurs.
2. The date and place of the violation.
A short description of the violation followed by the section of this
Ordinance violated.
The date and place at which the person receiving the citation shall
appear and a notice that if such person does not respond, a warrant
may be issued for such person's arrest.
5. The name of the person issuing the citation.
6. Such other information as the Court may specify.
a · n I ~n, ,it I ii
Issuance of Citations: Whenever any representative of the Department
discovers any violation of this Ordinance, he may issue a citation to the
person alleged to have committed the violation and such citation shall be in
the form specified in paragraph A. of this subsection. Such citation shall
be made out in quadruplicate (4). One copy thereof shall be issued to the
person alleged to have committed the violation; one copy shall be filed with
the Department; two copies thereof shall be filed with the County
Ordinance Violation Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Bureau).
Issuance: The citation shall be issued to the person charged with the
violation, or in the case of a corporation or municipality, to any officer or
agent, expressly or impliedly authorized to accept such issuance.
Appearance: After the issuance of the citation and within such time as shall
be fixed by court rule, the person charged with the violation shall report to
the Violations Bureau.
eo
Complaint: If the person charged with the violation does not appear at the
Bureau within the time specified by court rule, the Bureau shall send him
a notice directing him to respond to the citation within seven days of the
date of the notice and if such person fails to respond, the Bureau shall cause
a complaint to be signed and a warrant to be issued for the arrest of such
person to compel his appearance in court.
SECTION VH SEVERABILITY
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the County Board that the several
provisions of this Ordinance are separable and if any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge
any provision of this Ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision
of this Ordinance not specifically included in said judgment.
SECTION VIH PROVISIONS ARE CUMULATIVE
The provisions of this Ordinance are cumulative to all other laws, ordinances and
regulations heretofore passed, or which may be passed hereafter, covering any subject matter in
this Ordinance.
10
-, ,,t i ,I,,
day of
SECTION VIV EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage by the County
Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County this
,1994.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
BY:
Chair of the County Board
ATTEST:
Clerk of the County Board
APPROVED:
Assistant County Attorney
11