1994-11-22 AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
CANVASSING MEETING, THE NOVEMBER 9, 1994
REGULAR MEETING AND THE NOVEMBER 15, 1994
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.
RECONFIRMATION OF FINAL PLAT FOR TEAL
POINTE.
CASE//94-72: BRADLY T. BLAZEVIC, 1871 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOT 2, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID//18-117-23 23 0061.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ENTRY DECK.
EASE//94-74: WANDA MARTENS, 4961 BEDFORD ROAD,
LOT 5 & ELY 10' OF 6, BLOCK 37, WYCHWOOD, PID
//24-117-24 41 0144.
REQUEST: VARIANCE TO LOT AREA FOR NEW HOME.
APPROVAL OF OPERATIONS PERMIT, PXC CORPORATION,
5314 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING).
PG. 4245-4250
PG. 4251-4258
PG. 4259-4280
PG. 4281-4294
PG. 4295-4302
4242
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
CASE//94-63: RESOLUTION TO VOID RESOLUTION #94-12§
AND REPLACE IT WITH THIS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
SETBACK VARIANCE TO HERON LANE TO CONSTRUCTION
A PORCH AND DECK AT 5000 ENCHANTED ROAD, LOT 1,
BLOCK 21, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0069.
PG. 4303-4307
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RE: MOUND VISIONS PROGRAM - LOST LAKE CANAL
REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AUDITOR'S ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. PG. 4308-4312
RECOMMENDATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RE: PROPOSED PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGY FOR LOST
LAKE CANAL. PG. 4313-4315
APPROVAL OF 1995 DOCK LOCATION MAP.
PG. 4316-4338
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC LAND ALTERATION PERMIT FROM
DANIEL AND SANDRA STROT, 1566 EAGLE LANE,
LOT 3, 4 & 5, BLOCK 2, WOODLAND POINT, DOCK
SITE g02250. SEED/SOD PARKING AREA.
PG. 4339-4348
APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST//1 - MOUND/MINNETRISTA
PUBLIC WORKS OUTDOOR MATERIALS STORAGE -
IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS - $63,217.66. PG. 4349-4353
APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING
MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE
CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR FEBRUARY 4, 1995.
PG. 4354
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
PG. 4355-4373
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
go
Financial Report for October 1994 as prepared
by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
PG. 4374-4375
Bo
Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Minutes
of November 10, 1994.
PG. 4376-4382
4243
Letter from Jim Miller, Executive Director,
League of Minnesota Cities RE: 1) Candidacy
of several City officials for the National
League of Cities Board and Officers positions, and
2) City of Mound's potential in being represented on
the National League of Cities Small Cities
Council.
PG. 4383-4398
Information from LMCD on a proposed ordinance
amending the LMCD Code to establish Planned Usage
Development Procedures and Standards and a
Definition of Public Piers.
PG. 4399-4414
E. Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 1994.
PG. 4415-4420
F. REMINDERS:
Budget Hearing - Tuesday, November 29, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
NLC Conference, December 1-4, 1994, Minneapolis Convention Center.
Continued Budget Hearing (if necessary), Tuesday, December 6, 1994, 7:30
P.M.
Annual Christmas Party, Friday, December 9, 1994, American Legion.
Thanksgiving Holiday, Thursday and Friday, November 24 & 25, 1994, City
Offices closed.
4244
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City on
November 9, 1994, at 7:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen, and
Ken Smith. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present were: City
Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., and City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson,
Building Official Jon Sutherland.
The Mayor opened the meeting.
1.0 ELECTION CANVASSING BOARD
The City Election results were presented to the Canvassing Board for their approval. The results
were as follows:
MAYOR
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL
Skip Johnson 206 129 405 319 338 229 1,626
Bob Polston 258 201 680 389 425 337 2,290
COUNCILMEMBER
Gerald D. Babb 166 120 353 193 257 255 1,344
Bob Brown 186 110 362 225 228 188 1,299
Mark Hanus 188 143 540 352 374 224 1,821
Liz Jensen 229 186 542 357 407 295 2,016
The following were declared the winners:
Bob Polston, Mayor Elect (two year term)
Mark Hanus, Councilmember Elect (four year term)
Liz Jensen, Councilmember Elect (four year term)
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994
RESOLUTION//94-148
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE
MUNICIPAL ELECTION AS PRESENTED AT THE
CANVASS OF VOTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 1994,
GENERAL ELECTION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 9, 1994
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
November 9, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen and
Ken Smith. Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J.
Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon
Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Mary Moline.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.1 MINUTES
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the October
25, 1994, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.2
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE //94-70: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR CLASS IV RESTAURANT, NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR
SERVICE RESTAURANT FOR HAPPY GARDEN RESTAURANT, SANG CAM
KY, 2212 COMMERCE BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 1, COMMERCE PLACE, PID
//13-117-24 33 0081.
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
The City Attorney pointed out that the applicant has not yet applied for a Non-intoxicating
Liquor License and if an application is received a public hearing will need to be held on that
issue.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one responded. The Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
RESOLUTION//94-149
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A
CLASS IV RESTAURANT IN THE B-1 CENTRAL
BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT FOR "HAPPY
GARDEN RESTAURANT", AT 2212 COMMERCE
BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 1, COMMERCE PLACE, PID
//13-117-24 33 0081, P & Z CASE//94-70
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.3 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 4, 1994 LIFT STATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RICE LAKE CONTRACTING - $132,901.20.
The City Manager explained that the City Engineer has recommended approval.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve Payment Request//4, from
Rice Lake Contracting, for the 1994 Lift Station Improvement Project, in the
amount of $132,901.20. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $84,301.99, when funds are available. A
roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Council went into Executive Session at 7:45 P.M. for an update on what the Staff has been
doing in regard to the City's investment with Piper Jaffry and to discuss possible
recommendations on what course of action the City may take as it relates to litigation.
The Council returned from Executive Session at 9:10 P.M.
The City Attorney stated that the purpose of the Executive Session was to bring the Council up
to date on discussions that have gone on between Staff and Piper Jaffry, concerning the City's
investments in the Piper Governmental Fund. The Staff explained to the Council what
discussions have taken place with Piper about the possibility of various remedies that might help
the City because of the circumstances under which the City invested money with Piper. At this
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994
point the Council wishes to delay any action for a couple of weeks to study the materials that
were presented by the Staff and receive some additional information.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Report for October 1994.
B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for October 1994.
C. LMCD mailings.
D. Planning Commission Minutes of October 14, 1994.
E. Letter from Triax Cablevision regarding a new line item that will be appearing on
subscriber cable bills beginning in December 1994.
F. Central Business District (CBD) parking information requested by Councilmember Liz
Jensen at the last meeting.
G. Information from the League of Minnesota Cities requesting assistance as greeters and
badge checkers at the NLC Conference later this month. If interested, let Fran know.
H. Proposed 1995 City Policies from the League of Minnesota Cities for consideration at
annual policy adoption conference.
I. Notice of public hearing considering increasing the Solid Waste Management Fee to 20 %
of charges for the collection and disposal services of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
(MMSW) billed and collected from "Residential Generators" and "Nonresidential
Generators", effective February 1, 1995. Hearing will be held Thursday, November 10,
1994, at 11:00 A.M. in the Hennepin County Board Room.
J. REMINDERS:
- Tree Lighting Ceremony, Tuesday, November 15, 1994, 6:30 P.M.
- COW Meeting - Tuesday, November 15, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
- Budget Hearing - Tuesday, November 29, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
NLC Conference, December 1-4, 1994, Minneapolis Convention Center.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994
- Continued Budget Hearing (if necessary), Tuesday, December 6, 1994, 7:30
P.M.
Annual Christmas Party, Friday, December 9, 1994, American Legion.
Veteran's Day Holiday, Friday, November 11, 1994, City Offices closed.
Thanksgiving Holiday, Thursday and Friday, November 24 & 25, 1994, City
Offices closed.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
5
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - NOVEMBER 15, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Skip Johnson,
Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, Andrea Ahrens and Ken Smith. Also
present: City Manager Ed Shukle.
City Manager Ed Shukle gave an update on the Westonka Community Center Task
Force. He indicated that the task force was in the process of studying various
alternatives to spending $1.8 million to upgrade the existing community center. More
information will be available on this at a later date.
The list of goals for the year was reviewed. The consensus was to continue having
these goals on the Committee of the Whole agenda.
Discussion regarding the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was discussed.
This matter was referred to the January 17, 1995 Committee of the Whole meeting.
Consensus was to cancel the December 20, 1994 Committee of the Whole meeting.
It was moved by smith, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn at
8:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
612-8~5-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 992 P02 NOU 17 '9~ 1~:12
Ho'~u:~n Koeg~ ~'oup Inc.
DD
MEMORANDUM
November 17, 1994
To: Mound City Council
From: Bruce Chamberlain, Planning Consultant
Re: Teal Pointe final plat reconfirmation and modification.
Teal Pointe Development Company has requested that the City release the final plat
for Teal Pointe residential development. Since it has been over 180 days since the
City Council approved the final plat and the Mound City Code indicates that the plat
must be filed within 60 days of the approval, the developer is requesting
reconfirmation of the plat.
No elements of the plat have changed and the project stands as previously approved.
A recommended modification is the allowable period of construction which was
defined in the original plat approval as 180 days. It is the belief of City Staff that this
schedule would be very difficult to meet given the time of year. Staff is
recommending an extension of the construction period to 280 days. Also, so there is
no future confusion, an additional condition will be placed on final plat approval
stating that the plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within 60 days of City
Council approval of the final plat reconfirmation.
The developer has submitted the required material for filing of the final plat with
exception to the park dedication in the amount of $4,500 and a letter of credit or
other approved form of security in the amount of $127,500. Both of these items must
be submitted prior to the City releasing the plat along with all other conditions of
final and preliminary plat approval as stated in Resolution ~94-65 and requirements
of Mound City Code.
Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the plat reconfirmation and modifications.
A resolution to this effect is enclosed. If you have any questions, staff will be
available at the meeting.
TEALMOD.MEM
Land Use / Environmental , Planning / I:k'sign
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960" Fax: (612) 835-3160
G12-835-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 9?2 PO3 NOV 17 '94 1~:12
RESOLUTION ~4-__
A RF. SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tm CITY OF MOUND
RECONFIRMING AND MODIFYING THE FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, approval of the final plat of Teal Point has been granted by the City
Council with conditions under Resolution 94-65; and
and
WHEIIRAS, the project as approved through Resolution ~4-65 has not changed;
WHEREAS, the allowable period of time for filing the final plat with the county
has expired; and
WHEREAS, the maximum l~riod of time specified for construction of the public
improvements associated with the project is likely unattainable due to weather conditions
NOW TNF. REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
A. Teal Point final plat approval according to Resolution #94-65 dated May 10, 1994
is hereby reconfirmed.
B. Conditions of final plat approval shall be amended to include the following:
I. The allowable period of construction of public improvements as stated in
condition 3 of Resolution ~)4-65 shall be extended to 280 days from the
time of filing the final plat.
2. The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within 60 days of the City
Council reconfirming the final plat.
J ,ii,,
May 10, 1994
RESOLUTION//94-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the final plat of Teal Pointe has been submitted in the manner
required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330.00 and
under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statues and all proceedings have been duly conducted
thereunder, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on December 8, 1992 and January 12, 1993, held
a public hearing pursuant to Section 330.00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider
the approval of the preliminary plat of Teal Pointe Subdivision located on property described as
follows:
Lots 2, 3, 4, 22, 23 and 24 Block 11, "WHIPPLE";
That part of Lots 13 through 21, inclusive, Block 10, "WHIPPLE," and that part of Lot
1, Block 11, in said plat, together with that part of vacated Cobden Lane, as dedicated
in said plat lying North of the Westerly extension of the South line of said Block 10, also
together with that part of the North half of vacated Drummond Road as dedicated in said
plat lying East of the Southerly extension of the West line of said Block 10, all which
lie Southerly of a line described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1;
thence on an assumed bearing of East along the North line of said LOt 1 a distance of 22
feet; thence South 41' degrees 59 minutes 14 seconds East, 26.91 feet; thence South 44
degrees 03 minutes 39 seconds East, 43.14 feet; thence South 50 degrees 21 minutes 21
seconds East, 45.45 feet; thence South 51 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East, 19.21
feet; thence South 50 degrees 28 minutes 39 seconds East, 51.86 feet; thence South 68
degrees 11 minutes 55 seconds East, 43.08 feet; thence South 80 degrees 04 minutes 26
seconds East, 40.61 feet; thence North 75 degrees 57 minutes 50 seconds East, 41.23
feet; thence North 78 degrees 41 minutes 24 seconds East, 40.79 feet; thence on a
bearing of East, 40 feet; thence South 47 degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds East to the
South line of said LOt 21, Block 10; thence East to the Southeast comer of said Lot 21;
thence South along the extension of the East line of said Lot 21 to the centerline of
vacated Drummond Road and there terminating.
ALSO
Lots 1 to 26 inclusive, Block 15, and Lots 1 to 26, Block 16, "WHIPPLE";
That portion of vacated Windsor Road, dedicated to the public in the plat of "WHIPPLE~
as Windsor Place, which lies Easterly of a line drawn from the Northwest comer of Lot
13, Block 16 to the Southwest comer of Lot 14, Block 15, and Westerly of a line drawn
from the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 16 to the Southeast comer of Lot 26, Block
15, said addition,
That portion of vacated Drummond Road, dedicated to the public in the plat of
"WHIPPLE," which lies South of the centerline thereof, Easterly of a line drawn from
the Northwest comer of LOt 13, Block 15 to the Southwest comer of LOt 14, Block 10,
and Westerly of a line drawn from the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 15, to the
Southeast comer of Lot 26, Block 10, said addition.
125
May 10, 1994
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of
Ordinances of the City of Mound.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
Final Plat approval is hereby granted for Teal Pointe Subdivision as requested by
Teal Pointe Development Company subject to compliance with all of the
conditions found in the City Engineer's report dated March 28, 1994 set forth and
incorporated herein as part of the document, all of the conditions of preliminary
plat approval (Resolutions 93-20 and 93-122) set forth and incorporated herein as
part of the document and the following additional conditions:
The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a
stormwater permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to
the City releasing the final plat.
The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building
Official, all required reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department
of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to beginning
construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until
permits are secured.
o
Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a
development contract furnished by the City. The development contract
shall stipulate that construction of all items covered by said contract shall
be completed within 180 days of the City releasing the final plat. As part
of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a
performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of
security approved by the City Attorney in the amount of $127,500 (125%
of estimated construction costs) as per plans approved by the City
Engineer.
The Developer shall furnish the City Attorney with all necessary
information and assistance to transfer Outlot B to the City. This
transaction shall be completed prior to the City releasing the final plat and
shall be filed at the same time the plat is placed of record.
Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision
until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the Fire
Chief and Building Official.
126
November 22, 1994
Thomas E. Casey
Am)rney a[ Law
2854 Cambridge Lane
Mound, Minnesota 55364
(612) 472d099
Fax: (612) 472 4771
Mound City Council
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
RE: proposed Resolution #94 - __, "Reconfirming and
Modifying Final Plat approval for the Teal Pointe
Residential Development"
Dear Mound City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter into the
record as my clients' comments to the proposed resolution
stated above.
FACT8
February 9, 1993 - the Mound City Council adopted
Resolution 93-20, approving a preliminary plat for the
Teal Pointe Development, subject to the completion of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
September 14, 1993 - the Mound City Council adopted
Resolution 93-122, amending Resolution 93-20 to add 6
more conditions to the preliminary plat resolution.
(September 14, 1994 is determined to be the date the
preliminary plat resolution was approved.)
May 10, 1994 - the Mound City Council adopted Resolution
94-65 approving a final plat.
July 10, 1994 - 60-day time period to file and record
final plat has expired. The final plat is null and void
as of this date per Mound City Code Section 330.35 Subd.
9.
From the period of July 10, 1994 to September 14, 1994,
the developer did not file ten (10) copies of the final
plat with the Building Official.
-1-
THE DRELIMIN~I%Y ~L~T KND ~IN~L PL~T i%l~E VOID
By way of background, Mound City Code Section 330:00
states in part, "... All subdivisions of land shall fully
comply, in all respects, with the regulations set forth
herein." Furthermore, Section 330:10 of the Mound City Code
states in part, "Before dividing any tract of land into two
or more lots or parcels, ... the procedures set forth in
Section 330:15 et seq. shall be followed.,,
Mound City Code Section 330:35 Subd. 1 states, "The
subdivider, within one year, unless extensions are granted
and noted in the preliminary plat resolution, after approval
of the preliminary plat, shall file with the Building
Official ten (10) copies of the final plat prepared by a land
surveyor duly registered in the State of Minnesota. Failure
of the subdivider to submit the final plat within those times
designated on the preliminary plat resolution shall cause the
preliminary and final plats to become null and void.'.
Based on the facts outlined above, the developer had
until September 14, 1994 (one year after the preliminary plat
was approved) to file the final plat. Because Mound City
Code 330:35 Subd. 9 rendered the final plat null and void on
July 10, 1994, any final plat filed before that time does not
apply to this case. In other words, to create a valid final
plat, 10 copies of the final plat must be filed with the
Building Official after July 9, 1994. However, if the ten
(10) copies of the final plat were not filed until after
September 14, 1994 then the final plat and preliminary plat
become null and void.
At first glance, the second sentence of Mound Code
330:35 Subd. 1 would seem to create a void preliminary and
final plat only if "those times" were designated in the
preliminary plat resolution. However, it is improbable that
the City Council who adopted the ordinance (and stated on
several occasions in the ordinances that the subdivision
procedures shall be followed), would give greater force or
remedies to a city council resolution than to an ordinance
requirement that a final plat must be filed within one year
of a preliminary plat. In other words, would a City Council
suffer an ordinance violation without a remedy?
Moreover, Section 330:30 Subd. 9 reads in part, "The
subdivider may request a one-year time extension at least 45
days prior to the expiration of a preliminary plat ... With
this re-affirmation in the City Code that a preliminary plat
can expire, it is logical to conclude that a preliminary plat
expires within one year if a final plat has not been filed
per Section 330:35 Subd. 1 of the Mound City Code.
-2-
J
Minnesota Statute 462.358 Subd. 3c., also gives the city
the authority to negate a preliminary plat after one year
following approval.
Finally, Section 330:195 of the Mound City Code states,
"Anyone violating any of the provisions of this Section (i.e.
the Platting and Subdivision regulations) shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished
by a fine of not more than $500.00 or by imprisonment for a
period of not to exceed 90 days or both. Each day during
which compliance is delayed shall constitute a separate
offense.', Does the city council intend to use this ordinance
if it believes that no other remedies are available?
In conclusion, the City of Mound has the authority and
obligation to declare the preliminary and final plat null and
void. The developer must submit a new preliminary plat to
the City to begin the process anew.
Res~tfull~ submitted,
homas E. Cagey
TEC:rf
cc: clients
file
-3-
May 10, 1994
6. Outlot A shall be limited in use to a private street and utility extension of
Drummond Road to serve Lots 1, 2 and 3. An undivided interest in
Outlot A shall be conveyed to each of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and bound to those
parcels in the property tax records. It is further understood that all tax
parcel descriptions shall include the individual lot and the undivided
interest in Outlot A and this may not be divided off in the future.
7. Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $4,500 is to be paid
prior to the City releasing the final plat.
8. The existing cash balance of $2,934.10 plus an additional $1,000 plus any
additional sums necessary to cover engineering, planning, legal and
administrative expenses shall be deposited with the City prior to the City
releasing the final plat.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said
plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith
by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith
without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the City of Mound Code of
Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by
Mayor Johnson.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
127
B.I
!
ti_ 0
November 9, 1994
Hoisington Ko, er Group/nc.
RECE/VE ;;Or I O
Mr. John Bessesen
Bessesen Properties, Inc.
33 10th Avenue South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Mr. Bessesen:
The City of Mound is in receipt of the final plat and a signed development agreement
for Teal Pointe along with your request for City signature on the plat. A number of
issues still require resolution before the City will be in a position to release the plat.
1. Mound City Code Section 330:35, Subd. 9 states that "the subdivider
shall, if the final plat is signed by the Mayor and City Manager, record the final plat
with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles within 60 days after signing. Any
final plat not filed and recorded within 60 days of the date of the Council resolutions
approving the final plat, or within 60 days after the plat is considered approved by
reason of the City Council's failure to act..., shall become null and void."
The final plat for Teal Pointe was approved on May 10, 1994 which is over 180 days
ago. Because of the extended period of time, it is the opinion of the Mound City
Attorney, that the final plat will again need to go before the City Council for
reconfirmation.
2. The title opinion for Teal Pointe was granted by the City Attorney on
April 6, 1994. Standard practice dictates that a title' opinion is valid for a period of 6
months. Therefore, another title opinion is necessary prior to City Council
reconfirmation. We encourage you to have an updated abstract provided to the City
Attorney's office or to authorize in writing the Attorney's office to make necessary
arrangements to update your title documents.
3. Resolution 94-65 granting final plat approval stipulates that construction
of public improvements shall be complete within 180 days of the City releasing the
final plat. Due to winter approaching, it is the opinion of the City Engineer, City
Planner and City Attorney that it would be nearly impossible for construction to be
completed in the 180 day time period. Therefore, along with reconfirmation,
conditions of approval should be modified to extend the allowable construction
period to 280 days.
Land Use /Environmental · Planning /Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
Mr. John Bessesen
November 9, 1994
Page 2 4. The following items need to be supplied to the City at least seven (7)
days prior to the scheduled City Council meeting on November 22, 1994: 1) final plat
hard shells (already supplied), 2) a signed development agreement with a new
construction time limit of 280 days, 3) one complete set of homeowner's documents
with revisions required through the EAW, 4) a letter of credit or other form of
security, for $127,500, 5) a permit from the Watershed District, 6) necessary
information and assistance to transfer Outlot B to the City, 7) arrangements to update
title documents, 8) park dedication in the amount of $4,500, and 9) a positive escrow
cash balance of at least $1,000.
You will need to satisfy and/or have the original Resolution 94-65 amended to cover
all of the items set forth in paragraphs one through four above. Please review the
conditions of preliminary plat approval and final plat approval including the City
Engineer's report. As mentioned, this item is scheduled for review by the City
Council on November 22, 1994. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Chamberlain
Planning Consultant
Eric.
CC:
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Curt Pearson, City Attorney
John Cameron, City Engineer
BESSESN1.LTR
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS
AND A SHED IN THE FLOODPLAIN
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ENTRY DECK
AT 1871 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 2, BLOCK 12,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0061
P&Z CASE #94-72
WHEREAS, the owner, Brad Blazevic, has applied for a variance to recognize
several nonconforming conditions in order to construct a covered deck at the front
street side of the dwelling, as follows:
Side NW, House
Front, Det. Garage
Lake, Shed
Floodplain, Shed
~ ~ Variance
3.5' 6' 2.5'
1.5' 20' 18.5'
23'+/- 50' 27'+/-
930.9+/- Min. 933 2.1'+/-
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, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 6 feet,
and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water mark, and;
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992, the City Council approved a Variance
Resolution #92-75 for this same property, however this proposal is smaller in size.
One of the conditions within that resolution states, "... the existing nonconforming
storage building shall be removed or moved to a conforming position on the lot. The
house and storage shed shall meet all elevation requirements or the applicant must
return to the Planning Commission to process his application for any required
variances," and;
WHEREAS, the project approved by Variance Resolution #92-75 was not
implemented, and;
WHEREAS, on September 8, 1994, the city received a complaint that work
was in progress at the subject property without the required permits. A site inspection
was made and a stop work order was issued. Upon review of Resolution #92-75, it
was noted a permit for this work could not be issued without prior City Council
approval, and;
Proposed Resolution
Blazevik, 94-72
Page 2
WHEREAS, the shed on the lake side was recently moved to approximately §
feet from the side property line, which is a conforming side setback, however, it is still
nonconforming to lake setback and floodplain elevation, and;
WHEREAS, since approval of Resolution//92-75, the Shoreland Management
Ordinance has been adopted that requires a 50' setback to the ordinary high water for
the shed, and screening of some kind from the lake, and;
WHEREAS, there is nowhere else on his property that the shed could be
relocated and have a conforming elevation, and;
WHEREAS, the contour of shoreline is unusual, and the neighbor on the other
side was granted a setback variance to this shoreline for a porch and deck addition
which is setback 21.6 feet from the water elevation, and;
WHEREAS, a variance was granted for another property in the past for a shed
to be located within the floodplain, however this was done prior to the adoption of the
Shoreland Management Ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, the house is small and the additional storage space is necessary.
The shed is well built, matches the house, and is not unsightly, and;
WHEREAS, lock boxes are not required to meetthe Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation of 933, and the use of this shed is similar to that of a lock box with the
storage of boating equipment, etc., and;
WHEREAS, the subiect shed is setback approximately 43 feet to the main body
of water, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval with conditions and findings. Findings of fact are as follows:
Practical difficulty exists because the shed has a poured
slab.
The applicant has made an effort to meet the criteria
outlined in Resolution //92-75 in that he has moved the
shed to meet the side yard setback.
_ The setback variance to the "main body of water" is
minimal at approximately 7 feet.
_ There is no reasonable place on the lot that the shed could
be relocated and not be in the floodplain.
Proposed Resolution
I~lazevik, g4-72
Page 3
The site is unique due to the inlet of water on the adjacent
city property.
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 following nonconforming
situations to allow construction of a 6' x 14' covered entry stoop:
Side NW, House
Front, Det. Garage
Lake, Shed
Floodplain, Shed
Existing ~ Variance
3.5' 6' 2.5'
1.5' 20' 18.5'
23' +/- 50' 27' +/-
930.9+/- Min. 933 2.1'+/-
Variance approval is subject to the following
conditions.
The new entry structure will have a conforming 6 foot side yard setback.
The 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage and the 3.5 foot side yard
setback to the house are recognized only to facilitate construction of the
entryway improvement. This approval shall not confer upon the
applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming detached
garage. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in
the future.
c. The shed shall be screened according to the Shoreland Management
Ordinance, Section 350:1225, Subd. 3. B. 2. d., as approved by staff.
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 6' x 14' covered entry deck with stairs.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Point. PID #18-117-23 23
0061.
Proposed Resolution
Blazevik, 94-72
Page 4
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 subiect 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
NOVEMBER 14, 1994
CASE #94-72:T. B'AZEV, C S,OR.
o-~-z~Z3 0061. VARIANCE FOR ENTRY DECK. OCK 12
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking variances
to recognize several nonconforming conditions in order to construct a covered deck/entry
addition on the front street side of the dwelling. This proposal is smaller in size than what
was previously approved by Resolution #92-75.
After the 1992 resolution was approved, the applicant obtained a building permit to complete
the work. A building permit refund was subsequently requested and issued on October 28,
1992 as the applicant stated he had unforeseen circumstances and was unable tc proceed.
On September 8, 1994, the city received a complaint that work was in progress au the above
address without the required permits. A site inspection was made a~d a stop work order was
issued. Upon review of Resolution #92-75, it was noted a permit for this work could not be
issued without prior City Council approval. The shed on the lake side has been moved,
however, it is still nonconforming to lake setback and floodplain elevation. The applicant is
seeking variances to the existing conditions as listed below:
~ ~ Variance
Side NW, House 3.5' 6' 2.5'
Front, Det. Garage 1.5' 20' 18.5'
Side, Shed 4' +/- 4' none
Lake, Shed 25' +/- 50' 25' +/- verify
Floodplain, Shed verify Min. 933 ?
Elevation
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, I994
Since the approval of Resolution #92-75, the Shoreland Management Ordinance has been
adopted that requires a 50' setback to the ordinary high water and screening of some kind
from the lake.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize
the existing nonconforming house and garage in order to allow construction of a conforming
entry addition as shown on the attached survey, Exhibit A, with the following conditions:
1. The 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage and the 3.5 foot side yard setback to
the house are recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway improvement.
This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing
nonconforming detached garage. Such improvements shall require additional variance
approval in the future.
2. The existing storage shed shall be removed or relocated to a conforming 50 foot
setback to the ordinary high water prior to issuance of a building permit for the
proposed entryway improvement.
3. The shed shall be screened according to the Shoreland Management Ordinance, Section
350:1225,Subd. 3. B. 2. d., as approved by staff.
Applicant, Brad Blazevic, explained to the Commission that he did not build the shed, it was
there when he bought the house. He has corrected the side yard encroachment, and the shed
now has a 5 foot +/- setback from the side lot line. The shed has a concrete floor. There is
nowhere else on his property that the shed could be relocated and have a conforming
elevation. Relating to the lake setback, he noted there in an indentation of the shoreline that
is unusual, and the neighbor on the other side was granted a setback variance to this shoreline
for a porch and deck addition. The Commission confirmed that the other neighbors deck is
setback 21.6 feet from the water elevation.
The Building Official reminded the Commission that a variance to elevation was granted for
a shed on Highland Blvd., however this was done prior to the adoption of the Shoreland
Management Ordinance.
Mr. Blazevic stressed that his house is small and the additional storage space is needed for
his lawn mower, snow blower, etc. He stated that it is a nice shed that matches the house,
it is not unsightly.
Elevation requirements were discussed. Hanus noted that lock boxes are not required to meet
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation of 933. Hanus is in favor of requiring screening.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 1994
The Commission discussed the setback to the "main body of water". It was noted that the
neighbors porch is setback approximately 70 feet to the main body of water, and the subject
shed is setback approximately 43 feet.
Voss questioned the hardship for the shed.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of
the requested variance, as recommended by staff, with the exception that
condition//2 be deleted. Findings of Fact include:
Practical difficulty exists because the shed has a poured slab.
- The applicant has made an effort to meet the criteria outlined in
Resolution //92-75 in that he has moved the shed to meet the
side yard setback.
The setback variance to the "main body of water" is minimal at
approximately 7 feet.
There is no reasonable place on the lot that the shed could be
relocated and not be in the floodplain.
The site is unique due to the inlet of water on the adjacent city
property.
It is also recommended that the following conditions be included:
5. 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.
6. 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.
The Building Official commented that he would not require an updated survey, that there is
enough information available to determine the elevation of the shed and the lake setback to
the shed.
MOTION carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Mueller, Clapsaddle, Michael,
and Hanus. ross opposed.
Voss commented that he does not see that there is a minimum hardship for the shed.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on November 22, 1994.
CITY OF MOUND
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission Agenda of November 14, 1994
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~-~.
Variance Request
Bradley T. Blazevic
CASE NO.
94-72
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
LOCATION:
1871 Shorewood Lane, Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Point, PI D #18-117-23 32
0061
ZONING:
R-1 Single Family Residential
_BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking variances to recognize several nonconforming conditions as listed
below, in order to construct a covered deck/entry addition on the front street side of the
existing dwelling. This proposal is smaller in size than what was approved previously by
Resolution #92-75.
After the 1992 resolution was approved, the applicant obtained a building permit to complete
the work. A building permit refund was subsequently requested and issued on October 28,
1992 as the applicant stated he had unforeseen circumstances and was unable to proceed.
On September 8, 1994, the city received a complaint that work was in progress at the above
address without the required permits. A site inspection was made and a stop work order
was issued. Upon review of Resolution #92-75, it was noted a permit for this work could
not be issued without prior City Council approval. The shed on the lake side has been
recently moved, however, it is still nonconforming to lakeshore setback and floodplain
elevation. The applicant is seeking variances to the existing conditions as listed below:
Side NW, House
Front, Det. Garage
Side, Shed
Lakeshore, Shed
Floodplain, Shed
~ ~ Variance
3.5' 6' 2.5'
1.5' 20' 18.5'
4'+/- 4' none
25' +/- 50' 25' +/- verify
verify Min. 933 ?
Elevation
printed on recycled paper
Staff Report
Blazevic - #94-72
Page 2
COMMENTS
In the previous staff report, the City Planner recommended the proposed improvement was
warranted as it was consistent with practical difficulty. This recommendation was
conditioned upon the storage shed being relocated to a conforming setback. This was
confirmed by the Council in Resolution #92-75. Since that time, the Shoreland Management
Ordinance has been adopted that requires a 50' setback to the ordinary high water and
screening of some kind from the lake.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize
the existing nonconforming house and garage in order to allow construction of a conforming
entry addition as shown on the attached survey, Exhibit A, with the following conditions:
1. The 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage and the 3.5 foot side yard setback to
the house are recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway improvement.
This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing
nonconforming detached garage. Such improvements shall require additional variance
approval in the future.
2. The existing storage shed shall be removed or relocated to a conforming 50 foot
setback to the ordinary high water prior to issuance of a building permit for the
proposed entryway improvement.
3. The shed shall be screened according to the Shoreland Management Ordinance,
Section 350:1225, Subd. 3. B. 2. d., as approved by staff.
JS:Pi
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 22, 1994.
D~[HPSEY-GRAy CONTR~,' ~i,
Esloblished in 1962
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND 8URV~")RS
REGISTERED UNDER ' ~TE OF MINNIr.8OTA
7601 - ~atd Ave-'
J II
INVOICE NO.. 36131
o Denolil Iron Mo~umanl
El Denotal 'Wood Hub
Foe' EXCQVQIioA Only
xO00.O Deles Existing Elavollon
O Denolal Proposed Elavollon
~ Denotes Surface Drainage
~29.4
Legal description: That part of Lot ], Block 12
Shady~ood Point. lying Easterly of the Hesteriy 60 feet
thereof, and that part of Poplar Landing, n~ vacated,
lying Northwesterly of the Northwesterly line.of Lot 14,
Block 11, Shad~ood Point. extended Northeasterly, and
lying ~esterly of a line described as follows: Beginning
at a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 14
distant 40 feet Northerly fr~ the ~st Easterly corner
thereof; thence Northerly on a straight line to Its
point of tangency uith the Easterly line of said Lot 1,
and there ending. For purposes of this survey, said
last-above-described line has been ass~d to be the
Easterly ternfnus of Poplar Landing, n~ vacated.
~ me mcatloe ot NJ IxJlldi~a ~ vii.
Su~eV~byuelhle--16th earoI-Deceeber ~__ 93
8i~ned
' I~y~ond A..Prnsch Minn. Reg. No. 6743 --
R~.9o
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 ~ DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No..~
OCT 1 11 19
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property~
Lot___~'-,_./c_)
PID No.
Addition~
District Use of Property:
Owner's Nam~ Day Phone
Owner's Addressee
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 for.this property? )g~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) ana provide copie~ o'f resolutions.
2. Detailed descfipton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No.
3. 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, lot ar~, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested
(or existing)
.~.~e~ Front Yard:
· o Side Yard:
b-/o,.'S <--Si,d.~ Yard:
Lakeside:
VARIANCE
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it i'
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:
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:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petfion? 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.
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PERTY ADDRESS://~ ~ ('
LOT AREA [-~) ~__~r..~ SQ. FT. X 30% =
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
(for all lots) .............. I
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... I
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE X =
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
/'~, .~ x ~0, ~ .= /°6'°5
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DECK ..........................
x z'7' =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I c~q~/ ~'-~
EPAREOVER (indicate difference) ............................... I I
.BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIOP'
SITE
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
ARCHITECT
&/OR
ENGINEER
CHANGE OF
USE
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
Subject Address~
Tenant/Building Name
The applicant is: ~ contractor ~tenant
Lot ~
PID#
Block~ A . .
ddlhon~
Nsme~~k/
Phone (H)
Name~~
Address
Phone (H)
Name
Address
Phone (H)
FROM:
TO:
(w)
(M)
License #
DESCRIBE WORK:_~~_ ~.,-?~[,~,.. ~,~j., ~ -~.
VALUATION ~
OF WORK: ~ ?/-~~-o ~ 1 VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
TIME UMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A DUI
~ND ALTERATIONS [O THE EXI[-RIOR~ OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING I.DING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRU
PERMIT ISSUANCE THE PERSON OBTAINING THE DISTRI CTION
SUBDIVISION IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PflOPERTyC~H~S~H, ALL~B~E.~C_O_M.._P~'TED WITHIN ONE (11 ~E~PAFIRS' REMODEUNG.~.
· ,,~u. oc r~YONSIBLE ..ROM THE DATE ur
FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS
THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE ESTABUSHING
CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETI~I~ OF THE WORK TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE
EXTENSION SHAll BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30)BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR p[F~D.WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE
~EvREEp~R~FIsY THATIHAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS A
TYPE OF WORK PPLICATION AND
TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL T WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER S KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CO
HE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER S PECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT THE G RRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS
TATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATINg' CO S~RIINcT~I~N~G, O_F_A PERMIT DOES NOT PREsU A~D ORDINjAN~.~
N ...... Hue; Uti THE ==n=. ......... ME TO GIVE AUTH~,r~, ·
PE,. ~nm~m~.= uP CONSTRUCTION.
APPEICANT'S'-SIGN ATUi~ ' _
DATE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & c~MMENTs~////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
~ION TYPE:
3
OCCUPANCY GROUP IDIV:
MAX OCCUPANT LOAD
ZONING
· STORIES
FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER
· UNITS
YES I NO
PUBLIC WORKS
ASSESSING
COPIED
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDI
AN ENTRYWAYAND ~.. ~ ..... TION INCLUDING
I KI.~ '&~ARSION A
2, SHADYWOOD POINT- ~ · ..... T LOT 2, BLOCK
· ~u t&"-117-23 23 0061
P&~ CASE NUMBER 92-026
WHEI~EAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to
construct an addition including an entryway and kitchen expansion;
and
WaEP, EAS, the subject property is located w/thin the ~-1,
Single Family Residentia! Zoning District which accordin9 to code
requires a side yard setback for the Pr/nc/pa! structure of 6 feet,
a front yard setback of 20 feet for detached garapes and a 4 foot
side yard setback for storape sheds (accessory buildinps); and
WHE~EAB, the property currently has a storage shed that
encroaches 1.2 feet into the neighb°rin9 property, a detached
9arape which encroaches 18.5 feet into the required front yard
setback and the Proposed entryway will encroach 2.5 feet into the
required side yard setback; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request
an~ has recommended approval of the side yard variance for the
encryway addition, recopnition of the garage front setback variance
for the purpose of constructing the entryway addition, and further
requiring that the storage building be removed or relocated to a
c°nf°rmin9 Position on the lot within one year of the adoption of
this resolution by the City Council. The Planning Commission also
adopted the following Finding of Fact:
The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the
existing 18.5 foot variance for the garage and the variance of
2.5 feet for the entryway are consistent with Section 23.506.1
of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Locating the entryway
addition other than as proposed would create a practical
difficulty on the property.
NOW, TaEREFORE, ~E IT P-ESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby a~prove the 2.5 foot side yard
setbackvariance and recopnizes the 18.5 foot front yard
setback variance for the detached gara9e and further finds
that the e×istin9 n°nc°nf°rmin9 st°rape building shal! be
removed or moved to a conforming pos/t/on on the lo.t. The
house and stora9e shed sba1! =eet all e~evation reqUire~%nts
124 or the applicant must return to the plannin9 Commission to
June 23, 1992
proces? . his applicaton for any required variances.
Recognition of the variance for the detached garage shall not
confer upon the owner, the right to improve the existing
structure.
2. The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
3. It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of an entryway and kitchen expansion addition.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Lot 2, Block 12, Bhadywood Point. PID ~18-117-23 23 0061
5. 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.
6. 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.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and
seconded by Councilmember Jessen.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following voted in the negative: none.
Attest: city Clerk
~/~k~? Johnson
~ayor
125
X2HUTEs _ ~OUND CITy COUNCIL _ JUNE 23, 1992
~ C~HADYWOOD ~ZNT . HOR W~
The C~2~ Planner explained 2ha2 the re~es~ [s ~o add an addition
2ha~ re,ires a variance of 2.5 fee2. The
nonconfo~[t~es ~hat need 2o be addressed. The 9ara~e [s ~.5 fee2
prope~y has 2~o o2her
off the right-of-way line and the other Is a storage shed that sits
to the rear of the prope~y which is encroaching 1.2 feet o~to the
ne~ghboring progerty which is city property.
The staff reco~endation was agproval of the variances to allow
const~ctio~ of ~e entr~ay, specifically including the side yard
setback, recognition of the garage setback, and i~ediate removal,
pr/or to building Pe~tt, of the s~orage shed from City Progerty.
At the Pla~i~g Co~ission meeting, the a ~i ·
desire to re,est a vacation of t .~ ..... ~ .~ant indicated a
he ..=~orlng cl=y ~ro~erty which
wou~d alleviate the e~croachment of the storage shed. ~e Plannin
Co~ission agreed and reco~ended that the shed be allowed to sta~
for one year to give the applicant time to re,est the vacation.
~e 9ro~osed resolution does reflect th~s.
The C~ty Attorney reco~ended that the Council follow the
reco~endatlon of the City Planner to have the storage shed removed
~ed~ate~y from the 9ublic land to be consistent with action the
City ~s taking in other cases.
The applicant stated he was not aware the shed was on public
property until he had his su~ey done in May.
There was considerable discussion about the storage shed and its
~ocat~on and whether the adjoining property is public land.
The City Planner also asked that the elevations at the floor level
be verified as being at the 933.4 mark. The
not looked at by the Planning Co~ission. elevatiOn~estion was
The Council dis~ssed how they could allow the applicant to start
h~s building and address the elevation and removal of the shed
~s~ons.
The City Attorney suggested that the following be deleted from the
resolu=ion and some other lan~age be added:
1. "The City does hereby approve the 2.5 foot side yard
setback variance and recognizes the ~8.5 foot front yard
setback variance for the detached garage and further find
that the ex~sting nonconfo~g storage building shall be
removed or moved to a confo~ing position on the
The Council fe~t th~s was a good way to allow him to get his
building Pe~it and still address the storage shed and elevation
problems. They a~so agreed that the ap~lican~ Would not pay
another fee for a variance if he had to go back to the Planning
Co~ission about the elevatiofls.
The C~ty Attorney asked the appl~can= if he Would move the shed off
the ~lic prope~y. The ap91icant stated he would remove the shed
from ~e P~ic 9roperty within two weeks.
Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
~SOL~ION 9~-7~ ~SOLUTION~APPRO~A~i~CE TO~
CONSTRUCTION OF ~ ~DITION INCLUDIN~
E~R~Ay ~ KITCHEN EXP~SION AT ~T
B~CK 12 ~ 8~D ~I~, ( 187
SHO~D ~), PID ~18-117-23 23 0061,
P & S CASE
The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING
AT 4961 BEDFORD ROAD
LOT 5, AND THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 37, WYCHWOOD
PID #24-117-24 41 0144, P&Z CASE #94-74
WHEREAS, the owner, Wanda Martens, has applied for a lot size variance of
1,840 square feet, to the required 6,000 square feet, to allow construction of a new
dwelling. The existing undersized dwelling is proposed to be removed, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000
square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot
rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, this lot is classified as a lot of record, therefore, it is subject to
corresponding setbacks and hardcover limitations. With the exception of lot area, all
aspects of the proposal are conforming. The total amount of hardcover (31%) is
slightly above the limitation for non-lots of record and easily within the 40% used for
lots of record, and;
WHEREAS, because of grades in the area, the existing home has a massive
retaining wall along the existing curb line that incorporates an off-street parking stall,
and the construction of the new home improves this situation, 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 lot area variance of 1,840 square feet to allow
construction of a new dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
a. Due to the steep topography of the existing lot, prior to construction, the
owner and builder shall install erosion control measures adequate to
retain all silt from storm water runoff on the subject lot.
b. As applicable, the owner shall comply with the provisions found in
Section 330:1225, Subd. 6.B. of the Mound City Code.
Proposed Resolution
Martens, 94-74
Page 4
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, subiect 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 new single family dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 5, and the Easterly 10 feet of Lot 6, block 37, Wychwood.
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 subiect 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
NOVEMBER 14, 1994
CASE #94-74: ~A_RTENS 4961 BEDFORD ROAD. LOT 5 & ELY 10' OF 6
BLOCK 37 WYCHWOOD. PID #24-117-2441 0144 VARI~-~CE
HOUSE. · TO LOT AREA FOR NEW
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's Report. The applicant is
requesting a lot size variance of 1,840 square feet, to the required 6,000 square feet. The
existing undersized dwelling is proposed to be removed and replaced with a new structure.
Because of grades in the area, the existing home has a massive retaining wall along the
existing curb line that incorporates an off-street parking stall.
This lot is classified as a lot of record, therefore, it is subject to corresponding setbacks and
hardcover limitations. With the exception of lot area, all aspects of the proposal are
conforming. The total amount of hardcover (31%) is slightly above the limitation for non-lots
of record and easily within the 40% used for lots of record.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot area variance of
1,840 square feet to allow construction of the proposed home in accordance with the
following conditions:
Due to the steep topography of the existing lot, prior to construction, the owner and
builder shall install erosion control measures adequate to retain all silt from storm water
runoff on the subject lot.
As applicable, the owner shall comply with the provisions found in Section 330:1225,
Subd. 6.B. of the Mound City Code.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on November 22, 1994.
MOTION made by ross, seconded by Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting at
9:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: November 9, 1994
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Wanda L. Martens
CASE NUMBER: 94-74
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5cc
LOCATION: 4961 Bedford Road
EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing home and replace it with
a new structure. The current home is an undersized dwelling that sits in the center portion of the
lot. Because of grades in the area, the existing home has a massive retaining wall along the
existing curb line that incorporates an off-street parking stall. The lot which is located in the R-2
zone has an area of 4,160 square feet which is 1,840 square feet under the required 6,000 square
foot minimum.
COMMENT: The existing lot is classified as a lot of record. Therefore, it is subject to
corresponding setbacks and hardcover limitations. The proposed dwelling is a "tuck under"
structure that accommodates grades on the site. Even with this style of home, retaining walls will
be necessary in the front yard portion of the lot as shown on the survey. With the exception of
lot area, all aspects of the existing home are conforming. The total amount of hardcover (31%)
is slightly above the limitation for non-lots of record and easily within the 40% used for lots of
record.
In order for the City of Mound to grant a variance, the proposal needs to represent the minimum
variance to alleviate an existing hardship or practical difficulty. In this particular case, the
applicant is proposing to replace an existing undersized dwelling with a new home which meets
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160
Martens Variance Planning Report
November 9, 1994
Page Two
the minimum size requirements found in the Zoning Code and to the degree possible, fits the
topography of the existing site. The proposed home requires only a variance for lot area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the lot area variance of 1,840 square feet to allow construction of the proposed home in
accordance with the following conditions:
Due to the steep topography of the existing lot, prior to construction, the owner and
builder shall install erosion control measures adequate to retain all silt from storm water
runoff on the subject lot.
o
As applicable, the owner shall comply with the provisions found in Section 330:1225,
Subd. 6 (B) of the Mound City Code.
~R
37, WYCHWOODBeo,/-or.cr,
ENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
/
£~ ,'~ t,'..~
PropO~ec/
I
I
iI lYon,se
I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lot 5, and the Easterly 10 feet of Lol 6, Block 37, WYCHWOOD.
o: deno[es i~on marke~ set
e: deno:es i~on ~a~ker foond
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed da[um.
This survey in[ends [o s~ow Lhe boundaries of [he above described
the location of an existing house, the proposed location of a proposed
house, and the 'location of all existing "hardcover" thereon. IL duos not
~port %o show any other improvements or encroachemen~s.
vision,'and h~l J am a duly rt,~isleted ('ivil Engh~ee[ and I.,u~d SUrveyor under
~,lrk ~. (;tollJ~'f~ Mml~t'sOl,~ I,icL'l~' Numl~'
~' ~ I" :lO'
~, ,. ~,, c/or - 393
VARIANCE APPLiCATiOI~
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
_iD-~ / City Planner lO-StPublic Works
-~0 '3[ _ City Engineer -)._(}"5l - DNR
Other -
Application Fee:~
Case
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property~
Block
Ad ' ' '~ ·
dmon~ PID No.
District Use of Property: /'/3,~ -,.r/~o _ ~.~
......
Owner's Address
Applicant's Name Of other than owner)
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.
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No.
3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonin~
district in which it is located? Yes (), No J~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: ((~ S E W ) ~o' ft. ft. ft.
-- - ft. ft'
Side Yard: ( N S (~ W ) 6 ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E (~) 6 ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N(~E W ) /__C ft. ft. ft'
- ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( lq S E W ) - ft' fl.
· (NSEW) ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ~.~o _sq ft ,.//(,,o _sci fl / ~-4,D_sq fl
Lot Size: -- _
Hardcover: /~.//re _sq ft / ;;LC5- _sq ft 1'7 _sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it i'
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
X1 too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:.
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:
e
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
NoJ~O. 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 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.
~)wner's Signature~
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
CITY OF MOUND
H_ARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(iMPERViOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............I-/m'Y~ _1
LOT AREA _ 7-//& ~ _
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I_/~ &~/ I
LOT AREA_~/ ~°
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) · ·
· Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SO ~
X =
HOUSE E~~ ~/
- .... ....~~ ~Z~ ~ -
DETACHED BLDGS X =
.................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING( ~'~
~ I
AREAS, SIDEWALKS~
X
ETC.
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC
X
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted es hardcover TOTAL DECK ..........................
= ~{
OTHER L//b,z4o~-,4' ~ot°e,~c~- l o X _ ~'~, I _
_.q ,-z.--'/~ ~c, X = ~ ~
X
x
TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER/~O__V~'~indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY~
DATE__/~- 2~-~z/' -
FA~i ~i'-' 472 0620 .. CITY OF'hlOUND '*'*-* ANClIOR $CIENTIFI
,'HOUSE,,
-'GARAGE:
ADDRESS:
EXI. STING LOT ARE,~ _,,~/.g O'
DRIVEWAY: '-
CITY OF MOUND
HARDC'OVER C~LGULATiONS
"~ ~
SQFT X ~30% -
SQ FT X 15%. = o-"~.~..
LENGTH .' WIDTH
TOTAL HOUSE
X
X
TOTAL'GAnGE '
,.' 'TOTAL'~~
DECK:
(~f impervious .-
surface un,er .=
deck - iOOZ) TOTALDECK
TOTAL
..; DECK
OTHER: Co~4. ~T~P$ I~
.TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER * *
u.__S ?
......... ~....~,~ - ~,~ :.-- :...............
~r'--q,r' i
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 514
RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE PLANNING COHHISSlON &
GRANT VARIANCE 'TO EXPAND NON-CO~IFORHING USE PROVID-
ING GARAGE SITE IS DESIGNATED & OFF STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENT IS HET-Lot $ & Part of Lot 6 Block 37,
Wychwood
~HEREAS, owner of property described as Lot 5 and part of Lot ~,
Block 37, ~!ychwood has applied for a variance to expand
a non-conforming use, and
WHEREAS, said property is zoned Residential B - 6,OOO sq. ft. single
family dwelling, and
WHEREAS, said property has 4,000 sq. ft. and is undersized by 2,000
sq. ft., and
WHEREAS, expansion of structure would be upwards and the'existing
ground Size of structure would remain unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, HOUND,
HINNESOTA:
That Council concurs with Planning Commission and does
hereby authorize the granting of a variance to expand
non-conforming use. Said structure to be expanded up-
wards, with the addition of a loft.
Further, that a garage site be designated and off street
parking requirement is met.
Adopted by Council this 8th day of November, 1977.
GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
A DRESS' , , REQ, LOT AR~
tEOUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIP UILDING HOUSE
FRONT:~'~ S ~- W , · '
SIDE: N S yE) ,Y~ ~ , .....
SIDE: N ,~"I~ (.~ L~ -
REAR: N IS )E W 15'
LAKESHOR :~ 50' {measured from O.H.W.) -
ACCESSORY BUILDING ARAGE SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W ~4'or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: -50' (measured from O.H.W.)
,OVER CONFORMING? YES
ACCESSORY BUILDING GARAGE HED Y~, ~
FRONT: N S E W ---------
'RONT: N S E W -------
SIDE: N S E W -
SIDE: N S E W -
tEAR: N S E W -
LAKESHORE: ~
IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES
I I
0
0 ~-
O0
0
Ix)
I
I
CO
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR
PXC CORPORATION d.b.a. AMERIWEB
5314 SHORELINE DRIVE
(BALBOA BUILDING)
WHEREAS, Operation 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, PXC Corporation, which is currently located at 2321 Commerce
Boulevard, is proposing to expand into space in the Balboa Building, and operate a
division known as Amerivveb, and;
WHEREAS, Ameriweb will be involved in the design, engineering, and assembly
of materials handling machinery. They will initially occupy and area of approximately
10, 500 square feet and will have a staff of approximately 15, and;
WHEREAS, materials shipments will be by semi truck and by UPS, and;
WHEREAS, they do not anticipate the generation of any significant amounts
of noise or odors. The business will not involve the storage or discharge of any
chemicals nor will it require any outdoor storage, 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 Ameriweb to design, engineer, and
assemble materials handling machinery in the Balboa Business Center subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed use, as well as any building modifications required, shall conform
to all building, fire and health code requirements.
Providing that the nature of the business remains unchanged, this permit shall
encompass the use of up to 50,000 square feet of the Balboa Building by
Ameriweb.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mc!
PLANNING REPORT_
TO: Mound City Council and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: November 9, 1994
SUBJECT: Operations Permit Approval
APPLICANT: PXC Corporation d.b.a Ameriweb
CASE NUMBER: 94-75
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5ff
LOCATION: 5314 Shoreline ~ (Balboa Building)
EXISTING ZONING: Industrial (Planned Industrial Area)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial
BACKGROUND: PXC Corporation which is located at 2321 Commerce Boulevard is proposing
to expand into space in the Balboa Building. Uses within the Balboa Building are required to
obtain an Operations permit. PXC which will operate a division known as Ameriweb is seeking
an Operations Permit.
· e involved in the design, engineering, and assembly of materials
COMMENT: Ameriweb val. l,,b ......... ,my an area of al~proximately 10,500 square feet and
handling machinery. They wm ~nmany occ~vj .....
will have a staff of approximately 15. They are hopeful that more space will be needed in the
near future after the operation becomes established. Materials shipments will be by semi truck
and by UPS. They do not anticipate the generation of any significant amounts of noise or odors.
The business will not involve the storage or discharge of any chemicals nor will it require any
outdoor storage.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on information contained in the Operations Permit application,
Ameriweb is an appropriate use in the Balboa Building. Staff recommends that the City Council
approve of the Operations Permit with the following conditions:
Land Use / Environmental ' Planning/Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960
· Fax: (612) 835-3160
Ameriweb (PXC) Operations Permit
November 9, 1994
Page Two
The proposed use as well as any building modifications required shall conform to all
building, fire and health code requirements.
Providing that the nature of the business remains unchanged, this permit shall encompass
the use of up to 50,000 square feet of the Balboa Building by Ameriweb.
OPERATIONS PERNfFE APPLICATION
City Planner, ~
Building Of fi=~-' ~_~--~
Other:
- ed for the uee~ listed ~thi or arant~ng o~rat~on
Ln Zoning Or~n .......
~lts must
~ for s~aff =evil. The City ~unc~l
All o~rat~o~" ~ nc~l meeting to
~ ~ekl p=Lo= =o t~e City ~u
=lpresentative Is encou=~w=~ ~ ~: .................................
Section 1 - Applicant Information~
1. S~reet ~ress o~ ~~Y ~ Shoreline Drive oun '
Bl~k N / A
2. ~gal ~ipti~ of p~rty: ~t N/A : -- p~ ~. !3-117-24-J4-0096
A~ition N/A
Welsh Companies, Inc. as Receiver for~y p~ NO, 897-7700
a Minnesota Company~ Inc. - --
~a~ Balbo
~S 8200 No~andaze ~zvu .....
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound_, MN 5536~4"
Phone, 472-0600, ,AX, 472-0620 [
Operations Permit
c,,, ,o. q4-U
4. Applicant (if other than owner): Day Phone No. __~
PXC Corporation d.b.a. _Ameriweb .
Name .... __A. ~----/T:____--_ gi~ ' ~sot 55364
Add.ess 2321 ~oim~erc= ~ · , .......
Section 2 - Business Informati°n'~~~~~~~a~
Total Floor Area
Manufacturing Area
Sales Floor Area
1. Name of Business AMERIWEB DIVISION F PXC CORPORATION
Office Area 2~378
2. 10,566 --
0 Warehouse A~a 8,188 _
0 Ot~r :(please specify) _ 0
3. Describe Nature of Business
4. Location (cite ~it number or attach floor plan)
5. Number of Employees: 1st Shift _ EST. 15 _
3rd shift
e
Floor plan submitted bcf Welsh
Companies, Inc., 10/21/94
2nd Shift
Adjacent Uses (list businesses) ~tin Toro Dro shi Ex ress,
Wagner Corporation, W.G. Anderson ____
®
Section 3 - Business Operations
1. Describe PrOducts Produced or Services Offered (attach
if available) ·
~ prOduct brochures
What types of materials will be shipped into and/or stored within the
premises? ROLLS F P PE
RELEASE OAT
Will materials be shipped by: rail
other (specify) _ 'VPS ETC.
semi truck
Will delivery vehicles be stored on the property? Yes
If yes, attach site
vehicles, p.lan showing parking stalls assigned-to d~llver%y
Does the business plan future expansions at this 1 .'
No · If yes, describe amount of a-k: .... ocatlon? Yes
~SSI-BLE __ NO TIMETABLE -~c~pated expansion and-timing~
Will the business require an~ modifications to the exterior of the
existing building including but not limited to doors, windows, overhead
doors, cooling towers, HVAC units, etc? Yes X No · If
yes, please described and attach a floor ~lan and-exterior building
elevation drawings. WELSH COMPANIES
Will the proposed operation involve: Noise Generation: Yes
No_ · If yes, describe
DRILLS, BLOWERS n~ ....... source and amount NO
OF _~,.~ na~NuL~NG MACHINE -
SOurce and amountMi~,~ .... No _------ · If~
~a~ -- FROM ADHESIVES --
Toxic a es
If yes, describe source, and amount No
Provide a detailed listing of all chemicals which will be discharged into
the sanitarY sewer system. NONE
will the operation include either interior or exterior storage of bulk
No X If yes, attach floor plan and/or
chemicals? Yes______=__. -- ~;scribe spill/leakage containment
site plan showing location and
provisions.
Other than chemicals, will the operation require outdoor storage of
If yes, describe materials ~
materials? Yes No X ~ntifying proposed screening by
attach site plan ~howing focatlons and
type and location.
Section 4 - Certification
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any
required papers and 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
be required by law.
of posting, maintaining an~ removing such notice~Y Date J/' ~ - ~J
Section 5 - City Review and Action~
city
~ chief
Reviewed by: Building official x~ineer Other
Planner City- Manager
3
BALBOA BUSINESS CENTER
~3ol
Companies
Comprehensive Real Estate Services
8200 Normandale Boulevard, Suite 200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437
612.897.7700 Fax 897.7704
October 24, 1994
Ms. Peggy James
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Blueprints/Floor Plan
PXC Corporation d.b.a. Ameriweb
Balboa Business Center
5314 Shoreline Drive
Mound, Minnesota
Dear Peggy:
Enclosed are four (4) copies of blueprints and one (1) reduced plan regarding PXC
Corporation at the above referenced building.
The operations application will be submitted by PXC Corporation directly within the next
few days.
Please call me at 897-7732 if you require any additional information.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Paul Bickford
Welsh Companies, Inc.
PB:mi
Enclosures
November 22, 1994
PROPOSED RESOLUTION g94.
RESOLUTION TO VOID RESOLUTION ~P)4.128
AND REPLACE IT WITH THIS RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE TO
HERON LANE TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH AND DECK AT
5000 ENCHANTED ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 21,
SHADYWOOD POINT, pID #13-117-24 11 0069
P&Z CASE//94-63
WHEREAS, the owner, Ron Gavin, has requested that the original Resolution
#94-128 be modified to delete conditions A. and B. These conditions were met prior to City
Council approval of Resolution //94-128. The requested modifications are such that for
administrative purposes, the original Resolution g94-128 will be voided, and replaced with this
resolution, and;
WHEREAS, the owner, Ron Gavin, applied for a variance to recognize an
existing nonconforming setback of 7.1 feet to Heron Lane, the required setback is 10 feet
resulting in a 2.9 foot variance, and to recognize an existing nonconforming shed to construct
a porch and deck. The deck is proposed to follow the line of the house and follow the
nonconforming 7.1 foot setback, and the porch will conform to setbacks, and;
WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-IA Zoning District, which requires
a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to Enchanted Road, a
front yard setback of 10 feet to Heron Lane, a 6 foot side yard setback and a 50 foot setback
to the ordinary high water, and;
WHEREAS, the impervious surface coverage on this site is more than 30 percent,
but less than the 40 percent with conditions allowable by our recent ordinance change. Due to
this site's topography all stormwater is effectively managed by the 51 feet of green space
between the structure and the lake, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has obtained an after-the-fact building permit for the
shed, and it has been relocated to a conforming location, and;
WHEREAS, there was a deck/dock on the shoreline that encroached into the
adjacent unimproved Heron Lane, and this encroachment has been removed, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval of the variance to allow construction of a deck and porch as requested,
subject to conditions.
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 recognize the nonconforming front yard setback
of 7.1 feet from Heron Lane resulting in a variance of 2.9 feet, to allow construction of
a porch and a deck, subject to the following conditions:
November 22, 1994
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 16' x 20' three season porch, and 12' x 12'
deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 1, Block 21, 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.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember , and seconded by
Councilmember ·
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
November 11, 1994
City of Mound
5341Maywood Rd
Mound, Mn 55364
Attention: Peggy James, Planning and Inspections Secetary
Dear Peggy; -
Regarding the resolution filing at Hennepin County:
respectfully request to ~end a part of the Resolution
# 94-128 which pertains to section 1 sub sets A & B.
Our conversation in your office on November 7, 1994,
explained to you that prior to the Mound City Council meeting
of 9-27-94 when approval of a building pe~it was gran~%d
J~n Sutherland inspected the site and was satisified that
Compliance of a 10 x 12 shed had already been moved to a
confo~ing location and the dock encroac~ent had been
removed from the "into Heron Lane" and was conforming.
The sections 1 A & B would put undue and unnecessary
enc~berance on this title. Therefore I respectfully
request they be deleted from this legal doc~ent prior
to filing with Hennepin County.
Peggy, as we discussed this may require MouDd City Council
approval, therefore please consider this letter as a
formal request.
Th~king you for all of your help in this matter, I am.
si re ,
5000 Enchanted Raod
Mound, Mn 55364
CC:
612-472-3021
Jon Sutherland, Building Offical
Skip Johnson, Mayor City of Mound
Council Members, City of Mound
September 27, 1994
RESOLUTION//94-128
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE TO
HERON LANE TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH AND DECK AT
5000 ENCHANTED ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 21,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0069
P&Z CASE g94-63
WHEREAS, the owner, Ron Gavin, has applied for a variance to recognize an
existing nonconforming setback of 7.1 feet to Heron Lane, the required setback is 10 feet
resulting in a 2.9 foot variance, and to recognize an existing nonconforming shed to construct
a porch and deck. The deck is proposed to follow the line of the house and follow the
nonconforming 7.1 foot setback, and the porch will conform to setbacks, and;
WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-lA Zoning District, which requires
a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to Enchanted Road, a
front yard setback of l0 feet to Heron Lane, a 6 foot side yard setback and a 50 foot setback
to the ordinary high water, and;
WHEREAS, the impervious surface coverage on this site is more than 30 percent,
but less than the 40 percent with conditions allowable by our recent ordinance change. Due to
this site's topography all stormwater is effectively managed by the 51 feet of green space
between the structure and the lake, and;
WHEREAS, the nonconforming storage shed was constructed without the proper
permits. The shed does exceed 120 square feet and therefore a permit is required, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has stated that he is willing to obtain a permit for the
shed and relocate it to a conforming location and;
WHEREAS, there is a deck/dock on the shoreline that encroaches into the
adjacent unimproved Heron Lane, and this encroachment should be removed. Also, the
deck/dock does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance or Shoreland Management Ordinance, and
the applicant has stated that he will correct this situation, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval of the variance to allow construction of a deck and porch as requested,
subject to conditions.
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 recognize the nonconforming front yard setback
of 7.1 feet from Heron Lane resulting in a variance of 2.9 feet, to allow construction of
a porch and a deck, subject to the following conditions:
268
Ae
September 27, 1994
A building permit be obtained for the shed, and the shed be relocated to a
conforming location.
e
B. The deck/dock encroachment into Heron Lane be removed, and the balance of it
be relocated into a conforming location.
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 a/ford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 16' x 20' three season porch, and 12' x 12'
deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 1, Block 21, 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.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by
Councilmember Jensen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none.
269
612-8~5-~160
HO I S I NGTON KOEGLER
Hoisin~n Koegler Gro~ Inc.
MEMORANDUM
9?4 PO~
NOV 17 '94 16:43
November 17, 199~,
To: Mound City Council
From: Bruce Chamberlain,
Mound Visions Coordinator
Re: Phase I Downtown Redevelopment.
There are three aspects of Phase I downtown redevelopment as shown on Exhibit A. They
include 1) the Dost Lake Canal, 2) Auditors Road, and 5) the Auditors Road Strcctscape/Parkway
concept plan. Although we have separated the projects for purposes of budgeting and project
coordination, the three projects are integrally linked.
1. The Lost Lake project includes dredging the canal, mm-around area and transient dock
m'ca. It also includes construction of sea walls at the mouth of the canal and around the transient
docks as well as Bartlett Boulevard bridse modif~cstions, construction of the docks and a
historical marker. The project team includes:
· Hoisington Kocglcr Group Inc.- Project Manager
oos Associates, Inc. - Project Engineer
· McCombs Frank R ........ ;...,~,,mental Consultant
· peterson Envtronmental ~onsulu; ·
· Braun Intertech - Oe, otechnical Consultant
2. The Auditors Road project includes construction of a newly aligned Auditors Road with
on-street diagonal pafldng. The project also includes the purchase, demolition and bus,ness
relocation of properties within the new roadway alignment. The new street will travel from
Commerce Boulevard to the Existing alignment of county Road 15. When and if County Road
15 is relocated, Auditors Road can easily be extended to meet it as shown on the Downtown
Concept Plan. McCombs Frank Roos Assoc., Inc. will have primary responsibilities in project
management and engineering-
3. The Auditors Road streetscape/parkway concept design project will determine the layout
and form of the new Auditors Road as well as determine the design of some Phase I elements
of Auditors Road including street lighting, paving patterns and some landscaping. The design
will include the streetscape elements such as sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, benches and
banners on the north side of Auditors Road and the parkway features such as trails, landscaping,
lighting and benches on the south side. Many of the designed elements will not be constructed
until phase 11. Hoisington Koegler Group will have primary responsibility along with
coordination with MFRA.
Land U~e ! Environmental · Planning I
...... .~ ,~.,;,~ ~ · Minnea~olis.~nn~ota 55459 · (612)855-9960 · I?ax:(612)$~5-5160
61~-8~5-~160
HOISINGTON KOEGLER
9?4 P04
Ill
NOV 17
16:44
Memo - Mound City Council
November 17, 1994
Page 2
The total anticipated costs for each of
before the City Council at this time is the projects are de~ribed on. Exhibit A. The de?ion
the approval of design, administration and assoemted
professional fees apart from the actual construction costs. The estimated fees described below
are .outlined by project, according to the antici ated ti ·
.Au.d.,tors Road fees include only engine, erin,, and sg;urv---:~-me- of ex. pendi..?r.e. Please note that
~s eli iblc for MS · . ~ =ymg tees An adomonal $50
g A funds) is Dro~ected fo ........ ' ' ' ,000
a/Aud/tors Road adm/mstrat/ve and legal fees.
August - December 1994
January - May 1995
June - October 1995
Nov. '95 - March '96
April 1996. October '97
Round I:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 3B:
Round 4:
Estimated project totals:
Lost Lake Auditors Auditors Rd. Est.
Road Stscp./Pkwy To~
$38,000 $3,000 $5,000
$54,000 $10,000 $6,500 [ $46,000
$ %000 $2,500 ] $70,500
$38,000 [ $9,500
$83,000 $31,000 [ $38,000
$182,000 $84,500 $11,500 ~
notes: Fees for round 3B have not been determined for the Lost Lake project
because they are services which would only be needed if project
modifications based on permit denials were required.
Fees for the Auditors Road project would be 200% funded by Municipal
State Aid funds. ? l~o~ ]~AI~t~AI u. to ~- I1,, 'l"l m~' at~ uh~l~l(.
A go/no go assessment will be made at the end of each round at which time
the projects could be stopped if there are insurmountable obstacles to
completion.
I hope this gives you aa understanding of fees associated with the various stages and aspects of
the projects. Enclosed in your packet is a resolution approving the work. I will be available to
answer questions at the City Council meeting.
Enc.
612-855-~160
HOISINGTON KOEGLER
9?4 P05 NOU l? '94 16:44
LI31o
61~-8J5-~160
HOISINGTON KOEGLER
i 111
9'74 P02 NOV 17
'94 16:4J
RESOLUTION
AP A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF MOUND
PROVING ALLOCATION OF DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTI~TIVE
, ~,a~Jx~ ROAD RECONSTRUC
AND THE AUDITORS ROAD STREETSCAPF_JPARKWAY TIOpNi~P~RrO~Or,JECT
DESIGN .......
WHEREAS, it is the City's intent to promote economic development and
downtown revitalization, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in 1992, approved the Downtown Mound Concept
Plan prepared by thc Mound Visions initiative; and
WHEREAS, a pfima.,y element of the Downtown Concept Plan was the
rehabilitation of the Lost Lake Canal and realignment of Auditors Road as focal points of
downtown; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound applied for and was awarded an Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant for thc rehabilitation of thc Lost Lskc
Canal; and
WHEREAS, thc City of Mound has set aside allotted Municipal State Aid funds
in anticipation of reconstructing and realigning Auditors Road; and
WHEREAS, cost estimates and project schedules have been prepared for the
various aspects of thc project; and
WHEREAS, regular go/no go project assessments arc built into the project
schedule to insure that only the required amount of money is spent before reassessing the
viability of thc initiative; and
WHE~S, the Economic Development Commission has recommended approval
of this phase I downtown redevelopment.
NOW TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
A. Staff is authorized to proceed with design, engineering and project administration
tasks associated with the Lost Lake Canal project, Auditors Road project and Auditors Road
streetscape/parkway design project as described in the memorandum and attached exhibit A from
Bruce Chamberlain to the City Council dated November 17, 1994. Staff is further authorized to
enter into service agreements with the professional consultants listed in the same memo to
perform the necessary tasks.
B. A project report shall be presented to the City Council at the end of each stage of
the project for review and comment.
MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 17, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Mark Brewer, Stan
Drahos, Councilmember Ken Smith, Jerry Pietrowski, Jerry Longpre. Absent and
excused: Paul Meisel and Dave Willette. Also present: Marge Friederichs, Westonka
Chamber of Commerce; Sharon McMenamy Cook; Carolyn Schmidt; Gary Christenson,
Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Bruce Chamberlain, Mound Visions Coordinator and
Ed Shukle, City Manager.
Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Drahos, and carried unanimously, the minutes of
the October 20, 1994 meeting were approved.
City Manager Ed Shukle and Bruce Chamberlain, Mound Visions Coordinator presented
recommended regarding the Lost Lake Canal proiect relating to the ISTEA grant and
the Auditor's Road Improvement project. Shukle presented an estimate of engineering
fees related to the Auditor's Road Improvement proiect. Chamberlain presented fees
related to consultants on the ISTEA Lost Lake Canal proiect. Also presented were
fees associated with the Auditor's Road streetscape/parkway work that needs to be
done in relation to both the Lost Lake Canal proiect and the Auditor's Road
Improvement proiect. It was then moved by Brewer and seconded by Smith to accept
the staff proposal labeled Phase One Downtown Mound Redevelopment (Exhibit A)
and to present this recommendation to the City Council at its November 22, 1994
regular City Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously. Chamberlain reviewed
the public relations strategy and the work of the task force on this issue. Gary
Christenson and Carolyn Schmidt provided input as to the work of the task force. It
was then moved by Smith, seconded by Longpre, carried unanimously to recommend
to the City Council that it direct the city staff to follow the proposed public relations
strategy as drafted by the Lost Lake Canal Public Relations Task Force. Mark Brewer
asked that the strategy be reviewed again at the next EDC meeting.
There being no other business, it was noted that the next meeting of the EDC will be
held on Thursday, December 15, 1994, 7 AM, at city hall.
Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Drahos, and carried unanimously, the meeting
was adiourned at 8:30 AM.
R~~hu~klectfullYAsub?tted'
City Manager
ES:Is
Lost Lake Canal - Public Relations Strategy:
The public relations strategy as proposed by the Lost Lake Public Relations Task Force revolves
~f..the l~ublic an 2)_ getting the c ~ ·
~~ T~._ A_ :' ,~ omm,}nlty
t, · ,~ centrm teature of the
~c works storage facility will be moved
off of the Lost Lake site in the spring of 1995. This action frees the site to do other things such
as those being proposed by the PR Task Force.
The Lost Lake site is the obvious place to have an information clearinghouse for the Lost Lake
Canal project. Its next to the future canal so people can envision how the project will appear
upfront and in person. It also is a significant piece of land which the City owns. The challenge
which the PR Task Force has set out to overcome is to create activities at Lost Lake interesting
and attractive enough to draw people and at the same time, work toward the goals of the Mound
Vision. To do this, the PR Task Force is proposing five objectives:
1) Create a master plan along with artist's renderings for the Lost Lake site with
combined Park and Open Space Commission and Economic Development
Commission/Mound Visions input and oversight. The master plan should reflect
agreed-upon immediate and long term uses of the site. The planning process
should include a survey of the youth to get their ideas for the site.
2) Relocate the Mound Farmers Market from its current location to Lost Lake and
expand days and hours of operation. Expand the products offered to include farm
produce, flowers and plants as well as arts and crafts. Consult with other farmers
markets in the area regarding market design, promotion, etc.
3) Place an information kiosk close to Shoreline Drive and adjacent to the new
farmers market. The kiosk would display historic photos, project plans and the
story of Lost Lake as well as have brochures available describing the Lost Lake
Canal project. As funds allow, several kiosks could be placed at various locations.
4) Start a "buy-a-brick" program to help raise money for a Lost Lake project and get
the community directly involved in the rejuvenation of Lost Lake. Bricks could
be imprinted with names and phrases plus school children could draw on soft
bricks as an art project and have their designs permanently fired into the brick.
The bricks would be used in a promenade around Lost Lake from the Lost Lake
site to Auditors Road.
5) Work with the Minnesota Transportation Museum to locate and possibly restore
a historic or reproduction transit boat like the ones that used Lost Lake during the
resort era. As part of the Lost Lake rehabilitation project, build a pier at the Lost
Lake turn-around area for transit boat docking. To recreate the Lost Lake Canal's
original intent, the boat could potentially be used as a shuttle in association with
the Minnehaha streetcar boat or for transit to other destinations around the lake.
In addition to these five primary objectives, the Task Force feels strongly about providing
activities for kids by developing a theme playground on the Lost Lake site and creating teen
activities such as ice skating in the winter and other activities in the summer. These are seen as
future uses of the site and are not necessarily part of the initial PR strategy.
The PR Task Force also recommends that the following actions be taken in addition to the focus
on Lost Lake:
· Periodic articles and press releases should be written about the project in the Laker
Newspaper and City Newsletter.
· A public open house should be held at City Hall to allow people to see project
plans, ask questions and express concerns.
· If letters-to-the-Editor reflect negatively on the project they should be officially
responded to ~ if it is to set the record straight on inaccurate statements.
· People who are directly impacted by the project should be regularly contacted to
foster discussion of concerns and issues.
· Local groups, organizations and business should be solicited for support of the
project and a list published in the newspaper.
· Local artists should be contacted about painting the future Lost Lake/downtown
scene as a fundraiser.
· A streetlight banner program should be started as one more highly visible way to
shed positive light on downtown Mound.
To accomplish these objectives the following actions are suggested.
October - December 1994
Seek approval of Public Relations strategy from the EDC and City Council.
I)
n)
Gather technical and cost information on the PR programs.
A) farmers market (organizational and structural needs)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
buy-a-brick
transit boat (are any originals still in existence)
information kiosks
Lost Lake master plan
Banners
m)
IV)
v)
Identify program funding sources.
Approach a local business about sponsoring the transit boat concept.
Discuss moving and expanding the farmers market with its organizers.
st e aha u ~c e at~ons trategy
VI)
vn)
v~n)
Collect historical canal information through the Historical Society.
Contact local artists about painting the downtown scene.
Solicit support of the project from businesses and organizations.
January - May 1995
I)
II)
ni)
v)
VI)
vii)
Prepare artist's renderings of the future Lost Lake and Auditors Road.
Hold public open house to present project plans and historical information.
Seek program funding from the appropriate agencies/groups/individuals.
Develop the Lost Lake site master plan jointly between the Park & Open Space
Commission and Economic Development Commission.
Work with the Historical Society to create the "Story of Lost Lake".
Purchase information kiosk/s and display panels.
Organize the buy-a-brick program and identify a program leader. Also contact
local leaders about sponsoring the program.
VIII) Develop construction plans' for the new farmers market.
IX) Organize the banner program.
June - October 1995
I) Construct farmers market improvements at Lost Lake including site preparation,
necessary structures and paving, utilities and signage.
II) Install information kiosks at Lost Lake and possibly other locations in downtown.
III) Kick off the buy-a-brick program.
IV) Organize the transit boat program.
October 1995 -
I)
II)
irt)
PRSTRA T. DOC
Begin restoration of the transit boat.
Organize the expansion of the farmers market for the 1996 season.
Continue other public relations efforts.
ost e aha u ic e atlons trategy
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: 19 5 DO K LOCATION MAP
The Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reported that two changes to the map are proposed this
year. The first change is to delete Dock Site #33120located on Stratford Lane, and abutting
4536 Denbigh Road. This land has eroded, and therefore, reverted to private shoreline.
The second change is to add two dock sites, #54970 and #56180, abutting Lost Lake Park.
Staff has determined there is adequate space to allow the two additional dock sites in this
area.
Ahrens questioned if the docks at Lost Lake Park were approved as part of the Plat. The
secretary confirmed that they were approved by a separate resolution. The Parks Director
explained that the developer of Lost Lake originally requested that these docks be dedicated
to the subdivision, however it was the City Attorney's opinion that these docks had to be
made available to the general public, and therefore, there is no guaranty that residents in the
Lost Lake Subdivision will be assigned these docks.
Chair Schmidt opened the floor for public comment relating to the deletion of one dock site
in the Denbigh Road area. There were no comments from the citizens present.
Chair Schmidt opened the floor for public comment relating to the proposed addition of two
dock sites at Lost Lake Park.
James Veit questioned why these two additional dock sites are being proposed. The Dock
Inspector noted that the space is available and there was a request from residents in the Lost
Lake development for additional dock sites. Currently, the Lost Lake dock site area is at full
capacity. Veit expressed a concern about access due to the iow elevation of the park and the
fact that the ground gets very spongy and wet. reit asked the Commission if they are aware
that the park is sinking. Fackler stated that he has seen some documents showing elevations
which indicate that the elevations may be changing. Fackler also indicated that there may be
a possibility to reclaim the land through special permits, however, this may not be beneficial
for the City. Fackler stated that during a majority of the seasons these dock sites are
accessible.
David Hanson and Sherry Zuccaro questioned the policies and procedures for obtaining a dock
site. Casey confirmed with staff that presently all the dock site holders are residents of the
Lost Lake addition. Staff noted that these sites would not be dedicated iust to the Lost Lake
Addition, but would be added to the general pool.
Chair Schmidt closed the public hearing.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
November 10, 1994
Casey suggested that it is premature to approve these additional sites, that they should first
wait to see if the channel dredge is approved. Casey explained that there are many permit
approvals required before the dredge can be accomplished, including an environmental
assessment. He would like to know how the additional boat traffic could affect the dredge.
Steinbring sees the additional dock sites as a separate issue from the dredge, and he would
like to see the additional dock sites to fulfill the docking needs of the people.
Casey noted that the amount of boat traffic in the channel will be a consideration when the
environmental impacts of the dredge are reviewed. He is concerned that these additional sites
could have an accumulative affect on the whole channel eco-system and the wetland. Casey
stressed that they should wait for the environmental assessment of the dredge to be
completed so they will know how additional boat traffic will affect it.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to the City
Council that Dock Site #33120 located on Stratford Lane and abutting 4536
Denbigh Road, be removed from the Dock Location Map. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION made by Casey to table the request for two additional dock sites at
Lost Lake Park until the environmental assessment is completed. Due to lack
of a second, the motion failed.
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Steinbring to recommend that two dock
sites, #54970 and #56180, be added at Lost Lake Park, as proposed.
Darling questioned staff, what was the driving force that initiated this request? Staff
confirmed that a request came from the residents.
The Council's rationale for originally granting only six sites was reviewed to be due to the
amount of boat traffic in the Lost Lake Channel.
It was questioned, what would preclude somebody from dredging to gain more shoreline and
request more dock sites? If these sites are approved, would they be setting a precedence?
MOTION to approve failed 1 to 5. Those opposed were: Darling, Ahrens,
Byrnes, Steinbring, and Casey. Schmidt was in favor.
The Dock Location Map will be reviewed by the City Council on November 22, 1994
CITY OF MOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
November 1, 1994
Park and Open Space Commission
Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE 1995 DOCK LOCATION MAP
The Dock Location Map shows approved locations of private docks that may be
constructed on or abutting public shoreland under the control of the City. City Code
requires that the Dock Location Map be reviewed annually by the Park Commission so
recommended changes can be referred to, and considered by the City Council by
January 15.
Following are two proposed changes for the 1995 Dock Location Map.
1. REMOVAL OF DOCK SITE #33120.
Dock Site #33120 at 4536 Denbigh Road has reverted to private lakeshore due to
erosion of the shoreline, you may refer to the attached survey dated August 1 6, 1994.
This survey shows the property stakes marking the corners of 4536 Denbigh Road are
now in the water. It is recommended Dock Site #33120 be deleted from the City of
Mound Dock Location Map.
The removal of this dock site will change the Shoreline Type for sites 33104 - 33104
from Class D {accessible by public right-of-way), to Class C (not accessible by public
right-of-way).
2. ADDITION OF TWO DOCK SITES AT LOST LAKE PARK.
Staff has measured the existing dock spacing at Lost Lake Park and has determined
that there is adequate space to allow the addition of two more dock sites. These
docks are spaced every 30 feet. Note the attached drawings and photographs.
Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Dock Location Map to add two
dock sites at Lost Lake Park, Site #54970 and Site #56180.
TM:pi
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MOUND PARK COMMISSION REVIEWS 1995 DOCK LOCATION MAP
On Thursday, November 10, 1994, the Mound Advisory Park and Open
Space Commission will review the proposed changes to the 1995 Dock
Location Map. The Dock Location Map shows approved locations of
private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands
under the control of the City. City Code requires that the Dock Location
Map be reviewed annually by the Park Commission so recommended
changes can be referred to, and considered by the City Council by
January 15.
Two changes are proposed. The first change is to delete dock site
#33120 which is located on Stratford Lane abutting 4536 Denbigh Road.
The second change is to add two dock sites at Lost Lake Park.
The meeting will commence at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the Council
Chambers at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound Minnesota.
All interested residents who attend the meeting will be given the
opportunity to be heard. If you have any questions regarding the
proposed changes, you may call City Hall at 472-0600.
Mailed to the residents in the Lost Lake area, and published in "The Laker" on 10-31-94 and 11-7-94.
printed on recycled paper
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
OCTOBER 13, 1994
~ LOCATION MAP - DISCU ION
The Dock inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed the recommended changes to the 1995 Dock
Location Map. A public hearing will be held at the November Park Commission Meeting. The
Council must consider the proposed changes by January 15 of each year.
1. REMOVAL OF DOCK SITE #3312Q.
Dock Site #33120 at 4536 Denbigh Road has reverted to private lakeshore due to erosion of
the shoreline, as indicated on the survey dated August 16, 1994. This survey shows the
corner stakes of 4536 Denbigh Road are in the water. It is recommended Dock Site #33120
be deleted from the City of Mound Dock Location Map.
McCaffrey noted that there is one other site further down on this shoreline that has the same
situation and is now considered private shoreline.
Fackler reviewed the possibility of reclaiming the land by filling and getting permission from
the DNR.
2. ADDITI N OF ONE OR TWO DO K SITES AT L T LAKE PARK.
Several people from the Lost Lake area have requested that we add additional dock sites at
Lost Lake Park. Please note the Park Commission Minutes of December 15, 1987 in which
nine dock sites were originally recommended, and the City Council Minutes of January 26,
1988 when only six sites were approved.
McCaffrey stated that it appears there could be room for one additional dock at each end of
the existing docks. He suggested that the property irons be located to verify the available
space. The Parks Director added that he thinks there will only be enough room for one sided
dockage on each dock, due to the cattails.
The rationale previously used by the Council to reduce the number of docks was reviewed to
be the amount of boat traffic, which was noted to be a moot point considering the long range
plans for the development of the Lost Lake Channel.
The Commission requested that all the residents in the Lost Lake Addition, and the one house
on Bartlett, be notified that this will be reviewed at the November meeting. The secretary
noted that it will also be published in the paper.
CITY OF MOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
October 10, 1994
Park and Open Space Commission
Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE 1995 DOCK LOCATION MAP
The Dock Location Map shows approved locations of private docks that may be
constructed on or abutting public shoreland under the control of the City. City Code
requires that the Dock Location Map be reviewed annually by the Park Commission so
recommended changes can be referred to, and considered by the City Council by
January 15.
Following are two proposed changes for the 1995 Dock Location Map.
1. REMOVAL OF DOCK SITE #33120.
Dock Site #33120 at 4536 Denbigh Road has reverted to private lakeshore due to
erosion of the shoreline, you may refer to the attached survey dated August 16, 1994.
This survey shows the property stakes marking the corners of 4536 Denbigh Road are
now in the water.
It is recommended Dock Site #33120 be deleted from the City of Mound Dock
Location Map.
2. ADDITION OF ONE OR TWO DOCK SITES AT LOST LAKE PARK.
Several people from the Lost Lake area have requested that we add additional dock
sites at Lost Lake Park. Please note the Park Commission Minutes of December 15,
1987 in which nine dock sites were originally recommended, and the City Council
Minutes of January 26, 1988 when only six sites were approved.
TM:pi
printed on recycled paper
-- STRATFORD ~
~ DOCK SITES 32650 -
)~ TOTAL 14 SITES (10/91)
SHORELINE TYPE: 'D' &
33550
'C'
0
f~
o)
0
r-
I II .~
I KILDARE ROAD ..... .J k,.
I
II
F
I
~'1 [ ROAD
I
I
I
//
surZo$~ ~
ROAD
BEC, FC ROAD
L .Ru_us_w,_c. 0 ---: ........
i.:--(~---D -I
I
RICHMOND .......... --J
,,.:-~r ;:- --
'l
I~RCHESTER I k
I L
CUMBER ROAD
ROAD
/
PA~Sk. r _ _~ 0._~..~ _
LANARK
ROAO
ROAD
ROAD
0 0
0 0 0 0
LO, ~ 0 0
Class A:
Class 11:
~ Class C:
Class
Class E:
Parks
0
0
Shoreline
Shoreline that is traversible only on top:
need stairway to shoreline, accessible by
public right-of-way.
Shoreline traversible along the water's edge:
access points available to traversible shore-
line.
Shoreline with no traversible space: stairs
needed to shoreline, not accessible by pub-
lic right-of-way (abutting property OWners
only).
Shoreline that is traversible on the top, and
traversible along the water's edge: acces-
sible by public right-of-way.
Shoreline such as wetlands, wildlife area,
beacl~es and boat landings. No Docks.
0
0
o
No £
567 ~
(62) "
(65) :." "-.
( 55-9{
0~09
'' > C! T¥ OF ~OuND
P.OI
FO
BUD.DING PERMIT SURly
El · W~OD STAKE PLACED
B.M.. -~:~.~,~,~.e' ,c,~,,..,; ?.~.~
BEARINGS .ON.
ASSUMED DATUM
IRON MON. SET
PROPOSED INFORMATION
-- _ 1st FLOOR ELEV.
-- - - -BASEMENTELEv.
"~ · DRAINAGE
' L _CHOBORG
_I, AN,, D-$URvEYINq
· ' IRON MON. INPI.ACE
000.0 · EXIST. ELEV. · ' PROPOSED ELEV.
I herel~y cerUfy that thin plan. ~rvey or report waa.
prepared by me or under my direr supe~siofl and that lam
a duly Regisler~ ~nd Su~eyor under ~t l~ of ~ 81ate
of Minneso(j,
- GARAGE FLOOR ELEV,
TOP BLOCK ELEV.
E&P.
0<30.0 ~157. & ~RO~. ~LEV.
JOB ~1
8~ok - Page -
ARCEL x \ ',
\
\
\
PARCEL A
Lot t and that part of Lot 2, Block 2 of Avalon, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County of Hennepin lying north-
line drawn from a point on the southeasterly line of said Lot 2 distant 22.00 feet~
easterly of a of the southeasterly corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the northwesterly line of
,southwesterly
said Lot 2 distant 22.00 feet southwesterly of the northeasterly corner of said Lot PARCEL B
The northeasterly half of Lot 4, Lot 3 and that part of Lot 2, Block 2 of Avalon according to
the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said
wn from a point on the southeasterly line of
county of Hennepin lying southwesterly a line dra ........ ,..~r.. Of said Lot 2 to a point
said t,ot 2 distant 22.00 feet southwesterly of the soucneasu=L~z ..... r
on the northwesterly line of said Lot 2 distant 22.00 feet southwesterly of the northeasterly
corner of said Lot 2.
I hereby certify that this plat. survey or report was
SCHOB ORG prepared by me~..tll~;~mY direct supervision and that I am
~,__ I .dutyRegl~~' ~der the 'nwa °' 'he s'ata
ND SURVEYINI3 o .,Minnesot
CITY
HALL
0
COUNTY STATE
-- BARTLETT
Boat
Landing
Wychwood
640.8 ',
14
-%
LO1 ~)
Io
..;
(
(zg)
!
16)
(33)
LOT A
(32)
: i R-6
-/--
(45)
6
.(~3)
ic4)¢e z
( ~ (~0)
d
!
~t33o
· -18
January 26, 1988
RESOLUTZON TO APPROVE THE £0CATI0# OF
CIT1F OF HOUND PROPERTY '
WHEREAS, the City of Mound owns property lying west of the Los~
Lake Subdivision and east of the main channel
WHEREAS, the six sites will be
follows:
access to Lake Minnetonka; and
assigned location numbers as
55000
55040
55080
A55120 - Abutting property Lot i~
55160 . '
A55200 - Abutting property, Lot ~7
and will be listed on the 1988 dock location map; and
WHEREAS, these above listed docks will be governed under the Mound
City Code, S~ction 437 - Dock'Licenses; and
WHEREAS, Jellico, developer' of the Lost Lake Subdivision. agrees
to provide a walk/maintenance access to the docks-from Lost Lake Road west
toward Lost Lake to the 931.5 foot flood elevation. This access is to be 10
feet wide with the length ld6termined by location of the 931.5 foo~ flood
elevation line, with a 4 foot wide Paved walkway surface to the 931.5 foot
flood elevation; and
WHEREAs, the Hound Parks Advisory Commission recommended approval
of these additional six (6) dock sites to.be.listed on the 1988 Dock Site Map
at their special meeting of December 15, 1987.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED that the City Council of the C~ty
of Mound, Minnesota, hereby approves the addition of the aforesaid six
dock sites to the City of Mound dock system.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLYE§ that Jellico agrees to dedicate a utility
and public walkway easement to the aPea proposed for docks. The easement will
consist of a 10 foot wide strip which will consist of a 4 foot wide strip of
asphalt with 3 feet of gravel on either side for walkway and maintenance
vehicle access to the dock site area to be installed by Jellico.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and
seconded by Councilmember Johnson.
¥331
HINUTES ~ HOUND CITY COUNCIL - jANUARY 26, 1988
APPROVE THE LOCATION OF NINE DOCK SITES ON LOST .LA~E CHANNEL_~_CITY OF MOUND
The City Manager explained the request, The Park Commission recommended ap~
proval of the request for 9 dock sites, Barry Schneider, representing Oel-
lico, the developer, stated that access (a utility and public walkway
easement) will be granted to the area proposed for docks. The easement will
consist of a 10 foot wide strip which will consist of a 4 foot wide strip of
asphalt with 3 feet of gravel on eithe ~ide for walkway and maintenance
vehicle access to the dock site area. He :xplained that 9 sites were measured
out, 30 feet apart, for the total 290 feet that is there.
Margaret & Bob Hansen, 5425 Bartlett Blvd., spoke against approval of these
dock sites because of the environmental impact on the wetlends and con-
sequently Lake Minnetonka.
Tim King, 2'447 Lost Lake Road, spoke in favor of the dock sites because there
is already boat traffic in the channel and snowmobiles traffic in the marsh
area that does not appear to be harming it.
There was discussion on who would maintain the channel.
Councilmember Jessen suggested 6 dock sites instead of 9.
Councilmember jensen stated She would still have to vote against this 'because
of her concern about motorized traffic in the Lost Lake area.
The City Attorney suggested that if this resolution is approved the following
be inserted, "jellico agrees to dedicate a utility and public walkway easement
to the area proposed for docks. The .easement will consist of a 10 _foot wide
strip which will consist of a 4 foot wide strip of asphalt with 3 feet of
gravel on either side for walkway and maintenance Vehicle access to the dock
site area to be installed by Jellico." The Council agreed.
jessen moved and johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION i88L'~5 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE LOCATION OF SIX DOCK
SITES ON LOST LAKE CliANNEL, CITY OF HOUND PROPERTY
The vote was 3 in favor with Councilmember Jensen voting nay. Motion carried.
MINUTES - MOUND CIT~ COUNCIL - DECEMBER 22, 1987
DOCKS ADJACENT TO THE LOST LAKE SUBDIVISION
The Park Director explained the background. The Park Commission recommended
approval of g additional dock sites adjacent to the Lost Lake Subdivision on
Lost Lake. There are three conditions outlined by the City Attorney as
fol lows:
1. The docks should not be dedicated to only residents of the Lost
Lake Subdivision, rather open to all Hound residents.
2. The Mound City Dock Ordinance should control the dock sites.
3. Develop a plan for
usage, access, location of docks and other public
HOllOIl made by Oensen, seconded by Abel to table this item until the
January 26th /leering so that research can be-done'to determine whether
there is an agreement in the subdivision that allowed no docks. The
vote was 4 in favor with Jessen voting nay. /iotion carried.
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF December 15, 1987
Present were: Chair Nancy Clough; Commissioners Cathy Bailey, Marilyn Byrnes
and Linda Panetta; City Manager Ed Shukle; Dock Inspector Dell Rudolph and Secre-
tary Marge Stutsman.
Also present were the following interested persons: Barry Schneider, Kyle Wil-
berg, Tim King and John Lewman.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
The Commission noted the resignations of Andy Gearhart and Lowell Swenson.
MINUTES
~he minutes of the Park Commission meeting of November 12, 1987 were presented
for consideration. Byrnes moved and Panetta seconded a motion to approve the
minutes as presented. The vote was all in favor.
D~OCKS - LOST LAKE SUBDIVISION
Barry Schneider of Eckley-Sci',~neider Construction Company was present for the
purpose of requesting establishing a public commons area lying to the West of
the Lost Lake Subdivision and the issuance of dock sites on said access area.
Mr. Schneider is proposing to go by the ordinances'relating to docks and commons
and how they relate to property lines. He is proposing that 9 docks be allowed
on the channel. Dell has measured the area. Mr; Schneider advised that his
Company and Jellico will give the City an Utility and Public Walkway Easement
(10 foot wide strip which will consist of a 4 foot wide strip of asphalt with
3 feet of gravel on either side for walkway and maintenance vehicle access to
Commons and'dock site area). He thought that Lots 17 and 18 of the Lost Lake
Addition would be abutting property owners under the ordinance and be able to
receive dock sites on the priority basis.
The Commission discussed the request at length and had various questions.
· ta seconded a motion to recommend including the 9
...... ~Balley mortd ~n~ Pag~ ...... mmons sites on the 1988 Dock Locat,on Ma~
~UI~I~J ~J_ost Lake dOCK ~oca~,on~ o~ ~ .- J ~o k~ t.~ ed as abutting properties.
~/'with the designation that Lots I/ ano ,~ ~ .... lud
The vote was all in favor.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
Clough moved and Bailey seconded a motion to recommend reducing the number
of active members from 9 to 7. The vote was all in favor.
The Commission discussed that members let the Commission know three months in
advance if they do not wish to be re-appointed.
Clough moved and Bailey seconded a motion to recommend that Stephen Burke
be accepted as a member of the Park Commission as of January 1, 1988.
The vote was all in favor.
COMMONS MAP DOCK SITES
Byrnes moved and Clough seconded a motion to recommend approval of the 1988
Mound Commons Map Dock Sites with the addition of 15 new sites as follows:
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 .(612) 472-1155
December 8, 1987
-Curt Pearson
1100 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Curt:
Enclosed is a letter dated December 2, 1987, from Barry
Schneider, Eckley-Schneider Construction Company, regarding a
request for docks in the Lost Lake Subdivision area.
As you may recall, this issue was raised before the City Council
in late 1986. The applicant had requested that the City Council
allow docks in this area that could be dedicated to the residents
who live in the area. The City Council was unanimously against
such a proposal a'nd tabled the item pending a decision on the
Lost Lake project (Country Inn).
ApProximately one year has past and the same apPlicant has
returned with a proposal that would allow docks in this area, but
to consider them as "Commons,. In other words, he is requesting
nine docks that would be available to residents of Mound per the
ordinance on docks, with the exception of the lots 18 and 17
which are abutting and automatically go to those two properties.
He also proposes a walkway across the private land to get to
these docks. The private land would be paid for by the.
applicant.
Essentially, there is no cost to the City involved in this
proposal, other than the annual maintenance of the area, simil'ar
to what is done in other Commons areas. This proposal will be
discussed at the Park Commission meeting on December 10th, with a
subsequent recommendation coming back to the Council.
On January 7, 1987, you wrote a letter to me regarding the number
of questions that the Park Commission had concerning the Lost
Lake subdivision. The first page of that letter referenced how
the City obtained the dock area in question. As you recall, it
was in a legal dispute with beach side developers and it went
before the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Thus, the
property is not considered to be Commons, but is owned by the
City of Mound. Would there be a problem with Mr. Schneider,s
proposal since he is not requesting this area to be dedicated?
Do you see this proposal as being even an issue?
Letter to Curt pearson
December 8, 1957
page 2
The City Council's decision to table this until the Lost Lake
'project was decided upon, in my opinion, was an effort to tell
Mr. Schneider to forget this proposal. The issue really got back
to whether or not it was to be dedicated. In my opinion, I see
no relationship to the Country Inn project. The only thing that
these docks would do would create more boat traffic in the Lost
Lake channel.
I am sure that this issue will be coming before the City Council
in the near future. I would like some advice from you as to
whether or not we face any legal problems that could be headed
off at this time. Please respond at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
cc: Jim Fackler, Parks Director
enc·
ES:ls
Barry Schneider
475-3786
Wayzata, MN
Construction Co.
Craig Eckley
472.5001
Mound, MN
December 2, 1987
Ed Shukle
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Lost Lake Subdivision
Dear Mr. Shukle:
This is the request you put on the agenda of the Park Commission
and its next regular meeting.
The undersigned is President of Eckley-Schneider Construction
Co., and is owner .of lots in the Lost Lake Subdivision.
I would like to request a Hearing before the Park Commission for
the purpose of establishing a public common use area over the
Property owned by the City of Mound, lying to the West of the
Lost Lake Subdivision and to the East of the channel access to
Lake Minnetonka, and the issuance of dock permits on said access
area.
You are aware of the fact that the said area, owned by the City
of Mound, is landlocked at the present time. To accomodate the
access to the lake, the undersigned, joined.by Jellico, will
provide an easement over and across one of the lots to the City
property from Lost Lake Road.
Would you please confirm that this matter has been placed on the
agenda.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
ECKLEY-SCHNEIDER CONSTRUCTION CO.
Barry Schneider
I~3ST ~ F,3~SIDENTS 10/94
24-117-24 22 0003
RUSSEL J. MADER
5446 BARTLETT BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 21 0041
JEFFREY & SHERRY ZUCCARO
2435 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0020
DAVID & CYNTHIA OLSON
2582 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0033
DAVID HANSON/CAROL MILETTI
2583 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 21 0040
JAMES CURSON
6279 LINDEN LANE
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0032
JAMES & CATHERINE VEIT
2563 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 21 0039
JAMES & CAROL CARLSON
2436 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0032
JAMES & CATHERINE VEIT
4379 WILSHIRE BLVD., #C305
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 21 0038
DONALD & JULIE ATKINSON
2442 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0031
JOHN R. KUHLMAN
2503 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 21 0037
KYLE & BARBARA WILBERG
2448 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0030
BENNET E. MARKS
2465 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0025
DENNIS EMERY
2458 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0029
P.B. & D.K. HANSON
2459 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0024
DONALD & DOROTHY KETCHER
2502 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0028
BRYANT BELGARDE AND
CYNTHIA WOODIS-BELGARDE
2453 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0027
TIMOTHY J. KING
2447 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0023
P.L. BERRIDGE &J.L. PETERSON
235 NATHAN LANE #309
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
24-117-24 22 0022
DAVID & ELEANOR WILLETTE
2542 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0026
DENNIS & CONNIE STAHLBUSCH
2441 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
24-117-24 22 0021
ROBERT & IONE DOPPELHAMMER
2562 LOST LAKE ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A LAND ALTERATIONS ON PUBLIC LAND
KNOWN AS WAURIKA COMMON
TO ALLOW RESTORATION OF A PARKING AREA
ABUTTING 1566 EAGLE LANE, LOTS 3, 4, & 5, BLOCK 2,
WOODLAND POINT
WHEREAS, the applicants, Daniel and Sandra Strot, have requested the
approval of a Land Alterations Permit to allow the restoration of an area of land that
has been used for parking vehicles, to a grassy area, 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, this area is not a recognized parking lot and has only been utilized
over the years by dock site holders, and;
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
parking areas, and;
there is ample parking on the street, and;
no other dead end streets leading to Waurika Commons have
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. To approve a Land Alteration Permit subject to the following conditions:
a. Notice must be given to the Parks Director when restoration work will
being and when it is completed.
b. Restoration work must be completed by June 13, 1995.
c. Only a ground cover of grass is allowed which does not include any
decorative plantings, berms, or edging material.
d. If the area is going to be seeded or sodded, then erosion control
measures must be taken. Sufficient watering shall be provided for
growth.
The applicant is responsible for all costs and maintenance, including
installation, watering, and mowing.
This is a one-time permit and will expire June 13, 1995.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1994
TERATION PERMIT FROM DANIEL & S D~_~__R~_T--~
APPLICATION FOR PUBLI LAND AL DLAND POINT DOCK SITE #02250:
156 EAGLE LANE LOTS 3 4 & 5 BLOCK2 WOO
PARKIN AREA.
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking to restore an
area of land that is located on Waurika Commons that is showing stress from compaction from
automobiles being parked on it.
This area is not a recognized parking lot and has only been utilized over the years by dock site
holders. Through inspection of this area, staff has noted that there is ample parking on the
improved street.
Staff recommended the Park and Open Space Commission recommend approval of a Land
Alteration Permit subiect to the following conditions:
1. Notice must be given to the Parks Director when restoration work will being and when
it is completed.
2. Restoration work must be completed by June 13, 1995.
3. Only a ground cover of grass is allowed which does not include any decorative
plantings, berms, or edging material.
If the area is going to be seeded or sodded, then erosion control measures must be
taken. Sufficient watering shall be provided for growth.
5. The applicant is responsible for all costs and maintenance, including installation,
watering, and mowing.
6. This is a one-time permit and will expire June 13, 1995.
The applicants noted that none of the other dead end streets on Three Points leading to the
commons have parking areas, this is the only one. They feel there is adequate space on the
road for people to park, and the most number of vehicles they have seen parked there at one
time was three.
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Goode to recommend approval of the
Land Alteration Permit, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This request will be reviewed by the City Council on November 22, 1994.
CITY OF MOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
November 10, 1994 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting
Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Jori Sutherland, Building Official
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LAND ALTERATION
Daniel & Sandra Strot
Waurika Common: abutting 1566 Eagle Lane
Lots 3, 4, & 5, Block 2, Woodland Point
Dock Site//02250
~J3Dlicant's Reques_t
The applicant is seeking to restore an area of land that is located on Waurika Commons that is
showing stress from compaction from automobiles being parked on it.
B__ackqround and Comment~ss
This area is not a recognized parking lot and has only been utilized over the years by dock site
holders. Through inspection of this area, staff has noted that there is ample parking on the improved
street.
S__ta ff Recommendatio~j
Staff recommends the Park and Open Space Commission recommend approval of a Land Alteration
Permit subject to the following conditions:
1.
Notice must be given to the Parks Director when restoration work will being and when it is
completed.
Restoration work must be completed by June 13, 1995.
Only a ground cover of grass is allowed which does not include any decorative plantings,
berms, or edging material.
If the area is going to be seeded or sodded, then erosion control measures must be taken.
Sufficient watering shall be provided for growth.
~Pr'r~tedonrecycledpaper ~3~
Land Alteration Permit - Strot
1566 Eagle Lane
November 2, 1994
Page 2
The applicant is responsible for all costs and maintenance, including installation, watering, and
mowing.
This is a one-time permit and will expire June 13, 1995.
JS:pj
The abutting dock site holders have been notified of this request. This request will be heard by the
City Council on November 2_2, 1994.
O~S~RIBUTION:
~~_BUILDING OFFICIAL
~_PARKS DIRECTOR
_ DNR
_ -MCWD
CITY OFP BLI LAND PERMIT APPLi ATION
MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620
Legal
_ Description
Property
Contractor
55364
DATE RECEIVED~.~
PARK MEETING DAT~
CITy CO~CIL DATE~
OCT 5 Igg
~check ~one); --
~------, 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: S~.~bd. ~}.
~I 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 t
limited time and a - he ublic
an uoc~ site holder, u-s=rucu~on, or a new permit is a-'-='='~-Cn-e State Building
Applicant ~:p~e~ for due to change
Address
Owner
Lot ~ -----
Subd. Block_
~::: Site #~ Shoreline Type~~_
Address
Phone
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESC, RI,B~. RE.QUEST & PURPOSE: ~ ,, ~.-L -- · ~ ' ~o~
~-= ...... = ~ applicant ~
Date
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
September 14, 1994
Mr. Daniel Strot
1566 Eagle Lane
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT: LAND ALTERATIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS
Dear Mr. S~rot:
I am writing this letter to confirm our recent phone conversation regarding the
attached letter dated August 5, 1994. You requested that this matter be delayed until
the October 13, 1994 Park and Open Space Commission meeting.
At this time, I would like to remind you that your application for a Land Alteration
Permit must be received by September 29, 1994. Please find enclosed an application
form for your use. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Peggy
James.
Sincerely,
Parks Director
JF:Pi
Enclosures
cc: Jon Sutherland, Building Official
prmted on recycJed paper
August 5, 1994
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Mr. Daniel Strot
1566 Eagle Lane
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT: Land Alterations on Public Lands
Dear Mr. Strot:
During a regular inspection of dock sites on public lands, it was noted that a land
alteration of plantings, rock boarder, and wood chips have been placed on Waurika
Commons. This type of work on public lands requires a Public Lands Permit which
requires review by the Park and Open Space Commission, and approval by the City
Council.
Enclosed is information for making application. This application must be returned to
this office by August 25, 1994 in order to be reviewed by the Park Commission on
September 8, and by the City Council on September 27.
Also, at this time, I need to have you~address the location of the horse shoe pits. If
this is on public lands it will also require a permit.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 472-0611.
Sincerely, /1
(~dim Fackler
Parks Director
JF:pj
cc: Jon Sutherland, Building Official
August 23, 1993
RESOLUTION %93-119
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS
pERMIT FOR ~ pRIYATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ~LLOW THE
CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON WAURIK~ COMMON ABUTTING
1566 EAGLE I2%NE FOR STEVE WELCH OF
1566 EAGLE L]%NE, DOCK SITE %02250
WHEREAS, The city of Mound is updating the permits for
structures located on public lands, and;
WHERE~S, 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;
two riser
WHEREAS, this stairway consists of a simple
concrete step in good condition and a walkway that traverses the
shoreline, and;
WHERE~S, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this
request and recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. To approve a Special Construction on Public Lands permit to
allow continuation of the stairway located on Waurika common,
abutting 1566 Eagle Lane, for Steve Welch, Dock Site %02250,
subject to the following conditions:
be
Ce
The foregoing
Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Johnson.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The applicant is responsible for maintenance.
The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of
City council approval.
The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License
holder.
resolution was moved by councilmember
The following voted
Ahrens.
Attest: City clerk
288
MOV 17 '94 0g:26AM MCCOMBS FRAMK ~OOS
~As6ociatas, Inc.
Avenue North, Plymouth. Mlnnm~,o~ ~'-~447~"~9
Telephone
612/476-8010
812/476-8532 FAX
Su~eyom
November 16, 1994
Mr. Edward j. Shukle,
City of Mound
5341 Heywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
City Manager
SUBJECT=
Dear Ed:
City of Mound, Minneso=a
Mound/Mlnnetrista Public Works
Ma=erial S=orage
~aymen~ Reques~ NO. 1
MFRA #1048~
Enclosed ia Imperial Developer's Paymen~ RequeS~ No. i for w
completed =hrough November 4, 1994, on the sub ect r ork
of ~hts paymen~ reques~ is $63 ..... -. J 9 oJec~ The
~?._ i which shows a net ~-~-~72b~' a~so included
~1,797.50. AS YOu ~ __~_=u.~=. =rom ~he con~rac~ ~_ ~=_=-~= ~r~er
~ut added t~ ~---~ ,,~=e, we ~ave sltmin~+~ ~- ~" ~ae amoun= of
.~,,_~ ..... -- ~"== ~=ems. The d~-~*~,- -~ ~'~= =res transDlantln.
~*-~,,uw==er Problem en~l,~ ..... -~,,~a~ was necess~
~,,,mu~= zef~ on =he site. -
We have reviewed both ~he paten= reques= and chan~e order and are
recommendtn~ approval of ~he amoun=s
If you have any ques=ions or need addt~ional informa~ion, please
contact us.
Very ~ruly yours,
MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
JC:mm
John Cameron
An Equal Ol~l)onunity Emitter
MO¥ 17 ~ 09:~6AM MCCOMBS FRgMK ROOS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
MOUND/MINNETRISTA PUBLIC WORKS MATERIAL STORAGE
SITE GRADING & ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
MFRA #10481
E TI N - MAT T R AR A:
4" Drain~tle
Dozer
To~al Add
370 L.F. @ $4.50/L.F. '
2.5 Hrs. @$115.00/HR- '
Item #5 - Transplant: Trees 25 EA @$150 O0/Ea. =
To=al Dedu¢=
Change in Con~r&c~ ' Deduc~
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT - SECTION
CHANGE ORDER NO. I - DEDUCT
REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT - SECTION
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT - SECTION
REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT - SECTIONS
$ 1,665.00
287.5Q
S 1,952.50
$ 3,750.00
$ .3,750.00
$ -1,797.~0
$100,002.50
-1.797.50
98,205.00
4,0. 164.50_
$138,369.50
....
APPROVED: '
APPROVED:
CITY OF MOUND
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
~$sl
NOV 17
00 for 3 days, plus
$2.00 per day after
- thi.rd day
to Ten ConsecUtive Days
onlY. FOur Per year to any Organization
LICENSE #
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD _. NOV I 7
MOUND, WYINNESOTA 55364 ~ ~/o, o o
of Event:~'~''('~
~tioa 810.10, Su~. ~. Liability ~~' (a) Prior to ~e i~ of ~Y B~r lf~n~, the applier
~e~ P~f of ~ei~ ~ibility wi~ ~gard to liabfli~ fm~ by M~m Smmt~ ~tioa
3~A.801 to ~e Cf~ Cle~ ~d to ~e Co~ioner of ~blie Safety ~ a ~ndition of ~e f~ or r~ew~ of
~s ~. P~f of ~ef~ ~ibflity ~all ~ given by fling a ~ifi~te ~t ~e~ fs ~ eff~t
-,: ...... ~ ~rovid~g ~e ~mum ~ve~g~ for d~m shop liabilit~ ~ r~ui~ b~ M~ $mmt~, S~tion
~,a~y ~, ~- r · · ' ~tion to r~uire ~e ~mum ~ cove~ges ~d amo~
~A.~, SuMivisiou 1. It as &e intent of ~s
~t of Cove~g :~
Station 810:10. SuM. 1. Appli~tion Fo~. ~ ~e ~ of~y appli~tiou for a Tem~ '~-Sale' li~ to
fllow ~e md ~mption of ~r on public lind or public ~h~l l~&, ~e appli~t shall, prior to iss~ee of
~ch libra, file &e ~tteu ~nt of ~e o~er of ~ch l~& to ~eh ~ of im l~ds.
Date
BILLS .......
-November 22, 1994
BATCH 4103
BATCH 4112
TOTAL BILLS
$370,825.89
128,645.38
$499,471.27
o o o .~
I I I
o o
o o
oo
oo
oo
I I
oo
! t
Z
CI
Ill
Z
!
0 0
p.. 0'.
o o
oo
0
o
o
o
I ! I
III.
~Z
J II
o
oo
o
a.
t~
,.,4
o
I
o
o
o
o
.-4
· 4: I
o oo o ~ ~ ~ ~
o
oO
~0
ill
Z
0
c
a0
o o o ,.~
~
!
IIIIIII
Z
LIJ
bd I
~...I
13_ Z
~..~ "3
::3
Z
I Z I
bJ_J -,,-~ _,j
C) n-'
.:3::-3
Z
u~
Z
!
0
ooo~
o ~
UJW
u.J
I
~371
Z
U3'~Z
)-
0
Z
d
.d
Z
"'" I--
~Z
,no
0
II
Z
0
Z
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non -Business
Licenses and
Permits
intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Charges to Other
Departments
TOTAL REVENUE
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
Oct. 1994
Oct. 1994 YTD
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE
VARIANCE
83.33%
PERCENT
RECEIVED
1,231,780 0 611,71 0
9,450 45 7,834
(620,070)
(1,616)
59,850 8,330 89,083 29,233
884,960 (4,722) 496,692 (388,268)
49,500 363 10,268 (39,232)
65,000 3,300 42,703 (22,297)
60,800 15,510 42,476 (18,324)
15,00--0 97___~3 9 6_~74 ~
2 376 340 ~ ~
308,817 32,777 270,596 (38,221)
108,000 10,265 98,073 (9,927)
1,300,000 110,443 1,113,902 (186,098)
380,000 44,147 302,71 0 (77,290)
680,000 60,610 566,212 (113,788)
5,650 25 1,930 (3,720)
72,000 20 72,698 698
49.66%
82.90%
148.84%
56.13%
20.74%
65.70%
69.86%
64.499{,_
55.15%
87.62%
90.81%
85.68%
79.66%
83.27%
34.16%
100.97%
11/13/94
rev94
G.B.
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Summer 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
Oct. 1994
83.33%
Oct. 1994 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
63 130
2 000
I ,380
180 330
11 320
48 350
151 080
24,2OO
81,500
795,240
5,400
157,850
397,520
102,860
136,620
33,930
40,000
7,145 50,855 12,275 80.56%
0 0 2,000 0.00%
0 621 759 45.00%
13,553 144,768 35,562 80.28%
88 8,310 3,010 73.41%
3 50,183 (1,833) 103.79%
11,559 121,772 29,308 80.60%
661 16,444 7,756 67.95%
14,291 84,776 (3,276) 104.02 %
66,627 624,000 171,240 78.47%
276 1,578 3,822 29.22%
10,642 119,181 38,669 75.50%
30,908 296,647 100,873 74.62%
19,622 87,426 15,434 85.00%
9,526 110,156 26,464 80.63%
(475) 0 33,930 0.00%
354 5,541 34,459 13.85%
10__q~027 100,267 3_~33 973 _74.69%
77.00%
240,19O
104,330
190,840
834,990
1,390,280
5,240
53,680
20,098 178,939 61,251 74.50%
13,948 116,589 (12,259) 111.75%
18,265 164,040 26,800 85.96%
128,038 682,510 152,480 81.74%
168,219 1,090,581 299,699 78.44%
122 3,160 2,080 60.31%
15,053 60,257 (6,577) 112.25%
exp94
11/13/94
G.B.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1994
Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes,
David Steinbring, Mary Goode, and Bill Darling, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Peggy James.
Commissioners Meyer and Geffre were absent and excused.
The following persons were also in attendance: Nancy Shaffett, Germain Persing, Thomas
Tokes, David Hanson, Dennis Stahlbusch, Dave Willette, Christine Furlong, Dennis Emery,
Jody Emery, Sherry Zuccaro, Jeff Zuccaro, Dan & Sandi Strot, and James Veit.
MINUTES
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Steinbring to approve the Park and
Open Space Commission Minutes of October 13, 1994 as written. Motion
carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGERS
The following items were added to the agenda:
8.A. Lost Lake Promotions Task Force Report.
8.B. 1995 Goals.
8.C. 1996 Budget.
8.D. Pelican Point Park Dedication.
PUBLI HEARING: 1995 D CK LOCATION MAP
The Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reported that two changes to the map are proposed this
year. The first change is to delete Dock Site #33120located on Stratford Lane, and abutting
4536 Denbigh Road. This land has eroded, and therefore, reverted to private shoreline.
The second change is to add two dock sites, #54970 and #56180, abutting Lost Lake Park.
Staff has determined there is adequate space to allow the two additional dock sites in this
area.
Ahrens questioned if the docks at Lost Lake Park were approved as part of the Plat. The
secretary confirmed that they were approved by a separate resolution. The Parks Director
explained that the developer of Lost Lake originally requested that these docks be dedicated
to the subdivision, however it was the City Attorney's opinion that these docks had to be
made available to the general public, and therefore, there is no guaranty that residents in the
Lost Lake Subdivision will be assigned these docks.
Chair Schmidt opened the floor for public comment relating to the deletion of one dock site
in the Denbigh Road area. There were no comments from the citizens present.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
November 10, 1994
Chair Schmidt opened the floor for public comment relating to the proposed addition of two
dock sites at Lost Lake Park.
James Veit questioned why these two additional dock sites are being proposed. The Dock
Inspector noted that the space is available and there was a request from residents in the Lost
Lake development for additional dock sites. Currently, the Lost Lake dock site area is at full
capacity. Veit expressed a concern about access due to the Iow elevation of the park and the
fact that the ground gets very spongy and wet. Veit asked the Commission if they are aware
that the park is sinking. Fackler stated that he has seen some documents showing elevations
which indicate that the elevations may be changing. Fackler also indicated that there may be
a possibility to reclaim the land through special permits, however, this may not be beneficial
for the City. Fackler stated that during a majority of the seasons these dock sites are
accessible.
David Hanson and Sherry Zuccaro questioned the policies and procedures for obtaining a dock
site. Casey confirmed with staff that presently all the dock site holders are residents of the
Lost Lake addition. Staff noted that these sites would not be dedicated just to the Lost Lake
Addition, but would be added to the general pool.
Chair Schmidt closed the public hearing.
Casey suggested that it is premature to approve these additional sites, that they should first
wait to see if the channel dredge is approved. Casey explained that there are many permit
approvals required before the dredge can be accomplished, including an environmental
assessment. He would like to know how the additional boat traffic could affect the dredge.
Steinbring sees the additional dock sites as a separate issue from the dredge, and he would
like to see the additional dock sites to fulfill the docking needs of the people.
Casey noted that the amount of boat traffic in the channel will be a consideration when the
environmental impacts of the dredge are reviewed. He is concerned that these additional sites
could have an accumulative affect on the whole channel eco-system and the wetland. Casey
stressed that they should wait for the environmental assessment of the dredge to be
completed so they will know how additional boat traffic will affect it.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to the City
Council that Dock Site #33120 located on Stratford Lane and abutting 4536
Denbigh Road, be removed from the Dock Location Map. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION made by Casey to table the request for two additional dock sites at
Lost Lake Park until the environmental assessment is completed. Due to lack
of a second, the motion failed.
2
November 10, 1994
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Steinbring to recommend that two dock
sites, #54970 and #56180, be added at Lost Lake Park, as proposed.
Darling questioned staff, what was the driving force that initiated this request? Staff
confirmed that a request came from the residents.
The Council's rationale for originally granting only six sites was reviewed to be due to the
amount of boat traffic in the Lost Lake Channel.
It was questioned, what would preclude somebody from dredging to gain more shoreline and
request more dock sites? If these sites are approved, would they be setting a precedence7
MOTION to approve failed I to 5. Those opposed were: Darling, Ahrens,
Byrnes, Steinbring, and Casey. Schmidt was in favor.
The Dock Location Map will be reviewed by the City Council on November 22, 1994
~ 1996 PARK iMPROVEMENTS
Fackler explained that money has been allotted in the 1995 Proposed Budget for improvements
to both Edgewater park and Dundee Park, and the neighbors have been notified in order for
the Commission to receive input on what types of improvements may be desired. He noted
that he needs to know if playground equipment is desired so it can be ordered by the end of
January in order to receive the equipment before May so it can be installed before summer.
1) EDGEWATER PARK
The Parks Director reviewed the current status of the park. There is a bench at the park,
access is an issue from the Edgewater Drive side as the stairs are in poor condition, the fence
on the hill could remain, and the parking area should be discussed.
Neighbor, Christine Furlong, stated that the park is not being used, and its appearance is poor.
She does not feel that the park warrants a playground structure, and that children can use the
playground equipment at Seton Park which is just a couple blocks away. She would like to
see the park spruced-up, it is an eyesore from the Edgewater Drive side. There is a good view
of the lake from the park. She suggested that some trees be planted, and maybe some
permanent benches be installed. A paved path to allow for wheelchair access would be nice.
The Commission recognized the letter received from June Dahlquist requesting playground
equipment, and a note from Joy Bennett who is in favor of improving the park but did not
specifically request playground equipment.
Darling noted that only one person out of 23 who were notified requested playground
equipment, and that it appears there is no "need".
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Schmidt, that playground equipment
not be installed at Edgewater Park. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission agreed that the appearance of the park needs to be improved, and the access
on the Edgewater Drive side needs to be addressed. Christine Furlong offered to collect some
3
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
November 10, 1994
ideas for improvements to the park, and to submit them to the Parks Director. The Parks
Director is to report back to the Commission at their December meeting with a plan for
improvements.
2) DUNDEE PARK (TEMPORARY NAME)
Germain Persing who resides across the street from the park, spoke in favor of a playground
structure. She explained that there are 7 kids just on Dundee ranging from 2 years old to 6th
grade, and there are 8 to 10 kids behind Dundee. She explained that the walk down the hill
to Swenson is not easy for the small children, and Pembroke Park is at least 6 blocks away.
Tom Stokes, new owner of the adjacent vacant lot, plans to build a new home on the lot. He
is not opposed to a playground structure, however, would like it to be a neutral color, no
orange or red. He also wants to maintain his privacy and would like to see some sort of
natural barrier between his lot and the park.
Nancy Shaffett noted that the City only notified 13 people, and she took the initiative to walk
door-to-door with a petition and received 44 signatures from people in favor of playground
equipment. Nancy also requested the following improvements:
lighting/street light
fence at the rear of the park where there is a steep slope
picnic table
- sign on Dundee "Slow" (people tend to race over the hill)
Darling questioned, if a playground structure is installed, can staff guarantee that the abutting
neighbor's concerns will be addressed. Darling suggested a plan for the park be submitted
before they approve the installation of playground equipment. Mr. Stokes confirmed that he
wants assurance that his privacy will be established in when the equipment is installed.
The Parks Director explained that the amount of land restorations needed to the park are
unknown. However, with the construction of the new house on the adjacent property, there
could be a savings with the excavating being coordinated between the two projects. There
may be a limit as to how much can be done in 1995, and that if additional funds are needed,
they could budget for them in 1996. Fackler suggested that a park sign be installed, and that
a light in the park may not be necessary. Fackler noted that only one other City park currently
has a light, and a street lighte counld be looked into.
The Commission determined that the neighbors and the Parks Director should meet to discuss
a plan for the park.
REQUEST TO SEED SOD PARKING AREA.
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking to restore an
area of land that is located on Waurika Commons that is showing stress from compaction from
automobiles being parked on it.
4
'¥$71
November 10, 1994
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
This area is not a recognized parking lot and has only been utilized over the years by dock site
holders. Through inspection of this area, staff has noted that there is ample parking on the
improved street.
Staff recommended the Park and Open Space Commission recommend approval of a Land
Alteration Permit subiect to the following conditions:
1. Notice must be given to the Parks Director when restoration work will being and when
it is completed.
2. Restoration work must be completed by June 13, 1995.
3. Only a ground cover of grass is allowed which does not include any decorative
plantings, berms, or edging material.
4. If the area is going to be seeded or sodded, then erosion control measures must be
taken. Sufficient watering shall be provided for growth.
5. The applicant is responsible for all costs and maintenance, including installation,
watering, and mowing.
6. This is a one-time permit and will expire June 13, 1995.
The applicants noted that none of the other dead end streets on Three Points leading to the
commons have parking areas, this is the only one. They feel there is adequate space on the
road for people to park, and the most number of vehicles they have seen parked there at one
time was three.
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Goode to recommend approval of the
Land Alteration Permit, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This request will be reviewed by the City Council on November 22, 1994.
DISCUSSION: PLANTING POLICY_
The Commission reviewed the City Council Minutes relating to this topic. The Commission
agreed that "shall" can be changed to "should" throughout.
Their "goal" was discussed. It was noted that it is not their intention to return all areas into
a natural state. For example the previous request to sod a parking area is acceptable. Casey
suggested that the verbiage "wherever possible" be added to the goal.
Darling offered to work on revising the goal and bring it back to the Commission for their
review.
5
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes November 10, 1994
DISCUSSION: WINTER DOCK STORAGE
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's recommendation to have the Dock Inspector
monitor the shoreline this winter season, relating to winter dock storage, and solutions can
then be drafted for the Commission's review next Spring.
The Commission clarified that there are really two different issues at hand:
1. WINTER DOCK: STORAGE: Storage of dock sections and boat lifts on the land during
the winter (i.e. obstruction of view of the lake, unsightliness to abutting owners, etc.)
2. WINTER DOCK: F1EMOVAL: Removal of docks from the water in the winter (i.e. floating
dock sections float can cause hazards and be a nuisance, and docks in disrepair are
unsightly)
Fackler stated that it is his opinion that the current ordinance is sufficient to enforce problems
with storage of docks on the shoreland.
Ahrens confirmed that the Council was in favor of requiring docks to be removed from the
water.
It was questioned, if docks are required to be removed from the water, will there be room for
storage on the shoreland? How is it then determined how these docks should be stored on
the shore? It was suggested that stronger language may be needed in the ordinance. It was
determined that the Commission will review this issue again in March for possible ordinance
changes.
WINTERFEST UPDATE FROM BILL DARLING
He has not received any responses.
Lost Lake Promotions Task Force Re
Lost Lake Promotions Task Force Representative, Carolyn Schmidt, reviewed the "Lost Lake
Canal - Public Relations Strategy:" which was handed out to the Commission. She notified
the Commission members that if they had any comments she needs them by next Monday.
(Ahrens was dismissed from the meeting.)
Casey questioned the economic value of the dredge to the public. He explained that half a
million dollars of the public's money could be spent on this dredge that may not economically
enhance the community.
Mr. Veit questioned how this dredge will impact his property, the park property, and their
docking area. The Commission suggested that Mr. Veit express his concerns to the City
Manager, the EDC, or the Council.
1995 Goals
Schmidt asked that the Commission start thinking about their goals for 1995.
6
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
November 10, 1994
Schmidt asked that the Commission start thinking about their goals for the 1996 budget.
pelican Point Park Dedicatio~
The Parks Director explained that the money has not yet been received. He will check on the
date when it is required to be submitted.
Minnesota Land Trust
Commissioner Casey explained that this organization deals with land preservation, and
meetings are now being organized involving the west metro area, and they are trying to get
cities involved. This organization deals primarily with private land preservation. Their next
meeting is Wednesday, November 16th at Chanhassen City Hall, and is open to the public.
Park Director's Reoo_~
Fackler informed the Commission that Mystic Lake Casino filmed a commercial at Mound Bay
Park. Waurika commons was riprapped with about 600 lineal feet of field stone.
Skating rinks for this winter will be the same as last year with three small rinks. The rinks will
not be lighted. Fackler has not been approached by the hockey association.
Dock Inspector's Reoort_
No comments.
Celebrate Summe~r
Byrnes and Schmidt reported that the Chamber of Commerce has agreed to co-sponsor one
event next summer. The Committee has also written a request for a grant to the State for
help with funding the program. Involvement from the Park and Open Space Commission
Members was invited.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Steinbring to adjourn the Park and Open
Space Commission Meeting at 10:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
7
,eague of Minnesota Cities
3490 Lexington Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55126-8044
November 14, 1994
Edward Shulde, Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Dear E~d:
RECEIVED
The purpose of this letter is two-fold: to apprise you of the candidacy of several city officials
for National League of Cities Board and Officer positions and to solicit your city's potential
interest in being represented on the NLC Small Cities Council.
Concerning the former, as a direct member of NLC, your community is eligible to vote for
candidates for NLC offices at the annual Congress of Cities. The Board has asked that you
be advised of those candidates known to the League as of this date. If, after reviewing the
accompanying information, you would like any additional information about any of these
candidates, please let me know and we will try to obtain it from NLC.
The second issue concerns the NLC Small Cities Council. The Small Cities Council is a
group of NLC's membership which shares common interests, in this instance, issues related
to cities under 50,000 population. The Small Cities Council serves as a forum to meet the
special information and training needs of cities in this population group and to insure that
their interests are represented in NLC's policy process.
The League has two appointments to the Small Cities Council. Currently, Millie MacLeod,
Councilmember from Moorhead, holds one of these positions. The other is vacant. The
Small Cities Council meets three times per year, at both the Congress of Cities and
Congressional Conference and one other time not in conjunction with either conference.
Direct Expenses are paid or reimbursed by the League, except those incurred at the Congress
of Cities and Congressional Cities Conference. The appointees must be elected officials.
If there is anyone from your community interested in serving in this capacity, please let me
know by December 2, 1994.
~i;iller
Executive Director
;12) 490-5600
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
1-800-925.1122plunyour citycode
TDD (612) 490-9038
Fax(612)490-O072
LEAGUE
OF
IOWA
MUNICIPALITIES
Serving Iowa's cities since 1898
June 28, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Region Six League Directors
Thomas G. Bredeweg, Executive Director
Candidate for NLC Board
The Executive Board of the League of Iowa Municipalities has endorsed the candidacy of Larry
Curtis, Mayor of Ames, Iowa, for the National League of Cities Board of Directors. I am writing
in the hope that some of the delegations of our neighboring states will support Larry's candidacy.
I have enclosed a biographical flyer on Mayor Curtis, but that does not fully describe the attributes
that we feel he could bring to the NLC Board. Larry is truly a leader among leaders. When our
Board has been faced with difficult decisions, they often look to Larry to point out the alternatives
and suggest the best course of action. Invariably, he is right.
One of the more refreshing qualities that Larry possesses is his ability to express directly and
succinctly the issue at hand. He does not trivialize or over simplify matters, but he can reduce an
intricate problem to the critical questions that need to be answered. He is also very global in his
solutions and is careful to present conclusions that best benefit the majority of the membership.
Last but not least, Larry is a delightful person to be around. He is loyal to our state league and to
the NLC, and will be an effective advocate for the municipal position.
I highly recommend him and ask for your support.
TGB:di
Enclosure
president
317 Sixth Avenue. Suite 1400. Des Moines. IA 50309-4122 · (515) 244-7282
FAX (515) 2444)740
President-elect
Past President
Executive Director
Larry R. Curtis
Larry Curtis, mayor of Ames, Iowa is seeking election to the National League of Cities Board of
Directors. Curtis currently serves on the NLC steering committee on Finance, Administration and
Intergovernmental Relations (FAIR) and is chair of the Subcommittee on Municipal Administration.
He also previously served on NLC's Committee on Human Development.
~!rtit_~__s was elected to the Ames city council as am ember at large in 1978 and served in that capacity · 1.9.9_0~whe~ .he ~was ele. cted Mayor. Larry ,,,as elected to the League
~cuuv¢ ~oara m ~eptemlaer of 1989 and served as President in 1992. of Iowa Municipalities
In 1973 Curtis became an assistant professor at Iowa State University in the Department oflndustr/al
Administration where he still teaches as an adjunct professor in business law. In addition to
teaching at the University, he entered private law practice in 1975.
He is a member of the Story County Bar Association, the American Business Law Association and
the Ames Estate Planning Council. He graduated from Iowa State University in 1968 with a
bachelor of science degree in Mechanical Engineering; and earned an MBA and Juris Doctor
degrees from University of Iowa in 1973. He manages his son's Little League baseball team and has
been active in sports officiating for both basketball and football.
June 28, 1994
City of Columbus
Mayor Gregory S. Lashutka
Office of the Mayor
City Halt
Columbus, Ohio 43215-9014
614/645-7671
FAX 614/645-8955
Mr. James F. Miller
Executive Director
League of Minnesota Cities' .
3490 Lexington Avenue North
Mr~~55126
St. Paul, Min
Dear I
I am writing to ask for your support of my candidacy for Second Vice President of the
National League of Cities.
As cities move through stressful times in the 90s, city leaders must look in new directions
for answers. Washington is no longer a major source of innovation or dollars. Increasingly,
cities must look to the federal government for relief from regulations and mandates, rather
than financial help.
During my tenure as mayor of Columbus, I have made. reforming the intergovernmental
relationship between cities and the federal government one of my major tasks -- not just for
my city, but for all cities.
I am proud to have served as Chairman of the NLC Committee on Finance, Administration,
and Intergovernmental Relations in 1993. Together, we pushed the unfunded mandates
issue to the forefront of the national debate. I have continued in this effort as chairman of
the NLC Unfunded Mandates Task Force, testifying before Congress many times on this
issue. I am honored to have been selected as the 1993 Municipal Leader of the Year by
American City & County magazine and elected as a member of the NLC Board of Directors.
My approach as mayor has been to build bridges between government, the private sector,
the non-profit sector, and neighborhood activists to achieve the greatest amount of leverage
from available resources. I believe that same philosophy must be
provided to the National League of Cities as we expand our national voice on behalf of cities.
The NLC has been an important voice in shaping reasoned and sound municipal policy, but
we must become even stronger during these challenging times.
I believe I can provide the type of leadership that the National League of Cities desires. As
second vice president, I believe I can help the NLC develop effective strategies to deal with
urban policy. I would very much appreciate your support.
/
Sinqere~y,
Gre~o~ ~. LashutKa
Founded 1791
City of Hamilton! Ohio
Municipal Building
20 High Street, Hamilton! Ohio 45011
September 6, 1994
Mr. James F. Miller
3490 Lexinaton Avenue North
St. Paul, M~nnesota 55126
Dear Mr. Miller:
After much thought and consultation, I am happy to announce my candidacy for Second
Vice President of the National League of Cities. With excitement about the future of our
League and the communities that it represents, I solicit your support for this effort.
I have held elective office in my community since 1983, first as Councilman, then as Vice
Mayor and eventually as Mayor. In my terms I have attempted to express a vision and
unity of purpose between our citizens and the various public and private service resources.
Concurrently, I have also endeavored to serve the National League of Cities in a variety
of positions. Over the past ten years, I have served on both Policy and Steering
committees. I have been honored to serve on the Board of Directors of the Hispanic
Elected Local Officials and eventually to have progressed through the chairs to be its
President and currently serve as its Immediate Past President. In Atlanta in 1989, I was
elected on my first attempt to a two-year term on the NLC Board of Directors. Currently,
I serve as Vice Chairman of the Advisory Council, member of the Conference Program
Committee for the past two years and as a member of the Transportation and
Communications Sieer-ir'~g Commiitee. From these various positions, I ~-.-, ,-.-, had the
opportunity to voice the concerns of communities collectively at both the state and national
level. ' '"""" ~
The campaign for Second Vice President of the National League of Cities that will be
waged in Minneapolis this winter, promises to be interesting and critical for the future of
our cities. As a League, we will have the opportunity to select from a variety of candidates
with diverse and different experiences. Of the other probable candidates for Second Vice
President, one individual has served the League for 17 years, and the other is completing
his first year on the Board. Both represent very large metropolitan areas. Both are
zealous and articulate advocates for our concerns. But is it enough to say we represent
large constituencies?
September 6, 1994
Page 2
The leadership of the League should reflect the diversity and characteristics of its
membership. The majority of our member cities are small and medium sized communities
similar to my own home of 63,000 residents. Electing officers from smaller cities is a
recognition of their needs and the important role they play in the fabric of our nation.
Over the past decade, I have endeavored to earn your respect and to learn from my
colleagues. I now believe that I am ready to put these years of knowledge to even more
important efforts on your behalf. I would be sincerely honored by your support of my
candidacy and I would welcome any suggestions or thoughts in that regard.
Thus, I remain...
Very truly yours,
Adolf Olivas, Esq.
Vice Mayor
AO:dr
PRESIDENT
SUE L. GLIDEWELL
MAYOR. RAINBOW CITY
November 1, 1994
EXECUTIVE 2 'RECTOR
PERRYc ROQUE'.;ORE JR
t.'~','-GOMERY
Official Publication: Alabama Municipal Journal
P.O. BOX 1270
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36102 535 ADAMS AVENUE
TELEPHONE 262-2566 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
Serving Alabama's Home-Town Governments and Home-Town Officials FAX 263-0200
MEMORANDUM
TO: All State League Directors
FROM: Perry C. Roquemore, Jr., Executive Director ?ff//~
SUBJECT: Candidacy of Alvin p. DuPont for NLC Board
The Alabama League of Municipalities enthusiasticall en
P. DuPont of Tuscal , a ~o~,.__ ,. . _ Y dorses the candidacy of Ma or '
oos,,, ,-,~,,o,uaaa, xor a seat on the Board of r~;,-,~,,, .... ,-,,_ ..... Y,, Alvin
of Cities .... ,,~,,-a m me ~'~auonat League
A1 has been very active and supportive of NLC and the Alabama League of Municipalities
during his 40 plus years of municipal service. Al was employed by the City of Tuscaloosa for 30
years as Assistant City Engineer, Public Works Director and as Director of Planning and
Community Development. In 1981 the citizens of Tuscaloosa elected him as mayor and he has
continuously served in that capacity since his election.
He has served on the NLC CED Policy Committee and has attended American Municipal
Association and NLC annual conventions for over four decades. He has attended
Congressional-City Conferences as both employee and mayor.
A1 has served in a number of leadership positions for the Alabama League of Municipalities
including his terms as President and Vice President of the League. He also serves on the League
Committee on State and Federal Legislation and the League CED Committee. Mayor DuPont
wrote the first policy statement for the State CED Committee in 1972.
During his service to NLC and our League, A1 has earned the admiration and respect of his
colleagues in municipal government across the nation. The League, and I personally, are
honored to support his candidacy. I am confident that he will make an outstanding contribution
to NLC during his term on the board. The League appreciates your support of A1 DuPont for a
seat on the NLC Board of Directors.
Candidate for
Board of Directors
National League of Cities
Mayor Alvin P. DuPont
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Candidate for NLC Board of Dire ctors
Service with the National League of Cities:
· Attended American Municipal Association and
National League of Cities annual conventions for ox'er 4 decade
· Attended Congressional-City Conferences as city employee and
as mayor
· Served on NLC CED Policy Committee
Service with the Alabama League of Municipalities:
· President, 1991 to 1992
· Vice President, 1990 to 1991
· Member and Past Chairman, League Executive Committee
· Member, Alabama League Committee on State and Federal
Legislation
· Ch~firman, League Building Committee, 1991 to 199'-
· Member, League Policy Committee on Community & Economi~
Development; wrote first set of policy statements fo.- :ommittee
in 1972
Service to the City of Tuscaioosa
· Employed by City of Tuscaloosa for 30 years as:
Assistant City Engineer
Public Works Director
Director of Planning and Community Development
· Mayor, 1981 to Present
Other Service
· Past Chairman, Region IV, National Community De'. ~opmcnt
Association
· Member, Board of Directors, National Community
Development Association
· Past Chairman, Alabama Community Development Association
· Member, American Planning Association
· Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Mayor DuPont is endorsed by the
Alabama League of Municipalities and its
Board of Directors.
RUTH W. MESSINGER
BOROUGH PRESIDENT
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
MUNICIPAL BUILDING
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007
(212) 669-8300
September 8, 1994
Mr. James F. Miller
Ex Oir. League of Minnesota Cities
3490 Lexington Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55126
Dear Jim:
You should have received a leEEer r-rom Ed Farrell, Executive
Director of ~he New York Conference of [~iafors, concerning my
candidacy for NLC Second Vice Preside.qt. Having campaigmed
actlvely last year and gotten exciEed abo~t the Work to be done
on behalf or our cities and towns ~nd havin9 checked to be s~re I
can give the National League of Ci~ies '~e time amd attention it
deserves, I am pleased to present myself as a candidate to join
the leadership of NLC in 199~.
As yo~ may know, I have Oee~ a~Eive im NLC for almost
sixteen ~e~rs. I have ~eld ~any ke/ ~osi~io~s~ represented the
Leagme before Congress~ and been P~[Vileged to Work with many
Leagme members on issues ~h~ ~re cf criEical importance to all
o~r cities and towns. I ~ave nhe ~emor~snr~ned ability ~o work
with a broad cross section of peop!~
race and part~. ~ ~cross lines of geography,
I recognize that New York is no~ ~ypical o~ Americam cities,
b~t I have discovered thromgh my Xea~s of service j~st how m~ch
it has in common with all other ci~ies. ?~e shared agend~ that
is NLC~s National M~nicipal Policy speaks Yo o~r common concerns.
As am NLC officer, I wo~ld ~e a fo~cef~l advocate for that shared
agenda, PUrsuing the COncerns o~:' ever~, ci~z' large and small, in
all par~s o~ our nat:ion. Liszeninc to ar-:zi effectively expressing
those COncerns is ~he ~ask oz i,ILC ~eade~.s- presenting our needs
collabora~ively is Ztie way r.o make .ou~' iz:~acz felt in Nashington.
I know the years imm~diauely J;e~ozc~ us are crinical to the
fiscal, developmental a[~ e~v]ro~:~..e:ltai ~ea]th of our cities. I
k~ow, ~or exa~p].e, that we mus,a op~e u~tt~,~ed ~ederal mandates
and lobby instead for our sa:,: dolla:-s 5o oe able 5o be used by
-2-
our cities and their local elected officials to help address
local needs. And we have huge other needs and responsibilities'
I am convinced that the legislative and executive experience
I have had in my own city, the variety of work I have done in and
with NLC, and all of the work I have done with Washington in many
capacities will stand all of our cities in good stead. I want to
work with all the active members of the NLC community to help the
League build on its successes and attain new heights.
I hope you will share this information with your Board or
Executive Committee and notify the members of your State League
of my candidacy- since I consider s%ate Leagues to De the
backbone of much of the good work that gets done in NLC, I would
be particularly pleased to attend any events you may be hosting
in Minneapolis or to answer any questions you may have about my
candidacy-
Please let me hear from you.
y yours,
Messinger
Borough President
How would NLC benefit from having an offiCer from New-York City?
Ruth has demonstrated experience as a good listener. She has learned
in NLC just how much the cities and towns of this country have a shared
agenda and just how important it is to our success to promote that agenda
collaboratively. She continues this effort today as she represents NLC/NCSL and
NACO before Congress on welfare entitlements. She has and will ensure that the
policy, legislative, program and budget actions for which she stands will benefit
all cities and towns. ·
What special qualifications does Ruth Messinger offer NLC?
Ruth brings to NLC her early experience as a prot'~ssional social worker
and a former teacher and administrator. A long-time elected official and an
active NLC member, she has a record of leadership in rebuilding homes and
neighborhoods, in budgeting dollars with care and in effecting improvements in
service delivery and in creating partnerships to improve economic opportunity.
Ruth believes that our cities are not the nation's problems but the source
of its solutions, that it is at the League, in the bipartisan and creative atmosphere
we provide, that the next generation of answers will be forged. She offers NLC
her capacity as a sensitive and fair representative of our varied interests and
concerns, her vision of a better future for cities and her skill in developing
agreements and negotiating consensus. She is thoughtful, flexible, creative,
effective and energetic--all qualities which would strengthen our national
organization. ·
RUTH MESSINGER
Candidate 35r Second Vice President
Some Questions and Answers
Who is Ruth Plessinger?
Ruth Messinger is the Borough President of Manhattan in New York City.
She is the chief municipal elected official for 1.5 million people and has key fiscal,
economic development, land use and constituent service responsibilities. Prior to
becoming Borough President in 1990, she served 12 years on the City Council.
Ruth has been involved with NLC for more than 16 years and brought
several local officials into the organization. She has served on the Board of
Directors and the Advisory Council; she helped reshape the Council into the
NLC Futures Forum and chaired it when it produced a report on Diversity and
Governance. She served many years on the Human Development Steering
Committee, is on the Task Force on Violence, and has often represented NLC
before Congress and in meetings with other organizations.
Ruth has been active in Women in Municipal Government, serving as its
president. She played a role in connecting the different constituency groups in
NLC and strengthening their positions in the organization. She is married to a
public school administrator, has three adult children, and three grandchildren. *
Why is Ruth running for League office?
Ruth Messinger has the knowledge, skill and ability to work with
municipal leaders all over the country on behalf of the NLC agenda. Having run
for Second Vice President before, Ruth is again advancing her candidacy, because
she has received encouragement from elected officials in towns and cities of all
sizes all over the U.S. who believe NLC would benefit from her substantial
experience and from her record of close work with prominent members of
Congress and the administration. ·
What is a Borough President anyway?
The position of Borough President in New York City is established as a
municipal office in the City Charter and funded by City tax levy dollars. It is a
position which allows Ruth to continue the work she did as a Council Member--
reviewing budgets, overseeing local service delivery and making law. It also
confers executive responsibility over land use planning and local economic
development activity. ·
I, .. 1ll .
w York State Conference of Mayors and MunIcipal Ofhcials
119 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12210 (518) 463-1185
Executive Committee
President
Richard G. Lockwood
Mayor, Ogdensburg
First Vice President
Mary Alice Bellardini
Mayor, Homer
Second Vice President
Clyde Rabideau
Mayor, Plattsburgh
Treasurer
Jerry Jennings
Mayor, Albany
Immediate Past President
Shawn D. Hoqan
Mayor, HornelT
Members
Almeda C. Dake
Mayor, Saratoga Springs
~rt Elliott
Croton-on-Hudson
Anne R. Morton
Mayor, Honeoye Fails
Eugene j. Murray
Mayor, Rockville Centre
John V. Pagliaccio
Mayor, East Aurora
Peter D. Quinzi
Mayor, East Rochester
Robert D. Signoracci
Mayor, Cohoes
Ernest J. Strada
Mayor, Westbury
Terence M. Zaleski
Mayor, Yonkers
Affiliate Representative
Christopher Russo
Municipal Management
~.ssociation of NYS
3ast Presidents: Ex-Officio
Nilliam H. Kelly
~layor, Asharoken
· ouis C. Mancuso
r, Fredonia
dward C. Farrell
Toll free number for NYCOM members 1-800.446.9266
Fax # (518) 463-1190
James Miller
Executive Director
League of Minnesota Cities
3490 Lexington Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55126
Dear Jim:
August 29, 1994
I want to advise you how pleased I am that Ruth
Messinger has decided to again seek the office of
Second Vice President of NLC. Last year Ruth was the
candidate endorsed by the Nominating Committee.
Although she was not elected, she still has much to
offer NLC, and I am enthusiastically supporting her
candidacy and looking forward to her selection this
year.
Ruth is a former member of the New York City
Council and is currently the Borough President of
Manhattan. She is a member of the NLC Advisory
Council, a former President of Women in Municipal
Government, and has served as a member of the Human
Development Steering Committee and several special task
forces. Ruth's experience and commitment to NLC make
her eminently qualified to serve as an officer. I am
pleased to support her candidacy on the merits, not to
mention the fact that the last NLC President from New
York was Robert Wagner - back in 1956!
As your board of directors meets in the next few
months, I urge you to put forth Ruth's name for an
endorsement by your league and to write to the
Nominating Committee when it is appointed.
serve us well. She will
ECF:lme
S~rely,
Edward C. Farrell
Executive Director
The Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities
November 9, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
N-LC Nominating Committee
NLC Board of Directors
State Municipal League Directors
Congress of Cities Attendees
John A. Garner, Jr., Executive Director
Philadelphia for
Endorsement of Councilwoman Marian B. Tasco,
the NLC Board of Directors
On behalf of the Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities President, Council Vice
President Joe Bendel, McKeesport, and the Board of Directors, it is my pleasure to announce
the League's strong endorsement ofCouncilw°man Marian Tasco, Philadelphia, for a seat on
the NLC Board of Directors.
Councilwoman Tasco hasan oUtstanding'hist°ry of coremitment t° our League and the National
League of Cities through serVice' On various committee,sand attendance at the annual
conferences. As an avid supporter of the National League of Cities mission, she currently
serVes on the Human Development Steering Committee, the Board of Directors of Women ~n
Government and as a member of the NLC's National Black Caucus (NBC-LEO).
As the chairwoman of the Public Health, Human Services and Recreation Committee, of
Philadelphia's Council, she has utilized her leadership skills to secure passage of landmark
ordinances to address particular issues of concern to the city residents. Active in the
community, she has been recognized for her civic commitment through the presentation of
numerous awards and recognitions.
In addition to the League, her candidacy has been endorsed by the NLC Women in Government
and by Mayor Edward G. Rendell of Philadelphia.
For these reasons, we respectively request your support of Councilwoman Marian Tasco's
candidacy for the NLC Board of Directors.
Thank you.
414 North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 ° (717) 236-9469 ° Fax: (717) 236-6716
Joseph Bendel, Council Vice President, McKeesport, Presidem ° John A. Garner, .Jr., Executive Director
Founded 1900
~luriun Il- Tu~eo
November 16,
RECEIVED
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Member City Elected Officials and Administrators
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board
Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol
Hennepin County Environmental Management Division
Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks Board
MN DNR Trails & Waterways
MN DNR Division of Waters
MN DNR Ecological Services
Minnesota Sportsfishing Congress
Fishermen Advocating Intelligent Regulation
Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association
Multiple Dock Owners Association
LMCD Board of Directors
Area Weekly Newspapers
Chair Bill Johnstone
Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance
Amending the LMCD Code to Establish
Planned Usage Development Procedures and Standards
and a Definition for Public Piers
A public hearing is planned to consider the above subject:
7:00 pm, Wednesday, Deceraber 7, 1994
City of Tonka Bay City Hall
4901Manitou Rd (County Rd 19), Tonka Bay
This proposed ordinance would provide the LMCD board more
specific direction in processing apPlications for water
structures of a magnitude beyond the normal boat docking
structure or standard fishing pier.
This ordinance has been proposed as a means of reviewing a
public pier development in Wayzata Bay under consideration by
the City of Wayzata.
The LMCD board wishes to encourage a wide array of public
comment on this ordinance. The enclosed ordinance draft is
provided for your advance review and comment.
Written statements will be welcome before or at the public
hearing as well as oral comments at the public hearing.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this important
provision affecting the future of water structures on Lake
Minnetonka.
RECEIVEO I, 0V 1 7
D~FT
11/15/94
ORDINANCE NO. 94-___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH PLANNED USAGE DEVELOPMENT
PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS AND A DEFINITION FOR PUBLIC PIERS.
THE BOARD 0F DIRECTORS OF THELMCD ORDAINS that the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District code of ordinances is amended to read as
follows:
~ Section 1.02 of the LMCD Code is amended to add
the following:
Subd. 22A ,,Public Pier" means a dock structure constructed and
maintained on the Lake by a governmental agency designed
for non-motorized pedestrian travel. The primary purpose
of a public pier is to provide access to and from the
Lake for the general public.
Section 1.0705 of the LMCD Code is added to read
Section 2.
as follows:
Section 1.0705. P~lanned Usaqe Dev~loDm~ntL
Subd i Purpose. This section is established' to provide
rehen~iv~ procedures and standards designed to allow greater
f ublic piers on or within Lake
comp .... ~ development o p .... ~~ rom the strict
~lmw~Di£1tY ~n the =-. ~wino uev~=~ .... f
Minneton~a- ~' ..... -
provisions of this Code is intended to encourage:
in development of the Lake for public access
a) Inn°vati°nSible under strict conformance with this Code.
that would not be poss
b) More convenience in location and design of public piers
to be developed by municipal, county, or state agencies for public
use. c) Enhancement of public access to and from the Lake through
structures that otherwise would not be allowed by this Code.
d) The enhancement of the Lake in such a way that is
environmentally sensitive that does not adversely affect the Lake
or lakeshore-
Subd. 2. General Standards.
a) Review Considerations. In its review of an a ' '
~d~eL~s- ~ctlon% the LMOD Boar . _ _Y pPllcatlon
~ ----i-~ un cue a Dlicat~ ~ ~ d of Directors shal .... ~
~oar~. th~ .... ~ _ -~'~ ~ ~nose ~er~ ....... ~ ~uer
committee, the ......... er ....,,=~uatlons of th= ~--~ _.ore the
units =~ --- ~uu~=~en~atlons of a~ .... ~ =~px~caDle LMCD
the ~y~=ny_pro=essional staff ~ocal. governmental
._====cue o= the pro~osed ~--='--~ "= ou=ru also snell ev
welfare of residents of~h~ ,-~u3~u upon the health ~_=_~uat?
.... ~=~e an~ the surrounding a~e~%~h~
evaluate the project's conforman
purpose of this ..... ce with the overall intent and
oecu~on, as well as the review criteria for
licensing found in Section 2.03.
determines that the proposed projec~ Subd. 3.a. If the Board
will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and welfare of residents of the Lake and the
surrounding area, that it is designed for the use and enjoyment of
the Lake by the public, and that the project does ccnform with the
overall intent and PUrpose of this Section, it may approve a PUD by
ordinance, although it shall not be required to do so.
b) Ownership. An application for a PUD must be filed by the
land owner or JOw~y ~y all.land owners of the ro er · .
to the Lake for ~n. tne project is r ~ P ~Y riparian
all submissions mus~ De directed to a~pllcation and
~ ~=~=lopment o= the property
as a unified whole. In the case of multiple ownership, the
approved Final Plan shall be binding on all owners.
c) Lake Minnetonka Management Plan Consistency. The
proposed PUD shall be consistent with the Lake Minnetonka
Management Plan.
d) Where these standards conflict with the more. restrictive
requirements of state, COunty, and city ordinances the more
restrictive standard shall prevail.,
Subd. 3.
Section 1.02
Conditions:
Public Pier Standards.
of this Code, shall be
Public piers, as defined by
subject to the following
a) Public piers shall be constructed and maintained by or
for a governmental agency.
b) Public piers shall have a legitimate public PUrpose and
provide public access to and from the Lake as determined by the
Board.
c) Ail applicable licensing requirements, as outlined in
Section 2.03 of this Code, shall be satisfactorily met.
d) In exercising its discretion in granting or denying
licenses, the Board shall consider, among other things, the review
criteria outlined in Section 2.03, Subd. 3.a. of this Code.
2
t exceed the provisions of Section
^~ D~hlic pier widths th? ...... 4~ed to accommodate
~ .~ =%~hJ.--l~ ~f this Cod? ~nal}._~e_~%~-observation decks,
congregate areas =u~ ~ .... ~-
shelters, fishing pmers and walkway areas, but under no
circumstance shall any part of a public pier exceed sixteen (16)
feet in width.
f) No portion of the public pier deck structure shall be
below the minimum elevation of 931.5 feet (floodplain elevation).
g) De-icing for public piers, if required for maintenance
purposes, shall be in accordance with Section 2.09 of this code.
A de-icing plan would be required for approval.
h) Ail lighting associated with public piers shall comply
with the provisions of this Code.
i) No portion of any public pier shall extend more than one
hundred (100) feet into the Lake.
j) Special event use of a public pier shall be subject to
approval by the applicable local governmental units.
k) Transient use of a public pier by watercraft shall be
limited to those locations specified as part of the PUD ordinance.
1) At least one boat storage unit shall be reserved on a
public pier for emergency and maintenance purposes.
m) Overnight boat storage is not allowed at any location on
a public pier.
n) Shelters may be erected upon the public pier upon
approval by the applicable governmental unit~, such facilities
shall serve the purpose of providing public pmer users cover from
the elements and shall comply with applicable local governmental
ordinances. Shelter design shall comply as follows:
1) A shelter shall be no more than one (1) story and
not be enclosed on any side.
2) The height of the shelter from the deck of the
public pier to the top of the cornice of a flat or
mansard roof shall not exceed twelve (12) feet and
to the highest gable on a pitched or hipped roof
shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet.
No more than five (5) percent of the total surface
area of the public pier shall be covered by shelter
structures.
3
o) Ail signage erected on a public pier shall be for
identification purposes including non-commercial directory,
information or other signa~e necessary to protect the health,
safety and welfare of those utilizing the facility. The signage
plan for a public pier shall be subject to approval by the
applicable local governmental units.
P) All public piers shall comply with provisions of the
American Disability Act.
q) Public piers proposed within or adjacent to wetland areas
shall comply with all provisions of the Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 and shall be subject to
~overnmental units, approval by the applicable local
r) Public piers shall be designed so as not to limit
authorized construction or legitimate use on or within the lake for
adjacent riparian property owners. Public pier setbacks shall
conform to the requirements specified in Section 2.01, Subd. 2.b.
of this Code. In no case shall a public pier setback be less than
thirty (30) feet from multiple dock use areas or sixty (60) feet
from non-multiple dock use areas.
Subd. 4. Concept Plan.
a) Application Procedure.
l) As the first step in the application procedure for
a PUD Permit, an applicant shall complete and
submit to the LMCD an application for concept
approval, together with a fee in the amount
established by resolution of the Board plus an
additional deposit in an amount established by
resolution of the Board to cover legal, surveying,
engineering, inspection, maintenance or other
expenses incurred by the District. The Board shall
approve all expenses charged against the deposit
and the unused portion thereof shall be returned to
the applicant. The application shall state that
the applicant agrees to reimburse the District for
any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection,
maintenance or other expenses incurred by the
District in excess of the amount of the deposit.
Fees shall not be refunded at any time after the
processing of the application has been commenced.
The applicant shall submit with this application
such information as is required by the Board and
such other information as deemed necessary to
explain the general intent of the application.
Should concept approval be granted for a PUD
project, this approval in no way shall bind the
4
Board to subsequent approval of a General Plan of
Development-
2) Once an application for concept approval is
complete, the Executive Director of the LMCD shall
refer it to the appropriate LMCD committee for a
public hearing. Notice of said hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper at least ten
(10) days prior to the hearing. All property
owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet
(public right-of-waY shall not be included in such
measurement) of the subject property shall be
notified of this hearing, as listed in the records
of the applicable County or City Assessor, although
the failure of any property owner to receive such
notification shall not invalidate the proceedings-
Notification shall be by mail to all such proper~y
owners, shall be given at least ten (10) days ~n
advance of the hearing, and may include a larger
geographic area if deemed advisable by the
Executive Director-
f development submitted for a PUD
b) The Concept Plan o ..... ~ but not limited to the
which information shall be submitted tOLMcD
project shall include as app£1ca~=, . the
following information,
LMCD office before the first day of the preceding month of
Committee hearing.
1) General information.
a) The landowner's name and address and their
interest in the subject property.
b) The applicant's name and address if different
from the landowner-
c) Evidence that applicant has sufficient control
over the subject property to effectuate the
proposed PUD including a statement of all
legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual
interests held in or affecting the subject
an up-to-date
property and including
certificate of title, abstract of title, or
registered property report, and such other
evidence as the LMCD Attorney may require to
show the status of title or control of the
subject property.
2) Present Status.
a) Address and legal description of subject
property.
3)
4)
b)
Existing zoning classification and present use
of subject property and all lands within three
hundred fifty (350) feet of subject property·
c) A map depicting existing development of
subject property and all land and orientation
to the Lake within three hundred fifty (350)
feet thereof and locations of xlstlng
e ' '
streets, property lines, easements, and any
existing, permanent or seasonal structures
within the Lake within three hundred fifty
(350) feet of the subject property.
A written statement generally describing the
proposed PUD and the use which
serve The stat - it is intended to
· emen= is also to demonstrate the
proposed PUD's relationship to the Lake Minnetonka
Management Program and how the proposed PUD is to
be designed, arranged and operated in order to
permit the development and use of the Lake in
accordance with the applicable regulations of the
LMCD·
Site Conditions. Graphic reproductions of the
existing conditiors of the site at a scale of not
less than one (1) inch equals thirty (30) feet.
a) ~ntgurs - minimum two (2) foot intervals of
une lakeshore including the elevation of 929.4
feet (ordinary high water).
Location, type and extent of shoreline tree
cover and aquatic vegetation.
Water depths for areas impacted by the
proposed structure.
Slope analysis.
Location and extent of the Lake, other water
bodies, wetlands and streams and floodplains
within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the
subject property.
Existing drainage patterns·
Vistas and significant views·
Soil conditions as they affect development.
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
h)
Ail of the graphics should be the same scale as the final
plan to allow each cross reference. The use of overlays
is recommended for clear reference.
5) Schematic drawings of the proposed development
concept.
' be constructed in stages during
When the PUD ~s t.o ..... ~n beyond a singl~
6) a period of time _u~~ for'the developmenu
construction season, a ~u~=~
of such stages or units shall be submitted stating
the approximate beginning and completion date for
each such stage or unit and the proportion of the
total pUD public space and structures/units to be
provided or constructed during each such stage and
the overall chronology of development to be
followed from stage to stage.
7) A statement or plan describing the provision that
is to be made for the care and maintenance of the
facility.
8) General intents of any restrictive covenants that
are to be recorded with respect to property
included in the proposed PUD-
9) schematic utilities plans indicating any adjacent
water lines, sanitary and storm sewers.
10) The Executive Director may excuse an applicant from
submitting any specific item of information or
document required in this stage, which it finds to
be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific
proposal for PUD approval.
11) The ExecutiVe Director maY require the submission
of any additional information or documentation
which it maY find necessary or appropriate to full
consideration of the proposed PUD or any aspect or
stage thereof.
12) Action by the Applicable LMCD Committee-
The LMCD Committee ~hall hold the public
a) hearing on an application for concept approval
at its first regular meeting following
appropriate legal notice as outlined above.
The petitioner and/or their representative
shall appear before the LMCD committee at this
hearing to answer questions regarding the
proposed project.
7
13)
b)
Within ninety (90) days following the public
hearing on any such application, the LMCD
Committee shall forward a report on the
application to the Board, and it shall
recommend
apprcval of the application as
submitted, approval of the application subject
to certain modifications or conditions
therein, or disapproval of the application.
If no action on an application is t
LMCD Committee withi- -~ - . aken by the
~ n~nety (90) days, and
there has been no delay caused or requested by
the applicant, the application shall be
forwarded to the Board without comment.
c) Within the permitted period of time while an
application is under consideration by the LMCD
Committee an applicant shall be allowed to
make such amendments to the proposal as are
requested by the LMCD staff or the LMCD
Committee or as the applicant may desire to
effect. An applicant may request a delay in
the proceedings before the LMCD Committee in
order to modify or amend the proposal, but in
no event shall any such delay continue the
proceedings for a period greater than one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the
initial public hearing thereon.
Action by the Board.
a) Once an application under this Article has
been forwarded to the Board, the applicant
shall present the proposal before the Board in
an open meeting, and questions or comments on
the application shall be allowed from any
person required to be notified of the
application or claiming to have an interest
therein. If in the Board's opinion a proposal
has been substantially amended in proceedings
before the LMCD Committee the Board may hold a
new public hearing on the application.
Within ninety (90) days of its initial meeting
on an application, the Board shall approve the
application as originally submitted or as
amended, shall approve the application with
certain modifications or conditions therein,
shall deny the application, shall request
amendment of the application, shall refer the
application back to the applicable LMCD
Committee for further review. At this time,
the Board also shall indicate the controlling
8
b)
standards to be used in further evaluation and
planning of the project, in accordance with
this Section. If an application is referred
back to the LMCD Committee, final Board action
thereon shall be taken within ninety (90) days
of the date of referral. The affirmative vote
of a majority of the full Board shall be
required for approval of a Concept Plan.
Subd. 5. General Plan of Development-
. e t a Droval of a PUD project h~s
If a request fer c~nc ~__~P ~ the next step !n
a) been approved byqt~ %%~%~ant shall submit to
LMCD a ~enera~ = ...... ether wit~ a ~=
project as of Board plus .an
of the Board to cover legal, surveying, engineering,
inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the
District- The Board shall approve all expenses charged
against the deposit and the unused portion thereof shall
be returned to the applicant. The application shall
state that the applicant agrees to reimburse the District
for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection,
maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in
excess of the amount of the deposit. Fees shall not be
refunded at any time after the processing of the
application has been commenced.
b) A General Plan of Development for the proposed project
shall be submitted within six (6) months of approval of
the concept plan unless a time extension is approved by
the Board.
c) The General Plan of Development stage submissions should
e roDosed implementations of the
depict and outline %h ~=i ~,~ information from the
Concept Plan stage ~or un= =~
Concept Plan stage may be included for backgroun~ an~
provide a basis for the submitted plan. The General Plan
of Development stage submissions shall include but not be
limited to:
1) Development plans, drawn to scale of not less than
one (1) inch equals thirty (30) feet containing at
least the following information:
a) Proposed name of the development-
b) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the
property and any significant topographical or
physical features of the property including
9
2)
3)
4)
6)
7)
c)
d)
e)
g)
the ordinary high water elevation of 929.4
feet.
f)
The location, size, use arrangement and height
of structures on a public pier shall be shown
at a scale of one-eighth (1/8) inch equals one
(1) foot or greater.
Location, dimensions of all circulation
elements including bike and pedestrian.
The location, use and size of structures and
other land uses on adjacent properties.
A detailed plan illuminating size, location
and structural specifications for exterior
signing and lighting on the dock structure and
on land.
Any other information that may have been
required by the LMCD staff, applicable LMCD
Committee or Board in conjunction with the
approval of the General Concept Plan.
A plan for law enforcement including responsibility
of each entity involved.
Solid trash disposal procedures and provisions.
. Environmental Assessment
~run~tal Impact Statement an~'~~~ .or
=- ~ ~y =x~e wazersneG District,
Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation
Service, or any other agenc,, with review authority
clearly illustrating environmental or erosion
control measures to be used during construction and
as permanent measures.
A draft PUD Ordinance listing all conditions and
plans for review and approval by the Board.
A statement summarizing all changes, which have
been made in any document, plan data' or information
previously submitted, together with revised copies
of such document, plan or data.
Such other and further information as the LMCD
staff, LMCD Committee, or Board shall find
necessary to a full consideration of the entire
proposed pUD or any stage thereof.
10
d)
8) The Executive Director may excuse an applicant from
submitting any specific item of information or
document required in this Section which it finds to
be unnecessarY to the consideration of the specific
proposal for PUD approval.
Once an application for a General Plan of Development is
complete, the Executive Director shall refer it to the
LMCD committee for a public hearing.
1) Action by the Applicable LMCD Committee.
a) The LMCD Committee shall hold the public
hearing on an application for General Plan of
Development a~proval at its first regular
meeting following appropriate legal notice, as
outlined above. The petitioner and/or their
representative shall appear before the LMCD
committee at this hearing to answer questions
regarding the proposed project.
b) within ninety (90) days following the public
hearing on any such application, the LMCD
committee shall forward a report on the
application to the Board, and it shall
recommend approval of the application as
submitted, approval of the application subject
to certain modifications or conditions
therein, or disapproval of the application-
If no action on an application is taken by the
LMCD Committee within ninety (90) days, and
there has been no delay caused or requested by
the applicant, the application shall be
forwarded to the Board without comment.
· the permitted period of time while an
c) within -. ...... nsideration by the LMCD
application is unu=z ~
Committee an applicant shall be allowed to
make such amendments to the proposal as are
requested by the LMCD staff or the LMCD
.Committee or as the applicant maY desire to
effect. An applicant may request a delay in
the proceedings before the bMCD Committee in
order to modify or amend the prop°sal' but in
no event shall any such delay continue the
proceedings for a period greater than one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the
initial public hearing thereon-
11
Action by the Board.
a)
b)
c)
Once an application under this Article has
been forwarded to the Board, the applicant
shall present the proposal before the Board in
an open meeting, and questions or comments on
the application shall be allowed from any
person required to be notified of the
application or claiming to have an interest
therein. If in the Board,s opinion a proposal
has been substantially amended in proceedings
before the LMCD Committee, the Board may hold
a new public hearing on the application.
Within ninety (90) days of its initial
on an application, the Board meeting
shall approve the
application as originally submitted or as
amended, shall approve the application with
certain modifications or conditions therein,
shall deny the application, shall request
amendment of the application, shall refer the
apPlication back to the applicable LMCD
Committee for further review. At this time,
the Board also shall indicate the controlling
standards to be used in further evaluation and
planning of the project, in accordance with
this Section. If an application is referred
back to the LMCD Committee, final Board action
thereon shall be taken within ninety (90) days
of the date of referral. The affirmative vote
of a majority of the full Board shall be
required for approval of a General Plan of
Development and shall have the full force and
effect of PUD Ordinance approval.
The affirmative vote of a majority of the
entire Board shall be required for approval of
a multiple dock license as regulated by
Section 2.03 to be approved concurrently with
a PUD Ordinance. All provisions of Section
2.03 or as may be allowed in the pUD Ordinance
shall be followed in granting a license for a
PUD project.
Subd. 6. Final Plan Stage. After approval of a Concept Plan
for the PUD and approval of a General Plan of Development Plan for
all or a section of the proposed puD, the applicant will submit the
following material for review by the LMCD staff prior to issuance
of licenses.
12
a) Establishment and activation of any entity that is to be
responsible for the management, maintenance, and law
enforcement for any public or service facility.
or federal
b) Written approval by any local, state are required
authorities and privately held entities that
for construction of a the proposed project.
c) All certificates, seals and signatures required for the
recording of documents.
· al construction drawings of all structures and
d) ~nrovements certified by a State of Minnesota registered
~mp
professional in an applicable discipline-
ents or specifications necessarY
ther plan, agreem . _ ~ ~w~osed construction-
e) Any ~e LMCD staff to ~e~Wn~%i~V~he Minnesota State
for
All work must be in conzorm~
uniform Building Code.
subd. 7. Amendment of a PUD ordinance. . _. Lion · An deviation or moair~cau
from the terms or con~l~lons '~n~l o~inance An app£1cau~u~ ~
· an amendment o~ t~e ~R~t~'~ance s~e~ifying the proposed
requ~_~ ~ he origina~ =u~ ~" , =tO the LMCD, t~h~r
amenumu~ ~_t ' shall be ~ubmltted __ ' ormatlon ~s
'ance or alteration_ . b Board and such lnf
var~ _ --~ ~ it ~stabllshe~ Y ~-~-~ ~ ms neces~
wit~ a zee ~ ~os t~e app~u~ ~ee
is required by the LMCD or as The applicant also shall pay, as an
fully explain the application.
additional fee, any consulting expenses which are incurred by the
LMCD in review of the application-
b) Action by the LMCD Committee and Board. The same review
procedure by the LMCD Committee and Board shall be followed for an
· followed with respect to the
amendment of_a P_U?,O~tn%%tt~n~s in Subd. 4. The affirmative
a licant'S Co~cep~ ==_ ~,,~ ~nard shall be required for approval
~e of a majority oi un= =
of an amendment of a PUD Ordinance.
Subd. 8. General Requirements-
.' Director shall maintain a ~ecord
_, o=en ds The Execut~v~ .... ~ ~ din~ information on
permitted uses,. g-J e Board, and such
a p~u3.=~- :~k~sed on a pro]ecu .m~ ~t-_ ~ annropriate-
condltlons ~F~=_ ~==~tive Director may == ....
information as un= ~
b) withdrawal of an Application- Any application under this
Section may be withdrawn by an applicant without prejudice at any
time prior to final Board action thereon.
13
of an~)app~lp~%~ PUD Ordinance. Physical implement
· P 3 t must b ' . . ation
following Board a~roval A~ .... ~g~n ~lthln twelve (12
u~less in ~ranti~=,,~ ~ ~n~. ~UD urdinance for
~l~ferent ~eriod ~ %~ ~_°rGl~ance.the Board sh~==s~3)~t~
initiate project im~--2~t~f Pr°3e~t implementation
~=~,=n~aulon within the ~_~_
a~m~w~=u= time perioG
automatically shall cancel the pUD Ordinance for a project unless
an extension of said Ordinance is approved by the Board prior to
the date of cancellation. An existing pUD Ordinance shall be
cancelled if any action by the Board shall occur which supersedes
the ordinance.
~ d) .Qualifications of an Applicant. Any application
~tlo~ shall be made only b,- th ..... ' under
u¥=reu in the aoolica '~ ~, ~ .... ~ =. 3w~.er ~o= the pro~ert~
== tl~.~ ~ ~ = uu~y autnorlze~ representa
provided, that an option-holder or a contract-holder also
however, ire
may submit such an application if it is accomplished by a fully
executed agreement or document from the property owner stating no
objections to the proposed project and that they are in fact
joining in said application.
e) % Su ns? of Building Permits. ollowi
Board of a =tm ur~nance ~ =~ ...... ng approval by the
an_ ~mm~u=m±e ±~censes and any applicable
approvals of the local units of government, the Building Official
of the applicable local governmental unit shall issue a building
permit for the proposed structures within a pUD project in
compliance with this Ordinance and the provisions of the Uniform
Building Code as they apply to a request.
f) Maintenance. Maintenance of the facility shall be
consistent with the approved maintenance plan
Ordinance. specified in the pUD
g) Compliance with Overall Plan. Following Final Plan
approval of a PUD, or a stage thereof and construction of the
project, the PUD project shall be subject to the yearly licensing
procedures for multiple docks specified in Section 2.03 of the
Code.
If the Executive Director finds that development is not proceeding
in accordance with the approved schedule, or after its completion
if it fails in any other respect to comply with the pUD Ordinance
or license as finally approved, the Board and the affected local
unit of government shall be notified immediately. Within thirty
(30) days of such notice, the Board shall either by ordinance or
resolution as may be applicable, revoke the PUD and license and the
project shall thereafter be governed by the LMCD Code regulations,
or shall take such s' ~ps as it shall deem necessary to compel
compliance with the PUD Ordinance and license as approved; or shall
require the applicant to seek amendment of the pud Ordinance or
license.
14
provisions of the LMCD
h) ComQliance with LMCD Code. Ail regulated
code shall ap~ly to the PUD project except to the extent
in the specific PUD Ordinance approval for the project.
· is anticipated that in the future,
il No Vested Right. _ I~ ~ T.MmD tO attempt to make an
:~ ~=J become necessary ~or ~=--~'~~~e dock, mooring area,
~l~%ion or app~rti%,n~_~n~~%~ facility privi~g~.~
5 .... wcial dock, lakewal~, =~-~- =-~= in order to avolu
~' .....~ '- the Lake, on an eqU. %~le m=~'~' d ~n order to balance
and w~th~n .... ,~ ~r Dort~ons thereof ~n ~- ~ to ~ve
the many ~onfllC_.~9~=~ the license does not ?re% e YMoD may
notice to l~c ato actions Y .
- '~t future regul ry .... :~*-, for which the
riohts aha u~ .... ~~inuin~ t~e zaum~;
its face un== ~"T.ii .... ~ ~eculations a~opueu m~
future density pollcz=~ =,~ - =
~ This enactment is in effect from and after its
passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the
district. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of
the Board and has the effect of an ordinance.
day of
ADOPTED by the LMCD Board of Directors this _ -- 1994.
ATTEST:
Secretary
15
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 14, 1994
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, and Mark Hanus, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James.
Absent and excused were: Council Representative Liz Jensen, Commissioners Frank Weiland,
Lisa Crum, and Ed Surko.
The following people were also in attendance: Denis Bailey, Doug Kraay, Brad Blazevic,
Wanda Martens, Dave Willette, and Daryl Frederickson.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 1994 were presented for approval. Hanus
noted that Weiland made the motion to approve the minutes, and he was the second.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of October 24, 1994 as amended. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE #94-72: .BR__A_DLEY T. BLAZEVIC, 1871 SHOREWOOD LANE LOT 2 BLOCK 12
SHADYWOOD POINT PID #18-117-23 23 0061. VARIANCE FOR ENTRY DECK.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking variances
to recognize several nonconforming conditions in order to construct a covered deck/entry
addition on the front street side of the dwelling. This proposal is smaller in size than what
was previously approved by Resolution #92-75.
After the 1992 resolution was approved, the applicant obtained a building permit to complete
the work. A building permit refund was subsequently requested and issued on October 28,
1992 as the applicant stated he had unforeseen circumstances and was unable to proceed.
On September 8, 1994, the city received a complaint that work was in progress at the above
address without the required permits. A site inspection was made and a stop work order was
issued. Upon review of Resolution #92-75, it was noted a permit for this work could not be
issued without prior City Council approval. The shed on the lake side has been moved,
however, it is still nonconforming to lake setback and floodplain elevation. The applicant is
seeking variances to the existing conditions as listed below:
~ ~ Variance
Side NW, House 3.5' 6' 2.5'
Front, Der. Garage 1.5' 20' 18.5'
Side, Shed 4' +/- 4'
none
Lake, Shed 25' +/- 50' 25' +/- verify
Floodplain, Shed verify Min. 933 ?
Elevation
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 1994
Since the approval of Resolution #92-75, the Shoreland Management Ordinance has been
adopted that requires a 50' setback to the ordinary high water and screening of some kind
from the lake.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize
the existing nonconforming house and garage in order to allow construction of a conforming
entry addition as shown on the attached survey, Exhibit A, with the following conditions:
1. The 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage and the 3.5 foot side yard setback to
the house are recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway improvement.
This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing
nonconforming detached garage. Such improvements shall require additional variance
approval in the future.
2. The existing storage shed shall be removed or relocated to a conforming 50 foot
setback to the ordinary high water prior to issuance of a building permit for the
proposed entryway improvement.
3. The shed shall be screened according to the Shoreland Management Ordinance, Section
350:1225,Subd. 3. B. 2. d., as approved by staff.
Applicant, Brad Blazevic, explained to the Commission that he did not build the shed, it was
there when he bought the house. He has corrected the side yard encroachment, and the shed
now has a 5 foot +/- setback from the side lot line. The shed has a concrete floor. There is
nowhere else on his property that the shed could be relocated and have a conforming
elevation. Relating to the lake setback, he noted there in an indentation of the shoreline that
is unusual, and the neighbor on the other side was granted a setback variance to this shoreline
for a porch and deck addition. The Commission confirmed that the other neighbors deck is
setback 21.6 feet from the water elevation.
The Building Official reminded the Commission that a variance to elevation was granted for
a shed on Highland Blvd., however this was done prior to the adoption of the Shoreland
Management Ordinance.
Mr. Blazevic stressed that his house is small and the additional storage space is needed for
his lawn mower, snow blower, etc. He stated that it is a nice shed that matches the house,
it is not unsightly.
Elevation requirements were discussed. Hanus noted that lock boxes are not required to meet
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation of 933. Hanus is in favor of requiring screening.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, I994
The Commission discussed the setback to the "main body of water". It was noted that the
neighbors porch is setback approximately 70 feet to the main body of water, and the subject
shed is setback approximately 43 feet.
Voss questioned the hardship for the shed.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of
the requested variance, as recommended by staff, with the exception that
condition #2 be deleted. Findings of Fact include:
Practical difficulty exists because the shed has a poured slab.
The applicant has made an effort to meet the criteria outlined in
Resolution #92-75 in that he has moved the shed to meet the
side yard setback.
The setback variance to the "main body of water" is minimal at
approximately 7 feet.
There is no reasonable place on the lot that the shed could be
relocated and not be in the floodplain.
The site is unique due to the inlet of water on the adjacent city
property.
It is also recommended that the following conditions be included:
5. 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.
6. 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.
The Building Official commented that he would not require an updated survey, that there is
enough information available to determine the elevation of the shed and the lake setback to
the shed.
MOTION carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Mueller, Clapsaddle, Michael,
and Hanus. ross opposed.
3
November 14, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes
Voss commented that he does not see that there is a minimum hardship for the shed.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on November 22, 1994.
CASE #94-73: HENNEPIN COUNTY 'DENI~ BAILEY~ AND DOUG KRAAY 4977
WlLSHIRE BLVD. VACANT LOT LOT S BLOCK 18 WYCHWOOD PID #24-117-24 14
0068. VARIANCE TO FENCE HEIGHT.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's Report. Hennepin County is
seeking an after the fact variance for the height of a fence that was installed in August
adiacent to the Emerald Lake channel. City Code limits fences within 50 feet of the lake to
3 feet in height. The fence installed by Hennepin County is a six foot high chain link fence.
Because of topography and vegetation in the area, the fence is not readily visible from Wilshire
Blvd.
The fence is installed across both the County right-of-way and on private property, it is located
perpendicular to the retaining wall, is approximately 15 feet long, and has a locked gate. The
sole purpose of the fence is to prohibit pedestrian access to the County right-of-way and
, · hr-of-way includes a strip of land
· err . Hennepin County s rig County's
ad'acent privately own.e.d prop Y ..... ,,A,=v nnd bridoe. The land between the
a~Jproximately 8 feet wlae, parallel to
property and the lake is privately owned.
The public and private land, now blocked by the fence, has been a frequently used fishing site.
Hennepin County generally has a policy that allows fishing from public right-of-ways. This
area has been a source of problems for a number of years, principally pertaining to litter and
trespassing on private property.
Hennepin County is seeking a three foot variance for the installed 6 foot high chain link fence.
From their experience, a six foot high fence is necessary to reasonably control access to the
property.
The County's installation of the fence perpendicular to the wall is the least visually obtrusive
of the two fencing options considered. Short of anyone identifying a workable solution to the
litter and trespassing problems, approval of the fence height variance allowing the six foot high
fence seems to be the only viable alternative.
Clapsaddle clarified that the only issue at hand is the height of the fence. The Commission
reviewed previous fence height variance requests, and recalled that no other variances have
been granted for fences within 50 feet of the lake other than one which was for a dog kennel
which was only 45 feet from the lake and there were other special circumstances.
Doug Kraay, owner of the lakeshore abutting the County property, explained to the
Commission the problems they had with litter and trespassing. In his opinion, the reason for
the fence height restriction is sight, and this fence cannot be seen from the road.
4
I il,,
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 1994
The Building Official clarified that the view from the lake is also a consideration.
Daryl Frederickson, resident of Mound, explained to the Commission that he has been fishing
in this area for years. He questioned why the abutting owner, Doug Kraay, is the only person
that has access to the property. He also complained that the taxpayers are paying for a fence
located on private property.
Denis Bailey replied that the fence actually saves taxpayer's money because they do not have
to pay to pick-up the litter every week, and the present location of the fence is a better option
than installing 200 feet or more of fencing. He stressed that this was the most cost effective
solution to attempt to correct the problems. Bailey confirmed that this is a unique case where
a private property owner has exclusive access to County property. It was noted that the
fishermen's issue is with the County. Voss suggested that citizens express their objections
to the County Board.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend denial of the
fence height variance request.
Hanus suggested tabling the request. The Commission reiterated that the issue they are
reviewing is the height of the fence, not who should, or should not, be allowed to access the
property. Clapsaddle commented that there is no justifiable hardship to allow a 6 foot fence,
and the issues at hand are beyond their authority.
MOTION to deny carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller,
Voss, and Hanus. Michael was opposed.
CASE #94-74: ~W_A_ND_A MARTENS 4961 BEDFORD ROAD LOT 5 & ELY 10' OF 6
HWOOD_ PID #24-117-2441 014z~ VARIANCE TO LOT AREA FOR NEW
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's Report. The applicant is
requesting a lot size variance of 1,840 square feet, to the required 6,000 square feet. The
existing undersized dwelling is proposed to be removed and replaced with a new structure.
Because of grades in the area, the existing home has a massive retaining wall along the
existing curb line that incorporates an off-street parking stall.
This lot is classified as a lot of record, therefore, it is subject to corresponding setbacks and
hardcover limitations. With the exception of lot area, all aspects of the proposal are
conforming. The total amount of hardcover (31%) is slightly above the limitation for non-lots
of record and easily within the 40% used for lots of record.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot area variance of
1,840 square feet to allow construction of the proposed home in accordance with the
following conditions:
5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, I994
1. Due to the steep topography of the existing lot, prior to construction, the owner and
builder shall install erosion control measures adequate to retain all silt from storm water
runoff on the subject lot.
2. As applicable, the owner shall comply with the provisions found in Section 330:1225,
Subd. 6.B. of the Mound City Code.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on November 22, 1994.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting at
9:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:~
6