Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1996-06-25
IC~¥ OE::MOUND:~MISSION STATElX, I~ENT: The City of Mound; through teamwork'and:e06p'~i/~ti6fii:.i~6~id~:)i~:ii:~ ~0o~i~ '~ii qua!ity services that respond to the needs of ali citiZehs'; fostering a safe, attra~ti~e':~hdl fl~U:~ilig[ AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PAGE 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1996 REGULAR MEETING ................................... 2089-2095 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 18, 1996 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ...................... 2096-2098 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: -STREET VACATION - CHURCHILL LANE, MICHAEL AND CARRIE MCDONALD, 3018 CHURCHILL LANE, PID#24-117-24 44 0146, PZ#96-18 .......... 2099-2130 CASE #96-27: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION, CLYDE AND DENISE BONNEMA, 5513 BARTLETT BLVD., PID 24-117-24 23 0018 ................................... 2131-2149 CASE #96-28: VARIANCE FOR HOUSE/GARAGE ADDITION, CLAYTON DUGGAN III "JAY", 5117 TUXEDO BLVD., LOTS 13/14, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 24-117-24 43 0047 ................ 2150-2164 CASE #96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION, RANDALL MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 6, 5, & NELY 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, PID 19-117-23 24 0008 ................................... 2165-2167 CASE//96-32: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE/SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, RAYMOND BAYLOR, 4790 NORTHERN ROAD, 1/2 OF LOT 27 & W OF 28, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID 18-117-23 33 0027 .............. 2168-2186 0 CASE//96-33: MINOR SUBDIVISION, BOYER BUILDING CORP., 2978 AND 2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, PELICAN POINT, PID 19-117-23 42 0038 & 0039 .................. 2187-2197 2085 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AT 2620 COMMERCE BLVD. SUGGESTED DATE: JULY 9, 1996 ............... 2198 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ............... APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT - STEPHANIE COON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE .................. 2199-2212 PROPOSAL FOR NEW DOCK LOCATIONS - LONGFORD ROAD, BRENSHELL HOMES/FINE LINE DESIGN ................. 2213-2230 APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR WATER PUMP AND WATER LINE BY DONALD AND GERALDINE SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5/6, BLOCK 14, DEVON. DOCK SITE//43520 DEVON COMMON, TYPE C ............................... 2231-2240 APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. PW 26-06-96. CSAH 110 AT THREE POINTS BLVD., HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9514, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT ............ 2241-2251 PETITION FOR TWO STOP SIGNS TO BE PLACED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAMBERTON ROAD AND ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. (To be handed out Tuesday evening) RESCHEDULING THE SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DUE TO THE PRIMARY ELECTION BEING HELD THAT DAY. SUGGESTED DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 11, 1996 .................. 2252 PAYMENT OF BILLS ................................... 2253-2264 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: io MAY 1996 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR .................. 2265-2266 Bo MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION .................................... 2267-2278 Co MINUTES OF THE JUNE 13, 1996 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION .......................... 2279-2287 2086 Do WE STILL NEED TWO MEMBERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO ATTEND THE SPECIAL MEETING ON THE POLICE SERVICES STUDY SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1996, 7 PM, AT SHOREWOOD CITY HALL. PLEASE ADVISE ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHO IS GOING TO ATTEND. SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1996 IS NOW glUING LOOKI~D AT FOR A RESCHEDULED MOUND CITY DAYS. IT IS BEING CALLED MOUND CITY "DejaVue". SOME OF THE SAME ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE ON THE SUNDAY OF THE USUAL CITY DAYS WEEKEND WOULD OCCUR AND THE FIREWORKS WOULD BE SET OFF THAT EVENING. THIS WILL BE FINALIZED SOON AND THE NECESSARY PERMITS WILL BE SECURED. DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS APPROACH? 2087 The City of MoUnd~ :throug tOthe needs of a!! ~it~ze~; fostering a ~fe~ ~e:~:.:~~ AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1996 REGULAR MEETING ................................... 2089-2095 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 18, 1996 COMMIT'FEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ...................... 2096-2098 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: STREET VACATION - CHURCHILL LANE, MICHAEL AND CARRIE MCDONALD, 3018 CHURCHILL LANE, PID#24-117-24 44 0146, PZ#96-18 .......... 2099-2130 CASE//96-27: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION, CLYDE AND DENISE BONNEMA, 5513 BARTLETT BLVD., PID 24-117-24 23 0018 ................................... 2131-2149 CASE//96-28: VARIANCE FOR HOUSE/GARAGE ADDITION, CLAYTON DUGGAN III "JAY", 5117 TUXEDO BLVD., LOTS 13/14, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 24-117-24 43 0047 ................ 2150-2164 7.~ ~.~CASE #96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION, RANDALL MORIARTY, 0_,b~ 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 6, 5, & NELY 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, ~ PID 19-117-23 24 0008 ................................... 2165-2167 CASE//96-32: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE/SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, RAYMOND BAYLOR, 4790 NORTHERN ROAD, 1/2 OF LOT 27 & W OF 28, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID 18-117-23 33 0027 .............. 2168-2186 CASE//96-33: MINOR SUBDIVISION, BOYER BUILDING CORP., 2978 AND 2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, PELICAN POINT, PID 19-117-23 42 0038 & 0039 .................. 2187-2197 2085 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AT 2620 COMMERCE BLVD. SUGGESTED DATE: JULY 9, 1996 ............... 2198 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ............... APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT - STEPHANIE COON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE .................. 2199-2212 PROPOSAL FOR NEW DOCK LOCATIONS - LONGFORD ROAD, BRENSHELL HOMES/FINE LINE DESIGN ................. 2213-2230 APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR WATER PUMP AND WATER LINE BY DONALD AND GERALDINE SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5/6, BLOCK 14, DEVON. DOCK SITE #43520 DEVON COMMON, TYPE C ............................... 2231-2240 APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. PW 26-06-96. CSAH 110 AT THREE POINTS BLVD., HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9514, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT ............ 2241-2251 PETITION FOR TWO STOP SIGNS TO BE PLACED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAMBERTON ROAD AND ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. (To be handed out Tuesday evening) RESCHEDULING THE SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DUE TO THE PRIMARY ELECTION BEING HELD THAT DAY. SUGGESTED DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 11, 1996 .................. 2252 PAYMENT OF BILLS ................................... 2253-2264 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: mo MAY 1996 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR .................. 2265-2266 Bo MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION .................................... 2267-2278 Co MINUTES OF THE JUNE 13, 1996 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION .......................... 2279-2287 2086 De WE STILL NEED TWO MEMBERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO ATTEND THE SPECIAL MEETING ON THE POLICE SERVICES STUDY SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1996, 7 PM, AT SHOREWOOD CITY HALL. PLEASE ADVISE ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHO IS GOING TO ATTEND. SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1996 IS NOW BEING LOOKED AT FOR A RESCHEDULED MOUND CITY DAYS. IT IS BEING CALLED MOUND CITY "DejaVue". SOME OF THE SAME ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE ON THE SUNDAY OF THE USUAL CITY DAYS WEEKEND WOULD OCCUR AND THE FIREWORKS WOULD BE SET OFF THAT EVENING. THIS WILL BE FINALIZED SOON AND THE NECESSARY PERMITS WILL BE SECURED. DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS APPROACH? 2087 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 11, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 11, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus and Phyllis Jessen. Absent and excused: Andrea Ahrens and Liz Jensen. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Brian Schultz, Steve Bell, Bruce Polaczyk, Robert Howell, Bozena Kuklinska, Dharam Bobra, Steve Behnke, Tom Stokes, Brian Johnson, Ron Moore, Mary Wiebusch. The Mayor opened the meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1996 REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Mark Hanus stated there were still some errors in Resolution /~96-54, regarding the variance for 2600 Grove Lane. He inquired if the applicant had received the resolution and was told yes. He would like to have the resolution reviewed by staff and clarified according to his notes. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jessen, and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the May 28, 1996 Regular meeting with the provision that Resolution //96-54 is reviewed by staff and corrected. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: STREET VACATION - CHURCHILL LANE, MICHAEL & CARRIE MCDONALD, 3018 CHURCHILL LANE, PID 24-117-24 44 0146, P&Z ~)6-18. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Planning Commission suggested that this item be continued until June 25, 1996 as some issues still had to be addressed by the Commission. Mayor Polston opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak either for or against this item. There was no one. Mayor Polston returned the item to the Council. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing on the street vacation of Churchill Lane until June 25, 1996 after the Planning Comniission has had time to address this issue further. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TRANSFER/MERGER OF TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. AND D.D. CABLE PARTNERS, L.P. NOTE: TOM CREIGHTON, BERNICK AND LIFSON AND ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE OPEN THE HEARING, TAKE ANY COMMENTS AND THEN CONTINUE THE HEARING TO JULY 23, 1996, DUE TO THE Minutes - Mound City Council June 11, 1996 FACT THAT THERE IS INFORMATION THAT HE IS WAITING FOR FROM TRIAX MIDWEST AND D.D. CABLE PARTNERS THAT IS NECESSARY BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES ACTION ON THIS REQUEST. THE HEARING MUST BE HELD NOW TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS. City Manager Ed Shukle stated there was legal work yet to be completed on the transfer/merger of Triax Cable and the attorneys for Triax had asked that this public hearing be continued until July 23, 1996. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak either for or against this item. There was no one. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jessen, and carried unanimously to continue the Public Hearing on the transfer/merger of Trlax Cable until July 23, 1996. PRESENTATION BY DHARAM BOBRA, P.E., SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER, HENNEPIN COUNTY RE: PROPOSED STOPLIGHT ON THREE POINTS BLVD. AND CSAH 110. Mayor Polston introduced Dharam Bobra, P.E. Senior Design Engineer, Hennepin County, who presented plans and information regarding the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of County Road 110 and Three Points. He stated that through traffic counts often times there is a 4 - 6 even 10 minute wait to turn onto County Road 110 south. The traffic lights will hang over the road and be visible looking south when coming from the north over the hill. There will be high intensity crosswalk decals installed on the road and push buttons on the poles to stop traffic for pedestrians. The light should be operational by November 15, 1996. Mary Wiebusch, 1748 Heron Lane, stated she has had two accidents at this intersection and she is very glad that a traffic light is going to be installed. She stated that several of her neighbors were also pleased to see a light installed. City Manager Ed Shukle conveyed a message from a resident at Seahorse Condominiums stating he did not want a light installed. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following proposed resolution: RESOLUTION//96-59 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9514 RELATING TO THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 110 AND THREE POINTS BLVD. The vote was 3-0. Motion carried. 6. REQUEST TO REMOVE FROM THE TABLE: KILDARE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PETITION REQUEST - TRACY INGRAM AND BRIAN SCHULTZ. Mayor Polston stated that the private parties involved in the request for the street improvement have a proposal. The item needs to be removed from the table first. 2 ~,,1, EL I II ,i ,B ,iii ,l Minutes - Mout~d City Council June 11, 1996 MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jessen, and carried unanimously to remove the Kildare Road Improvement Project from the table. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the owners of the abutting properties to this project have come to an arrangement which will become a general agreement once the City approves of them proceeding with a private project to be funded by the property owners. Mr. Pearson outlined the items to be in the formal agreement stating that there would be no cost to the City and that the project would comply with the City's standards, or they would request a variance where needed. Mayor Polston questioned the grading situation, storm water runoff, the 70' cul de sac and, the width of the street. City Engineer John Cameron stated he was aware of these items, but had not seen any plans yet in which to approve or not approve. Also discussion focused on a permit the Watershed District must grant, and the Watershed District would not even look at the concept until the city gave an approval. Mr. Pearson prepared a motion: MOTION, by Jessen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to authorize the City Staff and the City Attorney to work with the property owners on Kildare Road to prepare an agreement between the City and the property owners to construct a public street and utilities on Kildare Road in accordance and in compliance with all City standards. The property owners shall pay all of the costs incurred by the city and the property owners shall dedicate all rights of way and all easements required for the improvements to the City and to dedicate the completed paid for street and utilities to the City of Mound. All plans and specifications for the construction shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and shall meet all City standards. The completed agreement may require several mininml variances from City Standard (i.e., 28 to 24 foot wide street, 80' to 70' cul de sac) and any such variances are subject to City Council approval. Comment was made that the Watershed District requires either a storm water holding pond plan or a financial contribution to the District. The Council asked what this meant. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the District requires a monetary donation if no storm water plan exists in order to research and develop a storm water holding pond plan for the region where it cannot be done in small area plans. e RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DECK WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 1708 AVOCET LANE. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following proposed resolution as prepared by the City Attorney: RESOLUTION #96-61 RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 1708 AVOCET LANE, PZ#96-21. PID //13-117-24 21 0033. The vote was unanimously in favor of denial. Motion carried. Minutes - Mound City Council June 11, 1996 REQUEST FROM BRIAN AND MARIA JOHNSON RE: EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR BUILDING PERMIT, 4945 GLEN ELYN RD. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that the one year limit had expired on the building permit at 4945 Glen Elyn Road and the remodeling had not been finished. The owner, Brian Johnson was present and stated that he is doing the building himself and it takes longer that through a contractor. He intends to join together the old house with the new portion this summer and have the outside sided by fall. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the extension of building permit//10835, 4945 Glen Elyn Road for one year. 9. APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR LOCAL PERFORMANCE AID PAYABLE IN 1997. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the 1996 version of the omnibus tax bill includes a provision referred to as Local Performance Aid (LPA). This is an attempt to associate general purpose homestead and agricultural credit aid with performance outcomes. This aid is intended to assure that state revenue sharing with cities and counties will be based upon a defensible formula. The City must have a system of performance measures for services provided by the city and must compile and present these measures to the City Council at least once per year. The total amount of aid available for cities is $441,735 plus $1 times the most recent population of each qualifying city. It should be noted that the $441,735 is appropriated from the general fund, and the additional amount ($1 times the most recent population of each city) is a permanent reduction in each city's HACA. The HACA reduction applies whether or not the city is eligible to receive LPA. The City will prepare yearly reports to meet the measure requirements. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve the Certificate of Local Performance Measures and authorize the Mayor and one Councilmember to sign the 1997 Local Performance Aid Certificate. 10. LICENSE RENEWALS: ON-SALE BEER, OFF-SALE BEER, CLUB-ON-SALE, ON'- SALE WINE AND SUNDAY SALES. City Manager Ed Shu 'kle stated the following licenses are due to expire on June 30, 1996 and are being presented for renewal with the new term dates of 7-1-96 to 6-30-97. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted. On-Sale Beer A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy Off-Sale Beer Brickley's Market PDQ Food Store SuperAmerica Club - On-Sale American Legion Post//398 VFW Post #5113 On-Sale Wine A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy Sunday Sales VFW Post//5113 4 Minutes - Mound City Council June 11, 1996 MOTION by Polston, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve the renewals of the liquor licenses as listed. 11. PAYMENT OF BILLS. (NOTE: EXPLANATION OF LONGFORD ROAD SURVEY EXPENSE NOT APPROVED AT 5/28/96 MEETING WHICH WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR AT THIS MEETING. ENCLOSED ALSO NOTE LETTER DATED JUNE 5, 1996 FROM LMCD RE: LONGFORD ROAD DOCK INTERPRETATION). City Manager Ed Shukle mentioned the memo from Parks Director Jim Fackler responding to why the bill for $605 was charged to the Docks Program. Mayor Polston stated the developer was the one to benefit from the survey of the shoreline indicating possible commons docks access. He wanted the developer to pay the bill. Councilmember Hanus agreed with Mayor Polston. Councilmember Jessen stated the survey would eventually benefit the entire commons dock program and it should be paid from the dock fund. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to request that the developer, Brenshell Homes/Tom Stokes of the Longford Road/Kildare Road improvement project to pay the bill of $605 for the survey done to establish the possibility of commons docks. Motion carried 2-1, Jessen voting nay. Discussion focused on whether the City should pay this invoice to McCombs Frank Roos now and then bill Brenshell Homes for payment. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jessen, to pay the invoice of $605 to McCombs Frank Roos and then bill Brenshell Homes/Tom Stokes for payment. Motion carried 3-0. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Hanus, to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $239,574.35, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 12. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: B. C. D. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR MAY, 1996. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT FOR MAY 1996. LMCD MAILINGS (TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY). MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY OF ORONO INVITING TWO CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND A MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1996, 5 Minutes - Mound City Council June 11, 1996 Ho 7 PM, AT SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TO REVIEW A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "LAKE MINNETONKA AREA COOPERATIVE POLICE SERVICES STUDY" PREPARED BY THE LAKE MINNETONKA COOPERATING CITIES (LMACC) DATED MAY 15, 1996. THE DOCUMENT WAS DEVELOPED UNDER A $5,000 GRANT FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND WAS WORKED ON BY AN INTERN FROM THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GRADUATE PROGRAM AT HAMLINE UNIVERSITY AND ASSISTED BY A SUBCOMMITTEE OF CITY ADMINISTRATORS AND MANAGERS FROM THE LAKE AREA CITIES. REVIEW AND COMMENT WAS ALSO PROVIDED BY LAKE AREA CHIEF'S OF POLICE. THE STUDY OFFERS SOME "FOOD FOR THOUGHT" ON WAYS IN WHICH LAKE AREA CITIES CAN COOPERATE FURTHER IN THE AREA OF POLICE SERVICES DELIVERY AS WELL AS POSSIBLE CONSOLIDATION OPPORTUNITIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. THE LATI'ER ISSUE WOULD REQUIRE A MORE-IN-DEPTH FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONSOLIDATION OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS. A COPY OF THE STUDY IS ENCLOSED AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU REVIEW IT AND LET ME KNOW WHICH TWO OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOUND. MEMORANDUM FROM THE WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RE: LOCAL FOCUS MEETING FOR MAYOR POLSTON AND MYSELF TO ATTEND ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1995, 7:30 AM, AT THE YACHT CLUB, SPRING PARK. THE MEETING WILL FEATURE BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN AND MYSELF PRESENTING THE MOUND VISIONS PROGRAM TO OTHER LAKE AREA CITIES. LETTER DATED MAY 29, 1996, RE: PRELIMINARY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES FOR MOUND AS OF APRIL 1, 1995. LETTER DATED MAY 31, 1996, FROM NON-ABUTTING RESIDENTS OF WOODLAND POINT RE: CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON 1996 DOCK ARRANGEMENT FOR WOODLAND POINT. AT THE 5/28/96 MEETING, A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT WAS APPROVED ON A 3-2 VOTE FOR STEPHANIE COON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. WE NEGLECTED TO POINT OUT IN THE DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM THAT UNDER SECTION 320 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE, APPROVAL REQUIRES A 4/5 VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WE CAUGHT THIS WHILE PREPARING THE CERTIFIED RESOLUTION AFTER THE MEETING. WE APOLOGIZED TO MS. COON AND INDICATED THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION AGAIN. SINCE TWO OF YOU WILL NOT BE PRESENT NEXT TUESDAY EVENING, THE ITEM WILL HAVE TO BE RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ON JUNE 25, 1996. WE APOLOGIZE FOR CAUSING THE INCONVENIENCE TO MS. COON AND THE CITY COUNCIL. 6 Minutes - Committee of the Whole -June 18, 1996 1.1 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT PROCESS Councilmember Mark Hanus stated that based upon recent action on an application for a Public Lands Permit, that there was some confusion as to the City's stance and approach to dealing with encroachments on Commons. Following some discussion and having Jon Suthefland, Building Official and Jim Faclder, Parks Director address the methods by which they are inventorying and bringing applications forward, it was the consensus to pursue the non-building type encroachments on a regular basis and leaving buildings or major structures to be dealt with at a later date. Perhaps, by that time, recommendations will be forwarded from the Commons Task Force on the encroachments issue. 1.2 CITY OF MOUND PROVIDING BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES TO ST. BONIFACIUS. City Manager Ed Shulde presented some information with regard to a request from the city of St. Bonifacius regarding the City of Mound providing building inspection services to St. Boni. Following the presentation, the Council discussed the matter and thought it was a good idea. There were some concerns expressed with regard to additional cost to the City of Mound. It was suggested that the current building inspection fees be reviewed for possible increases to cover additional costs that would be experienced by the City of Mound. The Council consensus was to pursue serving St. Bonifacius with building inspection services. 1.3 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING The Central Business District Parking program was briefly discussed. Councilmember Mark Hanus and City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed the meetings that have taken place over the past several months regarding a subcommittee who is to look at possibly, modifying the existing CBD parking program. They indicated that nothing has changed and that it appeared that the existing formula should stay in place until the Mound Visions program is implemented which will determine the need for public parking on a business/city basis. 1.4 PROPERTY AT 2509 COMMERCE BLVD. This property was briefly discussed and was taken under advisement. 1.5 NEXT MEETING There being no other business, it was noted that there will be no July meeting of the Committee of the Whole. The next meeting will be Tuesday, August 20, 1996 at 7:30 PM. Minutes - Committee of the Whole -June 18, 1996 Upon motion by Jessen, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM. Minutes - Mound City Council June II, 1996 THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE HAD ITS FINAL MEETING ON JUNE 5, 1996. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIPS WITH LIFETIME FITNESS AND THE YMCA, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE DEMOGRAPHICS AND FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS WERE IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERCOME. THE TASK FORCE'S RECOMMENDATION TO TI-IE SCHOOL BOARD ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE BUILDING IS NOW TO GO TO PLAN B WHICH IS TO DEMOLISH THE 1938 HIGH SCHOOL AND RETAIN THE 1965 PODS WITH REMODELING AND CODE IMPROVEMENTS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE OLD GYMNASIUM CANNOT BE SAVED DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE SUPPORTING WALLS TO HOLD IT UP. THE SCHOOL BOARD WILL HEAR THIS RECOMMENDATION AT ITS JUNE 10, 1996 BOARD MEETING. THE TASK FORCE SPENT NEARLY 2 YEARS ANALYZING THIS ISSUE AND ALTHOUGH THEY BELIEVE THAT A NEW COMMUNITY CENTER IS THE ULTIMATE ANSWER, THEY ARE REALISTS AND UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY IN ACCOMPLISHING ULTIMATE SOLUTION. THE TASK FORCE WISHES TO THANK THE ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THE TIME THEY SPENT IN MEETINGS WITH THE TASK FORCE AND PROVIDING INPUT ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT COMMUNITY ISSUE. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM. City Manager Attest: 7 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - JUNE 18, 1996 Members present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Phyllis Jessen and Liz Jensen. Also present: Ed Shukle, City Manager; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; Jori Suthefland, Building Official; John Cameron, City Engineer; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator and the following interested persons: Marilyn Byrnes, Bev Botko, Sandi Dorsett, Muriel Keenlyne, Dorothy and Bill Netka, Charles Nungesser, Jennifer Schulke, Jean Stortz, Judy Sathre, Patty Miller, Sue Cathers, Dave Willette, Gerry Dodds, Gary Christensen, Tom Casey, Paul Meisel, Ron Moore, Nancy Walsh, Margaret Hanson, Scott Lindquist, Stephen Kakos, John Hughes, Jo and Jerry Longpre, Myrna Holden, Mike Mueller, Jerry Clappsaddle. Mayor Polston opened the meeting and stated the first item of business was a presentation by Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; John Cameron, City Engineer and Ed Shukle, City Manager regarding the Mound Visions Program. 1.0 MOUND VISIONS PROGRAM Ed Shukle, City Manager, provided background on the history of the Mound Visions Program. He indicated that it began with a study done in 1990. Subsequent to the study, the Visions Program was put together by Bruce Chamberlain and a number of community volunteers in the areas of business development, promotions and land use/aesthetics. Shukle stated that two projects were of immediate attention: 1. Lost Lake Improvement Project; and 2. Auditor's Road Improvement Project. He briefly explained each and then introduced Bruce Chamberlain who then went into detail on the Lost Lake Improvement project. Following Mr. Chamberlain's presentation, questions were raised from the audience. John Cameron, City Engineer reviewed the Auditor's Road Project. Questions were also addressed to him regarding that project. There was concern expressed from the audience with regard to the following issues: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Too much parking. Pedestrian unfriendliness related to being able to get around with mototized traffic along the new Auditor's Road. Lack of detail on relocation of County Road 15. Lack of discussion with local businesses regarding relocation of County Road 15. Impressed with the concept. Exciting for Mound to have these projects underway. Overall gratification with regard to both projects. More communication needed from the Economic Development Commission to the Planning Commission and Parks and Open Space Commission. Following the presentation and discussion, Mayor Polston indicated that future Planning Commission and Parks and Open Space Commission meetings can be attended by the presenters to further update the project as well as solicit further input on both projects. All people present were thanked for attending. They were given a pamphlet showing the overall concept plan for downtown Mound. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY1NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: June 21, 1996 TO: Mound City Council FROM: SUBJECT: Peggy James, Secretary Street Vacation Application, Churchill Lane, Case #96-18 For your information, this item will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on Monday, June 24th, so the minutes and proposed resolution will be handed out at your June 25th meeting. printed on recycled paper MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: DATE: SUBJECT: FROM: Planning Commission and Staff June 18, 1996 Street Vacation Application - Churchill Lane, Case #96-18 Mark Koegler [llla mu This memorandum serves as an addendum to the original staff report on this case. When this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1996, the action taken by the Commission was to table the request pending clarification of a number of issues. As reflected in the minutes of the meeting, the issues included the following: 1. The parcel will still have frontage on an unimproved right-of-way. What would be involved in requiring the access to be brought up to minimum standards, as required by the City? Response: Because of the characteristics of the surrounding properties, the parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. McDonald will never be able to meet minimum street access standards. An alternative approach in this case would be treating the access to this property similar to the way the Voss property on Killdare Road was handled. After approval of the vacation of the requested portion of Churchill Lane, the McDonalds could construct a private driveway from their property along the remaining portion of Churchill Lane to Donald Road. Consistent with the Voss case, the driveway could be required to meet specific standards as identified by the City Engineer. Are adjacent property owners required to attach the vacated strip of right-of-way to their property? Are they in favor of doing this? What ramifications are there? what are the costs involved? How is the right-of-way separated? Response: This issue raises a series of questions, some of which can be answered based on information that is available and some of which can not be answered at this time. For example, it is unknown whether or not adjacent owners are in favor of the proposed street vacation. None of the other property owners have spoken at a public hearing, when a street is vacated, adjacent property owners are not required to attach the vacated property to their holdings. They can elect to do so and presuming that the ownership is not challenged, it is a relatively low cost endeavor usually running a few hundred dollars. Right-of-way is commonly split 50/50 among abutting property owners. They would like verification that the owner of Parcel 147 is willing to combine his parcels, and to notify himofthe required process and fees. The owner of Parcel 147 should also be notified of the fact that once he combines these parcels, he will not be able to separate them again without 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS CHURCHILL LANE LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCKS 12 AND 14 IN ARDEN P&Z CASE #96-18 WHEREAS, the applicants, Michael and Carrie McDonald, owners of 3018 Churchill Lane, have requested the vacation of the 30 foot wide platted right-of-way located between Block 12, Lots 19-26, 5, 6, and 7, and Block 14, Lots 4-17, all in Arden, and; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any park thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council June 25, 1996, as required by law, and; WHEREAS, approval of this request will add vacated property to the neighboring parcels who are not part of this request, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommend approval of the vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to hereby approve the request to vacate a 30 foot wide platted right-of-way known as Churchill Lane located between Block 12, Lots 19-26, 5, 6, and 7, and Block 14, Lots 4-17, all in Arden, as shown on the attached plat. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings. It is the responsibility of the owner to record this Certified Resolution in the office of the County Recorder and/or the Registrar of Tiles, as set forth in M.S.A. 412.851. The foregoing resolution as moved by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING STREET FRONTAGE AI~D FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ONE CONFORMING DECK AND ONE NONCONFORMING DECK AT 3018 CHURCHILL LANE LOTS 19, 20, AND 21, BLOCK 12 PID 24-117-24 44 0146 P&Z CASE #96-18 WHEREAS, the owners, Carrie and Michael McDonald have applied for a variance in conjunction with a street vacation request. The vacation of Churchill Lane has been approved, and; WHEREAS, fifteen feet of frontage remains on the unimproved Churchill Lane after the vacation. The ordinance requires 40 feet of frontage on an improved public right of way, resulting in a street frontage variance request of 25 feet and zero frontage on an improved right-of-way, and; WHEREAS, this variance request involves construction of an 8' x 24' deck on the south side of the dwelling and replacement of an 8' x 8' deck on the north side. Both decks were constructed after- the-fact, without first obtaining the proper building permits, and; WHEREAS, the vacation of Churchill Lane reconfigures the arrangement of the lot setbacks which makes the north side of the property the front yard resulting in a 20 foot front yard setback. The house is setback 8.1 feet from the north property line, and with the 8' x 8' deck on the north side of the house with a zero foot setback results in a 20 foot front yard setback variance request, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks to the east and west, and a 15 foot rear yard setback to the south, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the following, to authorize construction of an 8' x 24' +/- deck on the south side of the house, and replacement of an 8' x 8' deck on the north side of the house: a. Existing nonconforming street frontage. Proposed Resolution Variance - McDonald P. 2 Se Se North front yard setback measured to the deck. of zero feet, Ce A private driveway within an unimproved right- of-way. This variance is approved subject to the following conditions: a.Prior to release of this resolution, the $50.00 variance applicant fee must be paid. b. A building permit must be obtained by the owner for the deck construction. 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 8' x 24' +/- deck on the south side of the dwelling, and an 8' x 8' deck on the north side of the dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 19, 20, and 21, Block 12, Arden 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).d@ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1996 CASE 96-26: STREET VACATION CHURCHILL LANE (CONTINUED PUBLIC .HEARING): MICHAEL & CARRIE MCDONALD, 3018 CHURCHILL LANE, LOTS 19, 20. .21, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID 24-117-24 ~ 014E Building Official, Jon Sutherland, referred to the Memorandum from Mark Koegler wherein issues were clarified and responses given. Staff supports the vacation of Churchill Road provided that Parcels 141 and 147 (Lots 12 and 22) are combined. The Building Official confirmed that the owner of Parcels 141 and 147 has submitted a request to combine those parcels and it has been sent to the County. Chair Michael noted that at the last meeting the hearing was opened and closed, but the item was tabled for further discussion. Chair Michael asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak on the issue. Applicant, Mike McDonald, reviewed with the Council that he has discussed this issue with his neighbors and have had not negative responses, other than his one neighbor to the south expressed a concern that if the remaining portion of Churchill is improved, they do not want to be assessed. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. The Building Official added that staff also recommends approval of the variance to allow the decks on the property. Also, approval should be made pending approval of the combination by Hennepin County. The Building Official reviewed the variance is for a deck located on the north side of the dwelling that has a zero setback. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of the street vacation and variance as recommended by staff. 0 Memorandum - Case 6-18 lune 18, 1996 Page 2 going through the subdivision process. _Response~ The City has not received direct testimony from the owner of Parcel 147 regarding his position on this matter. In a letter from Mr. McDonald dated June 12, 1996, he states, "My understanding with my conversations with Mr. Shultz is that he does not care one way or the other about the combining of his property. The concerns that he has are what will the affect be on his taxes, land value, and how much this procedure will cost him. Mr. Shultz has not put down any of this on paper so what we have is speculative at the moment..." Combination of two parcels of land can be done without cost to the owner. The owner simply needs to stop by City Hall and fill out the proper forms which are then forwarded to Hennepin County. I had a brief discussion with the Hennepin County Assessor's Office and was informed that the combination of the two parcels in question would not result in an increase in value or an increase in property taxes, pertaining to the separation of parcels in this case after they have been combined, a subdivision would be necessary and would be denied by the City because after the street vacation, any subdivision would create a land-locked parcel. 4. How will this vacation affect access to utilities? ~ According to John Cameron, Mound City Engineer, the subject street vacation will not affect utilities. Since street vacation applications occur infrequently, perhaps it would be helpful to take another look at the Statutory language allowing street vacations. Street vacations are regulated by Section 412.851 of the Minnesota Statutes. The law states, "The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be ,made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice." The most important aspect of the Statute is the statement that vacations need to be in the interest of the public, not any of the property owners involved. Therefore, the City Council will ultimately need to find that the requested vacation is in the public's best interest. In this particular case, the vacation could be considered to be in the public's interest (assuming that it is determined that the right-of-way is not needed for street purposes) since it will place public property back on the tax roles. The fact that the other end of Churchill Lane was vacated in the past also points to a previous finding of public interest in the vacation of this roadway. Because the request to vacate Churchill Lane came only from one abutting owner, approval of the request will take a four-fifths vote of the Mound City Council. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Memorandum - Case g96-18 June 18, 1996 Page Three RECOMMENDAT/ON: Staffcontinues to support the vacation of Churchill Road providing that Parcels 141 and 147 (Lots 12 and 22) are combined. At this time, it is suggested that the Planning Commission consider two different courses of action pertaining to this case. First, the Commission could approve the vacation subject to the combination of the two parcels in question. This approach is consistent with the original staff recommendation. In retrospect, however, since Parcels 141 and 147 are not under the applicant's ownership, placing such a condition on the approval may be not only cumbersome but may place an undue burden on the owner of the separate parcels. As an alternative, the Planning Commission could table the subject request until such time as the parcels have been combined. Tabling the request may also give the McDonalds time to enlist the support of the remaining abutting owners of property in the area. Having the support of a majority of the property owners in the area would result in a simple majority vote requirement by the City Council. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 CJ McCombs Frank Roos Associates, inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: Jon Sutherland FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer DATE: June 17, 1996 SUBJECT: City of Mound Street Vacation Churchill Lane Case #96-18 FILE NO.: MFRA #11347 In response to your memorandum of June 7, 1996 regarding the vacation of a section of Churchill Lane, in my I will address the Planning Commission concerns about access and utilities. As mentioned previous memo of May 8, 1996, the property owned by the applicants, Michael and Carrie McDonald, is served with City sewer and water by means of long services located within that portion of Churchill Lane not proposed for vacation. The maintenance of these long services should be the responsibility of the owner of Lots 19, 20 and 21, Block 12, Arden (the McDonald's), even though they are located in a platted right-of-way. The driveway to access the McDonald property is presently located in the portion of Churchill Lane not proposed for vacation. Short of improving this 100 foot long section of right-of-way to City standards with concrete curb and gutter and a 5 ton bituminous section, the suggestion of requiring something similar to the Voss property on Kildare Lane seems to be an acceptable alternative. There are similar properties elsewhere in the City where private gravel driveways are located within City right-of-ways, but they may be situations that have existed for a long period of time with no official recognition. Whatever determination is made on the type of driveway, the property owner needs to be responsible for all maintenance. eSinain:\l 1347\jrc6-13 I ' An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF MOUND I ..Jun . Iq 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-168' (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Dennis Hill Department of Property A-6 Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Tax Dear Sir: I hereby request a (separate~ assessment on the following described land (include legal ~es~~tion and P.I.D. numbers): Lo+ '1'2_, P I~ ?_zl-I I---7-z.z z.y+ olz! I ~ For District_ 85 - City of Mound Signature of F~e Owner _~ Name of Taxpayer Taxpayer's Address ***************************************************************** ' Separation approved by City of Mound Planning & Inspections Department. ' By: Jori Title: Sutherland Date: p~inted on tecycled paper PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION ~ OF A MEETING JUNE 13, 1996 RE UEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF CHUg_CHILL LANE Parks Director, Jim Faclder, referred to the Planning Report and stated that he sees no need to retain the street easement. Meyer noted that by vacating this unimproved street, it makes the back half of the park on Dundee more remote. It was noted that Dundee Lane provides adequate access to the park. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Botko to recommend approval of the street vacation of Churchill Lane as the Park Commission has reviewed the request and has no issues. Motion carried unanimously. CC: PARK COMMISSION 6/13/96, Koegler, Cameron & Pearson Mike and Carrie McDonald 3018 Churchill Lane Mound, MN 55364 472-3584 June 12, 1996 RECEIVED J UN 1 3 1,996 To Whom it May Concern, MOUND PLANNING & INSP. I am writing this letter to help clarify and possibly answer any questions about the vacation of Churchill Lane. Currently the city does not maintain Churchill Lane at all. We the current owners of 3018 Churchill Lane maintain this road including snow removal, cutting back the grass/weeds along the road, and filling in any bad ruts that allow standing water. This aspect of Churchill Lane is not unduly burdensome to us and we were aware 0fthe situation when we purchased the home. The thing that we would like to be able to do is to place a good base of rock on the road/driveway and eventually make improvements such as concrete to the area in front of our dwelling. One of the issues with this vacation is the land locking of lot 22. This lot is owned by Mr. Schultz and is a part of lot 12 were he takes access from Dundee Lane for his home. One of the stipulations to this vacation is that Mr. Schultz combines his two lots into One lot. My understanding with my conversations with Mr. Schultz is that he does not care one way or the other about the combining of his property. The concerns that he has are what will the affect be on his taxes, land value, and how much this procedure will cost him. Mr. Schultz has not put down any of this on paper so what we have is speculative at the moment, and I will try to get some further clarification when Mr. Schultz returns from out of town. Another concern is that this parcel of land will not have the proper frontage of a improved fight-of-way. It is my understanding that this house 3018 Churchill Lane will never have the proper frontage of 40' on an improved right of way unless drastic measures were to be taken in the development of Churchill Lane. With this in mind I think the most logical solution would be to vacate Churchill Lane from the areas that are being requested. The next step would be to confirm that the city is not responsible for the unimproved road but the occupants of 3018 would be responsible for the maintenance and any improvements such as the addition of rock to the road. This would keep the area of Churchill Lane accessible to the city of Mound were there are utilities in the street and we the occupants of Churchill Lane would know that the portion of this road leading to Donald Ave. is our responsibility to maintain. Furthermore this would put this property onto the city tax rolls and it would put a closure on what is to be done with Churchill Lane. Another question that I would like to address is whether or not the adjacent property owners would be required to attach the vacated property to their property and how they will be affected. The property is on a steep slope, and the only portion that is of higher maintenance is lot 5 which is in-between Brighten and Churchill Lanes. This property is currently the City of Mounds property and therefore would not be a further burden upon the other property owners. Otherwise the other areas of the road would not require additional maintenance, and the city currently does not perform any maintenance on this property so the property would stay in its current condition. My current understanding is that if the property is vacated then the adjacent property owners would have the option to add the additional property to their own. If the adjacent owners chose not to add the property then the property maintains in its present form. If I try think about this from my neighbors point of view I can see no problems with the situation if there are no penalties for either claiming the additional property or not claiming the additional property. In fact this would once again let everyone know what the city is planning on doing with the undeveloped Churchill Lane. I hope that I was able to effectively contribute to any decisions that need to be made for the vacation of Churchill Lane. I will continue to work on getting some written documentation from Mr. Schultz regarding his stance on the vacation of Churchill Lane. I also will be continuing to find answers to the questions that are raised about Churchill Lane. Feel free to contact either myself or my wife Carrie if there is anything else that we can do or clarify. Thank you for your time and we look forward to coming up with a resolution to Churchill Lane. Mike McDonald June 12, 1996 To Whom it May Concern, RECEIVED JUI ! 3 1995 MOUND PLAN IING & INSR My name is George Miller my address is 3018 Brighton Ave Lots 3 and 4. This letter is in regard to Mike and Carrie McDonald's request for the vacation of Churchill Lane. I wanted to take a moment to explain my position on the vacation of Churchill Lane. I support the vacation of Churchill Lane. This would put a closure on the status of this road and it would allow us neighbors to finally know what is going to happen with Churchill Lane. Since my property will be affected by the decision of the city there is a concern that I do have. No matter what is decided about Churchill Lane in regard to the vacation of it I am concerned about the costs of improving the road. I do not want to pay for a road that is not going to benefit me, it would be nice for the McDonald's but I do not want to pay for development of this road. I do think it would be a good idea if the McDonald's would be allowed to put down a rock base on the road. This would be a great asset to the McDonald's and it would eliminate any expensive road construction. I hope that I have been able to answer any questions that anyone from the city may have. If there are any more questions or you want some further clarification on how I feel about the vacation of Churchill Lane please contact me. Sincerely, eorge Miller ^ve. Mound, MN 55364 CI MINUTES - MOLT?fi) CITY COUNCIL - JUNE It, t996 3. PUBLIC HEARING: STREET VACATION - CHURCHILL LANE, MICHAEL & CARRIE MCDONALD, 3018 CHURCHILL LANE, PID 24-117-24 44 0146, P&Z//96-18. City Manager Ed Shulde stated the Planning Commission suggested that this item be continued until June 25, 1996 as some issues still had to be addressed by the Commission. Mayor Polston opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak either for or against this item. There was no one. Mayor Polston returned the item to the Council. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing on the street vacation of Churchill Lane until June 25, 1996 after the Planning Commission has had time to address this issue further. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 7, 1996 Mound City Council Jon Suthefland, Building Official "~C..-5.¢~, Street Vacation Application - Churchill Lane, Case//96-18, Michael & Carrie McDonald, 3018 Churchill Lane, Lots 19, 20, 21, block 12, Arden, PID 24-117- 24 44 0146. The request to vacate a portion of Churchill Lane was tabled by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1996. A public hearing was set for the City Council on June 11, 1996. There are still some issues that need to be addressed before this request will be brought back to the Planning Commission on June 24, 1996. In addition, the Park Commission will be reviewing this application on June 13. Staff recommends the City Council open the hearing and continue it to the June 25, 1996 City Council meeting date. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 96-18 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A 30 FOOT WIDE PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCK 12, LOTS 19-26, 5, 6, & 7, AND BLOCK 14, LOTS 4-17, ARDEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11, 1996 to consider the vacation of a 30 foot wide platted right-of-way located between Block 12, Lots 19 - 26, 5, 6, and 7, and Block 14, Lots 4 - 17, all in Arden, as shown below: ' ..- -K.-" ,- ~,~ '~ persons ap~g at ~d h~ng with reference to the above will be given ~e op~unity to be h~d at ~is m~g ~ggy Ja~es~ Pl~¢g S~re~ Mailed to affected property owners by May 31, 1996. Published in The Laker May 25, 1996. Posted by May 31, 1996. printed on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 1996 E~ STREET VACATION - CHURCHII.L LANE (PUBLIC HEARING), MICHAEL & CARRIF. MCDONALD, 3018 CHURCHILL LANE, LOTS 19, 20, 21, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID 24--117-24 44 0146 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planners report. The applicants are requesting vacation of a portion of Churchill Lane that abuts their property as well as several other properties in the immediate vicinity. Churchill Lane is unimproved. At the present time, the existing home on the applicant's lot encroaches .45 feet into the public right-of-way. The existing right-of-way provides access to their parcel. Fill and a loose rock retaining wall have been placed in the public right-of-way which would require a grading permit. The material that was placed in the right-of-way, including a chain link fence, precludes access along the right-of way by the general public. All properties along the section now proposed for vacation have frontage on another public street with the exception of Parcel 147 which lies immediately south of the McDonald's parcel. Parcel 147 is a separate piece of property owned by the owner of Parcel 141. Unless Parcels 147 and 141 can be combined, Parcel 147 would become land-locked if the request is approved. Approval of the street vacation also needs to include two variances. The property currently does not front on an improved public street. If the vacation is approved, the parcel will have only 15 feet of frontage on an unimproved public street. Also, if the request is approved, the north side of the property will become the front yard and the existing home currently has an 8.1 foot setback from the northern property line resulting in a 11.9 foot setback variance. Churchill Lane will never be improved as a through street since the southern end was vacated previously. There does not appear to be any public purpose served by the retention of Churchill Lane as a right-of-way except to provide access to Parcel 147 (Lot 22). Staff recommended approval of the request to vacate Churchill Lane as well as the front yard setback and street frontage variances for Parcel 146 subject to the following conditions: Lots 12 and 22, Block 12, Arden shall be combined into one tax parcel prior to the time that the City releases a copy of the final resolution on the vacation of Churchill Lane. The applicants shall submit the $50.00 variance fee for the required variances as noted herein prior to the time that this item is scheduled for review by the City Council. Weiland is concerned that Lots 12 and 22 will not get combined. Hanus stated that it is written as a clear condition that the parcels would need to be combined before the resolution is released for filing. Weiland is concerned that the parcel would be sold before it is combined. Clapsaddle agreed that it is clear that no vacation will occur unless it is combined. Hanus asked how the recording expenses are dealt with for those adjacent land owners who are not applicants and did not request this vacation, and what is the status of the property if the adjacent property owners do not claim it? It was determed the city attorney would be able to report on this issue at the city council meeting. Mueller expressed a concern that after the street vacation, the subject property will still not have frontage on an improved public right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes 5-13-96 Ehurchill Lane Vacation C Applicant, Michael McDonald, informed the Commission that the owner of parcel (147) could not attend the meeting because he is out of town, however, stated that his neighbor's only concern was if there would be any future costs involved as a result of the vacation. Staff noted that there may be minimal recording fees at the County. Weiland asked how the remaining portion of Churchill could get improved so they can have a proper driveway. The Building Official commented that improvements can be made on the right-of-way, subject to a permit and approval from public works. A petition for street improvement could also be submitted. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Applicant, Michael McDonald, 3018 Churchill Lane, stated that he currently maintains Churchill Road, he plows and takes care of maintenance because it is unimproved and the City has no responsibility to take care of it. He would like to put Class 5 rock on this area of right-of-way that he uses for his driveway. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Mueller stated that he would like to see Churchill improved in order to provide this property with proper street frontage. Reifschneider asked if the other adjacent owners want to attach half of the vacated road onto their property, and what happens if they don't want it. He emphasized that this property is a very steep slope and people may not want the responsibility of taking care of it. Burma agreed with Mueller and his concerns with the improvement of the right-of-way. He commented that even though the driveway is not a concern now, it could become a concern to the owners of Lots 17 and 18 if there were a new owner who did not maintain the road as well. Clapsaddle suggested they table the application. The issues they want clarified were reviewed. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to table the request for vacation of Churchill Lane until the following issues can be clarified. - The parcel will still have frontage on an unimproved right-of-way. What would be involved in requiring the access be brought up to minimum standards, as required by the City. - Are the adjacent property owners required to attached the vacated strip of right-of-way to their property? Are they in favor of doing this? What ramifications are there? What are the costs involved? How is the right-of- way separated? - They would like verification that the owner of Parcel 147 is willing to combine his parcels, and to notify him of the required process and fees. The owner of Parcel 147 should also be notified of the fact that once he combines these parcels he will not be able to separate them again without going through the subdivision process. How will this vacation affect access to utilities? Motion carried unanimously. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. .PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Street Vacation APPLICANT: Michael and Carrie McDonald CASE NUMBER: 96-18 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5g LOCATION: 3018 Churchill Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- 1 A) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are requesting vacation of a portion of Churchill Lane that abuts their property as well as several other properties in the immediate vicinity. Churchill Lane is unimproved. At the present time, the existing home on the applicant's lot encroaches .45 feet into the public right-of-way. The existing right-of-way provides access to their parcel. Portions of Lots 20 and 21 serve as the backyard for the existing home. Fill and a loose rock retaining wall have been placed in the public right-of-way to create a flat backyard. It appears that the quantity of fill that was placed in the right-of-way would require a grading permit, however, City records do not indicate that a permit was issued for the grading work. The material that was placed in the right-of-way which includes a chain link fence precludes access along the right-of-way by the general public. The southern portion of Churchill Lane was vacated by the City of Mound in the past. All properties along the section now proposed for vacation have frontage on another public street with the exception of Parcel 147 which lies immediately south of the McDonald's parcel. Parcel 147 is a separate piece of property owned by the owner of Parcel 141. Unless Parcels 147 and 141 can be combined, Parcel 147 would become land locked if the request is approved. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Churchill Lane Street Vacation May 8, 1996 Page 2 Although the applicants submitted the necessary materials for a street vacation request, approval will also need to include two variances (application fried, no fee paid). The property currently does not front on an improved public street although it has 122.47 feet of frontage on an unimproved public street. If the street vacation is approved, the parcel will have only 15 feet of frontage on an unimproved public street (1/2 of the Churchill Lane right-of-way). Additionally, the vacation of Churchill Lane will reconfigure the arrangement of the lot setbacks. If the request is approved, the north side of the property will become the front yard and the existing home currently has an 8.1 foot setback from the northern property line resulting in a 11.9 foot variance. The variance request application that was submitted is for an "after the fact" variance for a deck that was recently constructed. If the street vacation is approved, the variance for the deck will not be necessary because it will be in a conforming location due to the change in setbacks. Variances are still required for the front yard setback and the lack of frontage on an improved public street as noted above. RECOMMENDATION: Churchill Lane will never be improved as a through street since the southern end was vacated previously. There does not appear to be any public purpose served by the retention of Churchill Lane as right-of-way except to provide access to Parcel 147 (Lot 22). As a result, staff recommends approval of the request to vacate Churchill Lane as well as the front yard setback and street frontage variances for Parcel 146 subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 12 and 22, Block 12, Arden shall be combined into one tax parcel prior to the time that the City releases a copy of the final resolution on the vacation of Churchill Lane. 2. The applicants shall submit the $50.00 variance fee for the required variances as noted herein prior to the time that this item is scheduled for review by the City Council. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO.: FILE NO.: City of Mound John Cameron, City Engineer May 8, 1996 Street Vacation - Churchill Lane 96-18 MFRA #11347 Comments: This right-of-way was platted as Kinman Place when the plat of Arden was recorded in 1910 and is now known as Churchill Lane. All the property abutting the portion of fight-of-way proposed for vacation has access to other improved streets except Lots 19, 20 and 21 owned by the petitioner and Lot 22 that has the same ownership as Lot 12 which takes access from Dundee Lane. Lots 12 and 22 are both undersized (5,310 square feet and 5,000 square feet respectively) as individual parcels and should be combined. Parcel 146 (Lots 19, 20 and 21) has access to Donald Lane by way of a long driveway located in the fight-of-way of Churchill Lane. The property is also provided with City sanitary sewer and water by means of long services located in Churchill Lane fight-of-way. Recommendatio,,: We have reviewed this vacation request and are recommending approval conditioned upon Lots 12 and 22, Block 12, Arden be combined into one tax parcel. eSmain:\11347~nound5-8 .,~ t I. (~ An Equal Opportunity Employer C~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 1, 1996 Minnegasco Fire Department GTE Public Works Northern States Power Police Department City Engineer Parks Department ~ Peggy James, Planning & Inspections Secretary~ Request by Michael & Carrie McDonald to Vacate an Unimproved Platted Right- of-Way known as Churchill Lane The City of Mound has received a request from Michael and Carrie McDonald, owners of 3018 Churchill Lane, to vacate a 30 foot wide platted right-of-way located between Block 12, Lots 19 - 26, 5, 6, and 7, and Block 14, Lots 4 - 17 all in Arden, as shown on the attached Public Hearing Notice. Do you foresee a need for this right-of-way? Are there any utilities involved? What is your recommendation? please submit your comments or concerns in writing at your earliest convenience. This request will be heard by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1996, and by the City Council on June 11, 1996. If you have any questions, you may call me directly at 472-0607. Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. Enclosures printed on recycled paper Rev. 3-6-96 Application for STREET VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: Distribution: I~xD. OO City Planner t! Minnegasco 11 NSP City Engineer %' Police Dept. t, GTE Public Works u Fire Dept. I. Other Please type or print the following information: APPLICANT Name /~/") , ( ~ ~ / Address Phone (H) ~2 -~ (W) (M) ADJACENT PROPER~ Name of Business (APPLICANT'S PROPERS) Lot ~, 7~/~ Block )~ Plat, DISTRICT DESCRIPTION C~g~t~, OF STRE~ /~ ' VACATED ' FOR IS THERE A PUJLIC LAND~ ' Applicant, s Si~atur~ -~ (g¥,) ,~. 18 ~9 ~ /~. ", ~? ",16~ 170 ..VARIANCE APPIJCATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ~"~'~FICE USE ONLY) Application Fee: $50.00 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Case No. SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address .-~G~ '/~' City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR Lot /%~ff, d-2[ Block. /to). Subdivision Plat # Phone (I-I) Address Phone (H) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, 0~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resofu~tions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 BI Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S ~ ft. /,~oT ft. ft. (SEW) ft. ft. ft- Side Yard: ~N S,_,~N Side Yard: ( ) ft' /'~ & ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N/S~'E W ) ft. / ~-- ft- ~' ft' Lakeside: ( lq~S E W ) ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft' Street Frontage: ft. /,,~,,~, ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft /~.2gC> sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft ~'x-/. ~7, sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-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 ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes~, No ~. If yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (x~ 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. Owner's Signature ~~~ff~ (Rev. Date .?/~j~/fi~/' I O. 45' / 1- STORY FRP~/~E ALKOUT ~ 3018 ISTI N DECK I ~IGH CHAIN .INK FENICE EXISTING' DECK S I I CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~/,(~,. C ~ /~/y,j OWNER'S NAME: ,,~['~/,,.~_¢[ <~ C~,.-f'~'¢ ~ /c,/ LOT AREA_/,~/,~ ~"-~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X _40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... 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 SQ FT HOUSE '~¥" ~ X ,,~ ~/. F = oC~5",/,,,-:~ X = X = TOTAL HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover TOTAL DECK OTHER TOTAL OTHER X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X X = X = X = X = TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate diff~ere~) DATE 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNER CONTRACTOR Business Name/Tennant ~ The epp|icant is: ~..owner __contractor __tenant Block _ Plat Subdivision~ Address~ Phone (H) z./ Name ~.~_~ Address_ Phone IH} License # (w) (M) ARCHITECT Name__ &/OR Address~ ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) CHANGE OF FROM:_ USE TO:_..__._.___ ~UATION [~/~//3 ~.~ ~ VALUE APPROVED: LLDWORK: SEPARATE PERMITS ~E REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, H~TING, VENTI~TING OR ~R CONDi~ONING. p~ITS BECOME NULL ANDVOID IF wORK ORCONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED ISNOT COMM~CED ~THIN 180DAYS,OR IF CON~RUC~ON OR WORK IS SUSPENO~ OR ~DON~ ERwORK ISCOMMENCED. REMODELING ~O ALTERATIONS ~ A P~lOO OF 180 DAYS AT ~Y TIME A~ ~=au~RTAtNFO FORN~CONSTRUCTtON.REPAIR~'_ ..... ~ ,.e.'~¢ THE pERSON ~ EL - STnu~ ~- - , N~CE IS A MISDEM~NOR OFF'SE. ~E Cl~ ~ THE EX I E~IOR5 OF ANY BUILDING O~ --"~ "' L 8E RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPL~ION. A VIO~TION OF THIS O~Ol ....... ~m~ mF THE CI~ COUNCIL ~AT ~ER OF THE PROPER~ SHAL ....... = ~u= O=aMI~EE ESTABLISHING TO THE R~SONABLE OBTAINING ~E p~MIT ANO THE ~OR COMPL~ION UPON ~I~EN ~[~u:=~ ~r -~ .... THE ~T~SION SH~L 8E ~EQUEST~ COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME pERMI~EE pREVENTED COMPL~tON OF THE WORK FOR ~ICH THE PERMIT W~ GRATED. CIRCUMSTANCES 8~OND THE CONTROL OF THE NOT LESS TH~ THIR~ (301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ~O OF THE ONE'Y~ P~IOD. A~ PRO~SIONS OF ~WS ~D O~DINANCES GOV~NtNG I H~Y CERTI~ THAT I HAVE READ AND ~AMINEO THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW ~E S~E TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. THIS ~PE OF WORK ~LL BE COMPLIED ~TH ~ ~HER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. ~E GRAN~NG OF A pERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORI~ TO ~o~TE O~ c~CEL THE PRO~SIONS OF ~Y o~ER STATE OR LOC~ ~W REGU~NG CONSTRUCTION OR THE P~FORM~CE OF CONSTRUC~ON. PRINT APPUCANT'S NAME A.PUCANT'S SIGNATURE IIII1111/1111111/11111111111111111111///111111111111(11111111111~111111111 iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .,~'D . ////////// COMMENTS: ~ t.~ t~- , CONSTRUCTION TYPE: BLDG SiZE ISQ FTI RECEIVED BY / DATE: OccuPANCY GROUP I DIV: # STORIES PLANS CHECKED BY~ MAX OCCUPANT LOAD ZONING FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? cITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS YES I NO ApPRovED BY I DATE: : ASSESSING COPIED APPROVED REMOVE £~XlSTING DECK T REPLACE I~CK WITH TRI~ATE'D LUMBER ON PROPERTY LINE "~ EX'ISTING HOUSE PRO POSE D DE C I( \1 I I Il I I~ 'l _l)Ull:DING LINE: __-1 I/4"' DE£KINi f DECK FLASHING ON LEDGER O~ST' HANG£R5 ON EVERY BOLTS ~RY ,~ORTH DECK LL MATE:RIAL O-UMBER) TREATED 7RA~r~BAIL .... P~ILING 1-1EIGHT Z"'X Z" 5"0. C. /"~ .Z'XS" J'C)IST$ 16" O.C ]-~ 6' 5PAN Zq" CANTILEVE:R USE EXISTING I:'00TIkIGS W/PINS GRADE STAIRS TREADS IO" RISERS 7¥' CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE?~/ LOT OF RECORD? YARD IlOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF B! 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 B3 ~0,000/60 R2 Y4,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. GARAGE, SIIED ..... NO l! 30,000/100 () S E W S E W N S E W OR OTIIER DETACHED 50' I0' OR 30' BUILDINGS ;~0 ~ EXISTING LOT SIZE; LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE FRONT N S E ,, FRONT N S E W SIDE (N~ S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N (S)E W 4' OR 6' REAR N ~S//~) w 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER t~ 30% OR 40% This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined iu the City of Mouud ,Planning Department at 472-0600. Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Z££! ' 51 I RSSOLU?ZON TO ppROVE V I CE xIsTIN NONCONFORMIN SET CXS ON ~LLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ~ CONFORMING G]~I~%GE ADDITI j),~ THE B2%RTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 z~ uu~ ~ERE~S, th~ owners, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming rear yard and~ lak~shore setback variance to allow construction of a conforming 20' x ~0' garage addition, and; ~ERE~S, the subject property is located within th~ R-lA single Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation, and; ~ERE~S, th~ home is located 4 feet from th~ rear property line resulting in an 11 foot variance. The subject lot boarders a publicly owned co~ons area that has a width of approximately 45 feet. The home is approximately 49 feet from the ordinary high water (O~) contour r~sulting in a one foot variance, and; ~ERE~S, a side walk on the west side encroaches on the neighboring property, however, due to topography, in order to relocate the encroaching side walk, the steps would also need to be moved which provides access to the dwelling, and; ~ERE~S, ther~ is also a 12' x 8' shed on the property which is located ~ feet from the side property line. The required side setback is 4 feet. The applicant has agreed to relocate the shed, and; ~ERE~S, the Planning Co~ission has reviewed the request and unanimously reco~ended approval upon the condition that the nonconforming shed be relocated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city do~s hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming rear yard setback of 4 feet and the nonconforming lakeshore setback of 49 feet to allow construction of a conforming garage addition subject to the relocation of the existing nonconforming shed. 2. The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Bonnema P. 2 e It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 20' x 30' garage addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The West 40.00 feet of Lot 4, and the East 40.00 feet of Lot 13. "The Bartlett Place,, Upper Lake Minnetonka. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all of filing costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. June 19,1996 Ci~ Council Ci~ofMound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sir: As you are probably are aware, our request for a variance has been tentatively approved by the Planning Commission. There was concem about a 12' x 8' shed that we had built two years ago that seemed too close to our neighbors property. After I got home I discovered that we had built the shed one foot too close to our neighbors property. We would like to request the following: We intend to move the shed so that it meets code, but would like to wait until after our construction project has been completed. We will have some extensive landscaping to do on the east side of our house, and may want to move it about 15 feet to the south of it's current location. Please use the attached drawings for reference. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. S~cerely, Clyde-& Denise Bonnema · Page 1 I'l~'~.gl 30.0 Lem and Edith Sprow 5525 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 June 18, 1996 City Council City of Mound 5347 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 O Dear Sirs: We, Lem and Edith Sprow, ac ~knowledge that the sidewalk on the west side of the Clyde and Denise Bonnema lot, and the east side of our lot, encroaches on our property. We have no objection to this and have no objection to their continued use of this property.. Sincerely, June 10, 1996 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters, 12-00 Warner Road, St Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 RECEIVED JUN 1 2 1996 Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. CLYDE & DENISE BONNEMA VARIANCE REQUEST, LAKE MINNETONKA (27- 133P), CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Suthefland: We have reviewed the Clyde and Denise Bonnema variance request (received May 30, 1996) for 5513 Bartlett Boulevard, and we recommend approval of the variance with the following conditions: It is unclear if the structures on the Bonnema property are adequately screened from view on Lake l~mnetonk~ We recommend that existing vegetation and the planting of trees native to Minnesota be used to screen the structures from view from Lake Minnetonka. The variance request carefully explains that a dogged drain causes the existing garage to flood frequently. The drain outlets to Lake Minnetonka. However, the request doesn't explain why the proposed garage will not flood. The elevations of the driveway and proposed garage should be changed to allow the stormwater from the driveway to run overland to Lake Minnetonka. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 772-7910. Sincerely, Joseph O. Richter Hydrologist JK/cds C: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist City of Mound Floodplain File City of Mound Shoreland File DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 · TTY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ~ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversily Minimum of 10ok Post-Consumer Waste C MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 O CASE 96-27: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION CLYDE & DENISE BONNEMA, 5513 BARTLET'r BLVD., PART OF LOTS 13 & 14, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a conforming garage addition 20' x 30'. The home is located 4 feet from the rear property line resulting in an 11 foot variance. The subject lot boarders a publicly owned commons area that has a width of approximately 45 feet. The home is approximately 49 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) contour resulting in a one foot variance. A side walk on the west side encroaches on the neighboring property. Although the walkway is less of a permanent structure than a building, it does encroach, and therefore, the Planning Commission may want to consider its relocation as a condition of approval. Since the proposed garage improvement is in a conforming location, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rear yard and lakeshore setback variances. The Commission discussed that due to topography, in order to relocate the encroaching side walk, the steps would also need to be moved. 5 Weiland asked if the existing shed on the property meets setbacks. Staff stated that the setbacks to the shed can be verified prior to City Council review. MOTION by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, but if the shed is found to be not in conformance, that it be moved to a conforming location. Clapsaddle seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 1996. 612-8~5-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 775 P09 ~UN 0~ 'gB 09:17 Hoisington Knegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Kocgler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance APPLICANT: Clyde and Denise Bonncma CASE NUMBER: 96-27 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5n LOCATION: 5513 Bartlett Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a co,to.rang, attached garage measuring 20' by 30'. Construction of the garage requires a variance since the existing home has nonconforming rear yard and lakeshore setbacks. Th~ existing home is located 4 feet from thc mar property line resulting in an 11 foot variance. The subject lot borders a publicly owned commons area that has a width of approximately 45 feet. Therefore, thc existing home is approximately 49 feet from the ordinary high water contour rcsulting in a one foot variance. Thc survey also shows that a sidewalk on the west side of the existing home encroaches on the neighboring property. Although the walkway is ~ess of a permanent structure than a building, it docs encroach and therefore, the Planning Commission may want to consider its relocation as a condition of approval. RECO~ATION: Since thc proposed garage improvement is in a conforming location, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rear yard and lakeshore setback variances. 7300 Medzo Boul~'ard. Sui~ 52~, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 0 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $5364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ~Aplilication Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) OWNER) City Planner City Engineer Public Works Address Subdivision Case No. q ~-~__~'~ ti DNR Other Block R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 (W) .(M). Has an application ever b_een~e,.for/zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property2~ yes,/lx~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copi6s/Of resrohitions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 0/%;/~ -~o %- ~ o' ~x~~/:~¢ <.,.~ (Rev. ]2/8/95) ~ ~ q Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. e Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~,No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reasor for variance request, i.e. setback, 46t area, etc.): o SETBACKS: REQUIRED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ----- ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. .---- ft. ft. SideYard: (~EW) ft. ~ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( W ) I% ft. -- ft. i l / ft. Lakeside: ( W ) ~"O ft. ft. / ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. .------ ft. ft. Lot Size: .... sq ft ~ sq ft .-------sq ft Hardcover: sq ft ~ sq ft ,----- sq ft Does the pres?nt u/se of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography .~. drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone h/aving property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), Noylf yes, explain: Was the~ardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No~ If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of~har/dship 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? Comments: I certify that ail 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 (Rev. 12/8/95) Date CITY OF MOUND .H,ARDCOVER CALCULATION-~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) IIPROPERTYADDRESS: 5~/S ~./~::~_~ I OWNER'S NAME: ~___~//~,.~ ¢/~/~/?-./~?_`/~.~./~(~..~ ~ LOT AREA //~::>70 SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (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. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with e pervious surface under are TOTAL HOUSE x = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. cZ/:,, not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (~~ OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY ~../~~/~~~ DATE C~ 6'3 L._L Th fe Hi 0 ~14.~ of CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CLYDE AND DENISE BONNEMA __ IN LOTS 13 AND 14, THE BARTLETT PLA~F., UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA The ~es~ 40.00 feet of LO~ 14. In~ t~ list f~t o~ LOt 13. '~e B~r~ie~t Pilce" Up~r ~JS borvey Intends tO Sh~ the b~irleS Of t~ obese OescrJ~ pro~r~y, dod the ]ocdtJo, of e. exi&tJ~O ~uise t~er~n. It ~es not tO Shoe 4n7 o~r iuprowmnts or encrooc~nts. 02/28/96 16:24 FAX 612 472 0620 CITY OF ~IOUND ~004 CITY OF MOUND HARD¢0VER CALCULATM (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} PROPERTY ADDRESS; qER'$ NAME: LOTAREA/ 7'D sa. FT. X 30% = {for all lots} .............. LOT AREA SQ. F'I'. X 40% = flor Lots of Record*) ....... 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 end approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X O DE'i'ACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHEDI DRIVEVVAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. DECKS Open decks I114" min. opening between boards} with e D~rvious $~,lrfsGe under erg not counted 08 hardcovor OTHEH X = X : TOTAL DECK........................ X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I (~~ OVER ,in//d~ate difference' ............................... J ~'~ PREPARED BY (.~/~,~& ~ .~C'~,-.--~ ~,,-'---~,,.. - DATE c/~'/~ ~' .'\ ii. x j SURVEY ON FIL~ NO C), CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONINg DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~ 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 R~ B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 JOrO00/60 R2 14,000/B0 jR3 SEE O~U. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED J EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: 1~,070 LOT WIDTH: LOT D~T? ' 'ffJ- iz4%, VARIANCE liOUSE ......... ;RONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF E w N S E W N S E W E W GARAGE, SIlED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' 'ro__, oZ ELU._____~- ~ .. --~.. ,o. o__.~ ,o__. Thi~ Zoning informatlon Slmet o~ *umm~i~e~ ~ portion of th* requimm~n~ outlined in ~ City of Mound PI.nning ~,~men, .t 472~. , ~ ,,: ,: ~ ~, ~ ~,~,, ~, '..~ ............ : ..................................... ~ ......... ~ ............ ~ .... ~ .... ,) qc~): r~,""-. ~ (4) : ~', : t~~ ~'f;ol,~l , ... ....... , :.., . , . , RESOLUTION #96-~ / RESOLUTION TO APPROVE & VARIi~TCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFOI~IN~ SIDE Yi~D SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMIN~ ~DDITION ~T 52~7 TUXEDO BL~,~ LOTS L~ ~ ~4~ BLOCK 9 ~IPPLE, PID 24-117-24 43 0047 PID P&Z CASE / ~EREAS, the owner, Clayton (Jay) f~ a side yard setback variance to co~orming 22' x 36' two story addition, Duggan, III, has applied allow construction of a / and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the home is located 3.7 feet from the eastern property line resulting in a variance of 2.3 feet. The property also contains a nonconforming shed which the applicant has agreed to remove, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT'RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 3.7 feet to allow construction of a conforming addition, subject to removal of the existing nonconforming shed. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 22' x 36' two story addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 13 and 14, Block 9, Whipple. ~ropo~ed £e~olution Se This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 CASE 96-28: VARIANCE FOR HOUSE/GARAGE ADDITION CLAYTON (JAY) DUGGAN III 5117 TUXEDO BLVD., LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 24-117-24 43 0O47 The applicant is seeking approval to construct a 22' x 36' addition on the west side of the existing home. The addition will conform to all setback requirements. The existing home is located 3.7 feet from the eastern property line resulting in a variance of 2.3 feet. The property also contains two nonconforming sheds, one of which is below the floodplain elevation. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the existing side yard variance MOTION by Weiland to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Motion seconded by Mueller. Mueller confirmed that the lowest floor elevation of 933 must be complied with and will need to be confirmed at time of building permit issuance. The applicant noted that the garage will be raised 4 feet above the existing floor elevation of the house. The applicant confirmed that one of the sheds has already been removed. Weiland, complained about the neighbors property. Mr. Duggan stated that the neighbor has stored on his property four inoperable vehicles, a boat, snowmobile, three wheeler, fish house, conversion camper, pick-up with camper, Escort with iron hitch, cement mixer, dilapidated shed, lean-to which is falling, they have a sliding patio door 4 feet off the ground with no stairs, and there are boards with sharp nails down by the lake. He is concerned about the children. Weiland amended his motion to add a condition that the nonconforming shed must be removed. Mueller seconded the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 1996. G1~-835-.~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER ??5 P08 JUN 86 '96 89:17 Hoisington Kocglcr Group Inc. I 111 PLANNING REPORT,. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance APPLICANT: Clayton J. Duggan III CASE NUMBER: 96-28 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5m LOCATION: 5117 Tuxedo Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- iA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a 22' by 36' addition on the west ride of the existing home. The addition will contain living space and garage space and will conform to all setback requirements. The existing hom~ is located 3.7 feet from the eastern property line resulting in a varian~ of 2.3 f~t. In addition to the nonconforming side yard setback, the property also contains two sheds, one of which is located Ix:low the floodplain elevation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recomn~nd approval (recognition) of the existing side yard varianc~ to accommodate construction of a new conforming addition on thc property. Relocation of the exiting home which appears to be in sound structural condition to a conforming side yard location is not recommended as such a rn~asure would impose a practical difficulty on the owner of the property. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite $25, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND ' 5341MaywoodRoad, Mound, MN 55364 Q,~L('~f~ ?? ' Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 . Z\q/'l/,, ,~5/~ ~ .,,~; Application Fee: $50.0¢ ~ Case No. '"-~ Distribution: ~7----q City Planner DNR ~ City Engineer Other t, Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot Subdivision DIST~CT ZONING Addr~s Block q Phone (H) Plat # R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Address Phone (H) (W) (M). 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. o Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Q t2 (or existing) Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S(~N ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ~I:~'~ J.~ ~k~p V01t_L. ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application, P. 3 CRSe 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)2 Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No'~. If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: fPL,~ ~P-)~t ! L,7' 10FT'r~ !k} T~' ,,q~F~A'o_~ Y~ ~. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature OX~~ ~ ~L - Date Applicant's Signature Date o~.t~t'. (,o, ev. Z2/e/95) TY AODRESS:i QWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA *Existing Lots of Record ~ outlined in Zoning Ordinan, and el)proved by the Build ~_/~ETACHED BLDGS ODRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open deekJ (1/4' min. oDening between boerdlJ with dj not counted II ha~dcover OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / OVER (in01cate dill SO. FT. X !0% = ,.SO. FT. X ~0% = (for Lots o~ Recor~*~ ay have 40 lercant coverage provided that · Section 38(~:1 225.Subd. 6. B. {see back). ~g Official. {for all Iot~) ............. n/y) . . LENGTH! '5'2., q { X X WIDTH, SO chniques are utilized, as plan must be submitted T TOTAL H U. ' .......... TOTAl. DRJV ~WAY, ETC , X x TOTAL DECK .......... . X TOTAL OTHE ~ ~MPERVIOU~ SURFACE erencei ....~ ............ / DATE 144,A~(i ~0, c~ ~, - , ::: g t~ '; 'B g t" L)g :IZ 966'[,/0'[,.."g0 0 0 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR dAY DUGGAN OF LOTS ~3 &' ~4, BLOCK 9, ~NH~PPL£ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TUXEDO BOULEVARD N 89°4B' 00" .W 80.00 -'"~ :,~: -' GRAVEL DRIVE o' 40.00 JU ";'"-& PARKING_.- ~o.~ ,:, ' 26.4 EXISTING : ~ HOUSE + 6.o 13.6 2~"C6NCR~i~"S'XB S 87°57' 07" E LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, WHIPPLE 80.00 This survey intends to show 'the boundories of the obove described property, end the Iocotion of the existing buildings end visible hardcov¢~ thereon. It does not purport to show any other, improvements or encroechments. Beorings ore based on on assumed datum. e: denotes iron morker found o: denotes iron rnarker set 12 RECEIVED MAY 2 2 1996 NIOUND PLANNING & INSF. .--- N 89°48' 00" ,', 40.00 W 80,00 - -.. :,~: '~ GRAVEL DRIVE '° :.- -..-"J'.'_& PARKING._.-.,[ 4,.1 26.4 EXISTING HOUSE -" 13.6 CONCRETE 'SL I I I t S 87057' 07" E 80.00 -"' 12 _EGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED I IlL J SURVEY ON FILE?~Y~/ NO LOT OF RECORD?~ / NO YARD CITY OF MOUND - ZONIN( INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: 1070OO[60 BI 7,500/0 ~,ooo/~o*~ ~ ~o,ooo/eo 6,000/40 B3 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. 11 30,000/100 DIREL~I'It)N ] REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF SE W E W N S E W(W(W(W(W(W(W(W(W(~ NS E W W ,"ZO/ 15' 10' OR 30' FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' NS E W LAKE TOP OF BLUFF 30% OR 40% /~ This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requin 50' / eats outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound .Planning Department at 472-0600. )0%',! CITY OF MOUND: I REQUEST TO HAVE MY APPLICATION PULLED FROM THE AGENDA OF THE 25TH OF JUNE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I wIgI-I TO REgUIgMIT WITI-I REVIglgD DRAWIlqG§ OF PROPOgED I-IOUgtg TO MI~]2T NEW LOT SIDE YARD SETBACK LIMITATIONS. (10 FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK). I WILL SUBMIT DRAWINGS, SURVEY AND REQUIRED SETBACK AND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS IF REQUIRED THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. YOURS TRULY, O RECEIVED JUN 2 0 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 CASE 96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION RANDALL MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH RUAu, LOTS 6, 5, & NELY 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 24 000R City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report, and noted that the applicant has submitted a revised request which provides conforming lot sizes for both Tracts A and B. Tract A has a total of 6,020 square feet, and Tract B has a total of 8,400 square feet. In order for the subdivision to be approved, the following variances are requested: Recognition of an existing front yard setback variance of 15.28 feet for the existing home. Approval of a variance from the bluff restrictions contained in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The house on the new lot, Tract A, is proposed to have a nonconforming front yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking approval to create a new lot which is nonconforming due to size and slope. Most of Tract A lies within a bluff that according to the survey has a slope of 49%. The Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) prohibits buildings from being located any closer than 10 feet from the top of the bluff. According to the applicant's survey, only a small portion of a proposed garage on Tract A actually lies outside of either the bluff or the required bluff setback. The proposed subdivision creates a new lot that does not comply with the minimum standards of the Mound Zoning Code. Therefore, staff cannot support the minor subdivision and recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial. Koegler noted that when the application for this case was submitted, it did not include the required variance application and fee. The applicant stated that the variance applications were submitted and the fees were paid. The Planner confirmed that this was true. Mueller questioned if the proposed house meets the minimum height restrictions. Sutherland commented that it is difficult to determine with the plan that was submitted, and that he would need more information. It was noted that Moriarity's property received a variance in 1994 for construction of the decks. Mueller clarified with staff that since the lot line is being changed, these lots will loose their lot-of-record status, therefore, the required side yard setbacks will be 10 feet and the maximum amount of hardcover allowed will be 30 percent. 0 Mr. Jack Cook, representative for the applicant, questioned why when his property was recently divided it was permitted to retain the lot-of-record status. He would like the lot-of-record status also retained for this property. The Planner stated that this subdivision will be creating a totally new lot, whereas Mr. Cooks subdivision did not, Koegler offered to ask the attorney, John Dehn, to render an opinion before it goes to the council. Mr. Cook stated that Lot 6 was a separate lot before, but then a previous owner combined them. Mr. Cook emphasized that most all of the homes along this road are built into the same bluff. He feels it would be beneficial to this property to be developed as retaining walls will become part of the construction. He stated that the hillside is starting to erode. He would like to improve and clean-up the neighborhood. Voss moved to deny the applicant's request based on staff's analysis and recommendation. Motion seconded by Burma. Mueller commented that it is admirable to want to clean-up the neighborhood, but this may not be the best way to do it. He commented that Denbigh Road is narrow, and this would allow another house too close to the road. He is strictly opposed to the subdivision as it would be allowing construction in a bluff. Mueller recalled that only one other time was any construction allowed in a bluff and it was part of a PUD and the type of construction was limited. He also feels this lot is too narrow. Hanus does not believe construction in the bluff is a major issue since this whole area is in a bluff. Hanus referenced a recent case were the Planning Commission allowed a porch to be constructed in a bluff. Hanus feels that denial is too harsh and suggested a tabling action. Mueiler commented that the side yard setbacks are also a problem in his opinion. Motion to deny carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Voss, Burma, Michael, Glister, Reifschneider, Weiland, and Mueller. Hanus was opposed. Hanus commented he would have liked to have given the applicant more time to work with staff. The Building Official noted that the applicant could submit a written request to pull this request from the Council agenda in order to allow him time to revise their plan which could then come back to the Planning Commission for review. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see a better cross section drawing. O~ . RECEIVED ' JUN 1 9,1996 'MOUND PLANNING & INSR In response to thc City of Moped Planning Commission'S rulings on June ]0, ]996, I respectively 'submit thc following rebuttals for your review at thc meeting scheduled for Sunc 25, 1996. June 18, 1996 Snow Removal A. Proposed structure would measure 4'-M~Z' from curb on west side; 6'-~l,~Z"-from curb on east side. (See photo). B.' Existing shed, power Pole and garag~are now located in area in question. II. Over-'building and over-usage of the?roperty. proposed plan is 810 square feet under hardcoVer maximum allowed for lot. 2.2' garage' 1. City Planner stated size is not excessive. 2. Mueller stated similar situations (22') have been addressed on Ridgewood, Edgewater and.Island View. 3. City Planner stated that propos, ed improvements will substantially upgrade the existing home while affording the owner reasonable use of the property. III. Tuck-under garage 'B. Vaulted Ceiling' 1. Tuck-under garage would degrade the tog construction of the existing' home. (See photo) 'Square Footage 1o T,u~ek-under garage would decrease ground floor square footage by almost 50%. From 1040 sq. ft. to 540 sq. ft. ,~ a. Living, dining, kitchen and entry, areas ~vould have to be accommodated in 540 square feet. Thank you 'for your consideration. Si~erely, 4790 Northern Road Mound, MN 55364 (6'12) 472-5052 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 ^ omo.. ~-~(~'~ ~"~/~YLOR~4790 NORTHERN ROAD, E. 1/2 OF LOT 27 & W 1/2 OF 28, SUBDIVISION '1~'~ oF LOTS 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID 18-117-23 33 0027 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking variances to construct a garage addition, decks, and a second story addition. Northern Road is one of the tightest neighborhood areas in the City of Mound. The land area is limited by the location of the lakeshore and the County Road. Variances will be necessary in this area to afford property owners reasonable use of their land. The following addresses each of the variance issues applicable to this case: Front Yard Setback - the plan shows a new attached garage with second story living space located on the front of the lot approximately .7 feet from the property line resulting in a 19.3 foot variance. The garage door opens to the side lot line eliminating the need to directly back into Northern Road. The face of the proposed garage door is approximately 28 feet from the western property line. Although the proposed garage is extremely close to the street, there is no reasonable method of locating a conforming garage on the lot. The proposed depth of the garage (22') is not excessive and as evidenced by materials stored along the side of the home, a garage is needed for storage. Upon approval and commencement of construction, an existing storage shed on the lot will be removed. Side Yard Setback - the west side of the existing home is located 5.9 feet from the lot line which is .1 feet under the 6 foot~ requirement. Relocation of the existing structure to a conforming location is not recommended by staff since it would qualify as a "practical difficulty" situation. Lakeshore Setback - It appears from the plans that the existing deck will either be reconstructed or modified to remove a small appendage that extends towards Lake Minnetonka. At its closest point, the deck is approximately 47 feet from the lake which is under the 50 foot setback requirement. Since it appears that the deck will be either rebuilt or modified, the deck should be brought into conformance with the lakeshore setback requirement. The deck that is shown on the plans on the second level of the home conforms to setback requirements. Floodplain Elevation - According to the survey, the elevation of the lowest finished floor of the home is 932.77 and the structure has a crawl space that is at an elevation of 929.04. Both these elevations are under the minimum floodplain elevation for Lake Minnetonka which is 933.0. The proposed improvements constitute a major reconstruction of the existing home. In previous cases of a similar nature, conditions of approval have included raising the floor elevations above the minimum flood level. Raise the elevation of the ........ .-.,~ ......... ~. J . lit Jn sa floors of this home would also be appropriate. In addition to the floodplain elevation issue, the entire lot is located within the existing floodplain. As such, it will require Watershed District approval of the minor amount of fill necessary to construct the garage and raise the floor elevation. The applicant will also need to prepare a detailed grading and drainage plan identifying pertinent elevations and showing compensation measures as applicable. The proposed improvements will substantially upgrade the existing home while affording the owner reasonable use of the property. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback and side yard setback variances subject to the following conditions: The floor elevation of the existing home shall be raised to a minimum elevation of 933.0. The applicant shall prepare a grading and drainage plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. Said plan shall contain contours and spot elevations necessary to permit a full assessment of the grading impacts of the proposed improvements including, but not limited to compensation measures to comply with floodplain requirements. The applicant shall secure required approvals by the watershed district and other applicable agencies. Construction of new improvements shall be in conformance with the Mound floodplain regulations. 5. The existing storage shed shall be removed from the property. The Commission confirmed that staff is recommending the existing house be raised .23 feet. Staff clarified that if more than 50% of house is being altered, the existing is required to be brought into conformance. Sutherland noted that this case was reviewed with the DNR, and there are some acceptable methods of construction by allowing the floodplain to come into a crawl space, however, to get through this process they would need a civil engineer to prepare the plans. Weiland expressed a concern about snow removal and asked where the snow will go when they plow the street. Koegler commented that fortunately, in this area, the other side of the road is undeveloped, and therefore the snow can be directed to one side of the street, away from the garages. Weiland stated that this property would be over-built and considers this proposal as over- usage of the property. Hanus asked if the size of the garage could be reduced to be only 20 feet wide, which would allow for 2 more feet on the street side. Mueller commented that a 22 foot wide garage is not bad, and noted they have dealt with similar situations on Ridgewood, Edgewater, and Island View, and this property has the benefit of being able to push snow to the other side of the street. He feels this is a good improvement. Reifschneider stated that there are options that would be less encroaching, such as building a second story all the way across with a tuckunder garage. The owner stated that he wants to keep the vaulted ceiling in the existing portion of the home and noted that this home is a log house on the inside, and does not want to disturb the existing logs. Clapsaddle commented that this situation is the nature of the neighborhood. Clapsaddle moved staff recommendation. Mueller seconded the motion. Motion failed 4 to 5. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Michael, Mueller, and Hanus. Those opposed were Reifschneider, Weiland, Voss, Glister, and Burma. Motion made by Voss to recommend denial of the variance as requested. Motion seconded by Glister. Motion to deny carried 5 to 4. Those in favor were: Reifschneider, Weiland, Voss, Glister, and Burma. Those opposed were Clapsaddle, Michael, Mueller, and Hanus. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ri'li PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Variances APPLICANT: Raymond Baylor CASE NUMBER: 96-32 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5k LOCATION: 4790 Northern Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to substantially improve an existing home. Proposed construction includes a new garage, decks, and a second story addition over the garage and portions of the existing residence. The second story addition will contain bedrooms and bathrooms. Construction of the proposed improvements will require the issuance of front and side yard variances and the case presents lakeshore setback and floodplain nonconformities that must be addressed. COMMENT: Northern Road is one of the tightest neighborhood areas in the City of Mound. The land area is limited by the locations of the lakeshore and the County Road. Because of natural and man-made constraints, it is virtually impossible to add land area to any of the lots in the neighborhood. As a result, variances will be necessary in this area to afford property owners reasonable use of their land. C The following addresses each of the variance issues applicable to this case: Front Yard Setback - The plans show a new attached garage with second story living space located on the from of the lot approximately .7 feet from the property line resulting in a 19.3 foot variance. The garage door opens to the side lot line eliminating the need to directly back into 7300 Metro BoUlevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Baylor Planning Report June 5, 1996 Page 2 portions of Northern Road. The face of the proposed garage door is approximately 28 feet from the western property line. Although the proposed garage is extremely close to the street, there is no reasonable method of locating a conforming garage on the lot. The proposed depth of the garage (22') is not excessive and as evidenced by materials stored along the side of the home, a garage is needed for storage. Upon approval and commencement of construction, an existing storage shed on the lot will be removed. Side Yard Setback - The west side of the existing home is located 5.9 feet from the lot line which is. 1 feet under the 6 foot requirement. Relocation of the existing structure to a conforming location is not recommended by staff since it would qualify as a "practical difficulty" situation. Lakeshore Setback - It appears from the plans that the existing deck will either be reconstructed or modified to remove a small appendage that extends toward Lake Minnetonka. At its closest point, the deck is approximately 47 feet from the lake which is under the 50 foot setback requirement. Since it appears that the deck will be either rebuilt or modified, the deck should be brought into conformance with the lakeshore setback requirement. The deck that is shown on the plans on the second level of the home conforms to setback requirements. Floodplain Elevation - According to the survey, the elevation of the lowest finished floor of the home is 932.77 and the structure has a crawl space that is at an elevation of 929.04. Both of these elevations are under the minimum floodplain elevation for Lake Minnetonka which is 933.0. The proposed improvements constitute a major reconstruction of the existing home. In previous cases of a similar nature, conditions of approval have included raising the floor elevations above the minimum flood level. Raising the elevation of the floors of this home would also be appropriate. In addition to the floodplain elevation issue, the entire lot is located within the existing floodplain. As such it will require watershed district approval for the minor amount of fill necessary to construct the garage and raise the floor elevation. The applicant will also need to prepare a detailed grading and drainage plan identifying pertinent elevations and showing compensation measures as applicable. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed improvements will substantially upgrade the existing home while affording the owner reasonable use of the property. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback and side yard setback variances subject to the following conditions: 1. The floor elevation of the existing home shall be raised to a minimum elevation of 933.0. Baylor Planning Report June 5, 1996 Page 3 The applicant shall prepare a grading and drainage plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. Said plan shall contain contours and spot elevations necessary to permit a full assessment of the grading impacts of the proposed improvements including but not limited to compensation measures to comply with floodplain requirements. 3. The applicant shall secure required approvals by the watershed district and other applicable agencies. 4. Construction of new improvements shall be in conformance with the Mound floodplain regulations. 5. The existing storage shed shall be removed from the property. O VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 RECEIVED HAY 2 3 1996 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner ~ DN~ City Engineer Other Public Wor~ SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY Address 47qo Lot ~"$[-~7- Subdivision ~ / OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) PID# !~;[~ ZONING DISTRICT Name Plat # R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Address 4-790.61~v,_rr~.~t ~ Phone (H) 4'77-- ~V~C..~Z (W) ~-/Z~-/ Name Address (M) Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made,~fotr zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, .j~.no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ,~['~{i~ (Rev. 12/S/95) Variance Application, P. 2 ............. Case No. Do the existing structures compl~t with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes.No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): o SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( 1~ W ) 7~.D ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N ~S~N_) [o ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( NS~[~ (,o ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: (N_..S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ~)S E W ) _~'0 ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft 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 is located? Yes~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too nan'ow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 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: o Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature J LAKE O) MIN.NETONKA :k EXISTING HOUSE car port croes cut in concrete .... I I I I S 85o36, 30" [r ."-------- ,~~o. o___o · (0,0. O) . -r-- --- -~. ' survey line.- # ! --I I I. D e c k (931.0) (930.9) -, ~o.~ I zo.o I EXISTIKIG ! ~'.l qo.~ I I I conc. '' , ] ' ' ' I I walk ' : O~,v'¢ t~ j EXISTING '¢ SHED"j,' ! ! 2K.o NORTHERN W , . I' ~l ~ .~,,~ r.-. ~.) 04 o ,-- EXISTING HOUSE , , C,.~o,?) ,, 0.2 ROAD LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : The Ecst Half of Lot 27, and the West Half of Lot 28, Subdivision of Lots 1 &32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood. C't o · denotes iron marker (947.5) · denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. -, This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the of an existing house and shed, and the location of all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does---' -not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. CO' LOTS CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR RECEIVED HAY 3 0 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSR RAY BAYLOR IN LOTS 27, AND 28, SUBDIVISION OF 1 &32, SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE' MIN'NE TONKA EXISTING HOUSE car port O · c k (930.9) -. EXlSTI ,1~ HOUSE NORTHERN EXISTING HOUSE cone. EXISTING 60.00 .::.,"'"*'"~" ~-~ ~ ~. by ROAD LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : The E~st Half of Lot 27, and the West Half of Lot 28, Subdivision of Lots 1 &:32, Skorp and Lindquist's Rovenswood. o : denotes iron marker (947.5) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of on existing house and shed, and the location of alt visible "hordcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. No+e" THERE I$ NO 931.~ CONTOUR LINK' ON THE PI~OPERTY. 5'2~-~6 CITY OF MOUND HA,~OC0VE~ CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA -, RECEIVED.· HAY 3 0 ~996' · MOUND..'PLANNING & INSR SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) I :7 d c'~ __$O. FT. X 40% I (fo~ Lots of ReCorde) ....... I.;. _. , ~ SO. FT. X 15% =.(for detached buildings only) . . I.-' · Existing Lots of Record may heve 40 peroen! coverage provided that techniques ar outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,$ubd. 6. B. 1, {see beck). A plan must end 'epproved by ~he Building Official. Jtilized, as submitted HOUSE LENGTH ' WIDTH SQ FT X Ct O ~-TACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS o~on~ng b,r~ween no~ coun~d OTHER X I TOTAL HOUSE X TOTAL DETACHED X X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X 2.;L -·, .5'72 ./o 3?0 TOTAL HARDCOMER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE :~U~/OVER {ir,::iicate d;fferance) BAYLOR REMODEL SCHULTZ DESIGN C~ BAYLOR REMODEL SCHULTZ DESIGN BAYLOR REMODEL MOUNO. MN SCHULTZ DESIGN BAYLOR REMODEL SCHULTZ DESIGN 3409 ~! L.*K[ ~T · 0RON0. MN. 553§6 · (612) 449-8947 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE7 YES / ~(~ LOT OF RECORD?~) NO YARD I llOUSE ......... DIRECTION R1 10.000/6~ B1 7,500/0 ?~iA 6,ooo/n0~ E2 2o,ooo/eo R2 6,000/40 E3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED I EXISrYING/PROPOSED FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N $ E W N W N S E E W 15' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT W_4DTH: VARIANCE I 30' GARAGE, SIlED ..... OR OTHEI DETACHED FRONT E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF ltARDCOVER ,o, o¢oT) CONFORMING? YES / NO This Zoning Information Sheet only ,nummnrizes n portion of the requi~ .Planning Department at 472-0600. 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 10' OR 30' o< aents outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, ¢ontnct the City of Mound "7'( 18-11 (5 RESOLUTION #96- ~ RESOLUTION TO ~PPROVE ~ VARIANCE To ~LLOW CONSTR~CT~ON OF ~ NONCONFORMING SHED ~T 5024 BARTLETT BLVD., PID 24-117-24 12 0002 P&Z CASE #96-34 WHEREAS, 'the owner, Gaylen and Wanyce Thostenson, hav~.~ applied for a front yard ~etback variance to allow construction of ) a nonconforming 10' x 10 portable storage building, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. This property fronts on three streets, Bartlett to the south, Avon to the east, and Bayport to the north. A 30 foot front yard setback to all three street frontages is required for principal structures, a 20 foot front yard setback to the north and south is allowed for accessory structures on a through lot. A 10 foot side yard setback to the east is required, and; WHEREAS, the shed is proposed to be located 4 feet from the north property line and 6 feet from the west property line resulting in a 16 foot front yard setback variance request, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval based on the fact that this is a corner lot which makes it difficult to locate a shed with conforming setbacks and what is proposed is the most logical location, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby grant a 16 foot front yard setback variance to allow for a 10' x 10' portable storage building. 2. The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 10' x 10' portable storage building. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 6, Block 3, John S. Carlson Proposed Resolution Thostenson p. 2 So Se This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2.4, 1996 CASE 96-34: VARIANCE FOR SHED, GAYLEN & WANYCE THOSTENSON, 5024 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 6, BLOCK 3, JOHNS S. CARLSON, PID 24-117-24 12 000::;> The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a 10' x 10' portable storage building that will be nonconforming to the north front yard setback. This property fronts on three streets, Bartlett to the south, Avon to the east, and Bayport to the north. Bayport Road is unimproved and it is unlikely it will be improved in the near future. City Code requires, for detached accessory buildings, a setback of 20 feet to the north. The shed is proposed to be placed 4 feet from the north property line, and 6 feet from the west property line. The shed will be portable and could be moved in the future, if needed, and there is a minimal impact at this time. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback to allow construction of a portable 10' x 10' storage building, with a condition that if the street is improved the shed must be relocated to a conforming location. Weiland explained what the property looks like and he feels there is no need for Bayport to ever be improved. He also commented that the shed will not restrict usage of the fire hydrant. Reifschneider stated that the shed will look best in the location which is proposed. Motion made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant, Gaylen Thostenson, requested his case to be heard by the City Council on June 25th. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~VOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of June 24, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff ~ , Jon Sutherland, Building Official -~,.~ ~ Variance Request Gaylen & Wanyce Thostenson 96-34 5024 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 6, Block 3, John S. Carlson, PID 24-117-24 12 0002 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a 10' x 10' portable storage building that will be nonconforming to the north front yard setback. This property fronts on three streets, Bartlett to the south, Avon to the east, and Bayport to the north. Bayport Road is unimproved and it is unlikely it will be improved in the near future. City Code requires, for detached accessory buildings, a setback of 20 feet to the north. The shed is proposed to be placed 4 feet from the north property line, and 6 feet from the west property line. COMMENTS: The shed will be portable and could be moved in the future, if needed, and there is a minimal impact at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback to allow construction of a portable 10' x 10' storage building, with a condition that if the street is improved the shed must be relocated to a conforming location. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 9, 1996. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APpLIcATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55301 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 At:~plic:ition Fee ' ,/~'OR OFFICE USE ONLY). i Planning Commission Date: : City Council Date: !Distribution: _q Case No. City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWN ER) Lot L~_ Block '3 S ~division ~-"0~lk ~0'Y[ UD _ ',o '.o~ '_, . - - ZONING DISTKICT ~_ R-IA R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 B-3 Address ~ O*t{ ~ ~ I}/~ ' 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning,~, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? J~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, listT3"~(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. · Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): : . %~&h. (, ~".4.~" %a'), · ' '. ' · "~ used (Rev. 12/8/95) .cation, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): e co SETBACKS: REQUIRED [3rc~,.5 Front Yard: ( N ~ E W ) % (3 ft. \~'t ~'~'~ Side Yard: ( N S~)W ) ~ o ft. ~o,t~qeSide Yard: (("N?)S E W )~ q_D' ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E 6V_~) ht Or[0 ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. · (NSEW) ft. Street Frontage: ft. Lot Size: sq ft Hardcover: sq ft REQUESTED VARIANCE ft. ft.k ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. \~ ft. ft. '~ ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in wtzich it is located?' Yes 60, 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 ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify (Rev. 12/8/95) ,icatiou, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the ~and after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)2 Yes (), No ~. ff yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No (). If yes, explain: Yes ~, Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~,), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature /~'~( App.=nt's SignatUre (R~. 12/8/95) RECEIVED J U N 1 2 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. (,---.------ I O0 House fO0 ~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS SURFACE COVERAGEI OWNER'S NAME: SO© SQ. ~. X 30% LOT AREA ~ .. LOT AREA ~ ''~ ~ '~ SQ. ~. X 40% LOT AREA ?,% /?j SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (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. I LENGTH -f WIDTH HOUSE 'dF u~ /~, ', L~t~g'' <~'' X fl~ ri' ~" SQ FT DETACHED BLDGS ----- X "-- (GARAGE/S H ED) (~(o ~ ~e.~) 1~1 X 10I TOTAL DETACHED DRIVEWAY, PARKING ~/' Ur'~ X AREAS, SIDEWALKS, : I¢~.. X ETC. 9x,( ~'~ %~¢ ~<; '. q q,' X DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. x ) = TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~/-l~iii~ (indicate difference) ............................... F ~DUND ~ May 21.~ 1974 ~ TO: Tlm Honorable M~yor znd City Council ~ t SU~]~CT~ S~:*uotu~e on City Property ~ ~e o:~mr oi Lq'b .O~ Bl~ck .~ JoPa% S. Car!S~ ~d~tion has ~ques~d ~missien to b.~ld s omskstbs~ co~t~o~ .'{he a~a c~ ~ {he City ~t tho cCC,nsf of Avon D~-lvs end ~ypoi~ Read. The attachi~d zmn 'show~,'~.I the triangular asma apparently left off Lot 6' ."" that f,h~ ~ti.tian~ wishes to install the ~sketball court. Bmyport r~oad is not open st this point but i,t does have sewer inst~llsd in the stx~et ~nd one h~,~o uses it for ~ driveway. ¢¢ MA~. It ~ppears thzt the p~cps~d uso and it is recommond~d premission be This . ~sy 28th Agendm-. L~o~ f little benefit ~to the City Kopp ¢ Ul I DELUXE ESTATE The 'Estate Ires for many years been one of our more popular styles. 4' SIDEWALL 8xSx8 ..... $ 749.0~ 8x10x8 ..... 649.0C 8x 12)(8 ..... 949.0(3 8xl 6x8 ..... 1149.00 Extra Z Length..$129.00 3'6" SIDEWALL 10x10x8'6". .... $1099.00 10x12xS'6" ..... 1199.00 1OX16xS'6'. .... 1399.00 1 Ox 18x8'6". .... 1529.00 10x20xS'6'. .... 1649.00 Extra 2' Length..$179.00 6' SIDEWALL 8x8xg'6' . .... $ 899.00 8x10x9'6" . .... g9g.o0 8x12x9'6' . .... 1099.00 8xl 6x9'6' . .... 1299.00 Extra 2' Length..$169.00 10xl6xl0 ..... 1599.00 10x18x10 ..... 1779.00 10x20x10 ..... 1949.00 Extra 2' Length..$189.00 12x16x12 ..... $2049.00 12x20x12 ..... 2349,00 12x24x12 ..... 2649.00 Ask about our advertised special prices! 7' SIDEWALL 10x10x11 ..... $1299.00 10x12x11 ..... 1399.00 10x16x11 ..... 1699.00 10x18x11 ..... 1879.00 10x2Ox11 ..... 2049.00 Exlra 2' Length $249.00 t 12x16x13 ..... $2149.00 12x20x13 ..... 2449.00 12x2.4x13 ..... 2749.00 1Z(16x14'6" ..... $2249.00 12x20x14'6". .... 2549.00 12x24x14'6". .... 2849.00 16x 16xl 5 ..... $2799.00 16x20x15 ..... 3199.00 18x24x15 ..... 3599.00 8' SIDEWALL 16x16x18 ..... $3199.00 16×20x16 ..... 3799.00 16x24x16 ..... 4399.00 7' SIDEWALL 10xlOx9 ..... $1329 00 12x10x9 ..... 1399.00 16xl 0x9 ..... 1769.00 20x10x9 ..... 2069.00 TACKROOM A different look with a tau sidewall. Includes window, flower box or shutters. 6' SIDEWALL 10x8x8 ..... $ 979.00 12x8x8 ..... 1099.00 16x8x8 ..... 1369.00 Extra 2' Length..$159.00 ..... $1139.00 .....1299.00 16x10x8 ..... 1629.00 20xl 0x8 ..... 1899.00 7' SIDEWALL 10xSx9 ..... $10G9.00 12xSx9 ..... 1189.00 16x8x9 ..... 1499.00 Extra 2' Length..$199.00 12x12x10 ..... 1699.00 16x12x10 ..... 2099.00 20xl 2xl 0 ..... 2499.00 24xl 2xl 0 ..... 2899.00 8' SIDEWALL 12x12xll ..... 1839.00 16x 12xl 1 ..... 2249.00 20xl 2xl 1 ..... 2659.00 24xl 2xl 1 ..... 3059.00 STATESMAN Has tall sidewall and gable roof. Prices may vary by location. NOT INCLUDED BY HEARTLAND * Painting, Staining or Caulking e Leveling of building beyond 6' ~ EXCAVATING ~ Building Permits, Zoning or Covenant Searches 6' SIDEWALL 6x6x7'3' ..... $ 549.0( 6xSx7'3' .....649.00 6x10x7'3' . .... 749.00 6x12.x7'3' . .... 849,00 8x8x7'8' ..... $ 799.00 8x10x7'8' . .... 899.00 8x12x7'8" . .... 1049.00 8x16xT'8" . .... 1299.00 10x8x8 ..... $ 899.00 10x10x8 ..... 1079.00 10x12x8 ..... 1249.00 10x16x8 ..... 1499.00 10x20x8 ..... 1799.00 12x8x8'6" ..... $1159.00 12xl 0x8'6'. .... 1299.00 12x12xS'6'. .... 1549.00 12x16x8'6' ..... 1799.00 12x20x8'6'. .... 2099.00 ~ 12x24xS'6'. .... 2399.00 All dimensions me approximate. 6' SIDEWALL 16xl 2x9'6" ..... $1989.00 16x16xg'6" ..... 2499.00 16x20xg'6". .... 2899.00 16x24xg'6'. .... 3419.00 7' SIDEWALL 10x8x9 ..... $ 949.00 10x10x9 ..... 1129.00 10x12x9 ..... 1299.00 10x16x9 ..... 1579.00 10x20x9 ..... 1899.00 12xSx9'6' ..... $1199.00 12:x10x9'6". .... 1399.00 12x12x9'6", .... 1639.00 12x16xg'6". .... 1849.00 12x20x9'6". .... 2149.00 12x24xg'6". .... 2449,00 16x12x10'6'.... $2059.00 16x16x10'6'..,. 2609.00 16x20x10'6', .... 3079.00 16x24x10'6' ..... 3569.00 Prices subject to change without nogce. PAYMENT PLANS Payment for your Heartland building may be made In the following ways. Ail arrangements Ior payment must be made at the time el' ordering the unit. 1. C.O.D. - Payment Is made upon completion of unit. 2. VISA, MasterCmd, and Discover Card number and expiration date are given to and approved by Hemlland aL the time eL the order. 3. Heartland Bank One MasterCard with 90 day option. All correspondence concerning payments shou!d be directed to 'Receivables DepL" P.O. Box 1770, Carmel, IN 46032. All buildings F.O.B. nearest plant. Prices include delivery and sol up near one of our plants. 8' SIDEWALL 16x12x11'6'_.. $2129.00 16x16x11'6'.._ 2729.00 16x20x11'6'... 3259.00 7/31/95 250special FEATUR~ OF HEARTLAND BUILDINGS All buildings are hand crafted on your lot with FREE delivery within a limited mileage radius 2 Year Limited Warranty 5 Year Warrranty on siding Prirned, ready-to-paint surface on siding Floor joist spaced 12" on center 6' Conlinuous aluminum hinge for added strength Special rigid-door stabilizer 2x4 Door Trim for strength and utility Fast year round service on these weather-tight yard buildings All buildings constructed on 4x4 pressure treated runners Self sealing shingles with choice of black, brown or white All horizontal panel joints are protected by using e, plastic Z bar flashing HF_ARTLA. ND IIOME OF 7HE YAJ~D BARN' SINCE 1975 ~~ DELUXE ESTATE TACKROOM Protected by one or more of I~e following design patents: 4573493, 4481744 STATESMAN Price List eartland Industries, Inc. 817 Vandaiia Street St. Paul, MN 55114 612-646-0652 FAX 612-644-5249 Advertised Sale Price [] Competitive Price [] (Explain) Chh# Store# · PO~ pip to . ~heduled ~live~ Date Order Date Invoi~ Date THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE. PAY ROOF COLOR ~ack ~ ~ite ITEM ~ DESCRIPTION (~r.,~) County # ~' Zone t' chg.. , ,q FROM NUMBERED INVOICE ONLY. Brown Custom PRICE Option Totals (Prices subject to change If building not delivered within 45 days from order date) NAME Where did you hear about Heartland Barns? (check one or more) TOTAL S~lee Tax Del. Chg. (if any) TOTAL Down Pymt. Balance Due Pymt. Amt. Pymt. Form (Ck/Chg) Pymt. ~ ,/3qq ~ Newspaper Generally a building permit Is not required. ~ Driving by display However, It Is your responsibility to obtain any Seen In malls permit which your area requires. Also, make sure your area allows detached buildings. ~ Referred by a friend Other ALL INVOICES ARE DUE UPON RECEIPT. On delinquent invoices, all rights and remedies available to Heartland will be initiated, Including rights to repossess the unIt and to file any mechanics lien. Buyer shall be responsible for all cost of collection, to include a reasonable attorney fee. ALL ORDERS C,O,D, (unless.approved at time of order) - Returned Check Fee $15.00 All buildings F.O.B. nearest plant. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES LOT OF RECORD'?, YES NO I R3 · YARD DIRECTION I REQUIRED HOUSE ......... REAR N S E W [ ~5' LAKE N S E W 0' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W ~0' TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Bi 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 SEE ORD. Il 30,0OO/1OO I EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE:.9~/ 17'500 LOT WIDTH: LOT DEFrH: 1'"7% / YARIANCE '70 r This Zoning Information Sheet o~y summarizes a portion of ~e requiremenm outlined in ~e City of Mound Zo~ng Orflin~ce. For ~er ~formation, contact ~e City of Mound II ~ I ~< .,~ --, O I O Pi' ~ O O O O [I RESOLUTION #96'~...~__~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2978/2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE LOTS 13 & 14v BLOCK 1, PELICAN POINT PID #19-117-23 42 0038 & 31 0139 P&Z CASE #96-33 WHEREAS, Boyer Building Corporation, owner, has submitted a Minor Subdivision to relocate a lot line in the request for. a ......... d Cit~' Code Section 320 and Minnesota.St~t~ manner requlrea my m~u,, ~ Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conQuc=ea thereunder, and; WHEREAS, Pelican Point is a development of double units with a common wall that straddles a lot line. In the case of the subject units the common wall was built in the wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common alignment position. The amount of the shift in the line is very minor (less than 1 foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback requirements, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 zoning District, and is a Planned Development Area, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby approve the minor subdivision to make an adjustment to an existing lot line as shown on the attached "Exhibit A", and subject to the developer preparing new legal descriptions for the two lots and submitting said descriptions to the city Engineer for review and approval. 2. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. 3. The city Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the city The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. 4. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. RESOLUTION ~96-~ "EXHIBIT A" SURVEY FOR: BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED LOT 1.3 Lot 13 and that port of Lot 14, PELICAN POINT, according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepln County, Minnesota lying northeasterly of the following described line; Commencing at the most southerly comer of sold Lot 14; thence North 44 degrees 14 minutes 11 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 14 o distance of 64.30 feet to the point of beginning of the llne to be described; thence North 59 degrees 21 minutes 18 seconds West o distance of 139.82 feet to the most northedy corner of said Lot 14 and there terminating. PROPOSED LOT l~- That port of Lot 14, PELICAN POINT, according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southwesterly of the following described Itne; Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Lot 14; thence North 44 degrees 14 minutes 11 seconds East, assumed beoringo along the southeasterly line of acid Lot 14 o distance of 64.30 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 59 degrees 21 minutes 18 seconds West o distance of 139.82 feet to the most northerly corner of said Lot 14 end there terminating. CERTIFICATION: NORTH I hereby certify that this mop was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om a duly Registered Land Surve{.~l~tJh'd~r~/the Iowa Doted this 29th day of May, 1996 -~. ~J Cc,~ ~//~, of the State of Minnesota, ,,., .,, .:..;~5' '~'... .'-/ J~ck Boike .... ~. MFnnesdto [~lcenS~.,~o.2{)281E ~4t / '",.. .......... o','" / ~ = ~o / ; ,"~ ', % { ~ '~ ~ ~' "' ...................-' 7415 Wo~eto Boule~rd Mlnneop~l., Mlnnesoto 55426 ......... i ........... ~ , Il ~ II ,I ,1[ , It I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 CASE 96-33: MINOR SUBDIVISION BOYER BUILDING CORP., 2978/2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, PELICAN POINT, PID #19-117-23 42 0038 & 31 0139 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to make an adjustment to an existing lot line. Pelican Point is a development of double units with a common wall that straddles a lot line. In the case of the subject units the common wall was built in the wro.n.g location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common alignment position. The amount of the shift in the line is very minor (less than 1 foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback requirements. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision as proposed subject to the developer preparing new legal descriptions for the two lots and submitting said descriptions to the City Engineer for review and approval. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to approve the subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Ill k--4n PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: John Boyer - Boyer Building Corporation CASE NUMBER: 96-33 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5j LOCATION: 2978 Pelican Point Circle EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (Planned Development Area) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to make~ an adjustment to an existing lot line. Pelican Point is a development of double units with a common wall that straddles a lot line. In the case of the subject units, the common wall was built in the wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common alignment position. The amount of the shift in the line is very minor (less than 1 foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision as proposed subject to the developer preparing new legal descriptions for the two lots and submitting said descriptions to the City Engineer for review and approval. 7300 Metro BoUlevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 612-8~5-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER ??5 P02 JUN 06 '96 09:14 Solutions for Land Plannins and Dcsign Hoisington Koe§ler Group Inc. mn PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: John Boycr - Boyer Building Corporation CASE NUMBER: 96-33 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5j LOCATION: 2978 Pelican Point Circle EXISTING ZONING: R- 1 (Planned Development Area) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to make an adjustment to an existing lot line. Pelican Point is a developn~nt of double units with a conunon wall that straddles a lot line. In the ca~ of thc subject units, thc common wall was built in the wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common alignment position. The an~unt of the shiR in the line is very minor (less than 1 foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision as proposed subject to the developer preparing new legal descriptions for the two lots and submitting said descriptions to the City Engineer for review and approval. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 jlt~/ (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 .Distribution: ~".~fl City Planner DNR ~ ' Public Works Other ' ~ City Engineer I V Application Fee: $50.00 ~)/~ , Escrow Deposit:~:: 103~7 $1,000 ~' Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: .................................................................................................... PROPER'T~ Subject Address INFORMATION LEGAL D~S~RIPTION Subdivision~~ zo.,.. ~ISTRICT ~ircle: ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 8-1 B-2 8-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~wner other: OWNER Namo iff o~h~r applicant) Address Phone (H) (W). (M). ENGINEER Address Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { } yes,,~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This applicat/~ must be signed by a_L/ owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case, r s Signature /,~ Date Owner's Signature Date ....... LL ......... , ,j, II ! l, I a ,,a~ ! ~ 0 / >~.. ,V2. (~ :2, - C: NORTH SCALE 1" = 50' SURVEY FOR: BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION PROPERTY ADDRESS: and Pelican Point Circle. Mound, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Furnished by client) Lots 15 and 14. Block 1, PELICAN POINT. according to the recorded plot thereof end situate in Hennepin County. Minnesota. I hereby certify that this is o true end correct representation of o survey of the boundaries of the end above described o~Y!~.hU~Jq~tlon of. o, II b. ulldings, if any. thereon and o visible encroachments ~f~ oqY~' f~'o.m or/~0 sola ~ono. Doted this 3rd doy of April, 1996 .~' '_..-" "~: Revised this 22th doy of April, 199~:' [~f/~y~.~ :. 1. ~e orientation of thru beonng s~te~ ~s based on the northeesteHy lin of Lot 13, Block 1, PELICAN POINT which Is assumed to have ~ bearing of South 64 degrees, 39 minutes, 01 seconds East. 2. Ares of the property described hereon is {4,569 ;quote feet or 0.334 ~cres. 3. Existing utilities, services end underground structures sho~n hereon, were located either ph~icolly, from existing records or by resident testimony. end ere provided for informational purposes only. Other utilities and underground structures may be present. Exact locations should be obtained from the owners of the respective utilities prior to any design, planning, or excavation. EXWlllM~ BUILDINO // EXI833N(~ INDiCATeS PROPOSED ELEVATION~ulL~Na PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: * ~ ~ LOT 13 TOP OF BLOCK = 970.0 BASEMENT FLOOR = 960.0 GARAGE FLOOR = 969.0 LOT 14 TOP OF BLOCK ~ 970.0 NOTEI 2543-56 BASEMENT FLOOR = 960.0 GARAGE FLOOR = 966.5 RELA'IIONSHIPS BE33NEEN FLOOR ' ', - ELEVATIONS TO BE VERIFIED BY_~ I~UILDER ,;;" ':'i,. ':': .'i:" . ~'~:.- ' ', '~; i ~ ;~ '~ ', ~. ~,~;,(;. ~,~.,~.~ ~,,...;~ LEGEND HYDRANT TEL.E. BOX ELEC. BOX · STOP BOX CABLE BOX E(3AN, FIELD & NOWAK IN~ SURVEYORS 7415 Woy'zoto Boulevard Minneapolis. Minnesota 55426 22504L14 504LI 3 1000 2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE TWN HOME#iI309 4-25-96 ~LBM#3306 5-8-96 FURANCE#3310 5-10-96 R1/PDA LOT 14 BLOCK 1 19-117-23-31 0139 PELICAN POINT 05633 2978 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE TWN HOME#II310-4-25-96 PLMB#3307 5-8-96 FURNACE#3311-5-10_96 R1/PDA LOT 13 BLOCK ~ 19-117-23 42 0038 PELICAN POINT 05633 GOVT LOT ,5 I (55-g0) ,Il, &il (2-25) (26) GOVT L( $4 /! 37)// · o · o (2) I) .2Z.63 I ! ( ~ ~ OUTLOT C , i (~9) 43 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 96-26 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERM/T FOR MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AT 2620 COMMERCE BOULEVARD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 9, 1996 to consider the approval of an amended conditional use permit to allow the operation of an Auto Repair Business for Meyer's Mound Service at 2620 Commerce Boulevard, legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3, and the south half of 47, 48, and 49, Block 9, Mound Bay Park, PID's 23-117-24 14 0043 and 0050. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Peggy~ne~t, Planning Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by June 28, 1996. Published in "The Laker" June 29, 1996. printed on recyclecl paper MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 28, 1996 1.12 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, STEPHANIE COON//42314. City Manager Ed Shulde stated Ms. Coon has applied for a special permit to allow for private structures on public land, known as Devon Common, for a stairway, retaining wall, plantings, electric outlet and lights, flag pole and playhouse. Jessen stated she could not approve this activity on the commons as it is public land and private structures do not belong there. Jensen stated private buildings do not belong on public lands, nor is she in favor of lights on public lands. Discussion related to the Commons Task force and pulling this permit off until they make their recommendations regarding private structures on public land. Ahrens stated the applicant wanted to repair the stairs and if the total item were pulled from the agenda, they could not repair them. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ON PUBLIC LAND FOR STEPHANIE COON, INCLUDING A STAIRWAY, RETAINING WALL, ELECTRIC OUTLET & LIGHTS, FLAG POLE, PLANTINGS AND A PLAYHOUSE, LOCATED ON DEVON COMMON ABU'I~ING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK SITE $42314. The vote was called resulting a 3-2 pass. Jessen and Jensen voted nay. See Note: In checking the City Code, a 4/5 vote is required to approve construction on public right-of-way. Therefore, the item did not pass, it failed. The applicant will be notified and the item will return to the Council at a future date. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND FOR STEPHANIE COON, INCLUDING A STAIRWAY, RETAINING WALL, ELECTRIC OUTLET & LIGHTS, FLAG POLE, PLANTINGS AND A PLAYHOUSE LOCATED ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4729 IBLAND VIEW DRIVE DOCK SITE #42314 WHEREAS, Stephanie Coon, owner of 4729 Island View Drive, has applied for a Special Permit to allow private structures on public land known as Devon Common, including a stairway, retaining wall, plantings, electric outlet and lights, flag pole and playhouse, 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 of Devon Common, Dock Site #42314, is classified as a Type C Common, meaning, "Shoreline with nontraversable space; stairs needed to shoreline, not accessible by public right-of-way (abutting property owners only)", and; WHEREAS, Stephanie Coon and Michael Pride have requested to replace the stairway, install lights along the stairs, repair and paint the existing cement retaining wall, and install plantings to screen the retaining wall, and; WHEREAS, Stephanie Coon has agreed to assume responsibility of the playhouse, and; WHEREAS, 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, does hereby approve a Special Permit to allow private structures on public land known as Devon Common for Stephanie Coon, owner of the abutting property, 4729 Island View Drive subject tot he following conditions: , me The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holders. Ail conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock licensee will be withheld until completion. .... !~J ........ ,J , Ii ! II, ,i m a, Proposed Resolution Coon Page 2 The stairway may be replaced. The new stairway shall be constructed according to code and approved by the Building official. The retaining wall may be repaired and painted with a neutral color. Plantings/bushes must be installed at the base of the retaining wall to screen the wall, and also bushes on top of the wall shall be installed, as outlined in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Prior to installation, a plan describing the type of plantings shall be submitted and approved by the Parks Director. Plantings should not block or hinder access along the commons. New electric outlet and lights may be installed, as shown on the plan. All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The city Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the city Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. The flag pole and playhouse may remain, as is. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION ~ OF A MEETING MAY 9, 1996 PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended approval of a 5 year permit for Batch #8, subject to the conditions as noted on the chart for Batch #8. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock licensee will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holders. *All ~ on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 , DOCK i ABUTTING ADDRESS I ENCROACHMENT I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE 42314 4729 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE REPLACEMENT OF STAIRWAY AND REPAIRS TO STEPHANIE COON - RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL. NEW STAIRWAY SHALL BE TYPE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO CODE AND APPROVED BY~ C contacted THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. - PLANTINGS PLANTINGS, PER PLAN, SEE BELOW.** - ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE NEW ELECTRIC LIGHTS AND OUTLET AS SHOWN & OUTLET ON PLAN.* - PLAY HOUSE REMOVE OR RELOCATE FLAG POLE AND PLAY HOUSE ONTO - FLAG POLE PRIVATE PROPERTY. **//42314, Coon: As an alternative to the proposed planter box on top of the retaining wall, staff recommends the applicant install plantings/bushes at the base of retaining wall to screen the wall and also bushes on top of the wall, as outlined in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Prior to installation, a plan describing the type of plantings shall be submitted and approved by the Parks Director. Plantings should not block or hinder access along the commons. The Parks Director noted that an application was submitted by the adjacent property owner. Applicant, Stephanie Coon stated that the playhouse is structurally sound, but it needs the trim painted so it will match the house. She was told when she purchased her house that the likelihood that playhouse would be allowed to remain would be good because it is structurally sound. She related the history of the playhouse and noted that the City laid the foundation and moved it to the commons. Darling asked if the playhouse would not be a public structure now that it is on public land? Byrnes emphasized that you have to cross private property in order to get to this commons, so their stair would not be used by the public. Goode added that this commons is not traversable, without a stairway. Fackler commented that staff has not specifed who is required to do the removal, and that they hope at this time to work out an agreement with the adjacent land owner; if they want to keep the structure and take responsibility for it or if they do not want to take responsibility for it and prefer that it be removed. Coon emphasized that the playhouse is not a large structure, it is only 6' x 9'. Darling quoted a statement made by Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney, in a letter to Ed Shukle dated November 10, 1995, "I would also caution that stairways which are located on public lands are in effect open to the public's use." Darling questioned if this also applies to other private structures. Pederson commented that the dock is considered private, and questioned how this is different than stairs. It was noted that the dock is located in the water, not on land. Darling also quoted from the same letter, "There is a potential for litigation and even a potential for a loss where the steps are on public land . . ." Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Goode commented that logically, when commons are nonaccessible or nontraversable, structures should not be considered public. Darling stated that they need to follow rules that are in place today. Casey emphasized that there are also scenic and passive uses for the commons, and some people prefer to view a natural shoreline, rather than a shoreline cluttered with structures. Byrnes confirmed that Faclder had stated earlier that if an owner assumes responsibility for a structure it may remain, and then when it gets to a dilapidated state or is destroyed by natural causes, that it would eventually be removed. Stephanie Coon agreed to assume responsibility of the playhouse. Michael Pride, Stephanie Coon's husband, reviewed the plans submitted with their application which include replacement of the stairway, lights installed on the stairs, repair of the cement retaining wall, painting the retaining wall, and planting ivy or some other type of vegetation in front of the wall. Casey asked if they would consider native plantings. Pride commented that they will work with staff and plant whatever is recommended. It was noted that this is a south facing hillside which gets a lot of sun. Pride stated that they prefer to keep the flag pole, and noted that it is bordered with railroad ties, about 3' x 4'. MOTION by Byrnes, seconded by Ahrens approve a five year permit, as recommended by staff with the exception that the playhouse and the flag pole may remain, and that the applicant talk to staff about plantings and the retaining wall. Casey commented that they are perpetuating old mistakes by allowing things to remain, and he agrees with Darling that they need to make policy decisions and determine if these structures should be considered either public or private, and decide what uses they should allow. Casey stated that he would oppose the motion, and that he is not in favor of the lights or allowing the flag pole to remain. Goode is in favor of allowing the playhouse to remain, however, feels the flag pole is a separate issue because this area will never look like public land. Ron McCombs stated that the rest of Lake Minnetonka is not pristine, and asked why Mound is trying to make the commons look pristine, and emphasized that flag poles are not harmful to environment. Casey stated that every City has rules and codes and as a Park Commission they need to recommend where the line should be drawn. The Shoreland Management Ordinance is one of these codes which both private and public land must comply with. Motion carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Goode, Byrnes, and Pederson. Opposed were: Casey, Geffre, and Darling. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, ~996 Ahrens stated that the Council has determined that if an applicant does not agree with staff's recommendation, that the Council will approve the permit anyway, pending the recommendations from the Commons Task Force. Ahrens noted that the Commons task force is still meeting on the issue of encroachments. Darling moved that the City look at all nontraversable or nonaccessible commons that are not private and look at selling or leasing these commons to the adjacent property owners. Geffre seconded motion. Byrnes stated that the City does not own commons, so they cannot sell it. In order to vacate any land it has to be proven to be in the public's best interest to do so. Ahrens suggested that adjacent property owners could lease the commons. Darling questioned if it is realistic for the City to manage the commons when their is no public use. Jim reminded Commission how this type of action may affect the dock program. It was discussed how the lineal footage of public land affects the number of docks in the program. Casey would like to keep control of the shoreline and attempt to regain the beautiful natural shoreline they once had. He commented that the Shoreland Management Ordinance was mandated because the shorelines have become overdeveloped and it should be a public policy to protect this land from degradation. Goode suggested they hold off on Darling's motion until the commons task force finishes their review and recommendation regarding encroachments. Darling clarified that the intent for his motion is not to arbitrarily sell land, but to start the process of researching the possibility, understand the legal ramifications, and see if it makes sense. Byrnes stated that the Commons Task Force has been directed by Council to address the issue of encroachments on the commons. Motion failed with 3 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention. Those voting in favor were Pederson, Darling, and Geffre, those opposed were Byrnes, Casey and Goode. Ahrens abstained. Ahrens explained that she will abstain anytime the Park Commission sends forward a recommendation to the Council regarding and issue such as this. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 55364 DISTRIBUTION: __BUILDING OFFICIAL .. PARKS DIRECTOR -DNR MCWD PARK MEETING DATE .~'- ~_~ CITY COUNCIL DATE ~-~;. ~.(~ ~-x, CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT · SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I--I I I I PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). · st ctj ................................. like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the CitF to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder Phone (home) ~?~- ~g~ (work) ~ 7~- 7 p r o p e r t y Own er ~ 'T~'~ ~r Legal Lot ~/~ Block Description Subd. Public Name Property Dock Site $ Shoreline Type Contlactor Name ~k[ Address Phone VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR &MATERIALS): /~OO. ©~ DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: 7~, .- ~ ~ '_ . . - S , Si~atu~e of'Applicafft 5ate ./ i HANOVEI~ -----T"----_-_~ ! _~ ~_ - ._o,~ ..... II MOAO ~ llO&O I I Ii I iI I ,$ ROA~NOK i', DRIVI REA 'o V~LLAGE OF MOUND 4729 I.V.D. O\ 0 0 ~3 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BI 3N~'q 'V' ,,'T ,,_ I l 31)- (4 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING JUNE 13, 1996 NEW DOCK LOCATIONS - LONGFORD ROAD (continued discussion) Parks Director, Jim Fackler informed the Commission that he has reviewed this issue with Greg Nybeck of the LMCD regarding the acceptance of these docks under their code. Fackler reviewed the letter from the LMCD dated June 5, 1996 and explained that the LMCD allows for one boat for each 50 feet of shoreline, and these docks could be added to the City's 1997 renewal application for our multiple dock license. Ann Jepson, owner of one of the two existing docks in question, stated they would be happy to comply with any rules, but they do not want to become part of a shared common dock with the neighbors. They do not want their decision to delay the installation of their neighbors docks. They are happy about the neighborhood being improved, but requested their dock be dealt with separately. She explained their dock is the one on the far east. The Parks Director noted that a survey would determine if their dock is actually on Longford Road or on private shoreline. If it is found their dock is on Longford Road, it would become part of the commons dock program, and would remain a single dock assigned to their home. Pederson confirmed with the Jepson's they have no problem becoming part of the dock program. (Ahrens arrived) Ahrens questioned if they are allowed to go over the 448 docks as the City is licensed for through the LMCD. The Parks Director explained that they are allowed to have one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline. Since Mounds shoreline is not continuous, the code allows Boat Storage Units (BSU's) provided the total number of BSU's for the city multiple dock license does not exceed one restricted watercraft for every 50 feet of shoreline. Faclder noted that Mound has more than enough available BSU's based on lineal footage and there is enough lineal footage along Longford Road to handle the number of boats proposed. Faclder clarified that BSU's are the number of boats, and WSU's are based on boat length. For example, one larger boat may count as 1.5 or 2 WSU's. Ahrens stated that right now there are 448 dock sites and each dock is allowed 4 boats, and right now that is their privilege. Faclder commented that it is not likely that each dock will have 4 boats, but it is more likely that the size of the boats could increase, and as boats grow, the units diminish Geffre questioned the size of the proposed multiple docks and questioned if dredging will be needed? Fackler stated that no dredging will be needed. Fackler noted that the two-slip dock will be about 39 feet wide. Fackler confu'med that staff's recommendation is to have this area designated as a Type C Shoreline. Geffre questioned if they are reviewing both proposed docks as one proposal. Faclder emphasized that it is less costly to process these docks on one application through the DNR, and the survey costs are also less. Fackler confirmed there would be a total of nine new dock sites on the two multiple docks and up to three other individual dock sites. Ahrens requested clarification regarding BSU's and WSU's. Fackler explained that the City's LMCD Multiple Dock License is based on WSU's, and he reviewed the numbers from ther 1995 application: BSU'S WSU'S 305 boats up to 20' long @ 1 305 145 21' to 24' long @ 1.5 218 34 25' to 32' long @ 2 68 5 33' x 40' long @ 2.5 13 kl 489 604 er clarified that based on lineal footage of shoreline as shown on the Dock Location Map, 0 WSU's are allowed. He will find out exactly how many lineal feet this development will when the survey is completed. Ahrens estimated this area could accommodate 9 boaB up t~.? feet long. ...... ,..!J ......... .J. Ii I II. .1 a Pederson asked if this area would be considered marsh land and nontraversible. Fackler agreed that it could be. Pederson referred to the Use Plan which describes Wildlife Areas as "marsh land and nontraversible," and questioned how this area differs from other Type E areas. The Parks Director stated that the Park Commission could recommend this area be designated as Type E, however, a request was received for docks, not for a Wildlife Area. Ahrens commented that it is possible to traverse on foot down to the shoreline. Fackler noted that the steep portion of this property is actually located on private land. Staff is not recommending stairs or paths as part of this request. Ahrens questioned if both the existing docks are in question? Fackler stated that he will not know until the survey is complete. Ahrens referred to the docks within the Lost Lake Subdivision which are all considered public docks, and the owners within that subdivision are not privy to those docks. Fackler commented that if these docks were to be open to the public, it would require a walkway easement in order to establish public access. Fackler noted that the abutting property owners will have priority to these docks. Meyer moved to recommend approval of the two multiple docks on Longford ,.~ Road, one with 7 slips and one with 2 slips, subject to the condition that ~.?~,l~'i,!:;~intrusion to the marsh be minimized. Darling seconded the motion. Ahrens questioned how many dock applications were refunded this year because there were no sites available. The Dock Inspector noted that less than 20 were refunded, which is about average for the last three years. Darling commented that as much as we want to protect the lake, this is a community lake, and homes are being built, so we have to ask what is reasonable? Steve Behnke, representing the developer noted that one of the owners of the new houses does have a larger boat, but they are proposing standard size slips. He stated that they would be more comfortable if they were able to have a variation of sizes for the slips. Ahrens suggested they limit the area to a certain number of WSU's. Ahrens stated that she would vote against the motion as it reads because the motion does not address payment for the survey of Longford Road. She also feels that since this area is traversible, docks should be made available to the public. Pederson asked how many WSU's are alotted for this area? Fackler stated that even if there was not enough lineal footage in this area to accommodate the number of WSU's proposed, there is enough lineal footage left over from the entire dock system. He does believe this area would handle what is proposed. Geffre expressed a concerned about the size of the dock slips and noted that the two-slip docks are bigger. Fackler stated that the slip sizes of the new dock on Devon Common are basically 10' x 24'. It was noted that the large boat proposed to be docked at the two-slip dock is 30' long. Steve Behnke stated that they are already surveying their whole property as it is, and does not feel they should have to pay for the surveying of other peoples property. Fackler commented that they did utilize the survey for this property along with surveys of other neighboring properties in order to complete the entire survey of Longford which helped reduce the cost of the City's survey. Ahrens asked if this developer will be paying a park dedication fee? The secretary noted that they may not, it has not been determined yet. Ahrens again emphasized that the Lost Lake Subdivision had to give public easement and extra dockage for the public. Relating to paying for the survey, Ahrens noted that the developer is the main beneficiary of obtaining these docks. Geffre confirmed with the Parks Director that the City survey would not have been done unless this development came forth. Darling suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that the developer shall pay for the costs incurred by the city for surveying Longford Road. Steve Behnke commented that he would be in favor of paying for the survey costs if the survey totally related to their work, but the survey is also of other peoples docks. Meyer amended the motion to include the following conditions: 1. The developer shall recover the cost to the City for the survey of Longford Road ($605200). e When the seven slip dock is planned, the length and width of each slip size shall be reviewed, and if something other than a slip size of 10' x 24' is planned, it shall be brought back to the Park Cornmi~ion for review. Motion carried 5 to 2. This request will be forwarded to the City Council on June 25, 1996. 06-0~-1996 12:2~ 61~ 47] TO~ LMCD P.02 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA M39~ · TELEpHoNE. 612/473:7033 G. Alert Wlllcutt, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~una $, 2996 BOARD MEMBERS Douglu E. Bab~. 'k Chair, Tonka Tom Reese Vice Chair, Id~und Joseph Zwak 8~mt~, Gme~ Robe~ Treasurer. lhorew~ Kent Dahi~ Mlnnemn~ Beach Be~ F~ter Deep~aven Grem~n Magllch Mlnneton~ Duane Wa~ata Craig Motlet Vi~o~ Craig Nelson Spring Eugene Minnmrlsta Paul 8ta~ Exce[s~r He~ J. Sue~h er, Mr. Jim Fackler City of Mound 534L XaYwood.R Mound, 1~ S5364 Dear Per conve:sation,:Z have drafted a mamo outlining' how doc~age rights in, ~ound ara interpretld"bY iMCO Code, L~CD Coda Section 2.02, Subd. storage of one ~estri°ted watercraft ~or,eaoh SO 2n the calculation feet of continuous shoreline," shoreline for I,HcD cities with a .nultipIe' dock of . ' license,' LMCD coda allows these cities to . . accu~ulate't0tal shoreline despite tlte shoreline The Coda also a no~ be oon[inuous.' specific location"vith'a density qrea~er ~nan 1:50 provided the ~otal nu~er of BSU's .~or ~8. city multiple dock liolnse'does not exceed, one reotric~ed wa~ercraf~ for evar~ 5o .~eo~ .sE '. shoreline. Wi~h regards ~o'.~he dooks.toM'placed'on'Longford' Road, ~hio would bt allowed provided ~a~ all Xn ~99'7' as ec~a o~ ~CD Code are complied wi~h. P ' ' for our ~ul~iple ' when your renewal application .. dock license is submitted, will need ~o propOr'l~ n°te'~e increase.on LongEord Road. .. Feel frae to call me if you need further clarification on this~atter. Sincerely, LAKE MINNZTONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Gregory.D. Nybeok Administrative Technician cc: Tom. Reaaa, LMCD Board (Mound) CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 May 14, 1996 Mr. Greg Nybeck Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Wayzata Blvd. Suite 160 Wayzata, MN 55391 SUBJECT: LONGFORD ROAD DOCK SITES Dear Greg: Enclosed is the information we discussed during our phone conversation on Monday, May 13th. Please review this and respond to me by letter on how the LMCD roles apply. If you need any further background information, feel free to contact me at 472-0611. Parks Director /F:pj Enclosures cc: Ed Shulde, City Manager Tom Stokes, 4839 Cumberland Road, Mound, MN 55364 t~rinted on recycled paper Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 NEW DOCK LOCATIONS - LONGFORD ROAD Parks Director, Jim Faclder, reviewed his memorandum. Currently, two homes are being built at 4622 and 4626 Kildare Road and another seven home sites are proposed for development on Kildare Road in the near future. Their location adjoins the unimproved Longford Road which is dry land above the Ordinary High Water elevation of 929.4. This land is under City control and lies between these home sites and Lake Minnetonka. There has been a request from the builder and future home owners to have dock locations established. Because of the marsh that is present where the docks would be located, the City must obtain a permit from the DNR. From my contact with the DNR this area seems to be in compliance with their regulations to establish dock sites. Their main concern is if the marsh is recognized as a protected fish spawning area, which it is not. The only other request of the DNR is that the docks limit their intrusion through the marsh. As you can see from the proposed plans, both sites have been consolidated to accomplish this. An application has to be submitted to the DNR along with applicable fees and information. Greg Nybeck, LMCD, believes there will not be a problem adding this area to Mound' s Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License, we would just have to designate this on our 1997 application. If these sites are established, the Shoreline Type should be recognized as "Type 'C' on the Dock Location Map. The docks would be installed by the homeowners and have multiple slip sites. Each slip should be recognized as a single docking site with numbering as such. A base fee (currently $150.00) should be charged each year, per slip, and limited to one watercraft per slip, unless the Dock Inspector determines that the dock area may accommodate additional boats. Along with establishing this area, a survey of Longford Road must be done to recognize any other docks that are utilizing this area for access to the lake. This needs to be done so that the City is consistent in enforcing regulations of docks on properties under the control of the City. Ahrens questioned how they can increase the number of docks past 448 without going through the LMCD or without offsetting that number. Fackler stated that there is enough public shoreland that was not included in the original lineal footage calculations to accommodate these additional dock sites. Ahrens questioned if they will need to take 9 dock sites away from somewhere else in order to add these 9. Ahrens feels they need to investigate this proposal further with the LMCD. Fackler emphasized that Greg Nybeck reviewed this issue with Gene Strommen, past Director of the LMCD and they did not think there would be a problem with the proposal. He also noted that the LMCD looks at boat count, not dock site count. Tom Stokes of Fine Line Development stated that these properties will be taxed as though they are lakeshore, so these properties should be eligible for a dock. He asked the Park Commission to approve the docks, subject to them meeting the requirements of other agencies. Doug Ripie, future owner of one of the houses currently under construction, stated that they designed the proposed dock to have least amount of impact on the lake. Goode asked if it wouldn't be better to relinquish Longford Road to the adjacent land owners? Do we need more commons? Pederson agreed, and emphasized that the property is not 'traversable, and there will never be a road there. Park and Open Space Commission Minute, May 9, 1996 Casey asked if the developer is paying the application fees to the DNR? Fackler stated that the City would pay the application fee, however, this would be regained through the dock license fees. Fackler confirmed that he would expect the la_nd survey to cost about $1,000, and this would be paid from the dock fund. MOTION by Darling to recommend approval of the multiple dock plan, as submitted, pending approval and compliance of any and all government agencies. Goode seconded the motion. Casey commented that the City is under no obligation to provide landowners with docks. He sees this area as a beautiful bluff, and asked if they should compromise their space to allow for docks in the marsh? He is concerned that they would be adding docks in a small channel that is pinched already. The two existing docks located on Longford Road were discussed. Casey questioned how Crescent Park was designated as a wildlife area? Darling withdraw his motion because he thought the two existing docks were going to be replaced with this one new multiple dock. Pete Buckner, future owner of one of the houses currently under construction, stated that instead of two new docks, they are proposing one joint dock, and asked why this is an issue? Geffre asked Fackler if the other two docks are actually on Longford Road. Faclder beleived they could be, but it was not cost effective at the time tl survey the property, but now because of new surveys provided to the City from a developer, he realized that it is all public shoreline so now they should add it to the dock program. It is his intent to bring the whole area into compliance. Goode asked if it would not be better to have one multiple dock for all. Fackler noted that access to the dock would be an issue. Byrnes was excused from the meeting. Tom Stokes emphasized that these people own the land on the other side of Longford Road, even though it is underwater, and this property will be part of a Homeowners Association. Faclder asked where do you draw the line? Ahrens asked how many other people own private land on the other side of their commons? Casey moved to deny the two new docks sites as proposed. The Commission asked what action will be taken with the two existing docks? Should they be brought into the program? Ahrens asked what will justify the expense of the survey if the new docks are denied? Fackler stated that he received substantial evidence that public land existed, should he ignore it? °o Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 9, 1996 Goode noted that some portions of the shoreline did abut private property and asked if the LMCD would support the placement of a private dock at these points. Fackler commented that the LMCD may have a concern regarding setbacks. He stated that the LMCD requires 50 feet of shoreline per boat, but offered to check with them on the issue. Akrens stated she is not opposed to property that abuts the shoreline to have docks, but is opposed to having docks added to the program that do not have approval from the LMCD and she does not believe Greg Nybeck gave approval. She does not believe that the lineal footage was never computed in original permit. Faclder stated that the lineal footage has been increased over the years, the City has gained Lost Lake and the area off of Denbigh. Ahrens would like to confirm that the LMCD would allow this. She is concerned that if they surpass the number of 448 dock sites, what would prevent them from adding 20 sites to the new multiple dock by Pembroke Park or other areas? She does not want to set a precedent. Motion failed 5 to 1. Those in favor of denial were Goode, Geffre, Darling, Ahrens, and Pederson. Casey was opposed. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Darling, to table this request until further infot--iation is received from the LMCD. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission clarified the information they want from the LMCD: saturation point? maximum number of docks? can docks be installed on shoreline which is less than 50 feet wide? Regarding the two existing docks, Fackler commented that this area is not recognized on the Dock Location Map as a docking area, at this time. He would like to see this entire area addressed. Casey moved to extend meeting 15 minutes past 10:00. Motion seconded by Goode. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 1, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission~ ~ Jim Faclder, Parks Director ~~/~?~'' New Dock Site Locations - Lon/gford Road Currently, two homes are being built at 4622 and 4626 Kildare Road and another seven home sites are proposed for development on Kildare Road in the near future. Their location adjoins the unimproved Longford Road which is dry land above the Ordinary High Water elevation of 929.4. This land is under City control and lies between these home sites and Lake Minnetonka. There has been a request from the builder and future home owners to have dock locations established. Because of the marsh that is present where the docks would be located, the City must obtain a permit from the DNR. From my contact with the DNR this area seems to be in compliance with their regulations to establish dock sites. Their main concern is if the marsh is recognized as a protected fish spawning area, which it is not. The only other request of the DNR is that the docks limit their intrusion through the marsh. As you can see from the proposed plans, both sites have been consolidated to accomplish this. An application has to be submitted to the DNR along with applicable fees and information. This application will take approximately six weeks to be processed by the DNR. I will include all the proposed dock sites on one application to the DNR. The fee that is required by the DNR would be less with one application. I have also been in contact with Greg Nybeck, LMCD, regarding the addition of this area to Mound's Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License. He believes there will not be a problem adding this area and that we would just have to designate it on our 1997 application. There will be no additional charge by the LMCD for Mound's Multiple Dock License until there are boats stored at the subject docks. prmte(l on recycle¢l paper Longford Road May 1, 1996 Page Two Generally we do not see additions or changes to the Dock Location Map at this time of year, however, it is not rest~cted, as you will note on the attached copy of City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 2, "Annual Review of Map. The map needs to be reviewed at least once a year." If these sites are established, the Shoreline Type should be recognized as "Type 'C': Shoreline with no traversable space; stairs needed to shoreline, not accessible by public right-of-way (abutting property owners only." The docks will be installed by the homeowners and have multiple slip sites. Each slip should be recognized as a single docking site with numbering as such. A base fee (currently $150.00) should be charged each year, per slip, and limited to one watercraft per slip, unless the Dock Inspector determines that the dock area may accommodate additional boats. Along with establishing this area, a survey of Longford Road must be done to recognize any other docks that are utilizing this area for access to the lake. This needs to be done so that the City is consistent in enforcing regulations of docks on properties under the control of the City. I have discussed this with the City Engineer and the survey cost is to be determined, but he will take into account that most of this area has already been surveyed by the developer of Kildare Road property. Enclosures CC: Ed Shukle, City Manager Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector Tom Stokes (Owner/Developer) Subd. 2. Annual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall t~e lcept aaa maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before ~lanuary 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) ....... ;.i1 ............ I, L~{NGFORD ROAD 19-117-23 21 TOM STOKES 4839 CUMBERLAND ROAD j,OUND, MN 55364 DOUG & ANN JEPSON 2545 BLACK LAKE LANE MOUND, MN 55364 (BRENSHELL, 4626 KILDARE) BLVD. 55364 ( 4622 KILDARE ) BOB & MEREDITH SMITH 4630 KILDARE ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 NORMAN BERGLUND 1905 CONCORDIA ST. WAYZATA, MN 55391 ~'~"'~JEROME & KATHLEEN TREVIS 4644 CARLOW ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 DOUG RIPPIE 4622 KILDARE ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 PETE BUCHNER 4626 KILDARE ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 THESE PEOPLE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION REGARDING DOCK DISCUSSION FOR 6/13 PARK COMMISSION MEETING. Corlson Perk 0 ~,- 0 0 O Avon Park COUNTY II ROAD ii~- JI I I L BRU~L.$WlCK O IMOND ROAD~ ROAD ESTER MOAO AND ~TON ROAD ! I I (H(] (1NV']SI) Ot~ ,.' ~, %0~ - / I / / I ! ,' ~,9~ i1110.oo --:/'/8.~.? KERRY LANE , ~ I , , Il ' : _ ~ I - I I -.~' ~-- m.,, ~,,,~.,, ; ~ I Il ~' '"' ' /..~~/, r 'n ' and Lot 8, all ~ [ Block 2, and L,ots 11 thru 36, ~t~ciusi~ [b ~ / Block II, all in SETON, according to ~ recorded plat thereof, Henn~pin .... ~ Minnesota. CATE OF i 55 KI LDARE ROAD SURVEY PREPARED FOR; NORMAN BERGLAND ~50 83 8~ (~) ~Lld' 40 ~ tl I LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED: 14-20 & 27-33, BLOCK 11, INCL LOTS 3-6, BLOCK 2 EXISTING HOME ON LOTS 13 & 34, 4630 KILDARE, BOB & MEREDITH SMITH NEW HOUSE ON LOTS 12 & 35, 4626 KILDARE ROAD, PETE BUCHNER NEW HOUSE ON LOTS 11 & 36, 4622 KILDARE ROAD, DOUG RIPPLE RF_~OLUTION #9~- /f ~ RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT FOR A WATER PUMP AND WATER LINE ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK SITE//43520 WHEREAS, Donald and Geraldine Swenson have applied for a Construction on Public 1.and Permit to allow a water pump and water line to be placed on Devon Common abutting their property at 4857 Island View Drive to accommodate for lawn sprinkling, and; WHEREAS, there is an existing stairway on the commons used to access the applicant's dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public Land Permit is applied for. The stairway is in acceptable condition, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons, and; WHEREAS, The Park and Open Space Commission have reviewed this request and unanimously recommend approval, with conditions as recommended by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a five (5) year Construction on Public Land Permit for a stairway and pump system and electrical supply for Donald and Geraldine Swenson, Dock Site #43520, Devon Common, abutting 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 5 & 6, Block 14, PID 25-117-24 11 0038, subject to the following conditions: The electrical shall be installed by a qualified license electrical contractor and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the Building Official to verify this work is completed and has been approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The proposed electrical line will, and the water line may cross a 20 foot permanent easement that has an eight inch clay sewer line at an eight foot depth. They will need to indicate the depth of proposed water and electrical line, and the owner of 4857 Island View Drive will be responsible for locating them if excavation is needed in this easement for sewer line repair. 3. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OF A MEETING JUNE 13, 1996 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT FOR WATER PUMP AND WATER LINE BY DONALD & GERALDINE SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 14, DEVON, DOCK SITE 43520, DEVON COMMON, TYPE C. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow for an irrigation pump, electrical connection, and below grade supply ane to 0e ~nstatlea on Devon Common. Special permits are required t0r constmcuon or any type on public land as specified in City Code Section 320. In following the Procedure Manual as adopted by City Council Resolution //93-52, all encroachments on-site are to be addressed to allow for a concurrent renewal date for the abutting property. At this time there is a stairway existing that allows access to a dock site location. This stairway is in acceptable condition as noted by the Building Official. Staff recommended approval of a five (5) year permit for the stairway, pump system and the electrical supply based on the following conditions: The electrical shall be installed by a qualified license electrical contractor and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the Building Official to verify this work is completed and has been approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The proposed electrical line will, and the water line may cross a 20 foot permanent easement that has an eight inch clay sewer line at an eight foot depth. They will need to indicate the depth of proposed water and electrical line, and the owner of 4857 Island View Drive will be responsible for locating them if excavation is needed in this easement for sewer line repair. 3. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. o In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer, to recommend approval, as recommended by staff. Darling asked how visible the pump will be. The applicant stated that there is a lot of vegetation on shoreline and it will not be visible at all. It was noted that the size of the pump is very small, it is only one horse power. MOTION carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Staff Report DATE: MEETING DATES: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 7, 1996 June 13, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission June 25, 1996 City Council Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Directo~ Public Lands Permit Application from Donald and Geraldine Swenson 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 5 & 6, Block 14, Devon Dock Site 43520, Devon Common, Type C Shoreline Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow for an irrigation pump, electrical connection, and below grade supply line to be installed on Devon Common. Special permits are required for construction of any type on public land as specified in City Code Section 320. In following the Procedure Manual as adopted by City Council Resolution //93-52, all encroachments on-site are to be addressed to allow for a concurrent renewal date for the abutting property. At this time there is a stairway existing that allows access to a dock site location. This stairway is in acceptable condition as noted by the Building Official. Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a five (5) year permit for the stairway, pump system and the electrical supply based on the following conditions: The electrical shall be installed by a qualified license electrical contractor and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the Building Official to verify this work is completed and has been approved by the State Electrical Inspector. printed on recycled paper D. Swenson 4857 Island View Drive Page 2 o The proposed electrical line will, and the water line may cross a 20 foot permanent easement that has an eight inch clay sewer line at an eight foot depth. They will need to indicate the depth of proposed water and electrical line, and the owner of 4857 Island View Drive will be responsible for locating them if excavation is needed in this easement for sewer line repair. 3. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. J$:pj The abutting property owners have been notified of this request. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road~ Mound~ MN 55364 Phol~e: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 REOEIVEO {~';STRIBUTION: '<~_~BUILDING OFFICIAL PJ~I<S DIRECTOR DNR MCWD PUBLIC WOR/{S DATE RECEIVED PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE HAY 2 9 1996 MOUND PLANNING check I one): I__1 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I I__l PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCe. PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CON~i~UA~IO~ OF STRUCTURR - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ~ I LA/~D ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees vegetation, I__1 , fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. Ail permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change '~ dock site holder. ~-~? ~(~ ! e ~. C~- Applicant Name ~_~') .~) Phone (home) ~7~- ~$~ (work) Property Owner J~~/~ ~, Legal Lot ~& Block Description Subd. Public Name Property Dock Site W ~~__O Shoreline Type Contractor Name d~ 5~11~ / ~NC. ~none ~7~- ~ ~ ~ ,/ 7~ ~ ~'Z? DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERI~_LS): y~0~-° Signature of Applicant Date Fr'um : C"~,ICEPT PHONE Nu. : 4724~.~.Ei H,~,.,j. 30 1556 Concept Landscaping Inc. 3153 Priest Lnne, Mound, MN. SS364 ShorcUnc Contractor Lie.. #95075 Minnesota (.~ontroctor LJc. ~)008997 dT2-d I lit I 7S0-d374 OIIr FA~ d72-4! I ~q call flrSI City o£Mound FAX 47Z-~20 ntt: Po~,y MAy 29, I~;~;b PJeasc find parc two which oongisls of a skoich I'or'll~o Don Swonson Iflkc pump pormiL 'l'htt prnjnel it very emnll nnd Molly dnetn'l t~neie! ~f numb Tha pimp ~ill timl~l~ elf dnxvn hy tho lnkc ~lh a suction linc Omi ~!! lay on ~c l~c ~ttom, b~l~ or s~ d~n. All off, ich Is ~zt~ ~d bMusht in~ido for ~o wifllor. ~tond~n~ up tho biff Jo a ho~ for *~torin~ tho iuwn, whloh cnn ~ lightly bu~ so as to ~ i~nspicuous. ~ c.an Icy on ~e gro~d. ~te end ~e hose is s~ured wlfll n ~t~c. ~m pump will ~ u~ ~ wflt~ Ih~ lawn. 'llie u~ of' lake pumps for wMorJnfI should bm advocated. They serve to preserve our drhtkinll w/itel' supply/ifld lower Ih(~ us~ Oil VJUl' City's wat.t i;ystem, Sincerely .lafllt~ H. Smith, Pros. Fuum : COHCEPT PHOHE Hu. : 4?24118 It~l~lndview Drive DEVON~ COMMONS [)on gwenaon post In ground Wllh fRl,eet , h;,rled waterline up hillside PUMP COMIV nductlon line 2- STORY HOUSE ~' %/' ISLAND VIEW U /)RIVE . - - 80.0 d''~ ~'~'~' - - - - ,. I I' I-G -- x9~9.'7 ..... 80.00 ..... Co~ONS~ DEV 0 N ~eJ~.~,r ,e ,~ ~ ~ ~ L~~ ~ ~L~ '=~ '" File No. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of ,.. ,,,,~.r,.. o, ,,., .,,o,,. .....,,:.,,, ,,,,.,:, .,., o, ,,,. ,o..,,o,, o,., ,,,.,~.. 7 ¢Z~-£ F DEMARS - GABRIEL . any, Ihefeon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. LAND SUi~v'EH)RS, INC.~, __~ __ aoo~- Pao~ ,o.o..,,o,,...,,,o. ',, · . Z~-' - .STOR' HOUSE .......... 1 ............. IlL ~ & i,, , ~a April 11, 1995 RESOLUTION//95-40 RESOL~ION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRI/V[MING OF VEGETATION ON DEVON COM/VIONS ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 14, DEVON PID g25-117-24 11 0038 DOCK SITE #43~20 WHEREAS, Donald and Geraldine Swenson have applied for a Land Alteration Permit to allow trimming of vegetation on Devon Commons, abutting their property known as 4857 Island View Drive, and; WHEREAS, the applicant requested permit approval for the "cutting and removal of vines which are encroaching on trees." WHEREAS, there is an existing stairway on the commons used to access the applicant's dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public Lands Permit is applied for, and; WHEREAS, the applicant states a handrail has been installed on the stairway, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval, by a four-fifths vote, for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance allows limited clearing and trimming of vegetation on steep slopes to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site provided that screening of structures is not substantially reduced, and; WHEREAS, trees are allowed to be trimmed in a manner appropriate for removal of branches to benefit the trees. Healthy trees and plants with healthy root systems must remain intact to prevent erosion of the steep slope, and; WHEREAS, the Public Land Use Plan classifies this area of commons as Shoreline Type C, and as a resident permit docking area, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval, with conditions and supervision by the Parks Director. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the following Public Land Permits for Donald and Geraldine Swenson, Dock Site #43520, Devon Common, abutting 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 5 & 6, Block 14, PID #25-117-24 11 0038: A Special Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of vegetation subject to the following conditions: a. The permit is a "one-time" permit. 104 April 11, 1995 The applicant must notify the City 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can meet on-site with the applicant to mark brush for removal. - C. All brush/vines that are trimmed have to be removed from Devon Common at the owners expense. Approval of a permit to allow the continuation of the stairway structure, subject to the following conditions: a. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Repairs, if needed, shall be done according to code and as approved by the Building Official. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicants dock license will not be issued until compliance is achieved. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affh'mative: Hanus, Ahrens, Jensen, and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Iessen was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk ennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer June 19, 1996 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. PW 26-06-96 CSAH 110 AT THREE POINTS BOULEVARD HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9514 Dear Mr. Shukle: Submitted for approval are two copies of the above referenced agreement. If the agreement is satisfactory, please have both copies signed by the appropriate City officials and return them to this office. Also, please return two certified copies of a resolution authorizing these officials to sign the agreement. Upon completion of the remaining signatures by County officials, we will send you one fully executed copy for your files. If you have any questions concerning the agreement, please call Harlan Hanson at 930-2530. Sincerely, ~ A Bruce M. Polaczyk, P.E. Design Engineer BCC :mak Enclosure Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 T.DD:(612)930-2696 Recycled Paper Agreement No. PW 26-06-96 County Project No. 9514 County State Aid Highway No. 110 City of Hound County of Hennepin AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of 19 ~, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Mound, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, It is considered mutually desirable to install a traffic control signal system at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 110 with Three Points Boulevard within the City limits; and WHEREAS, Said traffic control signal system described immediately above, shall be identified and accomplished under Hennepin County Project No. 9514 (a.k.a.S.A.P. 27-710-09) hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, The City has expressed willingness to participate in the construction and operating cost of said signal; and WHEREAS, To ensure compatibility with the County's existing network of traffic signal systems the County will furnish the controller, control equipment and control cabinet to be installed as a part of said Project; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1992, Section 162.17, Subdivision i and Section 471.59. -1- NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: A~reement No. P~ 26-06-96 CSAH 110; C.P. 9514 I That the County or its agents will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the aforesaid Project, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law. The contract will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County, which said plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof. II The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer of Mound shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. III The City agrees that the County may make minor changes in the plans or in the character of said contract construction which are reasonably necessary to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the City that the County may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the County's contractor for the performance of any additional construction or construction occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in plans, within the original scope of said Project. Said changes may result in an increase or decrease to the City cost participation estimated herein. IV The City agrees to grant right of way to the County over those lands owned by the City that are a part of the required right of way for said Project. Said right of way shall be granted at no cost to the County. V The County will furnish the controller, control equipment and control cabinet to be installed as a part of said Project. Said controller, control equipment and control cabinet shall hereinafter be referred to as "County supplied equipment". -2- Agreement No. PW 26-06-96 CSAH 110; C.P. 9514 The City shall supply, at no cost to the County, the electronic card for the Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption (EVP) system to be installed. VI The City shall reimburse the County for its share (75%) in the construction cost of the contract work and also in the County supplied equipment for said Project. The total final construction cost shall be apportioned as set forth in the Preliminary Cost Participation Summary as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. It is further agreed that said summary is an estimate of the construction cost for the contract work and County supplied equipment costs on said Project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the total final construction cost for apportioning the cost of said Project according to the provisions of this paragraph. The estimated cost for the contract construction work to be performed under said Project is Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00). The estimated cost of County supplied equipment is Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for a total estimated signal cost of Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00). The County will invoice the City separately for said County supplied equipment. Payment shall be made to the County by the City for the full amount due stated on the invoice within forty five (45) days of the invoice date. VII In addition to the aforesaid payment of the City's proportionate share of contract construction and County supplied equipment, the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to eighteen (18) percent of the amount computed as the City's final share of the contract construction cost for said Project. It is understood that said additional payment by the City is its proportionate share of all engineering costs incurred by the County in conjunction with the work performed under this Agreement. VIII After an award by the County to the successful bidder, the County shall invoice the City and the City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer, ninety five (95) percent of the estimated City share in the -3- Agreement No. PW 26-06-96 CSAH 110; C.P. 9514 contract construction and engineering costs for said Project. Payment shall be made to the County by the City for the full amount due stated on the invoice within forty five (45) days of the invoice date. Said estimated City share shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans. In the event the County Engineer or his staff determines the need to amend the contract with a supplemental agreement or change order which results in an increase in the contract amount, the City hereby agrees to remit within forty five (45) days of notification by the County of said change an amount equal to ninety five (95) percent of the estimated City share as documented in the supplemental agreement or change order. The remainder of the City's share in the engineering and contract construction costs, including additional costs resulting from supplemental agreements and change orders, is due the County upon completion of the Project and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the Project. Upon final payment to the Contractor by the County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon final payment by the County shall be paid by the City as its final payment for the construction and engineering cost of this Project. All payments to the County must be postmarked by the date due or a late penalty of one (1) percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the unpaid balance will be charged to the City. The City shall pay the amount due as stated on the statement, notwithstanding any dispute of such amount. Should a disputed amount be resolved in favor of the City, the County shall reimburse the disputed amount plus daily interest thereon calculated from the date such disputed amount was received by the County. Daily interest shall be at the rate of one (1) percent per month on the disputed amount. IX The County Engineer will prepare weekly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request. -4- Agreement No. PN 26-06-96 CSAH 110; C.P. 9514 X All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. XI It is agreed that the City shall, at no cost to the County, remove and replace all City owned signs that are within the construction limits of this Project. Removal and replacement operations shall be coordinated with the construction activities through the County's Project Engineer. XII The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall be issued to the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County. Electrical inspection fees shall not be more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. XIII The City shall install, or cause the installation of an adequate three wire, 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the traffic control signals and integral street lights included in the contract at the sole cost and expense of the City. Further, the City shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the said traffic control signals and integral street lights at no cost to the County. XIV The City shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control signals, however, nothing herein shall prohibit prompt, prudent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signals may be directly involved in an emergency. XV Upon completion of this Project, the County shall thereafter maintain and repair said traffic control signals, including all components of the EVP system, all at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County, at its expense, shall maintain 110 volt power to the line side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles for the integral street lights. The City, at no -5- Agreement. No. PW Z6-06-96 CSAH ~O; C.P. 9S~4 cost to the County, shall maintain the fuse, the luminaire and the wire to the load side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles. The EVP Systems provided for in this Agreement shall be installed, operated, maintained or removed in accordance with the following conditions and requirements: (1) (2) Emitter units may be installed and used only on vehicles responding to an emergency as defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169.01, Subdivision 5 and 169.03. The City will provide the County Engineer or his duly appointed representative a list of all such vehicles with emitter units. Malfunctions of the EVP Systems shall be reported to the County immediately. (3) In the event said EVP Systems or components are, in the opinion of the County, being misused or the conditions set forth herein are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after receipt by the City of written notice thereof from the County, the County shall remove the EVP System. Upon removal of the EVP System pursuant to this paragraph, the field wiring, cabinet wiring, detector receivers, infrared detector heads and indicator lamps and all other components shall become the property of the County. (4) All timing of said EVP Systems shall be determined by the County. XVI Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by the law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The County's and the City's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self- insurance program. -6- Agreement No. PW 26-06-96 CSAH 110; C.P. 9514 XVII It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XVIII In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Hennepin County Engineer or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and the City. In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the City's Engineer or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the County. XIX It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All Agreement No. PW 26-06-96 CSAH 110; C.P. 9514 items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. XX The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. -8- Agreement No. PW 26-06-96 CSAH 110; C.P. 9514 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: ATTEST: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN By: By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Date: Chair of its County Board Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ~ Date: ,_~ ([/j C6~6/c-wKA t t~ rn ey APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: By: Assistant County Attorney Date: And: County Administrator Date: And: Director, Department of Public Works and County Engineer Date: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Transportation Division Engineer Date: -9- Agreement No. PN 26-06-96 CSAH 110; C.P. 9514 PRELIMINARY COST PARTICIPATION SUMMARY ENGINEERS CITY COUNTY ESTIMATE % $ % $ Traffic Control Sig. System $60,000.00 75 $45,000.00 25 $15,000.00 County Supplied Equip. 10~000.00 75 7,500.00 25 2,500.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $70,000.00 $52,500.00 $17,500.00 Engineering Costs 18 8,100.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $60,600.00 $17,500.00 (~) Supplied from County inventory. City to reimburse County its proportionate share. (2) Includes County's proportionate share of materials supplied from County inventory. Hennepin County Agreement No. 26-06-96 Exhibit "A" Sheet 1 of I CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 June 20, 1996 TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER FROM: LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK~'/-~" SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Primary Election will be held on Tuesday, September 10, 1996. meeting that would normally be held that evening needs to be rescheduled. Suggested Date: Wednesday, September 11, 1996. The City Council 1s printed on recycled paper BILLS .June 25, 1996 BATCH 6062 Total Bills $193,683.23 $193,683.23 WILl o' I ,81 I~ oo ~°° i ._J ? z oooooooo oo~oo~ooooo II II .5' g GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits I ntergovern mental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FU ND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT May 1996 May 1996 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,280,640 0 0 5,800 1,175 2,745 77,100 7,084 41,1 72 890,740 1,394 46,110 48,250 774 3,737 60,000 6,621 24,395 35,200 1,340 2,536 43,50O 0 0 10,000 1,075 4,988 2~451,230 ,1. 9~463 125 683 VARIANCE (1,280,640) (3,055) (35,926) (844,630) (44,513) (35,605) (32,664) (43,500) (5,012) 41.67% PERCENT RECEIVED (2,325,547) 307,570 13,753 153,341 (154,229) 108,320 12,705 41,122 (67,198) 1,430,000 133,121 541,289 (888,711) 410,000 30,144 153,757 (256,243) 766,500 61,666 321,098 (445,402) 5,1 O0 240 1,890 (3,21 O) 70,800 (1,691) 68,232 (2,568) 0.00% 47.33% 53.40% 5.18% 7.75% 40.66% 7.20% 0.00% 49.88% 5.13% 49.86% 37.96% 37.85% 37.50% 41.89% 37.06% 96.37% 06/14/96 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT May 1996 41.67% May 1996 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 68,730 2,203 30,271 38,459 44.04% Promotions 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00% Cable TV 600 0 250 350 41.67% City Manager/Clerk 1 85,030 11,239 58,233 126,797 31.47% Elections 11,300 3 1,672 9,628 14.80% Assessing 54,450 10 451 53,999 0.83% Finance 163,600 11,358 60,145 103,455 36.76% Computer 22,000 661 10,263 11,737 46.65% Legal 106,440 2,607 26,351 80,089 24.76% Police 804,640 63,680 319,526 485,114 39.71% Civil Defense 3,780 177 1,327 2,453 35.11% Planning/Inspections 167,320 12,776 58,959 1 08,361 35.24% Streets 398,840 33,459 181,675 217,165 45.55% City Property 92,790 5,600 38,1 50 54,640 41.11% Parks 135,300 9,157 44,711 90,589 33.05% Sum mer Recreation 29,700 0 0 29,700 0.00% Contingencies 40,000 1,01 3 2,966 37,034 7.42% Transfers 155,310 11,782 58,911 96,399 37.93% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~443,830 165,725 893,861 1 ~549~969 36.58% Area Fire Service Fund 307,570 26,730 118,023 1 89,547 38.37% Recycling Fund 1 22,420 13,880 61,778 60,642 50.46% Liquor Fund 205,930 21,423 93,375 112,555 45.34% Water Fund 413,410 20,346 141,492 271,918 34.23% Sewer Fund 963,180 71,593 441,432 521,748 45.83% Cemetery Fund 5,570 421 1,293 4,277 23.21% Docks Fund 37,470 11,777 1 6,587 20,883 44.27% exp95 06/14/96 G.B. All MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: Tom Reese, Ray Peters, H.S. & Ruth Smith, Steve Kladstrup, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Ray & Debbie Baylor, Richard & Connie Meyer, John Beise, Kristin Hage, Tracy Eberly, and Clayton Duggan. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1996 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1996 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-26: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE (PUBLIC HEARING). RICHARD & CONNIE MEYER, 2620 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 1, 2, 3 ~- S. 1/2 OF 47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID 23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050 Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed the Planning Report. As a result of complaints received about the overall appearance of the property and the number of vehicles parked on the site, the Building Official determined that the use of the property has changed substantially over the years without any update or modification of the conditional use permit. A chronology of the site was reviewed. The gas pumps have been removed and sale of gasoline has discontinued. It is assumed that the underground gas tanks are still in place. It is important that Meyer's Mound Service have a conditional use permit that accurately reflects the business that is conducted on the site. Since the business has continued to grow and evolve over the past 15 years without updating the permit, there are now a number of ordinance requirements that apply to the property. Issues that need to be addressed in updating the conditional use permit include: Use of the property. The existing special use permit allows only transmission repair on the site. Based upon the application, materials submitted, it appears that the facility qualifies as a minor automobile repair business. Planning Commission ~inutes June 10, 1996 On-site parking. The special use permit which has never been updated limits parking to one vehicle. The applicant has requested parking for 25 vehicles. Based on the capacity of the off-street parking area, it seems that limiting parking to 15 vehicles is consistent with the conditions placed on Shoreline Automotive is reasonable. Parking lot. The parking area currently has a gravel surface. The Zoning Code requires that all parking areas and access drives serving commercial property be paved with bituminous or concrete surfacing. The code also states that parking lots cannot be located closer than 5 feet from an adjacent lot zoned or used for residential purposes. The code also requires fencing along the east side of the parking lot. That provision requires that "a fence of adequate design, not over five (5) feet in height nor less than four (4) feet in height shall be erected along the Residential District prOperty line." Trash and parts storage. City Code requires the screening of all dumpster enclosures. The original special use permit prohibited outside storage of parts, material and other equipment. The existing dumpster as well as all parts storage needs to be screened. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a conditional use permit for Meyer's Mound Service as a Minor Automobile Repair facility subject to the following conditions: Parking on the site shall be limited to a total of 15 vehicles. All vehicles parked on the site shall have current vehicle license tabs. The sale of vehicles on the property is prohibited. The parking lot on the north side of the building shall be improved consistent with City ordinance requirements. Said improvement shall include but not be limited to bituminous surfacing and construction of required fencing. All trash and parts storage shall be screened. The applicant shall prepare and submit a screening plan for review and approval by the Mound Building Official. Any future changes in signage for the business shall comply with the Mound Sign Ordinance. 5. All vehicle repair activities shall occur inside the building. Mueller confirmed that other similar businesses used for comparison are Shoreline Automotive, Mound Collision and the old Arco (now Glass Plus). 2 Planning Commission Minutes June I0, 1996 Koegler confirmed that within the R-1 zone, minor auto repair is allowed by conditional use permit, and commented that the applicant can address what nature of repairs are done on-site, but believes it is consistent with the definition of minor auto repair. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Steve Kladstrup, owner of 5668 Bartlett Blvd. which is located two houses to the east expressed a concern about future expansion of the business. Koegler noted that the surrounding property is zoned residential and this type of use is not allowed in a residential zone. Kladstrup noted that Meyer's repaired a broken timing belt on his car two weeks ago and noted that this is the type of work they do. Kladstrup stated that when the wind comes from the west trash from Meyer's blows into his property, and he has a collection of this trash to prove it. He feels that expansion of the business would have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood. Tom Reese, owner of 5641 Bartlett Blvd., stated that he feels the station provides a service to the community and it deserves to remain, but that it should be maintained so it is a benefit to Mound. He agrees with the planning report, however, feels 15 cars is a bit strong. He would suggest ten cars, otherwise he supports the rest of the report. He is also concerned about the signage as it is out of date. there is a concern in the neighborhood that this business be updated and made current. Richard Meyer, owner of the station, stated that when the complaint about the number of cars was received by the City was when it was very cold weather. He would like the Planning Commission to consider his request for 25 cars. Today they had 16 cars parked outside and there was room for more. In the winter he needs to be able to park more cars. Relating to condition #5, he stated that he would like the flexibility to allow quick repairs outdoors, such as replacing a fuse or a tire. He has no other concerns with the report. Relating to parking, he emphasized that he has four employees and himself, so five of the cars parked outside are the employee's vehicles which would only allow for ten customer vehicles. He stated that they rarely have more than five or ten cars parked overnight on the lot as most people drop off their vehicles a leave them during the day while they go to work. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Mueller agreed that incidental repairs, such as replacing a fuse or a tire outside should not be a problem. He would be concerned about engine work being done outside. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Mueller asked Mr. Meyer if he is okay with the condition relating to bituminous surfacing. Meyer said this condition is okay, however, expressed a concern about hardcover requirements. Koegler noted that this property is clearly in the shoreland district, and the property is limited to 30% hardcover, however, the current use existed in its current form since the early 80's, and gravel is viewed the same as bituminous by ordinance, so it would not be considered a change. Meyer confirmed that when the fuel tanks are removed, the island will also be removed. Voss asked what will happen if they violate this conditional use permit, and noted that the property has been in violation for the last 10 years. Sutherland noted that after they have been through this process, he will have a better relationship with the owners, Mueller questioned if there should be screening abutting 110. Voss suggested that screening may promote theft and vandalism. Koegler confirmed that screening is required only on the east side where it abuts residentially "zoned" property, and agreed that a fence on the street side may be more obtrusive than seeing a neatly organized parking lot. Clapsaddle noted that fences just get dilapidated. Voss suggested they could limit the number of vehicles stored on the property at night. Hanus agreed that this could be done and stated that the Council approved three vehicles to be parked outside at Glass Plus overnight. Koegler noted that the Council had also required a one year review period for Glass Plus and this could be done for Meyer's. Weiland asked if there is a law that states when the gas tanks have to be removed once gas sales have discontinued. Sutherland noted that this would be a PCA or Fire Code, he thinks it is one year, but he can check. Meyer stated that he will take out the tanks this September and that the tanks are now empty. Meyer stated that he could easily park 25 cars on the north side of the building. He confirmed that repairs are done strictly on automobiles, there are no boat motor or snowmobile repairs done at the station. Weiland suggested they could limit parking to the north side of the building only. Voss expressed a concern about being consistent with what has been approved for other similar stations. Hanus commented that they also need to be careful not to restrict the growth of a business. Clapsaddle reviewed his concerns. Michael clarified with staff that there have been only about three complaints on this property in 13 years. Michael asked Mr. Kladstrup about the type of trash he finds on his property from Meyer's. Mr. Kladstrup clarified that he finds receipts, repair tags, tire labels, lawn boy sale tags, oil change stickers, 4 Planning Commission Minutes June lO, 1996 etc. in his yard. Mueller stated the fence would help prevent garbage from blowing that way. Mueller asked if the fence would be placed on the top of the slope, and asked where is the property line is in relationship to the slope? Koegler stated that fortunately Meyer also owns the adjacent property, so he could put the fence on top of the slope if it is not on the gas station property. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend to the City Council that staff recommendation be approved with the conditions, including the following modifications: Overnight parking on the site shall be limited to the aren north of the structure ~-,-.' .... .kA ~: ~ Ak--,, kA , ... ' .... - "' "* ~= "^":"'~" All ehicI ked the site ...................... v es par on shall have current vehicle license tabs. The sale of vehicles on the property is prohibited. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed one year from the date of City Council approval at no cost to the applicant. Motion seconded by Voss. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 9, 1996. CASE 96-27: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION CLYDE & DENISF BONNEMA, 5513 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF LOTS 13 & 14, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a conforming garage addition 20' x 30'. The home is located 4 feet from the rear property line resulting in an 11 foot variance. The subject lot boarders a publicly owned commons area that has a width of approximately 45 feet. The home is approximately 49 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) contour resulting in a one foot variance. A side walk on the west side encroaches on the neighboring property. Although the walkway is less of a permanent structure than a building, it does encroach, and therefore, the Planning Commission may want to consider its relocation as a condition of approval. Since the proposed garage improvement is in a conforming location, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rear yard and lakeshore setback variances. The Commission discussed that due to topography, in order to relocate the encroaching side walk, the steps would also need to be moved. 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Weiland asked if the existing shed on the property meets setbacks. Staff stated that the setbacks to the shed can be verified prior to City Council review. MOTION by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, but if the shed is found to be not in conformance, that it be moved to a conforming location. Clapsaddle seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 1996. CASE 96-28: VARIANCE FOR HOUSE/GARAGE ADDITION CLAYTON (JAY) DUGGAN III 5117 TUXEDO BLVD., LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 24-117-24 43 0047 The applicant is seeking approval to construct a 22' x 36' addition on the west side of the existing home. The addition will conform to all setback requirements. The existing home is located 3.7 feet from the eastern property line resulting in a variance of 2.3 feet. The property also contains two nonconforming sheds, one of which is below the floodplain elevation. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval (recognition) of the existing side yard variance MOTION by Weiland to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Motion seconded by Mueller. Mueller confirmed that the lowest floor elevation of 933 must be complied with and will need to be confirmed at time of building permit issuance. The applicant noted that the garage will be raised 4 feet above the existing floor elevation of the house. The applicant confirmed that one of the sheds has already been removed. Weiland, complained about the neighbors property. Mr. Duggan stated that the neighbor has stored on his property four inoperable vehicles, a boat, snowmobile, three wheeler, fish house, conversion camper, pick-up with camper, Escort with iron hitch, cement mixer, dilapidated shed, lean-to which is falling, they have a sliding patio door 4 feet off the ground with no stairs, and there are boards with sharp nails down by the lake. He is concerned about the children. Weiland amended his motion to add a condition that the nonconforming shed must be removed. Mueller seconded the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 1996. CASE 96-29: ON HOLD 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 CASE 9G-30'. VOID - NOT REQUIRED CASE 96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION RANDALL MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 6, 5, & NELY 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 24 0008 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report, and noted that the applicant has submitted a revised request which provides conforming lot sizes for both Tracts A and B. Tract A has a total of 6,020 square feet, and Tract B has a total of 8,400 square feet. In order for the subdivision to be approved, the following variances are requested: Recognition of an existing front yard setback variance of 15.28 feet for the existing home. Approval of a variance from the bluff restrictions contained in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The house on the new lot, Tract A, is proposed to have a nonconforming front yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking approval to create a new lot which is nonconforming due to size and slope. Most of Tract A lies within a bluff that according to the survey has a slope of 49%. The Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) prohibits buildings from being located any closer than 10 feet from the top of the bluff. According to the applicant's survey, only a small portion of a proposed garage on Tract A actually lies outside of either the bluff or the required bluff setback. The proposed subdivision creates a new lot that does not comply with the minimum standards of the Mound Zoning Code. Therefore, staff cannot support the minor subdivision and recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial. Koegler noted that when the application for this case was submitted, it did not include the required variance application and fee. The applicant stated that the variance applications were submitted and the fees were paid. The Planner confirmed that this was true. Mueller questioned if the proposed house meets the minimum height restrictions. Sutherland commented that it is difficult to determine with the plan that was submitted, and that he would need more information. It was noted that Moriarity's property received a variance in 1994 for construction of the decks. Mueller clarified with staff that since the lot line is being changed, these lots will loose their lot-of-record status, therefore, the required side yard setbacks will be 10 feet and the maximum amount of hardcover allowed will be 30 percent. 7 Planning Commission Minutes June I0, 1996 Mr. Jack Cook, representative for the applicant, questioned why when his property was recently divided it was permitted to retain the lot-of-record status. He would like the lot-of-record status also retained for this property. The Planner stated that this subdivision will be creating a totally new lot, whereas Mr. Cooks subdivision did not. Koegler offered to ask the attorney, John Dehn, to render an opinion before it goes to the council. Mr. Cook stated that Lot 6 was a separate lot before, but then a previous owner combined them. Mr. Cook emphasized that most all of the homes along this road are built into the same bluff. He feels it would be beneficial to this property to be developed as retaining walls will become part of the construction. He stated that the hillside is starting to erode. He would like to improve and clean-up the neighborhood. Voss moved to deny the applicant's request based on staff's analysis and recommendation. Motion seconded by Burma. Mueller commented that it is admirable to want to clean-up the neighborhood, but this may not be the best way to do it. He commented that Denbigh Road is narrow, and this would allow another house too close to the road. He is strictly opposed to the subdivision as it would be allowing construction in a bluff. Mueller recalled that only one other time was any construction allowed in a bluff and it was part of a PUD and the type of construction was limited. He also feels this lot is too narrow. Hanus does not believe construction in the bluff is a major issue since this whole area is in a bluff. Hanus referenced a recent case were the Planning Commission allowed a porch to be constructed in a bluff. Hanus feels that denial is too harsh and suggested a tabling action. Mueller commented that the side yard setbacks are also a problem in his opinion. Motion to deny carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Voss, Burma, Michael, Glister, Reifschneider, Weiland, and Mueller. Hanus was opposed. Hanus commented he would have liked to have given the applicant more time to work with staff. The Building Official noted that the applicant could submit a written request to pull this request from the Council agenda in order to allow him time to revise their plan which could then come back to the Planning Commission for review. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see a better cross section drawing. 8 Planning Commission Minutes June I0, 1996 CASE 96-32: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE/SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, RAYMOND BAYLOR, 4790 NORTHERN ROAD, E. 1/2 OF LOT 27 & W 1/2 OF 28, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID 18-117-23 33 0027 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking variances to construct a garage addition, decks, and a second story addition. Northern Road is one of the tightest neighborhood areas in the City of Mound. The land area is limited by the location of the lakeshore and the County Road. Variances will be necessary in this area to afford property owners reasonable use of their land. The following addresses each of the variance issues applicable to this case: Front Yard Setback - the plan shows a new attached garage with second story living space located on the front of the lot approximately .7 feet from the property line resulting in a 19.3 foot variance. The garage door opens to the side lot line eliminating the need to directly back into Northern Road. The face of the proposed garage door is approximately 28 feet from the western property line. Although the proposed garage is extremely close to the street, there is no reasonable method of locating a conforming garage on the lot. The proposed depth of the garage (22') is not excessive and as evidenced by materials stored along the side of the home, a garage is needed for storage. Upon approval and commencement of construction, an existing storage shed on the lot will be removed. Side Yard Setback - the west side of the existing home is located 5.9 feet from the lot line which is .1 feet under the 6 foot requirement. Relocation of the existing structure to a conforming location is not recommended by staff since it would qualify as a "practical difficulty" situation. Lakeshore Setback - It appears from the plans that the existing deck will either be reconstructed or modified to remove a small appendage that extends towards Lake Minnetonka. At its closest point, the deck is approximately 47 feet from the lake which is under the 50 foot setback requirement. Since it appears that the deck will be either rebuilt or modified, the deck should be brought into conformance with the lakeshore setback requirement. The deck that is shown on the plans on the second level of the home conforms to setback requirements. Floodplain Elevation - According to the survey, the elevation of the lowest finished floor of the home is 932.77 and the structure has a crawl space that is at an elevation of 929.04. Both these elevations are under the minimum floodplain elevation for Lake Minnetonka which is 933.0. The proposed improvements constitute a major reconstruction of the existing home. In previous cases of a similar nature, conditions of approval have included raising the floor elevations above the minimum flood level. Raise the elevation of the 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 10, i996 floors of this home would also be appropriate. In addition to the floodplain elevation issue, the entire lot is located within the existing floodplain. As such, it will require Watershed District approval of the minor amount of fill necessary to construct the garage and raise the floor elevation. The applicant will also need to prepare a detailed grading and drainage plan identifying pertinent elevations and showing compensation measures as applicable. The proposed improvements will substantially upgrade the existing home while affording the owner reasonable use of the property. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback and side yard setback variances subject to the following conditions: The floor elevation of the existing home shall be raised to a minimum elevation of 933.0. The applicant shall prepare a grading and drainage plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. Said plan shall contain contours and spot elevations necessary to permit a full assessment of the grading impacts of the proposed improvements including, but not limited to compensation measures to comply with floodplain requirements. The applicant shall secure required approvals by the watershed district and other applicable agencies. Construction of new improvements shall be in conformance with the Mound floodplain regulations. 5. The existing storage shed shall be removed from the property. The Commission confirmed that staff is recommending the existing house be raised .23 feet. Staff clarified that if more than 50% of house is being altered, the existing is required to be brought into conformance. Sutherland noted that this case was reviewed with the DNR, and there are some acceptable methods of construction by allowing the floodplain to come into a crawl space, however, to get through this process they would need a civil engineer to prepare the plans. Weiland expressed a concern about snow removal and asked where the snow will go when they plow the street. Koegler commented that fortunately, in this area, the other side of the road is undeveloped, and therefore the snow can be directed to one side of the street, away from the garages. Weiland stated that this property would be over-built and considers this proposal as over- usage of the property. 10 Planning Commission Minutes June lO, I996 Hanus asked if the size of the garage could be reduced to be only 20 feet wide, which would allow for 2 more feet on the street side. Mueller commented that a 22 foot wide garage is not bad, and noted they have dealt with similar situations on Ridgewood, Edgewater, and Island View, and this property has the benefit of being able to push snow to the other side of the street. He feels this is a good improvement. Reifschneider stated that there are options that would be less encroaching, such as building a second story all the way across with a tuckunder garage. The owner stated that he wants to keep the vaulted ceiling in the existing portion of the home and noted that this home is a log house on the inside, and does not want to disturb the existing logs. Clapsaddle commented that this situation is the nature of the neighborhood. Clapsaddle moved staff recommendation. Mueller seconded the motion. Motion failed 4 to 5. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Michael, Mueller, and Hanus. Those opposed were Reifschneider, Weiland, Voss, Glister, and Burma. Motion made by Voss to recommend denial of the variance as requested. Motion seconded by Glister. Motion to deny carried 5 to 4. Those in favor were: Reifschneider, Weiland, ross, Glister, and Burma. Those opposed were Clapsaddle, Michael, Mueller, and Hanus. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 1996. CASE 96-33: MINOR SUBDIVISION BOYER BUILDING CORP., 2978/2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, PELICAN POINT, PID//19-117-23 42 O03R & 31 0139 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to make an adjustment to an existing lot line. Pelican Point is a development of double units with a common wall that straddles a lot line. In the case of the subject units the common wall was built in the wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common alignment position. The amount of the shift in the line is very minor (less than I foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback requirements. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision as proposed subject to the developer preparing new legal descriptions for the two lots and submitting said descriptions to the City Engineer for review and approval. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to approve the subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 11 Planning Commission Minutes June i0, I996 TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY: 6273 BIRCH LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 9, MOUND TERRACE, PID 14-117-24 32 0046 As recommended by the City Engineer, the Building Official recommended the Planning Commission recommend the parcel be released for sale. Hanus asked if this property could be used for stormwater management? Sutherland noted that it is not the most desirable property for this use. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend this parcel be released for sale. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Construction within a bluff was discussed. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 12 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COM1VIISSION M/NUTF OF A MEETING JUNE 13, 1996 Present were: Vice Chair Bill Darling, Commissioners Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, Rita Pederson, and Bev Botko, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were Commissioners Tom Casey, Marilyn Byrnes, and Mary Goode. The following persons were also in attendance: Steve Behnke, Ron Moore, Norman Berglund, Gerry Swenson, Donald Swenson, Doug & An Jepson, and Doug Rippie. lVlINUTES Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Geffre, to approve the minutes of the May, 9 1996 Park and Open Space Commi.qsion meeting, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Geffre requested that discussion be added regarding improvements at Canary Beach. The Chair added this to the agenda as item 7.a. NEW DOCK LOCATIONS - LONGFORD ROAD (continued discussion) Parks Director, Jim Fackler informed the Commission that he has reviewed this issue with Greg Nybeck of the LMCD regarding the acceptance of these docks under their code. Fackler reviewed the letter from the LMCD dated June 5, 1996 and explained that the LMCD allows for one boat for each 50 feet of shoreline, and these docks could be added to the City's 1997 renewal application for our multiple dock license. Ann Jepson, owner of one of the two existing docks in question, stated they would be happy to comply with any rules, but they do not want to become part of a shared common dock with the neighbors. They do not want their decision to delay the installation of their neighbors docks. They are happy about the neighborhood being improved, but requested their dock be dealt with separately. She explained their dock is the one on the far east. The Parks Director noted that a survey would determine if their dock is actually on Longford Road or on private shoreline. If it is found their dock is on Longford Road, it would become part of the commons dock program, and would remain a single dock assigned to their home. Pederson confirmed with the Jepson's they have no problem becoming part of the dock program. (Ahrens arrived) Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 19, 1996 Ahrens questioned if they are allowed to go over the 448 docks as the City is licensed for through the LMCD. The Parks Director explained that they are allowed to have one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline. Since Mounds shoreline is not continuous, the code allows Boat Storage Units (BSU's) provided the total number of BSU's for the city multiple dock license does not exceed one restricted watercraft for every 50 feet of shoreline. Faclder noted that Mound has more than enough available BSU's based on lineal footage and there is enough lineal footage along Longford Road to handle the number of boats proposed. Faclder clarified that BSU's are the number of boats, and WSU's are based on boat length. For example, one larger boat may count as 1.5 or 2 WSU's. Ahrens stated that right now there are 448 dock sites and each dock is allowed 4 boats, and right now that is their privilege. Fackler commented that it is not likely that each dock will have 4 boats, but it is more likely that the size of the boats could increase, and as boats grow, the units diminish Geffre questioned the size of the proposed multiple docks and questioned if dredging will be needed? Fackler stated that no dredging will be needed. Faclder noted that the two-slip dock will be about 39 feet wide. Fackler confirmed that staff's recommendation is to have this area designated as a Type C Shoreline. Geffre questioned if they are reviewing both proposed docks as one proposal. Fackler emphasized that it is less costly to process these docks on one application through the DNR, and the survey costs are also less. Faclder confirmed there would be a total of nine new dock sites on the two multiple docks and up to three other individual dock sites. Ahrens requested clarification regarding BSU's and WSU's. Fackler explained that the City's LMCD Multiple Dock License is based on WSU's, and he reviewed the numbers from ther 1995 application: BSU's WSU's 305 boats up to 20' long @ 1 305 145 21' to 24' long @ 1.5 218 34 25' to 32' long @ 2 68 5 33' x 40' long @ 2.5 13 489 604 Fackler clarified that based on lineal footage of shoreline as shown on the Dock Location Map, 1,220 WSU's are allowed. He will find out exactly how many lineal feet this development will add when the survey is completed. Ahrens estimated this area could accommodate 9 boats up to 20 feet long. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 19, 1996 Pederson asked if this area would be considered marsh land and nontraversible. Fackler agreed that it could be. Pederson referred to the Use Plan which describes Wildlife Areas as "marsh land and nontraversible," and questioned how this area differs from other Type E areas. The Parks Director stated that the Park Commission could recommend this area be designated as Type E, however, a request was received for docks, not for a Wildlife Area. Ahrens commented that it is possible to traverse on foot down to the shoreline. that the steep portion of this property is actually located on private land. recommending stairs or paths as part of this request. Fackler noted Staff is not Ahrens questioned if both the existing docks are in question? Fackler stated that he will not know until the survey is complete. Ahrens referred to the docks within the Lost Lake Subdivision which are all considered public docks, and the owners within that subdivision are not privy to those docks. Fackler commented that if these docks were to be open to the public, it would require a walkway easement in order to establish public access. Fackler noted that the abutting property owners will have priority to these docks. Meyer moved to recommend approval of the two multiple docks on Longford Road, one with 7 slips and one with 2 slips, subject to the condition that intrusion to the marsh be minimized. Darling seconded the motion. Ahrens questioned how many dock applications were refunded this year because there were no sites available. The Dock Inspector noted that less than 20 were refunded, which is about average for the last three years. Darling commented that as much as we want to protect the lake, this is a community lake, and homes are being built, so we have to ask what is reasonable? Steve Behnke, representing the developer noted that one of the owners of the new houses does have a larger boat, but they are proposing standard size slips. He stated that they would be more comfortable if they were able to have a variation of sizes for the slips. Ahrens suggested they limit the area to a certain number of WSU's. Ahrens stated that she would vote against the motion as it reads because the motion does not address payment for the survey of Longford Road. She also feels that since this area is traversible, docks should be made available to the public. Pederson asked how many WSU's are alotted for this area? Fackler stated that even if there was not enough lineal footage in this area to accommodate the number of WSU's proposed, there is enough lineal footage left over from the entire dock system. He does believe this area would handle what is proposed. Park and Open Space Co~ssion Minutes June 19, 1996 Geffre expressed a concerned about the size of the dock slips and noted that the two-slip docks are bigger. Faclder stated that the slip sizes of the new dock on Devon Common are basically 10' x 24'. It was noted that the large boat proposed to be docked at the two-slip dock is 30' long. Steve Behnke stated that they are already surveying their whole property as it is, and does not feel they should have to pay for the surveying of other peoples property. Fackler commented that they did utilize the survey for this property along with surveys of other neighboring properties in order to complete the entire survey of Longford which helped reduce the cost of the City's survey. Ahrens asked if this developer will be paying a park dedication fee? The secretary noted that they may not, it has not been determined yet. Ahrens again emphasized that the Lost Lake Subdivision had to give public easement and extra dockage for the public. Relating to paying for the survey, Ahrens noted that the developer is the main beneficiary of obtaining these docks. Geffre confirmed with the Parks Director that the City survey would not have been done unless this development came forth. Darling suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that the developer shall pay for the costs incurred by the city for surveying Longford Road. Steve Behnke commented that he would be in favor of paying for the survey costs if the survey totally related to their work, but the survey is also of other peoples docks. Meyer amended the motion to include the following conditions: The developer shall recover the cost to the City for the survey of Longford Road ($605.00). e When the seven slip dock is planned, the length and width of each slip size shall be reviewed, and if something other than a slip size of 10' x 24' is planned, it shall be brought back to the Park Commission for review. Motion carried 5 to 2. This request will be forwarded to the City Council on June 25, 1996. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT FOR WATER PUMP AND WATER IJNE BY DONALD & GERALDINE SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 14, DEVON, DOCK SITE 43520, DEVON COMMON, TYPE C. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow for an irrigation pump, electrical connection, and below grade 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 19, 1996 supply line to be installed on Devon Common. Special permits are required for construction of any type on public land as specified in City Code Section 320. In following the Procedure Manual as adopted by City Council Resolution //93-52, all encroachments on-site are to be addressed to allow for a concurrent renewal date for the abutting property. At this time them is a stairway existing that allows access to a dock site location. This stairway is in acceptable condition as noted by the Building Official. Staff recommended approval of a five (5) year permit for the stairway, pump system and the electrical supply based on the following conditions: The electrical shall be installed by a qualified license electrical contractor and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the Building Official to verify this work is completed and has been approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The proposed electrical line will, and the water line may cross a 20 foot permanent easement that has an eight inch clay sewer line at an eight foot depth. They will need to indicate the depth of proposed water and electrical line, and the owner of 4857 Island View Drive will be responsible for locating them if excavation is needed in this easement for sewer line repair. 3. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer, to recommend approval, as recommended by staff. Darling asked how visible the pump will be. The applicant stated that there is a lot of vegetation on shoreline and it will not be visible at all. It was noted that the size of the pump is very small, it is only one horse power. MOTION carried unanimously. REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF CHURCHILL LANE Parks Director, Jim Fackler, referred to the Planning Report and stated that he sees no need to retain the street easement. Meyer noted that by vacating this unimproved street, it makes the back half of the park on Dundee more remote. It was noted that Dundee lane provides adequate access to the park. 5 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 19, 1996 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Botko to recommend approval of the street vacation of Churchill Lane as the Park Commi~ion has reviewed the request and has no issues. Motion carried unanimously. TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY, 6273 BIRCH LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 9, MOUND TERRACE, 14-117-24 32 0046. The Parks Director noted that this is a very nice lot, it is high ground and has a number of trees. The whole lot is on a hill. Ahrens suggested the lot be released for sale and the revenue, if any, be put in the park dedication fund. Meyer suggested that this is a piece of property that they could add to Mound's open space and see it saved. MOTION made by Ahrens to recommend the lot be released for sale, and the revenues,, if any, be deposited in the park dedication fund. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Meyer, to recommend that the parcel be brought into the park system. It was noted that there is no cost for the City to retain the parcel. Fackler noted that the only future cost would be there was a hazardous tree situation on the property. Darling commented that this parcel is huge compared to other small strips of land which the city has control. This is a very large piece of open land which should develop naturally. Pederson commented that they need to plan for the future, there are only so many trees and open land, and she would like to see it retained. Ahrens commented that the day is coming when we will not be able to care for the land we have. Geffre stated there is no reason why we need to sell it now, it could always be sold in the future, so we should keep it for now. Ahrens suggested they get prepared to put up another "no dumping" sign. Meyer commented that beside the environmental reasons to retain this lot, it is one of the last woods where neighborhood kids play. Botko conf~rmed that it would be easy to release the property for sale again. Motion carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Meyer, Geffre, Peterson, and Botko. Ahrens was opposed. 1997 DOCK FEES The Parks Director suggested that the Park Commission move their scheduled heating on dock fees from July to August to allow him time to review with the Finance Director how multiple docks may affect their fee structure. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 19, 1996 Ahrens noted that the task force has proposed a $50 surcharge for people at these multiples, because they do not have to maintain their dock or put it in or take it out. Fackler confirmed there is about $130,000 in the dock fund. He noted that they just spent $10,000 on the new multiple dock, and $1,000 on the lights, and the task force is looking at spending more on docks like this. Riprap and dredging will still need to be addressed. Faclder explained one reason you want to see a fund balance is so you don't have to budget all of the cost for improvements each year out of capital outlay because some projects can be very expensive. Geffre commented that it seemed strange that the Park Commission had no part in the decision for the multiple dock. Pederson agrees with a surcharge for multiples, but on the other hand, one of the findings from the task force survey was that the people do not want the fees raised. Fackler confirmed that he will come back in July with more information to review. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Pederson, to continue discussion on this item until July. Motion carried unanimously. CANARY BEACH Ahrens referred to a motion made by the City Council on May 28, 1996 regarding Canary Beach which directed "Jim Fackler, Parks Director to upgrade the beach and to add amenities such as picnic tables, etc." Geffre asked were the money will be coming from. She expressed a concern that other planned park improvements will not be done so this can be accomplished. the Parks Director indicated that they will be relocating an existing picnic table to this beach, and any other improvements relating to "park improvements" will come from the park fund. REVIEW AND DISCUSS LOST LAKE EAW Darling moving if there explained that Tom Casey had called him and expressed a concern that many items are ahead on the Lost Lake Plan without Park Commission review or input. Darling asked were any comments regarding the Lost Lake plan, primarily the dredging. Ahrens was dismissed from the meeting. Geffre commented that she sees the dredging as an asset to Mound, and what Mound would benefit far outweighs any negative impacts. Darling commented that he does not see timing as an issue, and feels they will still have the ability to give their input and suggested they put-off discussion on this item until Commissioner Casey is present. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 19, 1996 MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Botko, to table discussion on this item until the next meeting in July. Motion carried unanimously. Geffre encouraged everyone to attend the COW meeting on June 18th when this item will be reviewed. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Darling expressed a concern that the Park Commission Council Representative is not communicating the Park Commissions motions and concerns onto the Council. Specifically, two Council members were not aware of the motion they made at their last meeting regarding the processing of public land permits. One Councilperson indicated it was the Council Representatives responsibility to reflect those concerns. Darling expressed disappointment that Ahrens never brought up the issue. He commented that is was unfortunate Ahrens left early. Darling asked how they should go about getting these issues resolved. Pederson stated that it is also the City Council member's responsibility to read the minutes that are in their packets. Geffre agreed that it is frustrating. She agrees it was a good idea to form a Task Force, but park issues are not being brought to them, and their recommendations are not taken seriously. She feels they need better direction from the Council, and suggested the Council evaluate the Park Commission's responsibilities. MOTION made by Darling, that the City Manager place this issue on a COW agenda so they may review their frustrations and discuss potential next steps to resolve this issue. Geffre seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Ahrens not present. PARKS DIRECTOR REPORT Faclder reported they are getting ready for Mound City Days. time on high use parks, others have been slightly neglected. installed in various parks. They have been spending more Drinking fountains have been He recently received the time schedule for the 1997 budget, and he will be bringing this back to the Park Commission for review. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 19, 1996 DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT Tom McCaffrey reviewed the latest statistics on the dock program: straight docks 339 L docks 29 U docks 19 TOTAL 387 16 Woodland Point docks are not included in this count 16 abutting not paid and docks not used 8 docks in dedicated commons and can't assign 10 not assigned for other reasons (not accessible) There are 55 people sharing this year which is a high number. It has been a cold Spring so people are behind in installing their docks. He will again be working with the LMCD in reviewing aerial photographs to determine boat usage on the lake. OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SKATING RINK Geffre asked for an update on the skating rink. Meyer stated that they had a meeting this evening at Community Ed with Ed Shukle, Jim Fackler, Mike Loobey and himself, and they will be meeting again soon on the issue. They hope to include a representative from the hockey association at their next meeting. MOTION made by Geffre, seconded by Botko to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 9:12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. all CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-168; (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 June 24, 1996 Douglas Hellerud 5936 Hillcrest Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Hellerud Household: CONGRATULATIONS! You are a winner in the Recyclotto. The City of Mound appreciates your help in making a safer environment for all of us now and into the future. Recycling does have its rewards! The City Council would like you to come to the Council meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 1996 to receive your 300 Westonka Dollars. The Council meetings are held at 5341 Maywood Road at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers. If you cannot attend this meeting, please stop by Mound City Hall between 8 am and 4:30 pm, see Joyce and pick up your Westonka dollars or contact me at 472-0603. And again, CONGRATULATIONS! Respectfully, Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator printed on recycled paper III JU~ 2 5 '96, ~N ) R RESOLUTION ~96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN A~ CHURCHILL LANE LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCKS 12 AND 14 IN ARDEN P&Z CASE #96-18 WHEREAS, the applicants, Michael and Carrie McDonald, owners of 3018 Churchill Lane, have requested the vacation of the 30 foot wide platted right-of-way located between Block 12, Lots 19-26, 5, 6, and 7, and Block 14, Lots 4-17, all in Arden, and; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any park thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council June 25, 1996, as required by law, and; WHEREAS, approval of this request will add vacated property to the neighboring parcels who are not part of this request, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommend approval of the vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota to hereby approve the request to vacate a 30 foot wide platted right-of-way known as Churchill Lane located between Block 12, Lots 19-26, 5, 6, and 7, and Block 14, Lots 4-17, all in Arden, as shown on the attached plat. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings. It is the responsibility of the owner to record this Certified Resolution in the office of the County Recorder and/or the Registrar of Tiles, as set forth in M.S.A. 412.851. The foregoing resolution as moved by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING STREET FRONTAGE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ONE CONFORMING DECK AND ONE NONCONFORMING DECK AT 3018 CHURCHILL LANE LOTS 19, 20, AND 21, BLOCK 12 PID 24-117-24 44 0146 P&Z CASE #96-18 WHEREAS, the owners, Carrie and Michael McDonald have applied for a variance in conjunction with a street vacation request. The vacation of Churchill Lane has been approved, and; WHEREAS, fifteen feet of frontage remains on the unimproved Churchill Lane after the vacation. The ordinance requires 40 feet of frontage on an improved public right of way, resulting in a street frontage variance request of 25 feet and zero frontage on an improved right-of-way, and; WHEREAS, this variance request involves construction of an 8' x 24' deck on the south side of the dwelling and replacement of an 8' x 8' deck on the north side. Both decks were constructed after- the-fact, without first obtaining the proper building permits, and; WHEREAS, the vacation of Churchill Lane reconfigures the arrangement of the lot setbacks which makes the north side of the property the front yard resulting in a 20 foot front yard setback. The house is setback 8.1 feet from the north property line, and with the 8' x 8' deck on the north side of the house with a zero foot setback results in a 20 foot front yard setback variance request, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks to the east and west, and a 15 foot rear yard setback to the south, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the following, to authorize construction of an 8' x 24' +/- deck on the south side of the house, and replacement of an 8' x 8' deck on the north side of the house: a. Existing nonconforming street frontage. Proposed Resolution Variance - NcDonald P. 2 b.North front yard setback of zero feet, measured to the deck. c. A private driveway within an unimproved right- of-way. 2. This variance is approved subject to the following conditions: a.Prior to release of this resolution, the $50.00 variance applicant fee must be paid. b. A building permit must be obtained by the owner for the deck construction. 3. 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. 4. 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 8' x 24' +/- deck on the south side of the dwelling, and an 8' x 8' deck on the north side of the dwelling. 5. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 19, 20, and 21, Block 12, Arden 6. 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).d@