The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-08-27 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PAGE 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 13, 1996 REGULAR MEETING ................................... 2813-2820 3. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 20, 1996 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ...................... 4. CASE #96_ -42: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION, ~4&-3;)~ 5996 LYNWOOD BLVD., JILL BOTKO, PART OF LOT 20, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 42 0046 ............... 2821-2825 ~/o 2826-2839 CASE//96-39' VARIANCE FOR PORCH, 5009 WILSHIRE BLVD., JOHN SOBRASKE, M&B, BLK 40, WYCHWOOD, PID 24-117-24-13-0035 .................. ?.' .~-~- -~'~"'"/- '/-~--' · · · · · ' ' 2840-2861 CASE #9_ 6-40: VARIANCE FOR SHED, 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JOHN & KATHY AQUILINA, LOT 48, PHELPS ISLAND P~Z~c/.,t.;.,~ DIVISION, PID 19-117-23-34 0073. .~'~'~t...~~ .... ~ ' 2862-2877 CASE #96-41: VARIANCE FOR DECK, 4753 ISLAND DEVON PID 30-117-23-22-0058 . .... 2878-2890 ~ 8.j CASE #96-45: ~NCE FOR DECK, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE GLENN & AMY HURD, LOT 9, BLK 13, DEVON, PID 25-1~-H 0034 ............... // .................. 2891-2915 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 10. REQUEST FROM THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY (SRA) TO CONSIDER JOINING THIS ORGANIZATION ON A TRIAL BASIS AT NO COST FOR ONE YEAR ............................. 2916-2929 2811 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. PETITION REQUESTING THAT SHERWOOD DRIVE UNDERGO A COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENT AND REQUESTING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY ENGINEER TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SUCH IMPROVEMENT ................... 2930 APPLICATION FOR A QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION PORTABLE SIGN PERMIT, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH, INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL .................................. 2931-2932 APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH, INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL - SATURDAY/SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 & 22, 1996 DANCE AND TEMPORARY BEER PERMIT .................... 2933 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. i - CALDWELL ASPHALT, 1996 SEALCOAT PROJECT .............................. 2934-2935 APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION ........................... 2936 APPROVAL OF BEER LICENSE FOR MOUND LANES ................. 2937 PAYMENT OF BILLS ................................... 2938-2954 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: ho FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JULY 1996 AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ................ 2955-2956 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 1996 .................................. 2957-2965 Co PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1996 ................................. 2966-2982 Do ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 1996 ........................ 2983-2985 REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED IN OBSERVANCE OF LABOR DAY - MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1996. REMINDER: CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 HAS BEEN CHANGED TO WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1996, DUE TO THE PRIMARY ELECTION. 2812 Minutes - Mound City Council August 15, 1996 Councilmember Jessen stated that once city land is gone it is never retrievable. no on the vacation. She would vote Councilmember Jensen stated she was against vacating this portion of Cobden Lane before and she still is against vacation. Mayor Polston stated he would vote for denial also. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated that a motion would be needed. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to deny the vacation of Cobden Lane according to the judgement of the City Engineer and the Planning Commission and Council, it is in the best interest of the City of Mound to retain and not vacate a 30 foot wide platted right-of-way known as Cobden Lane located north of Windsor Road and terminated at lot 3, Block I of Teal Pointe located in "Arden" Addition. 1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USEg BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES. Mayor Polston stated this was an issue the Planning Commission and the Council had worked very hard on for a long time. He also stated that the Council wanted to remove the complicated red tape that held up residents in developing their property. City Planner Mark Koegler summarized the item. He stated the amendment to the ordinance included two themes: Nonconforming residential properties that have received variance approval within the past 15 years for principal structure setbacks and/or accessory structure setbacks (except lakeshore setbacks), lot area, lot depth or width, hardcover, and/or street frontage may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure, adding a detached .accessory building, provided that the principal structure is in sound condition, and; residential properties having only one nonconforming condition may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure, by adding a conforming detached accessory building, or adding a conforming addition to a detached accessory building, provided that the property complies with a list of conditions after application of the one nonconforming condition. Councilmember Hanus asked the City Planner to help rephrase one line in the Subd. 9. The City Attorney suggested , " .... that any nonconforming detached accessory building and the principal structure are in sound condition..." to be added to the 5th line. Councilmember Hanus went on to say that he too was very pleased to have this finished. The ordinance had been difficult to understand and now it is very clear and very non restrictive for 3 Minutes - Mound City Council August 13, 1996 the residents. He also mentioned that the Council will review this ordinance amendment in one year to see if further changes were needed. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve an amendment as amended to the Mound Zoning Ordinance establishing additional criteria pertaining to nonconforming uses by amending Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. 1.5 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ACTION ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MERGER OF TRIAX AND DD CABLE. City Manager Ed Shukle updated the Council regarding the transfer of Tfiax Cable to DD Cable Holdings, Inc. The Council has been advised by the city's cable attorneys that this is the final and correct agreement form and could be voted on. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak either for or against the transfer of Tfiax Cable to DD Cable Holdings, Inc. There was no one. The mayor closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Council for discussion. Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following recommended resolution: RESOLUTION//96-79 RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF AND CERTAIN .OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE; SUBJECT AND CONDITIONED UPON COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The question was asked by Mayor Polston to the City Manager why the City of Mound did not belong to the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission. He stated this had occurred before his arrival, but the cable commission at that time was moving very slowly. At that time the cable company required a city to have a certain number of hook up sites before entering into the city. Mound already had more than enough cable hook up sites (potential customers) and therefore, the Council at that time chose not to join the commission. 1.6 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 4 Minutes - Mound City Council August 13, 1996 1.7 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM NIR. PATRICK KELLY, 6685 HALSTED AVENUE, MINNETRISTA, RE: CONNECTION TO CITY OF MOUND WATER SYSTEM. City Manager Ed Shukle stated Patrick Kelly of 6685 Halsted Avenue, Minnetrista was experiencing problems with his well and he is requesting permission to hook up to the Mound water system that is only one lot from his. The city of Minnetrista requests this hook up also. Mr. Kelly, at his cost, will construct a 6" watermain with a hydrant ending at his westerly property line. The plans will require approval of the Minnetrista Engineer and Mound City Engineer. Through discussion, it was realized that the City of Mound will maintain the watermain and Mr. Kelly will pay a quarterly water bill to the City of Mound. Mayor Polston stated that he was glad to help this resident of Minnetrista with his water situation. He, however, wanted to send a message to the city of Minnetrista that Mound could use help in locating a composting site for leaves and brush for all of the residents of Minnetrista and Mound. He indicated that Mound has always tried to be cooperative with Minnetrista on a variety of issues and feels like Minnetrista did not cooperate with Mound by rejecting a recent proposal by a private company to locate a compost site in Minnetrista. Councilmember Hanus agreed with Mayor Polston, as did Councilmember Ahrens. The Council asked the City Manager to convey to Minnetrista Mound's concerns in this regard. MOTION by Ahrens seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to direct staff from Minnetrista and Mound to prepare the proper documentation to allow watermain hook up for a Minnetrista resident at 6685 Halsted Avenue, Minnetrista, totally at the Minnetrista resident's expense and upon approval by the city engineers of both Minnetrista and Mound and to return resolution to the Mound City Council for approval. 1.8 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO USE MOUND BAY PARK FOR A WEIGH-IN ONLY FOR "OPERATION BASS RED MAN EVENT" TO BE HELD ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1996. Rick Kulver was present for questions. Councilmember Jensen was concerned about "Red Man" tobacco products being advertised on signs at Mound Bay Park. She did not want tobacco advertised in the public park where children play. Mr. Kulver guaranteed that signage would be only on the trailer holding the weigh in equipment. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the park would be quiet at that time in September and should not interfere with swimmers as the beach would be closed then. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to approve the weigh in of the "Operation Bass Red Man Event" for September 22, 1996 from 2:30 to 4:30 pm. With the stipulation of no tobacco signs being present in the park. The vote carried 4-1, Jensen voting nay. Minutes - Mound City Council August 13, 1996 1.9 APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS. Acting City Clerk Linda Strong stated that all of the people on the list have not responded and she may need to recruit more people at a later date. She will bring back to Council an updated list if needed. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following recommended resolution: RESOLUTION//96-80 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AS RECO1VI3YE~ED FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 AND NOVEMBER 5, 1996. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 REQUEST FROM COMMONS TASK FORCE TO APPOINT A PERSON TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE TASK FORCE. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that there was a vacancy on the Commons Task Force and Mark Goldberg, Chair, is requesting the appointment of another "nonabutting dock holder" to the task force. The Council discussed how long the task force has existed and how much longer their services would be needed. It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to advertise in The Laker for a "nonabutting dock holder" to fill the vacancy. Councilmember Hanus stated the task force is an asset to the Parks and Open Space commission and the Council for the research they have done on the encroachments on the commons. Agreement was that if there was more than 1 applicant, interviews would be held. 1.11 PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR PARK PURPOSES. ADJACENT TO VETERAN'S PARK. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that the property located at 2509 Commerce Blvd, adjacent to Veteran's Park was for sale and the City has negotiated on the sale price of $39,000. The City Attorney had prepared a resolution approving the purchase. Mayor Polston stated he had attended the Parks and Open Space Commission on August 8, 1996 to discuss with them this purchase. The Commission recommended approval with the stipulation that there be no motorized vehicles used in the park and the land not be used for parking. He also stated the VFW across the street from the park said they would gladly do all they could in any way to help maintain the park as it was a "Veterans Park". Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution as 6 Minutes - Mound City Council August 13, 1996 proposed: RESOLUTION//96-81 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2509 COMMERCE BLVD. FOR PURPOSES OF FUTURE EXPANSION OF ADJACENT VETERAN'S PARK AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE APPROPRIATE PURCHASE DOCUMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A TWIN HOME LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5214/5218 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOTS 4, 5, 14 & 15, BLOCK 12, WHIPPLE, PID 25-11%24 21 0025. SUGGESTED DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1996. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to set September 11, 1996 for a public hearing to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a twin home located within the R-2 zoning district at 5214/5218 Drulnmond Road. 1.13 ADD-ON ITEM Mayor Polston asked if any of the Council had anything to be added to the meeting. No one responded. Mayor Polston stated he had something. He said he had attended the Parks and Open Space Commission meeting on August 8th regarding the purchase of the land for Veteran's Park. While he was there, the chairperson presented a resolution to discuss and vote on. The issue the resolution regarded was not on the agenda, and none of the commissioners present (there were 3 members absent) or absent had seen this resolution prior to that evening. The resolution directed the City Council to abolish the Commons Task Force and for the Council to submit all public land issues and permits applications to the Parks and Open Space Commission. The Mayor then stated that the Chair of the Parks Commission did not take care of the residents in attendance who had permits on the Parks agenda for that meeting. All public lands permits were tabled that evening. Councilmember Hanus had received a copy of the resolution and saw it to be an ultimatum from the Parks Commission which passed with four votes on a nine member commission. Councilmembers Jessen and Jensen had not seen the resolution, they requested and received copies immediately. Councilmember Jensen stated that four of the commissioners seemed to have a problem and this should be discussed with them to understand their viewpoint. The vote at the Parks Commission carried 4-2, with Chair Tom Casey, Janis 7 Minute. - Mound City Council August 13, 1996 Geffre, Bill Darling and Peter Meyer voting in favor and Councilmember Ahrens and Beverly Botko voting against. Three members were absent. Councilmember Ahrens stated she was ashamed of the Commissions' actions, and was concerned that the Commission would send residents who had spent money to prepare for the meeting, being sent home with no action taken. Council discussion led to possibly meeting with representatives of the Task Force, members of the Parks and Open Space Commission and with the Council to communicate these concerns. MOTION by Mayor Polston, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to ask the Parks and Open Commission to discuss the resolution again at their meeting when the full complement of members would be present, and hopefully to rescind the resolution. 1.14 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Polston to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $289,017.94, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR JULY, 1996. B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY, 1996. C. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1996, 7:30 P.M. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM. City Manager Attest: 8 MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-AUGUST 20, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Mayor Bob Polston; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also Present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director;Craig Mertz, City Prosecuting Attorney; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. The following interested individuals were also present: Bev Botko, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Ken Custer, Fi Yin Moy, Bill Darling, Janis Geffre, Tom Casey, Marty Johnson, Marie Johnson, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Sr., Phil Lansing, Dave Deters, Roger Beckel and Lorrie Ham. Central Business District (CBD) Parking Ed Shukle, City Manager, introduced this issue. He indicated that the assessment year of July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996 had passed and it was now time to prepare the assessment roll for the parking maintenance program in Mound's downtown area. He indicated that a "preliminary roll" had been prepared and sent out to all of the members of the parking district for review and comment. He indicated that questions, comments and concerns had been raised by members and that staff attempted to address those prior to official notices being sent out regarding the public hearing scheduled for October 8, 1996. Shukle explained that after the public hearing held in the fall of 1995, the City Council had asked that a review of the existing CBD formula be undertaken with representatives of the CBD program and that recommendations be made on how the formula could be modified to address ongoing concerns of the members. He reported that meetings were held in early 1996 with two persons representing providers of parking and two persons representing non- providers of parking. Also attending the meetings were Councilmember Hanus, Gino Busin.~o~,~~ Ed Shukle. Shukle continued by stating that although the meetings were well inten-'d~,' n6 meaningful results were reached. This information was reported to the Committee of the Whole at its June 1996 meeting and it was City Council consensus to leave the existing formula in place until the Mound Visions program was implemented which may alleviate some or all of the concerns of CBD members and the City of Mound. Councilmember Hanus, who served on the subcommittee of the CBD, reviewed a memorandum he distributed to those present regarding his observations of the dilemma surrounding the CBD program. He presented 4 sample options to the Council: o Leave everything as is. Leave everything as is except reduce credits to $. 10 per foot as it relates to credits for providers of parking. Eliminate the entire program. Retain only the maintenance portion of the program. Mayor Polston then offered a suggestion to those present. He stated that he realized that there were many concerns of CBD parking members about the existing formula, credits received by providers of parking, costs of the program, adequate or inadequate parking needs, etc. He suggested that in order to deal with these concerns at this point, it would be logical that the City of Mound pick up the COW Minutes August 20, 1996 Page 2 costs of the sealcoating of the parking lots done in 1995 at a cost of $9,700 which would reduce the overall assessment for this assessment year. Furthermore, he suggested that the City Planner, City Economic Development Coordinator, City Manager and other City staff develop a scope for a master plan on the parking needs and requirements that the downtown area will be facing with the implementation of the Mound Visions program. Once that scope for a master parking plan is developed, he suggested that it be taken through the Planning Commission. Input from the CBD parking members would also be a part of the Planning Commission's discussions. Ultimately, recommendations would be brought back to the City Council for their review and decision. He also expressed that it is important that the people present at this meeting not be sitting together again a year from now expressing the same frustration that they were voicing this evening. Bill Netka said that the costs of maintenance was only one of the issues. His major concerns revolved around the credits issue to the providers of parking and the numbers that each property has listed that are plugged into the CBD formula. Mayor Polston assured Mr. Netka that these issues would be looked at in the development of the master plan and future assessment formulas. For purposes of moving off this agenda item and moving to other items before the Council this evening, Mayor Polston indicated that his suggestion was something he would like the rest of the City Council to consider. Upon discussion of Mayor Polston's suggestion, the consensus was to accept his proposal which was for the City to pick up the cost of sealcoating the parking lots and to direct the staff to proceed with the development of a master plan for parking needs and requirements with the implementation of the Mound Visions program and to work with the Planning Commission and members of the CBD parking program to present recommendations to the City Council on the future of the parking program. Shukle pointed out that the City is now into another assessment year and would need to make some decisions related to snowplowing and the hiring of the contractor for that task. The City Council indicated that staff should proceed as in the past regarding snowplowing. The Council thanked those persons in attendance who were interested in this issue for attending and is looking forward to their input as we move forward. Park and Open Space Commission Members of the Park and Open Space Commission were in attendance regarding their concerns about communication between the Commission and the City Council via the Council representative. They feel that the Council Representative does not express the viewpoints of the Commission to the Council on park and open space matters. Chair Tom Casey stated that Andrea Ahrens does not present properly the message the Commission is trying to convey. Bill Darling, Vice-Chair stated that having the Council just "read the minutes" isn't good enough. He commented that Ahrens tends to arrive late to Commission meetings and leaves early from those meetings. He stated that this has COW Minutes August 20, 1996 Page 3 been a common occurrence over the past 18 months. Bev Botko indicated that at the last Commission meeting, she was upset about the resolution distributed to the Commission at the end of the meeting by the Chair and Vice-Chair regarding the tabling of items related to public lands permit applications and the ultimatum given to the City Council. She voiced her displeasure regarding this action and indicated she had voted against it. Peter Meyer indicated that he feels that the Commission has been circumvented by the Council for some time. Ahrens defended herself by stating that she feels that telling the Council to read the Commission minutes is satisfactory for finding out what the Commission was thinking about when they make their recommendations. Janis Geffre stated that she did not believe that it was proper for the Council Representative to leave the meeting to talk to applicants who had been voted down by the Commission on issues. She stated that it makes the Commission feel uncomfortable about their actions. Commission members were asking the Council for specific direction related to work rules and how communication between the Commission and Council can be improved. The Council was not interested in developing work rules for the Commission. There was no consensus on what to do with these concerns and the Council then moved on to the next item on the agenda. Manufactured Home Park- County_ Road 110 West Shukle introduced Craig Mertz, City Prosecuting Attorney, regarding the manufactured home park on County Road 110 West. Mertz distributed copies of a "Non-Conforming Use Permit~' that he had drafted and reviewed with City staff and Steve Coddon~wner of the park. ~.~e stated that tenants of the park are currently being prosecuted by th~iw f°~ ~iol~ti°ns~r~la~ to expansion of the non-conforming use. Specifically, those violations relate to the building of decks and sheds. Also complicating the non-conforming use is the lack of a storm shelter for the park which is required under state law. After some discussion, it was the consensus to conduct more research and bring the matter to the September 17, 1996 Committee of the Whole meeting. COW Minutes August 20, 1996 Page 4 Lineal Footage Breakdown for LMCD Commercial Dock License Councilmember Hanus is still concerned about the estimated lineal footage for the City of Mound related to its dock program and license under the LMCD. Following some discussion, it was the consensus to invite Tom Reese, LMCD Representative, to the September 17, 1996 Committee of the Whole Meeting to share his views on this issue and the pending case in Minnetonka Beach where a property owner is threatening to sue the City of Minnetonka Beach and the LMCD. Also expressed as a concern is the additional dockage that is proposed under the Lost Lake Improvement Project and what that does to the overall count of lineal footage and allowable number of docks. Councilmember Jensen expressed her concern that she wants to keep the dock program going. She further stated that she does not want to go into an extensive level of detail in obtaining data related to the exact amount of lineal footage the City has. She does not believe this is necessary. Outdoor Skating Rink Update Shukle updated the Council on this matter. He stated that meetings have been held with the school district, hockey representatives, Peter Meyer and city staff. Until the school board makes a decision regarding the future of the community center, this matter has been put on hold. Shukle stated that in order to install a rink properly, a survey and design, estimated to cost $2,000 should be undertaken. He indicated that the Community Education department could staff the rink for supervisory purposes but would call upon the city to maintain the rink with its equipment and manpower. Shukle stated that he informed the school district representatives and hockey representatives that the City would only be interested in participating in this project if it is understood that the rink would be for public skating only and would not be available for hockey use. Hanus stated that he had a problem with spending dollars on property that the City has no control over. He prefers to see the City develop a public skating area, as has been discussed, in the Lost Lake area once the channel is dredged and further development of that area takes place. Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Shukle explained the need for new members on the HRA board due to resignations and lack of interest from the public in serving on the board. Jessen suggested that the City Council become the HRA since economic development is going to occur which may require more involvement by the HRA through its authority to issue Tax Increment Financing bonds. Council consensus was to COW Minutes August 20, 1996 Page 5 become the HRA which could meet prior to the first regular City Council meeting of each month. The City Manager was directed to request the City Attorney to analyze this alternative and to indicate how this could be established. In addition, he was asked to have the City Attorney present the benefits of creating an Economic Development Authority (EDA) and/or a Port Authority to further economic opportunities for downtown Mound. Ideas for Dedicating Project or Facility_ to Len Kopp Since the recent death of Len Kopp, former City Manager between 1960 and 1981, it was suggested that ideas be discussed on dedicating a project or facility to Mr. Kopp. One idea was to have a sculpture erected in the proposed greenway area near the proposed fishing pier along the realigned Auditor's Road. Another idea was to rename Auditor's Road as Leonard Kopp Road. More discussion will occur on this topic as the Mound Visions project proceeds. Other Business Hanus introduced the idea of an "economic development revolving loan program" which he is familiar with in the City of Mapleton, Minnesota. More research will be done on this matter by city staff. It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee of the Whole is Tuesday, September 17, 1996, 7:30 p.m. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager RF~OLUTION//96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 5996 LYNWOOD BLVD., PART OF LOT 20, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 42 0046 P&Z CASE//96-42 WHEREAS, the owner, Jill Botko, has applied for a 3 foot side yard setback variance to construct a 16.39' x 32' garage addition 3 feet from the side property line, and; WHEREAS, the new garage will replace an existing one car detached garage and a storage building that encroach on the neighboring property, and the owner plans to remove the old garage and shed, 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, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet for lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, based on a finding that the position of the existing home and the need to allow construction of a two car garage constitutes practical difficulty. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 3 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of a garage addition, subject to the removal of the existing nonconforming detached shed and garage. 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. o It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 16.39' x 32' garage addition. Proposed Resolution Botko P. 2 o Se e This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lot 20, lying south of the North 361.00 feet thereof, Koehler's Second Addition to Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 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. o 3:'a. 7 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1996 CASE 96-42: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION, 5996 LYNWOOD BLVD., JILL BOTKO, PART OF LOT 20, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 42 0046 · City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking approval of a side yard setback variance to construct a 16.39' x 32' garage addition. The new garage will replace an existing one car detached garage and a storage building that encroaches on the neighboring property. The proposed garage has a 3 foot setback resulting in the requested 3 foot variance. Staff can support a finding of practical difficulty given the location of the existing home, and since the Planning Commission has generally supported two car garages in order to reduce the amount of material stored outdoors. The proposed garage is longer than usual, however, the length of the structure is not considered to be a major factor pertaining to the side yard variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance based on a finding that the position of the existing home and the need to allow construction of a two car garage constitutes practical difficulty. The driveway was discussed. The Planner stated that even though the driveway for the two properties are merged into one, they technically each have enough room for their own driveways. The Planner confirmed that it is part of the plan to remove the old garage and shed, and agreed that this could be added as a condition of approval. MOTION by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, with the condition that the existing shed and garage be removed. Motion seconded by Reifschneider. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: August 6, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Request (Garage) APPLICANT: Jill Botko CASE NUMBER: 96-42 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5t ~'~ ' LOCATION: 5996 Lynwood Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a side yard setback variance to construct a new garage. The proposed garage measures 16.39' by 32'. The new garage will replace an existing one car detached garage and a storage building that encroaches on the neighboring property. The proposed attached garage is required to observe a 6 foot side yard setback. Because of the position of the existing home, the proposed garage (which staff considers to be of minimum width) has a 3 foot setback resulting in the requested 3 foot variance. Variances require a finding of either hardship or practical difficulty. In this case, staff cannot support a finding of hardship because other options exist such as construction of one car garage. Staff can, however, support a finding of practical difficulty given the location of the existing home and since the Planning Commission has generally supported two car garages on lots in Mound in order to reduce the amount of material stored outdoors. The proposed garage is longer than usual, however, the length of the structure is not considered to be a major factor pertaining to the side yard variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecomrmnds that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance based on a finding that the position of the existing home and the need to allow construction of a two car garage constitutes practical difficulty. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No. (~ 4~/,~ DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL I)ES¢o PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) Lot /o Subdivision' ZONING DISTRICT (~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 (M) Name Address Phone (H) Has an application ever been ma~ng, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) y~, ~ ~ yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of reso~ns. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): An attached garage. 16.39 feet wide by 32 feet long. (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply?jth all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located'?. Yes j~, bio (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, ]of area, etc.): SETBACKS: (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N Sf,~,W ) ft. ft. Side Yard:( N ft. ' ft. Side Yard:( N S E W ) ft. ft. Rear Yard:( N S E W ) ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. :(NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the pres.en~ use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow pography ~;>~flrainage ( ) shape eoil xisfing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: Because of where our house is located on the lot and the fact we're on a bill~ the only available space to build a garage is along the east property line. (That's where the existing garage is currently located.) The problem being there is only approximately 19.5 feet between the house and that property line. The existing garage is in terrible condition, encroaching on my neighbor's property and must be replaced. (Rev. 12/~/95) Variance Application, ?. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of any,~ne having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No?9~ If yes, explain: Wasx~e hardship created by any other man:made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No?~' If yes, explain: Are the conditions of~a/rdship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~g~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: The main part of my house was built before 1900. It was clear when I bought the property a lot of work would be needed to fix it up. Over the years I've done that. The siding and - many of the windows have been replaced as well as landscaping and inside remodeling and renovation. What's left is the garage. The one that exists is in unrepairable condition and is ' encroaching on my neighbors property by approximately two feet. I am requesting this variance to build a functional attractive garage that is on my own property. It will also improve the appearance and value of my property as well as the neighborhood. 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 t'~", ,.~-~'~--Lff(~ ?~'/ _ __ Applicant's Signature Date I ,I Il I ,II ,, Ill~ ,I EXISTING HOUSE IST FLOOE - $77.~ k I ~ RTH LINE O~ LOl 20 o C3 k ~:r'., N 87'05'38" E 64.58 ':.. ./ 10.0 EXISTING HOUSE IST FLO~R - 'Li N B8'53'D5" [ 8'4.20 N N 0 0 D HENN .. CO. ST. 'B L V RIB HNY. IL---CURB & GUTTER D. NO. 15 & GUTlER O 20 40 ~.__m~ I SCALE IN FEET ADDRESS 5996 LYNNOOD BLVD. HOUND, liINNESOTR RRER OF LOT - 15~Z5.$1 SF OR 0.35 ACRES BENCH HARK: TOP NUT HYDRANT AT GOOI LYNWOOD BLVD... ELEVRTION - 978.8D · DENOTES IRON HONUHENTS FOUND DENOTES I/2" X 14" IRON PIPE PLACED He hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation o( a survey oF the boundaries That part oF Lot 20, lying south oF the North 3Gl.D0 feet thereoF, KOEHLER'$ SECOND RDDZTTON TO HOUND, Heflnepin County, Hinnesota. And o? the locmtions of all buildings thereon, and mil vLslble encromc~mnts, I( an~, (rom or on ~td Imnd. Rs ~urwyed by me, or under m~ direct supervision, this t)th dmy o( June, HcCOHBS FRRNK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Pla~w I . . BOUNDARY SURVEY "' ' PART OF LOT 20. KOEHLER'S ~D RDDITI'ON TO flOUND ' ~ · IIOUHD, IIINNESOTA PREPRRED FOR' JILL 80TKO' n ,I Il I ,Ii ,, I~1~ I ....... '] PROPER7 ADDRESS: Il. OWNER S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) SQ.. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. x ~s% = (for au ~ots) .............. I ~/-¢~~/, 6~I = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I ~'d).;~' I = (for detached buildings only) . . I ~g~(~,~?' I *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 ........ DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, AREAS, SIDEWALKS,~.,' / ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH TOTAL HOUSE TOTAL WIDTH SQ FT x ~T,o = x ~ ,.~ = x ;~,;~ = /~%~,9o J5-9,3 TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. / / F/' ~ 7,? x 7.? : /3,9 X = .......................... X = TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~,-$ [ ~, ~' '"' JN~OVER~ (indicate difference) ............................... I PREPARED bY DATE CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA t~, J? ~ SQ. FT. X 30% 1 LOT AREA i'.;,~/ t ..~,~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for all lots) .............. = (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. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING LENGTH WIDTH SO FT ' X = C--m TOTAL HOUSE · TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. AREAS, SIDEWALKS,' I ~ '"- ETC. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ET ............ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. X ~ opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover TOTALDECK .......................... OTHER X = TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~l ~o,ooo/6o,)~1 7,soo/o R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 i4,ooo/80 R3 SEg ORD. I1 30,000/lO0 REQUIRED J EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOTb~zWID : VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BI.UFF (;ARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE 'TOP OF BLUFF ItARDCOVER CONFORMING? ,'ES {~ Tiffs Zoning Information Sheet on Planning Department at 472-0600. W N S E W N S E W OR O~R DETACItED N S E W N S~.W N S E~) E W 15' 50' ._SR 30' 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' (I..~D)R 30' su ..... i .... portion of ti .... qui%e(~ents outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordi ..... For furtbe"-t informati ...... ta%t th. City of Mound A ~ <~--0 ~ -~ ~:U 0 ~ I 0 -~ CD fl> o RESOLUTION//96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AT 5009 WH, SHIRE BLVD., M&B, BLOCK 40, WYCHWOOD PID 24-117-24 13 0035 P&Z CASE//96-39 ¥ WHEREAS, the owner, John Sobraske, has applied for variance to recognize the existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks as listed below, to allow construction of a nonconforming 9' x 13' three season porch, and; existing proposed required variance Side NW (to deck) 2.8' - 6' 3.2' Side SE 19' 5.9' 10' 4.1' Lake 14' - 50' 36' ~ 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, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet for lots of record, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed three options in the hope that one will gain approval. Option C is the only reasonable location if approval is to be considered, the other options result in significant encroachment into the required setbacks, and there are no other alternatives that fit the layout of the existing dwelling. Option C follows the existing line of the dwelling and there is no further encroachment towards the lake, however it does have a slight encroachment into the side yard, and; WHEREAS, Impervious cover is conforming at 4~h the existing drainag...___.e situation, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling has a minimal amount floor area at about 660 square feet, and the additional living area would enhance the use and function of the property, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent houses in this area are in a similar situation, they are setback fairly close to the lake, and; WHEREAS, the request is a reasonable use of the property with a minimal encroachment into the side yard. Practical difficulty exists, as there is no other reasonable location, there is no further encroachment into the lakeshore setback, and the proposal is within the maximum limit of 40 % impervious surface coverage. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with 6 in favor and 2 opposed. Proposed Resolution Sobraske t'.2 NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks as listed below, to allow construction of a nonconforming 9' x 13' three season porch, Option C: existing proposed required variance Side NW (to deck) 2.8' 6' 3.2' Side SE 19' 5.9' 10' 4.1' Lake 14' 50' 36' 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 ail 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 9' x 13' three season porch, Option C. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Block 40, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies northwesterly from the following described line; Commencing at the southeast comer of said Block 40; thence northwesterly along the East line of said Block 40 a distance of 55 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 102 degrees 59 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating; and which lies southeasterly from the following described line: Commencing at the southeast comer of said Block 40; thence northwesterly along the East line of said Block 40 a distance of 110.84 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 100 degrees 09 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating. o This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Tides 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. 1VIINIJTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING CO1VIIVIIgSION AUGUST 12, 1996 CASE 96-39: V~RIANCE FOR PORCH, 5009 WILSHIRE BLVD., SOBR~SKEt M&Bt BLOCK 40, WYCHWOOD, PID 24-117-24 13 0035 JOHN The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a nonconforming three-season porch. The applicant has proposed three options in the hope that one will gain approval, option C is the only reasonable location if approval is to be considered, the other options result in significant encroachment into the required setbacks, and there are no other alternatives that fit the layout of the existing dwelling. Impervious cover is conforming at 40% with the existing drainage situation. existinq proposed required variance Side NW (to deck) 2.8' - 6' 3.2' Side SE 19' 5.9' 10' 4.1' Lake 14' - 50' 36' The existing dwelling has a minimal amount floor area at about 660 square feet, and the additional living area would enhance the use and function of the property. The adjacent houses in this area are in a similar situation, they are setback fairly close to the lake. Option C follows the existing line of the dwelling and there is no further encroachment towards the lake, however it does have a slight encroachment into the side yard. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the request is a reasonable use of the property with a minimal encroachment into the side yard. This recommendation is based on practical difficulty, as there is no other reasonable location, there is no further encroachment into the lakeshore setback, and the proposal is within the maximum limit of 40% impervious surface coverage. Weiland expressed a concern that they will be blocking vehicle access to the lake with Option C. It was suggested that the side setbacks to the existing deck be verified. Mueller noted that it does not appear there was permission for that deck to be there and it needs to be recognized, or chopped off to meet the 6 foot side yard setback. Mr. Sobraske stated that the deck was there when he purchased the house. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff for option C. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Burma, Reifschneider, Hanus, Michael, Glister, and Voss. Mueller and Weiland were opposed. Weiland commented that it is too much on a small lot, and too close to the lake. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, 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 August 12, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official .,,_~...~-~ Variance Request John E. Sobraske 96-39 5009 Wilshire Blvd., Part of Block 40, Wychwood, PID 24-117-24 13 0035 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling (as listed below) in order to allow construction of a nonconforming three-season porch. The applicant has proposed three separate options in the hope that one of the three will gain approval. Option C is the only reasonable location if approval is to be considered, the other options result in significant encroachment into the required setbacks, and there are no other alternatives that fit the layout of the existing dwelling. Impervious cover is conforming at 40% with the existing drainage situation (including the existing deck on the north side). existing proposed required variance Side NW (to deck) 2.8' - ,a 6' 3.2' Side SE 19' ,~_ .-I 10' ..4.~,' '~--~,~ Lake 14' - 50' 36' COMMENTS: The existing dwelling has a minimal amount floor area at about 660 square feet, and the additional living area would enhance the use and function of the property. The adjacent houses in this area are in a similar situation, they are setback fairly close to the lake. Option C follows the existing line of the dwelling and there is no further encroachment towards the lake, however it does have a slight encroachment into the side yard. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Sobraske Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the request is a reasonable use of the property with a minimal encroachment into the side yard. This recommendation is based on practical difficulty, as there is no other reasonable location, there is no further encroachment into the lakeshore setback, and the proposal is within the maximum limit of 40% impervious surface coverage. JS The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1996. 6/ UOUND PLANNING & VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $$364 Phone: 472-0(d)0, Fax: 472-~20 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: $50.00 DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Lot Block Subdivision /// ZONING DISTRICT (R_._-I~ R-lA Name Address ~_~"'~ q (~5) 5 ~'-" Plat# 3~) ] ~) R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 B-3 Phone (I-I) /'~"7-~- i~'t~ 7 /c3/4/ 6Lv (w) 3.____~ ~ Ob 7 / .(M) Name 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, (,yn~~. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. o 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 (~ yes, explain: ? 7. 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? "'- ' "'-'"' ' """' .... "'"" ' '" '""/' -'- ':/~.t"~- ~''' ,-'~" ': :'-" · t:- ~- L ?'.~- " ...... ~.. """~' . j~. i i ~ ..., · ' , ' '.' '" -- t .... " k,,J .. ,~.-- , ; i - ,' & / ~ / h'// < ~.\\ x , ~'"' ' ,'t ' ;f ~,... ' "; ," I ce~ ~at ~1 of ~e above s~tements ~d the s~tements con~n~ ~ ~y r~uir~ pa~rs or plus to ~e sub~tt~ herewith ~e ~e ~d accurate. I consent to the en~ in or u~n ~e premises descfib~ in t~s app~cafion by ~y authofiz~ offici~ of the Ci~ of Mound for ~e pu~se of ins~g, or of ~sfing, m~n~ning ~d removing such notices as may be r~uir~ by law. Owner's Signature ,, Applicant's Signatu~ Date Date~ I ,It ,! ,1~ &. Variaace Application, 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.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED Front Yard: ( N S ~N ) Side Yard: (~ S E W ) Side Yard: ( N~E W ) 1~5~ -13E.Rear Yard:. ( N S E W ) Lakeside: O,O'T~ · (N~E .5-C) ft. Street Frontage: . (¢ (~) ft. Lot Size: ! 0)~0("), sq ft Hardcover: ,~ .--y~. cf sq ft REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ~: //~ ~, ,-~ ff. ,/ ft. e,~,~"_4- ft. ,~._~'~ rt.o ~Z~C-- ~d ft. 22__ft.© / ~ -t.// ft. 3 ~ z ft. o PY ~ .ifa~ ft. /v/~ft. 5c~.,'"'i~ · ' ~ , , sq ft M/~,.' .sq ft ~.,. / .~ ~ sq ft /:.".."P- sq ft Does the presen' us~Ec~of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (¢)7, 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? (~9~o narrow ( t4~oo small ( l -)~Coo shallow Please describe: ( ¢31opography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil (~isfing situation ( ) other: specify CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULAT1ON-~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) IPROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA q7 SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% = (for all lots) .............. = (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. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ,~,~ x ~'0 = ~/,$0 /&, / x 2--~,2 = /fi,/ x 2/.9' = ~o~ TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X ~ x ~,~ = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~,v~w~Y,~,N~ ~,~ x ¥ : /o¥ ~s, s,~w~s, ~ x /~,~ ~// ~c. ~~ x = ~,~ / ....... o~.ning be~een boards) with a~ ~ ~=~ pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER p~o.p~ ~ TOTAL DECK x /3 = //7 X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... //7 11"7 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~ OVER (indicate difference, ............................... (HCSAN WlLSHIRE ~d be p I tZ"/' ny of -' his er als we be / / ,.. ~.,.~..,o..~,~ COOKS BAY LAKE MINNE STANDARD SYIVU3OL$ & CONVENTIONS' CONTOUR EDGE oF W~TER ON F~Y l~,199G TONHA RECEIVED J U I. 2 3 1996 MOUND PLANNING & It!SP. ........ Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bem'ing State License Number 0235, scl, if"o" is filled in, lhen denotes ,, .d iron monument JOB NO. 9B;~ 96188 9/117/23 SOBRASKE JOHN AD VANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEEIUNG CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Mitmctonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (,612) 474 8267 StmVEY FOR: JOHN SOBRASKE SURVEYED: May, 1996 DRAFTED: May 29, 1996 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Block 40, WYCHWOOD, Hennepin County, Mim~esota vdffch lies northwesterly From the Followilrg---2 described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Block 40; thence northwesterly along the East line of said Block 40 a distance of 55 Feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 102 degrees 59 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating; AND which lies southeasterly From the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Block 40; thence northwesterly along the East line of said Block 40 a distance ot' 110.84 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 100 degrees 09 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating NOTES: 1. We have surveyed the above described property, but since we are not title attorneys, we have not checked your title and have accepted the above as the correct legal description. We suggest that you obtain title insurance, if there is any doubt about your title, since the title policy would remove any doubts about the legal description and reveal matters of record, such as easements, which can be important and Milch we are only able to show on our surveys if we are told about them. 2. We understand that you plan an addition to the dwelling on the property and we have shmvn 3'our proposal on this survey. We do not purport to know what governmental agencies may have jurisdiction over such a proposal nor what their many and changing requirements may be. We urge you to submit this sun, ey and plan and such other exhibits as may portray your proposal to such governmental agencies for approval and to obtain those approvals before making any important decisions regarding tiffs property. 3. Because of the age of the WYCHWOOD subdivision and the lack of monuments to guide surveys, we find '~he tibove legal description to be unsurveyable. We do find iron monuments at some corners of your property and we have reconstructed your boundary lines from those monuments but don't have the monuments in WYCHWOOD to be able to confirm or deny the correctness of those monuments. SCALE: ONE INCH EQUALS 20 FEET CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supev,'ision and that I am a Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Four ?/P-'d APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VILLAGE OF MOUND NAME OF APPLICANT H. G. Winkler and Richard W. ADDRESS 3308 West 102nd Street & BloominRton. Minn 55431 ~NTEREST IN PROPERTY OWNERS Winkler 10017 Zenith Rd. Bloomington, Minn 55431 %" FEE $ TEL. NO. H. G. (831-4115) R. W. (831-7500) FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) ADDRESS TEL. NO. ADDRESSOF PROPERTY 5009 andX~ Wilshire Blvd., Mound, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIP]ION OF PROPERTY That part of Blk 40 lying NWly of the fol desc lin,e com at the SEly~.~o~blk~4~ the NWly~'~ I I I" I ~.~REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REQUIREMENT FOR FRONT YARD X SlOE YARD REASON: The architect neglected to draw in the red wood deck and the builder forgot to have it included before the building permit was requested. '.., \.. '., //<.2 ~,,,. ~ 'x W. ~ /E~ ~ ,~. . ~ .,- X~ ~,,~ .. C,'- . ............ {~tlach a survey or scale drawin~ showin~ the location of the proposed buildin~ in relation lo lot lines, other buildings on the property and on adjoinin~ properties and streets. ) APPLICANT ADDRE~ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Denie~ DATE COUNCIL ACTION RESOLUTION NO. DATE A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN 1 YR. FROM THE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL ~ND VOID. MINUTES OF MGUlO PI~U~NING CO~ISSIC. N - August 31, 1972 8:00 P.M., Mound Village Office Present: Obordeck, Bargman, Schmidt, Spellman, Smith,'Hasse knd Newell. Also tho Village Mana~ier, Village Building Inspector, and the Village E~ineer. .. Minutes of the August 10, 1972 meeting approved'as printe~.' Boa~d of Appeals: Maude P. Sei£urt, 2013 Arbor !~ne Skarp & Lindquist Eavenswood, Lot 2 Plat: 62110 Parcel: 200. Variance, ]~ot size Withdrawn Edward l~ymond, 2210 ~. Sheridan, Mpls.,Mn. Sh~d~ood Point, Block 7, Lot 18 Plat: 61980 Parcel: 3480 V(%riance It was the general feeling of the Planning Committee that a varianc~ for a building permit for this undersized lot should not be granted. Business Service Corporation, 2800 Girard Ave.' So., Apt. 3, MFrs. Frank Tu~ler (Appearing) Abraham Lincoln ~eside Park, Block 3, Lot 24 Plat: 61730 Parcel: 1473 - Variance, Lot size Spellman moved and Hasse seconded to recommend that the request for lot size 'variance be denied. Passed unanimously 4. Timothy M. Meyer, 5928 Idlewood Road The Highlands, Block i, L~t 16 Plat: 61610 Parcel: 360 Variance, ~Qea.r ya~'d Spellman ~oved az~d Schmidt seconded to recommend that a variance, be graz~t.ed .... for-placement of sto~age shed. Passed unanimously &~6 H.G. Wi ~nkler and Richard W. Winkler, 3308 West 102nd Street, Bloomingto._. ~' Wychu. ood, P/Block 40 ' \. Plat: 38010 P,urcel: 7234 & 7236,, ~ Variance, Front yard for - 500~ ~ilshire Blvd. and 5'017 Wilshire Blvd. ~ Spel~man moved and ~argman seconded to recommend that the request for variance ~ in £rcnt yard set back requirements for a deck be denied. Bassed ~nanimously 7. Davi--~ S-~ Anderson,157---~ Finc----~ Lan--~ S.H. Row (Fee owner) Woodland Point, Block 2, Lot 1 & 2 Plat: 62200 Parcel: 0410 Variance, Side yard Bargman moved and Schmidt seconded to recommend that request for variance to place garage as requested be denied due to sewer easement along South lot line. Passed unanimously ~obert Bird (WestonkaBuilders) 5815 Goodrich Ave.,Mpls. Pembroke, Block 6, Lots 24 - 2~ incl. & Lot 38 & 39 PI. at: 37P10 Parcel: 2875,2900,2925,2995 Subdivision J ,mO 'fl I , I t i i VILLAGE OF MOUND ..... , ..... ,,,, MOUND, MINNESOTA BUILDING 'PERMIT APPLICATION ~Sewer Units " OW N E R / Al/x/.2 ,~ ,<--'> '/ o D AT E ADDRESS . , .... , -- /:~¢4,~/,~H ONE ~UI LDER & ARCHITECT . ~..~.. 2627-:- ........ O.K: '_Cos.. LOCATION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ADDITION ./...4 ) PLAT ' ~ ,~'0/0 A ~___,~-~-- LOT F'-; ':' BLOCK ESTIMATED VALUE TO BE' USED AS ,~.~.: L~'~;~-./~.~.--~, TO BE APPLICANT MUST FURNISH THE oLLOWING: COMPLETED 1.' one .Plot' plan Showing dimension of lot or lots and location of building on same. The Building' Inspector may in his discretion ask for a registered survey. 2. One set of plans and specifications of:sufficient clarit, y~and detail to indicate the nature and extent of work proposed. Showing .foundation plan, rider plan, front and side elevation~ and wall and roof section detail. .3. One plot plan showing the location and size of all septic tanks, cesspoo,!s: and State the nature and extent of workZ-~dD~ny new construcUon one plot-.'Sh°wing~ / dimension of lot or lots and location of building on same must be submitted. ~h~ '.'.. Building Inspector in his discretion may ask ~or a registered survey and pianO,nd ' :'-" ~ ALTERATION ~ REMODELING ~ NEW-CONSTRUCTION ~ RESIDENTIAL ~ MULTI-DWELLING ~ COMMERCIAL~,' ~ INDUSTRIAL ,~ BREEZEWAY ~ PORCH ~ GARAGE ~ ADDITION ~ FINISH AWlC . ~ FINISh In ca,'~ permit is granted, I hereby agree to do ,he o',~wSX~co with description above set ferth and according to the provision¢ o¢ a41 ordinances aC the Village of Mound and of all statutes of the State of Minnesota in such cases made and provided. ,"~ FEE ,,V-' ~, z¢ o APPLICANT ,, ........ 2S ~ DATE ....... DATE /~'~-./¢"- :2._¢ ~'~AS, .an appl&ca~ion ~o ~aive ~he subdivision requiremen~ .)'.' ":"'~': · ; uou~a2~ed in 2e~ioa 22.00 o~ ~he Village 0ode has ~ea ~ile~ w&~h' ;"." Pl~nn~n= Commission and the Villa=e Oounoil, and : " '" '~':~ ~AS, i2 is hereby dekermined tha~ khere are special ..... ..... .... c&=uums~ances a~ec~in~ said property such Tha~. the .stric~ ap- : ..:.. pi!ca,ion of the ordinance .mould deprive ~he ~pplic~u~ o~ .the reason- able use o~ his land; ~ha~ %he ~aiver ls necessary ~or ~he ' :'"-.-"~'"- --. proserva~ion and en~oymeu~ of a suUs~an~Xal pro~rty riEht; and..]?/..[.':.....; :. ---~: ~elfare or injurious ~o o~her property owners. ';':'-'~....:?.'.;. ' -. .for ~ waiver ~z-om. ~he provisions of ~ection 22.00 o~ the Village~. . ~ Code and ~he reques~ ~o subdivide property o~ less than ~ive acres --. --is hereby ~an~ed ~o ~e~mi%. division o~ the ~ollowin= proper=yr.}.......'.;[...:..... 2. I~ ts de~ermine~ ~ha~ ~he ~ore~oing division' willconstitute: :- ' ~ desirable and s~able co~un~=y developmen~ and ~e ~n harmony ' a~J seen= properties. .. of =his re~olu~io~ ~¢ ~he applican~ ~or ~l&ng &n the ~ice o~ ~he .. Deeds or ~he Be=lstrAr o£,Titles o~ Hennepin Co'u.nt7 .~O :/ ~how.compliar;ce with "1;ho' subdivision 're=ula2Ions e;g' 1;his vllla'~e...,..,. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: SURVEY OM FILE'CYES LoT OF RECORDL_~?' NO ZONING DISTKICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: 'R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,O00/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISllNGIPROPOSED EXISTINO LOT SIZE: LOT 55,88 ' LOT DEPTH: IO0 / ~ VARIANCE iIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF FRONT IFRONT NSE0 N S E W ~2)Ew lq S E W N SOW 15' OR OTIIER DETACIIED BUILDINGS N S E W NS E W N~E W NS E W 20 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' CONFORMING? YES /NC ) . BY: DATED: · This Z.ning Information Sheet onl' summarizes a porlion of the requireme II l~outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, eonlaet the City of Mound -.... Planning Department at 472-0600. GOVT LOTS ! & 5 .?, 24-117-24 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING SHED AT 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 48, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION PID 19-117-23 34 0073, P&Z CASE ~)6-40 ~WHEREAS, the owners, John and Kathy Aquilina, have applied for variance to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming 8' x 10' shed 22 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, 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 50 foot setback from the OHW, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; ~/WHEREAS, the Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented accessory structure (a lock box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square feet and is a maximum of four feet in height. The lock box must also be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the lake, and; )/WHEREAS, the shed is used to store a riding lawn mower, and according to the owner, due to the severe slope to the lake it is dangerous to drive the lawn mower up and down the slope, and; WHEREAS, both the neighbors on either side of him have metal sheds which are closer to lake, however, they are smaller in height, and; WHEREAS, the existing location of the shed has the least impact to the neighbor's view, and; WHEREAS, Staff recommended denial, however, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with 5 in favor and 2 opposed, due to the practical difficulty and, in addition, the present location has the least impact to the neighbors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a 28 foot lake side setback variancg to allow construction of and 8' x 10' shed, subject to the following: / a. The shed shall be no more than 7 feet in height, m~sured from the top of grade on the lake side to the top of the highest peak on e roof. Proposed Resolution Aquilina P. 2 A landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner to ensure the shed will be adequately screened with vegetation as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. 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 10' shed, 7' high. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 48, Phelps' Island Park First Division. 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 THF~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMM[qSION AUGUST 12, 1996 CASE 96-40: VARIANCE FOR SHED, 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JOHN & KATHY AQUILINA, LOT 48, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID 19- 117-23 34 0073 Orv Burma stepped down as he is a neighbor to the applicant. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the reconstruction of a nonconforming shed on the lakeside. The shed is now partially 11 I ,I I ! ,II ,,ti I ,IJ~ Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 reconstructed and is setback 22 feet from the OHW, a 50 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 28 feet. All other issues with this property are fully conforming. The Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented accessory structure (a lock box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square feet and is a maximum of four feet in height. The lock box must also be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the lake. There does not appear to be any findings of hardship or practical difficulty in this case as the ordinance provides for a lock box and there may be other alternatives to locate a shed on the property that is in conformance with the ordinance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to lack of a hardship or practical difficulty. Glister stated that the shed is already partially reconstructed, and questioned how this came to the attention of the City. Sutherland noted that the City received a complaint. Sutherland commented further that the applicant stated he had contacted the City and someone had informed him a permit was not required for a shed 120 square feet or less, and he was unaware it was required to meet a 50 foot setback. Weiland suggested an alternative location for the shed which is next to the deck. Applicant, Mr. Aquilina, emphasized that due to the severe slope to the lake it would be dangerous to drive their riding lawn mower up and down the slope. He stated there is only a 3 foot wide trail along the side of the lot, and the rider is 4' wide. He stated it took four people to carry the tractor down the steps. Aquilina noted that both the neighbors on either side of him have sheds closer to lake, and they are the same size. He asked why he should be treated differently. Reifschneider noted that the neighbor's sheds are shorter and that his shed looks bigger, and he feels there is room to move it further back on the lot. Aquilina stated he was willing to reduce the height of the shed. Aquilina commented that the old shed was dilapidated and unsightly, and the new one is more aesthetically pleasing, and more safe. He noted the foundation is made of railroad ties. Aquilina also feels that the existing location of the shed is best for the neighbor's site line. Michael explained that if they approve this shed, they will be farther away from the City's long term goals and this is their opportunity to gain conformance. Mueller, agreed that the existing location is least impacting on the neighbor's and applicant's property. Mueller recalled that one requirement of the Shoreland Management Ordinance is that structures be screened from view from the lake. He suggested the shed could be screened, the height changed, and the color could be 12 Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 changed. He does not believe the metal sheds on the adjacent lots will ever go away because metal does not deteriorate as quickly. Previous cases involving sheds on the lake side were discussed. Hanus commented that none of the previous cases involving sheds on the lake side involved newly constructed sheds. Orv Burma, neighbor to the applicant, emphasized that Mr. Aquilina did call to see if a permit was needed, and noted that the shed would be costly to move, and feels that the shed is not offensive to lake users in its present location. Hanus asked how far the shed can be moved back so it is functional. Aquilina stated, maybe 4 feet. Weiland disagreed. Burma agreed that the shed could go back 4 to 6 feet, but not far enough to be conforming, and even if it is pushed back 4 feet the elevation is higher. He feels it would look better where it is. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance to allow the shed, subject to the shed being no more than 7 feet in height, measured from the top of grade on the lake side to the top of the highest peak on the roof, and that a landscaping plan be submitted for screening the shed with vegetation. Motion carried 5 to Z. Those in favor were: Voss, Mueller, Glister, Hanus and Michael. Weiland and Reifschneider were opposed. Weiland commented that we are missing the opportunity to remove a nonconforming structure. Reifschneider agreed and believes there is room to move the shed back on the lot. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD 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 August 12, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request John & Kathy Aquilina 96-40 3030 Island View Drive, Lot 48, Phelps Island Park 1 st Division, PID 19-117-23 34 0073 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the reconstruction of a nonconforming shed on the lakeside. The shed is now partially reconstructed and is setback 22 feet from the OHW, a 50 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 28 feet. All other issues with this property are fully conforming. COMMENTS: The Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented accessory structure (a lock box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square feet and is a maximum of four feet in height. The lock box must also be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the lake. There does not appear to be any findings of hardship or practical difficulty i'n this case as the ordinance provides for a lock box and there may be other alternatives to locate a shed on the property that is in conformance with the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to a lack of hardship or practical difficulty. JS The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 2 7, 1996. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 [SP'Plieai On,'F : (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: (~ta(,- ~2_- cl~ Case No.q~ City Council Date: /~ O ~t ~ Distribution; '~ -?_ (o City Planner "7 -"7-.(.,' DNR -'7. L(w City Engineer Other ~-?.0' Public Works SUBJECT Address ~o~O ..TS ~.~d:,'q' ~ g~,,~ PROPERTY Lot o~<g Block -- LEGAL Subdivision '~E-'L~ ~---~b/~n,,.t~ ~x~,, \.s"r "~x,q DESC. PID# Iq - ~1"/- Z'~ ~q- q230-7,~ Plat# ZONING DISTRICT R-1 O-1~_~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name .,3'0 ~t.a ~ ~,v'v~ ~ ~ ~".: I. ', t-~ ~ OWNER Address ~0 ~C> XZc~ l.,~v ~ ~- k.\ ~> ce.. Phone (H) ~'72.-¢0~ (W) qO ¢- ~ I/% (M) '-- APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) .(W) .(M). OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (0~o. 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.): Variaace Application, 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.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E~) ~ © ~ ft. ft. Side Yard: (1ZI S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: (~ S E W ) q-' ft. I~ ft. Rear Yard: ( N .S E W ) ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S ~)W ) 50 x ft. 2.?.. ~ ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft VARIANCE fto ft. ff. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ff sq ff 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 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: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. ff yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I ceffi~ that ~1 of ~e above statements ~d the s~tements con~ in ~y r~uir~ pa~rs or plus to be sub~ herewi~ ~e ~e~d accurate. I consent to ~e en~ in or upn ~e premises descfib~ in ~s app~cafion by ~y autho~z~offici~ of the City of Mound for ~e pu~se of insuring, or of pos~g, mm~ning ~d removing suph notices as may be r~uir~ by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature I ,I I i ,Ii I~, i CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA /o°~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ' · ........ LOT AREA [©c~-~<~' 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. 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 OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ZO x z_2.. = q-qo x = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... oo x tO = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~ '-* x z~ = ~-~0 x - x -- TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X X TOTAL DECK .......................... X X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... ~O TOTAL HARDCOVE JNDER / OVER (indical~ PREPARED BY ~ R / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE it~ence) ............................... DATE bbLlo CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY Obl FILE? YES ~ LOTOF RECORD.~ES~ NO LAKE TOP OF BI,UFF [lOUSE ......... FRONT N So W FRONT [ N S E W SIDE ] (¥2SEW REAR N S E W N S EO ~ OR OTHER DETACIIED GARAGe'). · .FRONT N ~)W N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R 0 000 60 Bi 7,500/0 ~B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,OOO/80 R3 SEE ORD. IX 30,OO0/100 REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPIH: VARIANCE FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES ~ ~) s.i. E w N S E W NS E~.~ 30% o(n~ ,'% This Zoning hfformation Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requir Planning Depaxtment at 472-0600. 30' BUILDINGS 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' ent$ outlined in the City of Mound Zoaing Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 4753 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 10, BLOCK 7, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0058 P&Z CASE//96-41 ~(/WHEREAS, the owner, Chris Bright, has applied for variance to recognize existing nonconforming detached garage in order to allow construction of a conforming 12' x 32' deck on the lake side, and; WHEREAS, according to the applicants site plan, the existing detached garage is setback approximately 4 feet to the front property line, and 2 feet to the east side. The required setbacks are 8 feet to the front and 4 feet to the side, for this situation, 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 proposal is a reasonable use of the property and is conforming to the zoning code, and there is no further encroachment, and; WHEREAS, the nonconforming garage is in good condition and it is unlikely it will be removed at this time, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming detached garage which as a 4 foot front yard setback and 2 foot side yard setback, to allow construction of a conforming 12' x 32' deck. o 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. ; qnq Proposed Resolution Bright P. 2 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 12' x 32' deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 10, Block 7, Devon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of f~ling 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 MEE~G OF THI*~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI~qSION AUGUST 12, 1996 CASE 96-41: VARIANCE FOR DECK, 4753 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CHRIS BRIGHT, LOT 10, BLOCK 7, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0058 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming detached garage in order to allow construction of a conforming deck on the lakeside. According to the applicants site plan, the existing detached garage is setback approximately 4 feet to the front property line, and 2 feet to the east side. The required setbacks are $ feet to the front and 4 feet to the side for this situation. The applicants proposal is a reasonable use of the property and is conforming to the zoning code, and there is no further encroachment. The nonconforming garage is in good condition and it is unlikely it will be removed at this time. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the proposal is conforming and is a reasonable use of the property. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0500 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO, LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of August 12, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~.:~~ Variance Request Chris Bright 96-41 4753 Island View Drive, Lot 10, Block 7, Devon, PID 30-117-2322 0058 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming detached garage in order to allow construction of a conforming deck on the lakeside. According to the applicants site plan, the existing detached garage is setback approximately 4 feet to the front property line, and 2 feet to the east side. The required setbacks are 8 feet to the front and 4 feet to the side for this situation. (Please note Zoning Code Section 350:435.) COMMENTS: The applicants proposal is a reasonable use of the property and is conforming to the zoning code, and there is no further encroachment. The nonconforming garage is in good condition and it is unlikely it will be removed at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the proposal is conforming and is a reasonable use of the property. JS The sbutZ/ng neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1996. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPI·ICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $50:00 (FOR OI~YICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~-]2.-c~ Case No.~¢j~] { City Council Date: '~-~-q/o Distribution: "/-~(o City Planner DNR "7~- ~(a City Engineer Other "/-~ (,, Public Works PROPERTY Lot [ O Block LEGAL Subdivision "~E.~ ~ X~ DESC. PID# .-~O- / t~ '- ~z~ ~9~ Plat ZONING DISTRICT R-lk,,~R-1A~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name Q.,I ~2~~ ~ ~L~ Phone (H) .~. ~ ?..' I._~. '~_ (W) ~q/::> '".~ ~ ~ (M). APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address Phone (H) (W) (m) OWNER) Has an application ever been made.f?r zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~.kno. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resq{utions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all ~rea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), NoJ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQ ,UIRED REQUESTED 8 ~ (or existing) VARIANCE Side Yard: ( N SI~}W ~ ft. ~ ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N_.~S~ ) ft. .5 ft. ) ft. Rear Yard: ( NS~E'" )W ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) 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 4. 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: 5. 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 j~j~'existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of any.o~e having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~.~ If yes, explain: Was~e 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 h,rdship 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 Applicant's Signature (Rev. 12/8/95) Date · ,I I I ,Ii ,,Iii, I ,b DRIVE w~'~ z~ DEC-~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA '7~~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I -~,~"~ LOTAREA ~, ~C~C:3- SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOTAREA '~::~ SO. 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. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 3,~ X 3'?-- = ~ t~ x ~ : ll~Z X = AREAS, SI~'~WALKS~,~ I~_ (x3 TOTAL HOUSE ......................... DETACHED BLDGS X = (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER - '~"~,~ x = x ?.. = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... 3 6O TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indica~ diffDr~ce) v.._ ............................ I PREP/RED BY ~~~:~ - DATE HO I 2O 24 86 3O 13 32 18 16 2 32 14 28 360.00 384.00 172.00 960.00 182.00 896.00 2,954.00 150 50 Sq. Yds 7,500.00 2,954.00 4,546.00 % 100.00% 39.39% 60.61% Prepared by CHRIS BRIGHT 7/25/96 Page 1 I I I1 I, ,,11 ,,tll~ ,J ,k, LOT OF RECOR N~'~~ YARD I DIRECTION IiOUSE ......... FROr4T FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF FRONT FRONT CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET IZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R! 10,0OO/60 B1 7,500/0 (]".',~' ~,ooo/4o-) .: ~o,ooo/~o ~2 6,000/40 n3 10,000/60 l~2 z4,ooo/ao R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 I REQUIRED [ EXI$~FING/PROPOSED )S E W N S E W SIDE SIDE REAR N W N S N{~)E W N S~E W OR OTHER DETACHED N S E W N S E W N S E W LAKE N S E W BUILDINGS 4' OR 6' · '70 '~ ( N S E W ] ~50' TOP OF BLUFF OR 30' ooo CONFORMING? YF~ / ? y '7 /J z --I 7 cqs EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WlDT · LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE This Zoning lnfi)rmation Sheet only summarizes a portion of the require ts outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound .Planning D~pnrtment at 472-0600. ~ .... ~*:' GOVT LOT 1 L ~_;,~. [~- :' ...... -'- ::: R2.7 ~ ~~ ,40 Z5 40 : 40 40 40 ~0 nO I:: 0 -- 0 'n I 0 '< --,I 0 OO RESOLUTION ~6- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING AND PROPOSED NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING DECK AT 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 9, BLOCK 13, DEVON PID 25-117-24 11 0034, P&Z CASE//96-45 WHEREAS, the owners, Glenn & Amy Hurd, have applied for variance to recognize the existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming deck: existing proposed required House-rear (south) 9' n/a 15' 6' House-lake 38' n/a 50' 12' Deck -rear (south) 2.3' encroach 2.3' 15' 15' Deck-lake 28' 28' 50' 22' variance WHEREAS, the existing deck encroaches 2.3 feet onto the adjacent Devon Common, 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 a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the existing deck is dilapidated and in need of removal or replacement, WHEREAS, it has been the past practice of the City to eliminate encroachments onto public and private land whenever possible, and; WHEREAS, it has also been the past practice to consider a minimally sized deck to be a reasonable use when there is lake front property with a comparable situation as this site, and; WHEREAS, a public lands permit was applied for and was also part of Batch gO which was tabled by the Park and Open Space Commission on August 8, 1996, and; WHEREAS, one third of the lot on the street side contains a sewer easement which cannot be built on, so the property is restricted for building on the street side, and; Proposed Resolution Hurd P. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval for the proposed deck with the modification that the deck may be built up to the property line. There shall be no construction beyond the property line. 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 and proposed nonconforming setbacks as listed below, to allow construction of a deck, up to the rear property line (24' x 9.2'), due to the existing sewer easement at the front of the lot. There shall be no construction beyond the property line, including stairways. 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 deck 24' x 9.2'. (Up to the property line) 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 9 and 10, Block 13, Devon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. I I J I ,11 ~,, ,J 1Vi ffUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1996 CASE 96-45: VARIANCE FOR DECK, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, GLENN & AMY HURDt LOT 9t BLOCK 13t DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11.0034 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling and deck in order to allow reconstruction of the deck on the lakeside. The existing deck encroaches onto the adjacent Devon Common by 2.3 feet. existinq proposer require~ variance House-rear (south) 9' n/a 15' 6' House-lake 38' n/a 50' 12' Deck -rear (south) 2.3' encroach 2.3' 15' 15' Deck-lake 28' 28' 50' 22' The existing deck is dilapidated and in need of removal or replacement. It has been the past practice of the City to eliminate encroachments onto public and private land whenever possible. Consistent with this policy a recommendation of denial is appropriate in order to eliminate the encroachment of the deck at this time. It has also been the past practice to consider a minimally sized deck to be a reasonable use when there is lake front property with a comparable situation as this site. A Minimally sized deck of 8-9 feet wide would allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. There may also be area for deck expansion to the west that could be considered, in this location the lake setback would still be nonconforming, however the encroachment would be less than the existing situation. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the applicants request to reconstruct the deck in a nonconforming and encroaching situation. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a recommendation of approval for a minimally sized deck of 8 to 9 feet in width that allows for maintenance of the deck on the applicants property, and in addition, that the new stairway from the deck be constructed so it does not encroach on the commons. This recommendation would be consistent with the Zoning Code and allow the applicant reasonable use with a minimum encroachment into the setback. Sutherland also reviewed the staff report for the public lands permit which the applicant applied for, and noted that the Park Commission tabled the request on August 8, 1996. Hanus recognized that one third of the lot on the street side contains a sewer easement which cannot be built on, so noted the property is restricted on the street side. 14 Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 Applicant, Glenn Hurd, explained that they only want to replace what is existing, and that it is screened by 6 foot high shrubs so he feels the deck has no impact to the neighbors or the commons in its present location. He noted that this commons is Type C which means you cannot traverse it, and there is no traffic. There is only one other dock in front of his house, and they use the adjacent fire lane to access their dock. He feels that because of the floor plan, it is best to have the deck in front of the house, and he does not want to build the deck to the side which would encroach onto green space. Mueller stated that you should not have a deck on somebody else's property. Hanus noted that the Commons Task Force is looking at the issue of encroachments on the commons, and the Park Commission is not currently acting on existing encroachments such as buildings and decks. He does not know if the task force is addressing the issue of replacing existing encroachments. Hanus suggested that the applicant could be given the option of reducing the deck size to a zero setback, pending the recommendation of the Commons Task Force. The structural condition of the deck was discussed. The applicant stated there are some rotted boards, the handrail is not to code, but it is safe. Weiland stated that they can cut the deck back and the bushes will fill in the vacant space. The applicant stated that the back side of the bushes are dead. The Chair noted the time at 11:00 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the meeting until 11:15 p.m. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance and that the request be deferred to the Park and Open Space Commission and that we agree with their decision relating to the encroaching portion. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant confirmed that he could come back to the Planning Commission if the Park Commission takes too long. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, I996 In light of the recent case, the Glenn Hurd variance, Peter Meyer updated the Planning Commission on the resolution which was passed by the Park Commission relating to the tabling of the public land permits. Meyer read the "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION." Hanus commented that it is his opinion that the Park Commission does not have the authority to resolve anything, and that the resolution is not valid, and the methods chosen were not appropriate. Mueller suggested that in all fairness to the previous applicant, and not knowing the situation with Park Commission, that maybe they should reconsider their previous vote. MOTION made by ross, seconded by Reifschneider to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Motion failed 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Voss, Reifschneider, Burma and Glister. Those opposed were: Mueller, Hanus, Weiland, and Michael. Motion by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to continue the meeting for not more than ? minutes. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were Mueller, Weiland, Burma, Michael, and Hanus. Those opposed were: Reifschneider, Voss and Glister. Mueller moved to re-consider the motion made for Case ~96-45, Glenn Hurd. Seconded by Weiland. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Mueller to recommend approval of a variance to allow the deck to be rebuilt up to the rear property line due to the existing sewer easement at the front of the lot.There shall be no construction beyond his property line, including stairways. The trees/bushes on the commons are not a concern of the Plan~ing Commission. Voss seconded the motion. Sutherland commented that staff would be in favor of this motion. Hanus stated that he would like to make sure the applicant is aware of action taken and that the applicant be notified that they can go to the council to appeal. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF RE____~PORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of August 12, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~-~-,--~ ~ Variance Request Glenn & Amy Hurd 96-45 5214 & 5218 Drummond Road, Lots 4, 5, 14, & 15, Block 12, Whipple, PID 25-117-2421 0025 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling and deck (as listed below) in order to allow reconstruction of the deck on the lakeside. The existing deck encroaches onto the adjacent Devon Common* by 2.3 feet (Devon Common was dedicated to the public for public use in 1911). existing proposed required variance House-rear (south) 9' n/a 15' 6' House-lake 38' n/a 50' 12' Deck -rear (south) 2.3' encroach 2,3' 15' 15' Deck-lake 28' 28' 50' 22' COMMENTS: The existing deck is dilapidated and in need of removal or replacement. It has been the past practice of the City to eliminate encroachments onto public and private land whenever possible. Consistent with this policy a recommendation of denial is appropriate in order to eliminate the encroachment of the deck at this time. It has also been the past practice to consider a minimally sized deck to be a reasonable use when there is lake front property with a comparable situation as this site. A Minimally sized deck of 8-9 feet wide would allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. There may also be area for deck expansion to the west that could be considered, in this location the lake setback would still be nonconforming, however the encroachment would be less than the existing situation. Staff Report ....... Hurd Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the applicants request to reconstruct the deck in a nonconforming and encroaching situation. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a recommendation of approval for a minimally sized deck of 8 to 9 feet in width that allows for maintenance of the deck on the applicants property, and in addition, that the new stairway from the deck be constructed so it does not encroach on the commons. This recommendation would be consistent with the Zoning Code and allow the applicant reasonable use with a minimum encroachment into the setback. *The applicant has submitted a request for a public lands permit for the proposed encroachment that will be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission on August 8, 1996. JS The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1996. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~2/-Ig ---(~ ~:v Case No. City Council Date: ~'~]- ~ ¢ Distribution: ~ City Planner I e DNR,~ ~' City Engineer I, Other ~d~' ~ I~ Public Works SUBJECT Address ~ "~'~~)V[~__~ .~~ ZONING DISTRICT R-I ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name ' OWNER Address ~ Phone (H)~(W)~(M). ~ ~d'PLIC~Vr Nam~~ (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?.~k'~es, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, 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 SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W_) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S~/~) ft. _~' ft. ft. Side Yard: (~-~') i' ft. lO' 4- ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( W )i5'~/~O '¢c-oLft. ft. ft. --'- * ft. ft. Lakeside: ( W ) CO ' ft. ~'-'"~' ~' · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. SWeet Frontage: .. . o 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: 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 Please describe:[ (Rev. 12/8/9.5) .. · ~ Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyxon.,e~aving property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~ If yes, explain: Was~ ~e 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 (), N~)~.. 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 tree and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date~ PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Malrfgod_Roadt_M~ou~nr_d~A MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4/z-uozu 55364 :STRIBUTION: Ur,~B~ILD~N~ OFF~C~AL~Ce DATE RECE~VEO McwDDNR C~d&' CITY COUNCIL DATE~-~q PUBLIC WORKS lcheck~°ne):CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT -new construction. I NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). PUBLIC I~%-ND I~AINTEN/%NCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (city Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. 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 " ..... holder. Applicant Name tt~/.~ ~'~ '~ Phone (home) -~"~[~0 ..... (w'ork) ~7~~'~~ Abutting Address · ' ' -- Property Owner [].~_~ .~/~ ~~ . ~e~a~ ~ot ~ ~ ~0 - ' ' ~o~ ~ Description Subd. ~~ : Public Name~ Property Dock Site ~ ~2~ Shoreline Type co~tr~c~or ~a=e ~~D ~~ ~one ~Z'II70 VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): ~__~~~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOTAREA ~ ~ SQ. ~. X 30% = (for all lots) ... I ~, H) ~ LOTAR~ ~ SQ, ~. X ~% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... ] ~,~ I LOTAREA SQ. ~. X lS% = (for detached buildings only) '.. ~ ~ *~sting Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are ~ilized, as o~lined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1, (see back). A plan must be submi~ed and approved by the Building Official'. ' ' , 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 OTHER LENGTH WIDTH ~+ x ~5, TOTAL HOUSE SQFT ....... ................. I+1'I, X ---- ""'--' TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. t,~ '1~, ~ x ~2~, .~ = )~'l~ X ~ TOTAL DECK .......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I UNDER:/OVER ffere ..... · .. · DATE OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GLEN AND AMY HURD LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 13, DEVON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA · -:.'.~ ~°f ,, BIockt ap Drive LOT AREA= 7935-+ SQ. FT.~, Existing deck to ~ be removed end i replaced w th ''' ......... S 151°49' ~/ .-931.5 Contour Line ""929.4 Contour Line (O.H.W.) EXISTING HOUSE ~3g.2) Deck 74.7 Z .,f/~'E _:_-3-:_ _ZESCRIPTION CF PREMISES : 10, Block 13, DEVON -_ :e¢ctes ~ron morner ~4-1 ze~ctes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum :e-c:es distc~ce cs shown on the plot of DEVON ~ .... ~ ?o~ ore Dosed uoon on assumed datum. '-~ s¢, e, ;ntends to snow the boundaries of the above described property, :-: -*e oc~ion of c ~ouse, blacktop drive, deck, and propsed deck thereon. ' ::Cs -~' 2u-port :o s~ow any other improvements or encroachments. $LAND cross cut in conc. road (9,:37.8) .., EXISTING 15 (947.7) o --35.0-/'- 15 S 8g°49' W (,ALLE'(} Z LOT AREA= 7935 ~ ~1 I"'~ I ~.~, ~oUSE Existing deck ~o be removed and new deck 2.3 oVe~ ..... 931.~ Contour Line ""~29.4 Contour Line (O.M.~.) 0 ~.¢ ~.~ EXISTING F ,,, -,., HOUSE o · .~1.0 ~"- (9.38.2) I Deck ~ ~il(~ IWIIVh'ET-OA//-~ A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES · Lots 9 and 10, Block 15, DEVON o · denotes iron marker (947.2)' denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datums, · : denotes distance as shown on the plat of DEVON ~OZ~ Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. XISTING ROAD SEE SURVEY /~"-~EXISTING DRIVEWAY~ /~--~SEE SURVEY FOR EASEMENTS'~ EXISTING STAIR'~/ I~-PLANTER~ x I PLANTER~....~t ?/ / / / ! ~..-EXISTING P A TiO'"-,,,,,,i XlSTING 14'-0" SHRUBS // / EXISTING OAK TREE-'"- WOOD WALK¥ SEE SURVEY / XISTING EXISTING 7'-0" SHRUB TO EXISTING 7'-0" G PINE DECK TO /EXISTING STAIR -EXISTING CHIMMNEY r~,._~EXISTING GARAGE'-~-~ ENTRY EXISTING OAK ENTRY /~'-EXISTING HOUSE-~ PLANTER- 24'-6" ;'-0" GLASS PATIO DOOR ~-WOOD SHORE SEE LINE \ \ \\ -._ \ \ AND STAIR \ SIZE TO MATCH \ EXISTING,,_.~ ~EXlSTING ~.~" OAK TREE J I / / / vERT PC DOUBLE @ 4'-0" TREATED TO MAT( TREATED 2X12 JO' O 24" 0 CANTILE' DECK TO COMMON' 2X12 TR BEAM'--- SONA TL FROST r EXISTIN( AND GR / < z aJ I I J I ,!1 it, ,I ,l~, ,,,,,, /4 83~ I~i~.nd ~e~o Dci rte_ ~.d g-25 -c/fo CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 24, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission Those Persons Listed on the Attached Batch #9 Jon Sutherland, Building Offici~~' Jim Fackler, Parks Director Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector' Update of Public Land Permits, "Batch #9", Dock Sites 41830, 42406,42961,43020, 43080, 431 20,43180, 43235, 43420, and 43450 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting August 8, 1996 City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are required for private encroachments located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. Please find attached "Batch #9", this is a listing of dock sites that have private encroachments such as stairways, lights, or some other type of encroachment, located on public lands. These encroachments have been inspected by the Building Official and Deck Inspector according to the Procedure Manual as approved by the City Council. Batch #9 will be reviewed by the Park Commission on August 8, 1996, and then the City Council will take final action on these permits at their meeting on August 27, 1996. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a 5 year permit for Batch #9, subject to the conditions as noted on the attached. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. pJ Enclosures Abutting property owners / dock site holders will be notified, printed on recycled paper Printed 7/24/9(~ Batch #9 Public Land Permits Park and Open Space Commission 8/8/96 City Council 8/27/96 SITE DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 41830 4665 ISLAND VIEW DR - ELECTRIC LIGHT & APPROVE ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET.* MARK SMITH & OUTLET GINA ANDERSON - PHONE REMOVE OR RELOCATE PHONE OUTLET ONTO PRIVATE CONTACTED7 YES PROPERTY. DEVON COMMON, CLASS D II 42406 4743 ISLAND VIEW DR -STAIRWAY ROBERT EIDEM & NICOLE BLUM OFFICIAL. CONTACTED? YES -FLAG POLE HOLD ** APPROVE STAIRWAY WITH REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT TO BE MADE BY APPLICANT AND AS APPROVED BY BUILDING DEVON COMMON, CLASS B 42961 4801 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. · CURTIS OLSON - PLANTINGS APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. CONTACTED7 YES - RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. - ELECTRIC LIGHT OLD LIGHT HAS BEEN REMOVED. 43020 4805 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. MICHAEL KANE - RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. CONTACTED? YES - ELECTRIC LIGHT & APPROVE LIGHT & OUTLET.* OUTLET - BOAT HOUSE HOLD ** - PLATFORM HOLD ** II43080 I 481,5 ISLAND VIEW DR ARLENE ESKEDAHL CONTACTED? YES DEVON COMMON, CLASS C - STAIRWAY W/ LANDING - RETAINING WALL - STONE WALKWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. Batch #9, Page 2 7/24/96 J J Ii ,,Il .... ii, 'J '"" ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVON COMMON CLASS C 43120 4823 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY ~,PPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. CARRELL KUCERA CONTACTED'/ YES - PLATFORM ~PPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. 43180 482.9 ISLAND VIEW DR - STORM WATER/ APPROVED AS IS, ACCEl'TABLE CONDITION. JERRY MAREK ROOF DRAIN CONTACTED7 YES 43235 4833 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY DILAPIDATED. REPLACE TO CODE AS APPROVED BY GLENN & AMY HURD BUILDING OFFICIAL. CONTACTED7 YES - WALKWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. - DECK (PORTION) DILAPIDATED. REMOVE ENCROACHING PORTION. (APPLICANT INTENDS TO RE-BUILD EXISTING DECK AND WILL BE WORKING THROUGH VARIANCE PROCESS). 4849 ISLAND VIEW DR STEPHEN HEWITT CONTACTED? YES DEVON COMMON, CLASS B - STAIRWAY (A) ON HILLSIDE - STAIRWAY (B) ON RIP RAP - RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. ABUTTING OWNER WALKS OVER RIP RAP TO GET TO DOCK. NORMALLY A STAIRWAY IS INSTALLED AND IS A SAFER TRANSITION. STAFF RECOMMENDS A STAIRWAY BE INSTALLED AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. ¢3450 4853 ISLAND VIEW DR MARK GOLDBERG CONTACTED? YES DEVON COMMON, CLASS C - STAIRWAY (A) ON HILLSIDE - STAIRWAY (B) ON RIP RAP - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET - BOAT HOUSE - PLATFORM APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. ABUTTING OWNER WALKS OVER RIP RAP TO GET TO DOCK. NORMALLY A STAIRWAY IS INSTALLED AND IS A SAFER TRANSITION. STAFF RECOMMENDS A STAIRWAY BE INSTALLED AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVE PENDING ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* HOLD HOLD 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 City Council has directed the Commons Task Force to review the impact of structures on public land, and therefore, any action is pending regarding structures until completion of the Task Force review and recommendation to the City Council. ?EF~ , 'HELPS BAY) E"VICE ROAD · · 'j ........ DRY ..... C':" ~'"J' ...... '" ....... ;:"7'::;::::'~°--I ;'%o ~ i i · -. ' ..... ..................7, L ..... ~-~ .... o .............. ~ ....................... 1 ............... ........... :'-~"~' 2;?.;i~':3' . ....... , ............................. , · .................... · ...... -,' ,to' '"'! , 717 2 7 ...;'iTi.2.]'7;;;;';;7;;i17~'_2;;i;73;; ............... :I .............................. ; 7. ' ......... , ... '.'.:~";;'~;.:.-.:?. l ..................... I .... :'::::::; ========================================::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......... ............. , "1 ............................... 0 .......... t .............................................................. ......... ........ ..I ........................ i" :": ':' ..................................... ,1 .............. l .................. : ............ P'" "' 947 e ........................................... VCT.- C'*- -.-.0~40 %" I - .......... : ........ : ,4B: 4. ' 945.6 ...... !. ' ........... - , ':. '::~" ' ! ...... ~"~".:: ." : ': I . .' ...... :.': '.:; .............. T80.4.%l ,: ........... I '.1:' :".1 "': · ,,, .... 5 ....... l j ' :.':..::. ::. '. '"..:['::::".:::::::: .............. :.t ............................... -' .... ~: ...... ,~.u) ' - ~z · .................. ~: ~t--: ........................ ................ .m'. .... " . ..... ~l" I ........ _] ................... ::) J m"l ~'~ N ¢}~ ..... i ....... L o 7' A 5 4 RESOLUTION NO. 76-261 RESOLUTION OF VACATION OF PORTION OF AN EASEMENT Southerly 9 feet of the easement in Lot 9 and the southerly 14 feet in Lot 10, all in Block 15, Devon Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound~ Mlnnesota~ was held on the 15th day of June , 19 76 The following members were present:- " ~lrick, Swenson, Fenstad, Philbrook and Lovaasen The following members were absent: None ~ 6-15-76 Councilman Fenstad and moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution WHEREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice according to law, a public hearing was held by the City Council at the City Hall in the City of Mound on the 15th day of June , 19 76 , at 7:30 o'clock P · M. to consider the vacation of a portion of Easement - the southerly 9 feet in Lot 9 and the southerly 14 feet in Lot 10, Block 13, Devon. (Easement is on the northerly 30 feet of Lot 9 and northerly ~5 feet of Lot 10, Block 13, Devon) and WHEREAS, at such hearing aL1 persons desiring to be heard were given such opportunity after which said public hearing was declared closed by the ~ and WHEREAS, after review by the City staff and discussion by the Council there is not a public need for the dedicated and it is in the public interest to vacate said portion of easement NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. That that portion of easement described as the southerly 9 feet in Lot 9 and the southerly 14 feet in Lot 10, Block 15, Devon, may be and hereby is declared to be vacated. 2. That the City .Clerk and City Attorney are directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the He~n~oin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles, a]_l in accordance ~ith M.S.A. 412.851 and M.S.A. 117.19. The motion was seconded by Councilman Philbrook and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Ulrick, Swenson, Fenstad, Philbrook and Lovaasen and the following voted against the same: . None Adopted by tbe Council this 15th day of June, 1976. 76-261 6-1~-76 lI CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET :<=_ $ · 7 II()USE ......... :RONT FRONT REQUI RED SIDE ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 __ 10,000/60 Bi 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. l! 30,OOO/lOO JEX1STING~ROPOSED SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N(~)E W N S£E)W 30' GARAGE, SilED ..... OR OTItER DETACI1ED BUILDINGS EXISTING LOT SIZE: L-- VARIANCE FRONT N S E W qf'~ ~ FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' I l'OP OF BLUFF / 10' OR 30' .^R**ER ,o, %o 9 , ¢o0 . ~ CONFO~ING? Y~ ' ~ J -; For ~nh~r information, ~e City of Mound ~ This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of ~e requires~ outlined in the City of Mound ~ng Ordinate. ~ j~o'{ PInnning Dep~ment at 472~6~. ~ 0 0 r'm' 0 ~ 0 .~915 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY RECEIVED AU$ 12 August 9, 1996 MEMBERS BLOOMINGTON BROOKLYN PARK BURNSVILLE CIRCLE PINES COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DEEPHAVEN EDEN PRAIRIE EDINA FRIDLEY GREENWOOD HASTINGS HOPKINS LAUDERDALE LONG LAKE MAPLE PLAIN MAPLEVVOOD MINNETONKA MINNESTRISTA NEW BRIGHTON NORTH ST. PAUL ORONO OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE ROSEVI LLE SAVAGE ST. LOUIS PARK SHAKOPEE SHOREVIEVV SPRING PARK WAYZATA WEST ST. PAUL WOODBURY Edward Shukle Jr Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 RE: Suburban Rate Authority Membership Dear Mr. Shukle: As you may know, the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) is a joint powers organization consisting of ~]-~win Cities suburban cities. For over twenty years the SRA has been a voice for suburban governments, residents and businesses before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In the big dollar world of ratemaking, it is fair to say that SRA successes have saved suburban ratepayers literally millions of dollars in electric, gas and telephone rates over this period. We are entering an era of unprecedented change in the regulation of utility services, particularly in telecommunications and electricity. Every city must be vigilant in protecting its authority over the rights-of-way and the health, safety and welfare of its residents. In utility matters before the PUC and in the legislature it is very difficult for cities to "go it alone" In turn, the SRA needs each of its members to speak with a voice that will be heard by the PUC and the utility companies. The SRA would like to offer your city membership in the SRA throuqh June 30, 1997 for no annual assessment or continuin9 obliqation of any kind. Upon your city's payment to the League of Cities of the requested special assessment for the upcoming legislative debate over right-of-way authority, the SRA will accept your associate membership upon receipt of a city council resolution (enclosed). At that time we can discuss the Joint and Cooperative Agreement that sets forth the terms of membership. The SRA supports the League in its efforts to ensure city protection of rights-of-way and makes this offer with the knowledge and endorsement of the League. The SRA is a separate organization, distinct from the League or AMM ' The SRA was formed as a regulatory body itself prior to 1975, and has been an active intervenor in electric, gas and telecommunication matters since 1975. 470 PILLSBURY CENTER · MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 · (612) 337-9300 SI/BURBA/~ R3tTE AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT STRUCTURE A/qNUAL CITY VOTES' ASSESSMENT Bloomington 18 7200.00 Brooklyn Park 12 4800.00 Burnsville 11 4400.00 Circle Pines 1 400.00 Columbia Heights 4 1600.00 Deephaven 1 400.00 Eden Prairie 8 3200.00 Edina 10 4000.00 Fridley 6 2400.00 Greenwood 1 400.00 Hastings 4 1600.00 Hopkins 4 1600.00 Lauderdale 1 400.00 Long Lake 1 400.00 Maple Plain 1 400.00 Maplewood 7 2800.00 Minnetonka 10 4000.00 Minnetrista 1 400.00 New Brighton 5 2000.00 North St. Paul 3 1200.00 Orono 2 800.00 Osseo 1 400.00 P1]zmouth 11 4400.00 Robbinsdale 3 1200.00 Roseville 7 2800.00 Savage 2 800.00 Shakopee 3 1200.00 Shoreview 5 2000.00 Spring Park 1 400.00 St. Louis Park 9 3600.00 Wayzata 1 400.00 West St. Paul 4 1600.00 Woodbury 5 2000.00 163 65200.00 population, 1990 census one vote per 5,000 in population, or fraction thereof RESOLUTION NO. '~' ~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY; AND DESIGNATING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY AS ITS MEMBER ON THE BOARD OF THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City of is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 to enter into joint and cooperative agreements with other governmental units; and WHEREAS, the Suburban Rate Authority has been effective voice for suburban Metropolitan Area cities and residents, as a regulatory body from 1962 through 1974 and as an intervenor in gas, electric and telecommunications matters from 1975 to the present; and WHEREAS, the city council has determined it is in that the City's best interests to cooperate with other municipalities in the monitoring of utility services in the Metropolitan Area by participating in the Suburban Rate Authority; and WHEREAS, the SRA has offered an associate membership to the City through June 30, 1997, with a waiver of the assessment of ~$400.00 per year per 5,000 in population, or fraction thereof; and WHEREAS, there are numerous important issues facing cities in gas, electric and telecommunications matters that require joint and cooperative efforts by and among cities. JMS108341 SU160-3 August 9, 1996 Page 2 Enclosed are the following materials that should inform and assist you in evaluating this invitation: 2. 3. 4. History and Purpose of the SRA Review of 1994, 1995 and 1996 SRA Accomplishments Proposed Resolution Authorizing Membership Membership List and Assessment Structure An SRA delegate from a neighboring city would be happy to appear before the city council to answer any questions it may have. If you have questions please call Jim Strommen, legal counsel to the SRA, at 337-9233, or you may send an e-mail message to ,,attys@kennedy-graven.com". Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Fred Hanus City of Minnetonka Delegate Chair, SPA Executive :ckr cc: SRA Executive Committee James M. Strommen, Esq., Kennedy & Graven 107668 SU160-3 Attorneys at Law ROBERT A. Al,SOP BRUCE M. BATTERSON RONALD H. BATTY $TEPHKN J. BL'BUL JOHN IL DEAN DANIEL J. GBEENSWEIG DAVID J. KEN.'NEDY CHARL~ L. LEFL~'ERE JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT C. LONG JAM]~ ]VI. ~I'ROM.MI~N CORRINE H. THOMSON KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 Facsimile (612) 337-9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (612) 3~7-9233 JAMES J. THOMSON LARRY M. W~RTHEIM BONNIE L. WtLK/NS JOE Y. YANG DAVID L. GRAVI~ (1929-1~1) OF COUNSEL ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT L. DAVIDSON WELi. JNGTON H. LAW FLOYD B. OL~ON CURTI~ A. PEAI~ON T. JAY SALMEN SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION This summary is intended to describe the history, purposes and accomplishments of the Suburban Rate Authority ("SRA"). The SRA is a joint powers organization consisting of 33 suburban cities (list of cities attached) that actively intervenes in matters affecting gas, electric, and telephone rates charged to suburban residents and businesses. The material below attempts to demonstrate the tangible savings achieved by the SRA. Though actual dollar savings are often difficult to calculate, the SRA has saved residents and businesses of Twin City suburban communities millions of dollars over the last 20 years. A conservative calculation reflects a $200,000 per SRA member vote savings since 1975. HISTORY AND PURPOSES The SRA was organized in 1963, for the purpose of providing collective strength in negotiating franchises with the Minneapolis Gas Company, which served the original SRA members. In 1974, the legislature adopted the Public Utilities Act to provide for state regulation of gas and electric utilities, except for cooperative electric associations and municipal utilities. SRA assisted the state in setting up regulation and intervened in the early gas and electric cases with the hope of providing leadership and direction in utility regulation. Since that time, it has been active in matters concerning gas, electric and telephone rate regulation and in legislation concerning the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC"). JM$105177 5U160-3 RECENT INVOLVEMENT 1996 Model Wireless Communication Lease Aqreement. The SRA provided primary drafting contributions to a League of Minnesota Cities Model Site Lease Agreement for PCS/cellular communication antennas. This Model has been distributed to Minnesota cities for use in negotiation on site lease agreements. 1996 US West Riqht-of-Way Challenq~. A significant legal challenge to municipal authority over rights-of-way was brought by US West to the PUC and the district court. The SRA took an active position in support of the League and the other cities involved directly in the challenge. This issue will be the subject of legislation in the 1997 Minnesota legislative session. 1996 Minneqasco Case. The SRA and the Department Public Service successfully argued against a $1 million annual acquisition adjustment (23 years of recovery requested) Minnegasco sought to recover from ratepayers for its acquisition of Midwest Gas. In addition, the SRA criticized the allocation of Minnegasco to residential customers and the Commission ultimately denied Minnegasco's proposed change, saving residential customers money. The residential basic service charge also remained at the same level ($5 per month) as supported by the SRA. 1995 Updated Model Gas and Electric Utility Franchises. The SRA and the League drafted model utility franchise ordinances. The increasing deregulation in both the electric and gas utility industries necessitated revisions to the previous model franchise ordinances approved by the SRA. 1995 Minneqasco Fixed Residential Customer Charqq. The PUC denied Minnegasco's request for an increase in the residential customer fixed monthly gas charge from $5 to $6 per month. The SRA was the sole party to argue that Minnegasco must make a greater showing to justify requested and intended increases in the fixed, non-usage based monthly charge. The requested increase was made without a showing that statutorily required conservation policies would not be inhibited. 1995 Model Telecommunications Permit Ordinance. The SRA prepared and shared its Model Telecommunications Permit Ordinance with the League of Minnesota Cities. In collaboration, the SRA and the League distributed the ordinance to all Minnesota cities. The purpose of the ordinance is to provide orderly police power regulations over telecommunications companies in the city. This ordinance will be reviewed in light of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and legal developments resulting from it. 1993 Minneqasco and NSP Rate Cases-FAS 106. The SRA played a substantial role in one of the major issues to be raised JMS105177 2 before the Minnesota PUC in several years--FAS 106. A post retirement medical health care benefits "transition obligation" was sought by Minnegasco and NSP as a result of the accounting standard known as FAS 106 which required a change from cash basis to accrual accounting for such benefits. This change involves millions of dollars (Minnegasco $24 million; NSP $160 million) to be borne currently either by the utility shareholders or utility ratepayers. The PUC originally voted in May 1993 to disallow one-half of Minnegasco's transition obligation, but ultimately reversed its decision and allowed those expenses. These expenses will be spread out over a twenty year period in rates. This issue is an example of the millions of dollars at stake in utility rates the SRA fights to limit for ratepayers. 1992 US West Telephone Rate Savinqs. As of November 1, 1992, residential and business telephone rates for US West Twin City local calling area became equal by class of service throughout the metropolitan area. This PUC action eliminated the tiered .telephone rates that was in existence since 1980. The US West Tier System charged higher rates for residential and business customers living in the suburban areas. In 1984 the SRA achieved a reduction of one half of the tier ratios. This elimination of the Tier System is a direct result of SRA's intervention and arguments against differentiating telephone rates by geographic location. 1992 Municipal Pumpinq Rate Savinq$. Together with the City of St. Paul and the Municipal Pumpers Association, SRA efforts have consistently maintained pumpinq class rates at 2-3% below qeneral service class and have continued the municipal pumping exemption from the eleven-month demand ratchet rate imposed on commercial-industrial users. The SRA's expert consultant has estimated that avoiding the eleven-month demand ratchet charge alone saves 7.5-10% in annual municipal pumping charges paid to NSP. 1991 NSP General Rate Filinq. The SRA actively intervened in this NSP filing, wherein the PUC rejected NSP's $120,000,000 rate increase request. The SRA focused on the municipal Pumpers' rate and street lighting. The SRA is traditionally the only intervenor seeking reduced increases in the municipal pumping rate and has seen consistent success in that effort. 1990 .US West Incentive Requlation Plan. We actively intervened in the case involving US West's request to be partially deregulated in its local service to residential and business customers. The final order established stable rates for Twin City local telephone customers of US West through August of 1994. US West will share 50% of its revenues above a 13 5% return on equity. · JMS105177 SU160-3 3 I I Ii ! ,!1 it, ,, 1987 Northwestern Bell Extended Area Service Docket. The SRAmade significant progress in demonstrating cost in equities in the Twin City Metropolitan Area Northwestern Bell service area. SRA participation in this case helped lay the ground work for the order abandoning the Tier System. 1986 Redeliberation on Northwestern Bell Cases. The SRA obtained very substantial reductions in the Tier System ratios. These changes resulted in very significant savings in telephone rates for most SRA business and residential users prior to the elimination of this rate design in 1992. 1985 Rate Structure Task Force. The SRA was active in the formulation of funding proposals for the Combined Sewer Overflow ("CSO") projects in the Cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul. SRA involvement may have limited the pass-through of these costs to member communities. 1985 Northern States Power General Rate Case. The SRA "pioneered" an issue as to fossil fuel inventory. The SRA also helped maintain the municipal pumping rate, and defended prior SRA accomplishments as to accounting practices. Very substantial savings were realized through SRA intervention. This case was appealed to the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court and the SRA (alone) participated with MPUC in successfully defending MPUC's action. ESTIMATED DOLLAR SAVINGS FROM SRA EFFORTS These are rough calculations made with the assistance of legal counsel and SRA expert consultants. In an effort to be able to contrast savings with assessments, the calculations are made on a per SRA member vote basis (5,000 of population). They attempt to distinguish savings resulting primarily from SRA efforts and savings that likely would have resulted anyway due to positions taken by state agencies. 1975 NSP. SRA's retained expert estimated $18 to $20 per household. Using 3.4 persons per household, this would be approximately $26,500 per vote. The figure does not include business savings. 1977 NSP. There is no estimate of dollar savings in the file. The 1975 principles were defended successfully. It is thus reasonable to state that the $26,500 per vote continued from 1975 and onward. To be conservative, use five years of $132,000 per vote for NSP electric through 1980. 1982 Northwestern Bell. The SRA commenced its attack on the Tier System. In 1984, the SRA won a significant victory reducing by 50% the tier ratios imposed by Bell. Northwestern Bell has estimated a shift away from suburban communities of about $2 million to $3 million per year as a result of SRA JMS105177 4 intervention in the three Bell rate cases through the 1980's. Using $2 million per year and the assumption that SRA represents approximately half of the suburban businesses and households (this has not been calculated, it is just an estimate), the savings is about $6500 per vote per year. Over the seven years, since this change became effective, this is $45,500 per vote. 1985 NSP. Our consultant estimated savings due solely to SRA intervention at about $8 per household per year. Over the two years the rate was in effect, this is a savings of about $23,500 per vote. 1987 NSP. Estimated savings from the fuel issue is $1,600 per vote per year. Uniform Franchises. The gas and electric uniform franchises were negotiated in the 1980's at a cost of approximately $40 per vote. Attorney and staff costs for doing it individually might easily have been ten times that, a savings of $1260 per member or $360 per vote. 1992 NSP. As mentioned above, the savings per SRA member is about 2-3% per year for municipal pumping rates and 7.5-10% in avoiding ratchet demand. 1992 US West. The savings from elimination of the Tier System to tier 2 and 3 SRA residents and businesses is approximately $1 million per year and counting. 1996 Minneqasco. Collective savings to SRA residents from SRA efforts in the 1996 Minnegasco case is approximately $300,000 per year. Summary. A conservative estimate of dollar savinqs to SRA members because of SRA activities, directly and indirectly, over the years since 1975 is well over $200,000 per vote and countinq. A case could be made for multiples of this figure. JMS105177 SU160-3 SUBURBAN RATE AUT~{ORITY MEMBER CITIES Bloomington Brooklyn Par~ Burnsville Circle Pines Columbia Heights Deephaven Eden Prairie Edina Fridley Greenwood Hastings Hopkins Lauderdale Long Lake Maple Plain Maplewood Minnetonka Minnetrista New Brighton North St. Paul Orono Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale Roseville St. Louis Park Savage Shakopee Shoreview Spring Park Wayzata West St. Paul Woodbury JMS105177 SU160-3 SUBURBAN AUTHORITY ANNUAL REVIEW 199,' The following is a brief summary intended for the city councils of Suburban Rate Authority CSRA") member cities. It highlights the major activities and achievements of the SRA during 1994. The SRA is a joint powers association of 32 Twin Cities suburban municipalities that monitors rates and rate design issues of electric, gas, telephone utilities and Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services. The SRA was very active and successful in several far-reaching issues affecting member city ratepayers and Minnesota cities generally. Telecommunications Legislation In the fall of 1994, the SRA Board authorized counsel to participate in legislative issues affecting cities relating to the alternative telephone regulation bill (local service de-regulation) then expected to be offered in the 1995 legislative session. The SRA assisted the lobbying efforts of the League of Minnesota Cities in two important issues relating to that legislation: clarifying and broadening the police power of cities in the new competitive environment for a local telephone service and addressing cities rights to compensation for telecommunications utility use of public property. As of the date of this report, those SRA supported issues have been incorporated into the bill which passed out of both the Senate and House Committees and is being debated in the legislature at the time of this Review. The Department of Public Service will be authorized by this bill to issue a comprehensive report by February 15, 1996 recommending a uniform state policy on franchise fees for use of public property by utilities. Currently no telecommunications companies to pay franchise fees to Minnesota cities and the law is unclear regarding the rights of cities to require fees over and above regulatory cost. The SRA advocated a clarification on this issue and actively assisted in the inclusion of this study, in lieu of the fight to require franchise fees in the current bill. The SRA will be actively involved in the DPS study if this bill passes. Model Telecommunications Permit Ordinance The SRA also drafted a model telecommunications permit ordinance to establish uniform requirements regarding important issues to cities in the new competitive telecommunications environment: permit fees, location and relocation requirements, repair requirements, performance bonds, Gopher State One information and other provisions. The telephone deregulation bill language broadening city police power would further ensure the enforceability of these telecommunications permit ordinances. The Minnesota League of Cities has requested that the model permit ordinance be used as a basis for the League's model ordinance for distribution to its members. Minnegasco 1994 Rate Case The SRA won a significant victory for residential ratepayers served by Minnegasco in limiting increases in the fixed customer service charge Minnegasco sought. In 1993 Minnegasco won a 67% increase (from $3 to $5) in a fixed non-usage based customer charge for its residential customers. This increase was augmented by the elimination of a credit for gas usage. In the 1994 filing, Minnegasco sought again to increase its $5 charge to $6, stating that it intended to continue these increases in subsequent rate filings. The SRA was the sole party to criticize this increase as contrary to conservation goals established by the legislature and otherwise unsupported by evidence in the record. The DPS supported the increase. The PUC agreed with the SRA and denied Minnegasco's increase, citing conservation concerns and lack of customer acceptance. This PUC decision has ramifications for both gas and electric utilities and places a greater burden on the utilities in future rate filings to justify an increase in non-usage based charges. JMS87296 SU160-3 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY ANNUAL REVIEW 1995 The following is a brief summary intended for the ci~ councils of Suburban Rate Authority CSRA") member cities. It highlights the major activities and achievements of the SRA during 1995. The SRA is a joint powers association of 32 Twin Cities suburban municipalities that monitors rates and rate design issues of electric, gas and telecommunications utilities. 1995 and 1996 have been extremely active and successful years for the SRA. Model Telecommunications Permit Ordinance The SRA drafted a model telecommunications permit ordinance in conjunction with the League of Minnesota Cities to establish uniform requirements regarding important issues to cities in the new competitive telecommunications environment: permit procedure and fees, location and relocation requirements, repair requirements, performance bonds, indemnity and other provisions. The recently-enacted Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 includes important and debated language regarding cities' right to manage and receive compensation for use of the right-of-way. The SRA/League Model Ordinance pre-dates the Act but establishes many of the vital protection cities need when telecommunications carriers seek to expand within the City and expressly preserves rights to franchising or leasing. Minnegasco 1995 Rate Case The SRA actively intervened on behalf of ratepayers in Minnegasco's 1995 petition for a $24.3 million rate increase and a 7.7% requested increase for residential customers. The SRA, through its expert witness, Robert Towers of Chesapeake Regulatory Consultants, has challenged a $1 million annual claimed ratepayer expense resulting from Minnegasco's purchase of the Midwest Gas system. The SRA also argues that Minnegasco exaggerates the revenue deficiency created by the residential customer class rates and has not shown a justification for an increase in the fixed monthly residential customer charge. The ALJ adopted the SRA arguments challenging the $1 million Midwest Gas acquisition adjustment that, if accepted by the PUC, will save SRA residents and businesses approximately $215,000 annually. The PUC will decide on the petition during the summer of 1996. Model Gas and Electric Franchise Ordinances Again in parmership with the League of Minnesota Cities, the SRA updated its uniform gas and electric utility franchises to assist its member cities in negotiating new franchises. Of particular interest to cities in today's changing fiscal environment is the right to charge franchise fees. In addition, electric utilities are likely to be deregulated within the next decade. Terms and conditions of franchises become increasingly important to those utilities when-they perceive that franchise terms may affect competition. Electric Industry Deregulation The SRA intervened in a long-term investigation and review by the PUC of the electric utility industry. The PUC will be making a recommendation regarding if and when electric service should be deregulated for retail customers. The SRA has opposed utility company suggestions that eminent domain rights be equalized between cities and investor-owned utilities and that franchise rights be diminished. The SRA will continue to monitor the proceedings. Customer Service Task Force The SRA was invited to participate on a task force for the PUC on customer liability and service issues. The task force addressed issues on notice to customers, liability of innocent residential customers for past unpaid debts of prior customers living at the new residence and dispute resolution procedures. JMS103351 1996-97 SRA PR & ANTICIPATED PRO ECTS To assist in the 1997 SRA Budget review process, the following is information describing the types of issues the SRA is currently addressing and those in which we believe the SRA will be involved to protect residential, business, and city government ratepayers of SPA members. Given the quantity of important issues, it is possible that the SRA will be required to focus only on two of three of these issues to stay within its budget constraints. These matters are in addition to the General budget item that usually carries the largest component of any SRA annual budget. The General category includes quarterly meetings, member and non- member communications and on-going identification of new issues that may arise. 1. CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY CONTROL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER& On February 23, 1996, US West filed a petition with the PUC requesting an order limiting city rights to control the fights-of-way. This petition seeks broad PUC authority and limits on cities. The SRA has intervened and will be working closely with the League of Cities and other interested public bodies to protect city authority to control and receive compensation for utility use of the public fight-of-way. This issue will likely come before the 1997 legislature for comprehensive review and possible new law. The SRA and all Minnesota cities should regard this matter as vitally important. 2. MINNEGASCO GAS RATE INCREASES, The SRA has been successful in the administrative hearing portion of the 1995 Minnegasco rate increase petition advocating no recovery from ratepayers for Minnegasco's acquisition premium for the Midwest Gas assets. Minnegasco has been very aggressive in the 1990s in seeking rate increases and the SRA is one of the few non-state agency parties to vigorously contest several of the more significant recovery requests. The SRA will continue to seek the lowest possible rates for SRA residents and businesses. 3. CITY WATER TOWER LEA..~SES FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has spawned numerous applications for wireless communication antennae on city water tower sites. The SRA has been very active in coordinating a League of Cities sponsored work group to establish a model site lease agreement for use by cities. Each lease will be influenced by the many market considerations such as lease payments, termination fights, interference issues and other matters. This group effort will greatly assist cities in their negotiations with cellular, PCS and other wireless communica- tions applicants. 4. ELECTRIC INDUSTRY DEREGULATION. The PUC is conducting an ongoing investigation into the deregulation of the electric utility industry. At issue for retail ratepayers will be the opportunities and burdens that will result when customers are able to purchase power from providers other than the franchised-provider in the service area. Cities also will be affected greatly as large customers with significant purchasing clout and as being forced to deal with potential negative consequences if certain residential customers are unable to benefit from de-regulation. JMS103351 SU160-3 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBI~i'c FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 47:2-0600 FAX: 472-0620 55364 RECEIVED. AU6 1 9 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION ~UMBER OF SIGNS: TYPE OF SIGN: banner wall mount ..temporary .permanent SIZE OF SIGN: feet high x DATES OF USE: FROM ,,./ / . DESCRIBE REASON/PURPOSE FOR REQUEST: feet wide = free standing square feet TO / / ,, DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc. ): ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: locations of A frame signs: -by Depot -by Super America -by old Norwest -by vacant lot across from PDQ -by 0LL over-street sign= -across #110 by Highland CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August 21, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH "INCREDI]~LE FESTIVAL" Our Lady of the Lake Church is applying for permits for their festival which is scheduled for Saturday and Sunday, September 21 and 22, 1996. They are applying for a "Dance Permit" for their parking lot on Saturday, 9-21 and a "Temporary Beer Permit" for the two days. Approval is contingent upon current insurance documentation being furnished. Is prlnted on recycled paper Au¢. 23. 1996 9:48AM MCCOMBS FRANK DOS No, 3244 P, 2/4 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue Norlh, Plymoulh, Minneso'.a 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8.532 FAX E~iaeers Planners Surveyors August23,1996 Mr. Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 1996 Seal Coat Payment Request No. 1 MFRA #6173 Enclosed is Caldwell Asphalt's Payment Request No. 1 for the 1996 Seal Coat project in the amount of $26,061.75, The project is complete, but we axe recommending a rc~inage of 5% until a few minor difficulties with the work are resolved, We have reviewed this request and find it is in order and recommend payment in the above mount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FP,~K ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosure e:Lmain[6173LshukS.23 An Eq~l Ol~po~unlly Funpto~er August 27, 1996 RESOLUTION//96 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 & NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the following additional list of election judges for the the Primary Election September 10, 1996, and the General Election November 5, 1996: Marilyn Meyers Joan Heitz Liz Jensen Patricia Rodney The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August 23, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK MOUND LANES BEER LICENSE The On-Sale Beer License for the Mound Lanes expired June 30, 1996. He does not reapply for his 1996-97 license until August, as he says he is not open during the summer. He is requesting approval of his On-Sale Beer License which will expire June 30, 1997. He does pay the full year fee of $200. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, taxes being paid, etc. being submitted. 1s prJnted on recycled paper BILLS August 27, 1996 BATCH 6082 Total Bills $140,456.91 $140,456.91 Ii ZZ BI CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT July 1996 58.33% July 1996 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 68,730 6,712 Promotions 4,000 0 Cable TV 600 47 City Manager/Clerk 1 85,030 12,898 Elections 11,300 164 Assessing 54,450 19 Finance 163,600 12,512 Computer 22,000 1,322 Legal 106,440 4,675 Police 804,640 73,932 Civil Defense 3,780 632 Planning/Inspections 1 67,320 1 6,420 Streets 398,840 42,207 City Property 92,790 7,700 Parks 135,300 18,989 Sum mer Recreation 29,700 0 Contingencies 40,000 266 Transfers 1 55,31 O. 11,783 41,989 4,000 444 82,476 1,911 472 90 700 11 585 38 886 452 643 2,156 88 764 263 989 55.081 73,955 0 3,561 82,478 VARIANCE PERCENT EXPENDED 26,741 61.09% 0 100.00% 1 56 74.OO% 1 02,554 44.57% 9,389 16.91% 53,978 0.87% 72,900 55.44% 10,415 52.66% 67,554 36.53% 351,997 56.25% 1,624 57.04% 78,556 53.05% 134,851 66.19% 37,709 59.36% 61,345 54.66% 29,70O 0.00% 36,439 8.90% 72,832 53.11% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,443,830 210,278 1~295,090 1,148,740 52.99% Area Fire Service Fund 307,570 35,171 178,404 129,166 58.00% Recycling Fund 122,420 13,330 90,158 32,262 73.65% Liquor Fund 205,930 19,895 129,752 76,178 63.01% Water Fund 413,410 23,639 191,425 221,985 46.30% Sewer Fund 963,180 77,847 617,294 345,886 64.09% Cemetery Fund 5,570 564 2,387 3,183 42.85% Docks Fund 37,470 2,703 23,713 13,757 63.29% exp95 08/14/96 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT July 1996 58.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits I ntergovern me ntal Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments July 1996 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,280,640 654,743 654,743 (625,897) 51.13% 5,800 80 3,075 (2,725) 53.02% 77,100 23,171 82,106 5,006 106.49% 890,740 395,618 464,343 (426,397) 52.13% 48,250 1,743 6,266 (41,984) 12.99% 60,000 5,609 37,424 (22,576) 62.37% 35,200 1,013 7,587 (27,613) 21.55% 43,500 0 0 (43,500) 0.00% 10,000 1,107 7,134 (2,866) 71.34% TOTAL REVENUE 2~451 ~230 1 ~083~084 1 ~262~678 (1 ~188~552) 51.51% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 307,570 54,250 223,135 (84,435) 72.55% 108,320 5,223 67,411 (40,909) 62.23% 1,430,000 151,240 843,470 (586,530) 58.98% 410,000 38,045 227,379 (182,621) 55.46% 766,500 66,357 458,869 (307,631) 59.87% 5,1 O0 0 2,290 (2,81 O) 44.90% 70,800 573 68,398 (2,402) 96.61% 08/14/96 rev95 G.B. B ,~ ,ak ,kd PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUT OF A MEETING AUGUST 8, 199(; Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Bill Darling, Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, and Bev Botko, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Rita Pederson, and Mary Goode. The following persons were also in attendance: Mayor Bob Polston, Mark Goldberg, Steve Coddon, Ann Jepson, Amy Hurd, Kristi Dzik, Gina and Mark Smith, and Jackie Lochen. MINUTES Motion made by Darling, seconded by Ahrens to approve the minutes of the July 11, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Darling stated that he would like to propose a resolution. Meyer requested time to give an update on the community ice skating rink. Darling requested that his resolution be presented now. Ahrens suggested that if the resolution does not involve people that were in attendance that it be moved further down in the agenda. Casey stated that it is his understanding it does pertain to the public land permit applications. Darling read the resolution. MOTION by Darling that the Mound Park and Open Space Commission approve the "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION" as presented (attached to these minutes as Exhibit A). Seconded by Meyer. Botko stated that she thinks the Task Force is essential, they delve into problems more deeply. She thinks the Task Force should be a separate entity, but that they can still work with the Park Commission. Botko does not want to see the Task Force abolished. Darling agrees that the Task Force serves a very useful purpose, but what he is looking for is that the City take a look at what are the directions and intentions of the Task Force and Parks Commission, and that they get it resolved. Casey stated that one advantage to the resolution is that all permits could be handled at once so people don't have to come through twice by getting only part of their permit approved now, and have to come back later for their boat houses and decks. Botko suggested a joint meeting be held with the Task Force and Park Commission. Darling agreed, and suggested that maybe at a workshop they can decide what is the best approach to make a representative view that includes both sides, and the citizens at large, so that the two groups can work a lot more effectively. Park and Open Space Commission August 8, 1996 Geffre clarified that the resolution states that the Task Force has been given direction to do Park Commission duties, and that the Park Commission is not receiving direction that they need. Darling sees that the Task Force was put in a position to be at odds with the Park Commission and the Council is not taking any action to resolve that issue. Ahrens stated that she whole-heartedly disagrees with the resolution, and explained that the Task Force is not making ultimate decisions about encroachments, and there is no bypassing of the Park Commission, the Task Force is simply a group that was assembled to study an issue. She stated that at the last COW meeting it was 100% decided that it was best for the Task Force to deal with the encroachment issues, i.e. buildings, decks, etc., and to come up with a recommendations for the City and Park Commission to use in making decisions. Darling stated that it appears that the Task Force is not a representative of the citizens at large, but it represents a vast majority of abutting land owners. Mayor Bob Polston stated that he has been reading and following some of the dialog coming from the Commission, and he assured the Commission that he nor the Council are not trying to ignore the City Code, nor are they trying to bypass the Park Commission. He explained that their concept of putting together the Commons Task Force was to assist the Park Commission and Council in putting together a group of citizens to represent not only the abutting property owners, but the nonabutting property owners and the citizens at large, and to make recommendations that will be channeled through the Park Commission and then Council. He does not see a conflict. He invited the Park Commission and Task Force to work together in harmony to see what can be done, and he will listen to the Commission and consider the feelings and directions they give to the Council. Casey asked Polston what can be said to the citizens who will have to come back another time because only half of their permit can be approved. Casey stated it would be more efficient for the Commission and staff to expedite and streamline the permits so people only have to come through once. Polston stated that the Council had originally considered placing a moratorium on all public land permits, however, were advised by the City Attorney that by doing this they would be ignoring the ordinances. Therefore, they are dealing with the obvious issues and those of health and safety concern, such as stairways, and simple requests like tree trimming. Darling stated that he agrees with what the Mayor has intended the Task Force to do, however, feels that this is not the way it has gone. The Mayor does not think the process has gone awry and thinks the process is working well, and hopes the Park Commission will continue to work with them. Mark Goldberg, Task Force Chair, asked Darling how he thinks they got off-track. Darling stated that the Mayor said the Task Force will review issues, and those issues will be brought to the Park Commission for review, however, it is perceived by the Park Commission that they are totally circumvented and they receive information only after-the-fact. In addition, the message has been made clear that any permits the Commission does not recommend to be approved will be approved by the Council anyway, pending the Commons Task Force recommendation. J! J Park and Open Space Commission August 8, 1996 Goldberg agreed that they have been reporting only to the City Council. Darling feels the Task Force is doing a wonderful job, but that there has been a misunderstanding about what the roles are, and that the Council has not set a direction to resolve this. He thinks the Council needs to wake up and realize there are differences between the Task Force and Park Commission and they need to be resolved. Goldberg agreed there is an overlap, and stated that they are trying to formulate their recommendations regarding encroachments as quickly as possible. Casey stated that the issue is not who is more powerful, but when land use decisions are delayed pending Commons Task Force recommendations, he does not feel it is good public policy to have people show up twice for the same stuff, so the resolution, as moved, suggests that permit decisions be tabled until they can be dealt with all at once. Ahrens thinks she would have preferred a moratorium, but then the attorney says they would be ignoring their ordinance, so they needed to proceed and staff wanted to proceed with as much of the permit work as they could. As for those people who have boathouses or decks, she thinks they would be glad to come back twice if there is a likelihood that they will be able to keep their building, because, as it stands now, all encroachments are outlawed. Ahrens requested that if this motion passes and is printed in the newspaper, that the names of those who voted and how they voted appear, because she intends to vote against the resolution and she does not want it to appear in the newspaper for people to get the impression that she voted for it. Darling amended the motion to include the condition that when the resolution is printed in The Laker that the vote be detailed, listing who voted and how they voted. Motion carried 4 to 2. Those in favor were:; Darling, Casey, Meyer and Geffre. Those opposed were Botko and Ahrens. Chair Casey announced that Batch//9 is tabled as a result of this motion being passed. Ahrens and Botko feel it is unfortunate. Mayor Polston informed the Chair that the Batch//9 applicants have the right to appeal this decision to the City Council, and Chair Casey announced this to those present. Mark Smith expressed disappointment and stated that if the Park Commission had planned on doing this, they should have been notified, and he is tempted to send the Park Commission a bill for his time. Smith also stated that he went through the trouble of getting an electrician and an electrical inspector out to his house so he could conform with what was sent him. Ahrens stated that she had asked, several meetings ago, that when people are going to add agenda items, that they get them to the secretary ahead of time so the Commission has knowledge of these items beforehand. To come to a meeting and have somebody present something that they have not had the opportunity to read is unfair. In the future, she intends on not being present when agenda additions are discussed because she feels it is inconsiderate for Park Commissioners to come to the meeting and to have ...... things presented at 7:30 when they got the packet days ago. Casey noted that Ahrens had previously stated she was abstaining from all public land permit votes anyhow. Ahrens denied that statement. 3 Park and Open Space Commission August 8, 1996 Casey announced that the next Council meeting is August 27, 1996, and he apologized to those citizens present. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH 41830 Mark Smith & Gina Anderson 4665 Island 42406 Robert Eidem & Nicole Blum 4743 Island 42961 Curtis Olson 4801 Island 43020 Michael Kane 4805 Island 43080 Arlene Eskedahl 4815 Island 43120 Carrell Kucera 4823 Island 43180 Jerry Marek 4829 Island 43235 Glenn & Amy Hurd 4833 Island 43420 Stephen Hewitt 4849 43450 Mark Goldberg 4853 View Dnve View Dnve View Drive View Drive View Dnve View Dnve View Drive View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive This item has been tabled as a result of the previous motion. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FROM STEVE CODDON FOR A STAIRWAY AND PATHWAY ACROSS THE UNIMPROVED ROW OF BLACK LAKE LANEj LONGFORD ROAD, AND PARCEIS 23, 29 & 30 IN BLOCK 11, SETON Casey clarified that this item is also tabled as a result of the previous motion, and when issues are tabled they are not normally placed on the Council agenda. Mr. Coddon stated, in his case, he will now have to come twice, which is what the Park Commission is trying to avoid. Coddon asked when the Commission foresee's this issue to be settled so that they can hear his request. Darling stated that he hopes a workshop will be scheduled so this issue can be settled soon. Coddon stated that he is the only one physically affected by this motion, and confirmed that until the resolution is resolved that there will be no action on his request. Ann Jepson and Kristi Dzik, adjacent owners to the property where Mr. Coddon is proposing the stairway, stated that they have concerns regarding the proposal and want to make sum they will be notified when this issue is again placed on an agenda. The Chair suggested that they could also call the City to verify what is on the Council agendas. 1997 DOCK FEES Jim Fackler, Parks Director, explained that by taking into consideration the new multiple dock at Pembroke Park, and the possibility of additional multiple docks, the Commons Task Force and Finance Director agree them is no need to increase the Dock License Fees for 1997. MOTION made by Botko, seconded by Darling, that the Dock License fees for 1997 remain the same as 1996. Motion carried unanimously. II I Park and Open Space Commission August 8, 1996 Faclder stated that the Park Commission has held public hear/ngs in the past on Dock License Fees, which is not required, and asked if the Park Commission feels there is a need for a public heating. The Commission agreed, since they are not increasing fees, that a hearing is not needed. Casey stated he has a concern with the dock fees because seniors receive a reduced rate and feels this is not fair to non-seniors that do not have the ability to pay. 1997 BUDGET Parks Director, Jim Faclder, reviewed the recent addition to the Capital Outlay Request of $15,000 for improvements to Bluffs Park. Fackler noted that a petition was received and he obtained a bid for the improvements. Faclder reviewed the proposed improvements, and noted that they will eliminate snowmobiles from using this area as an access. Meyer asked that the patio portion in the plan be sod or some other pervious type surface. Meyer noted that he had talked to one of the neighbors, Sue Cathers, and she had stated they would like a dock for fishing. Jackie Lochen, resident in the area stated that this is a nice place for kids to go swimming, but they would like to make it more useable. Casey stated that one neighbor recalled some ropes were put out a few years ago for swimming, but they were worried about maintenance issues and weeds collecting in the ropes. Fackler stated that about 5 or 6 years ago they did have ropes there, but now they just put out buoys so they don't collect the weeds. Faclder does not feel there is enough room for a fishing pier. MOTION by Darling to recommend approval of the request to improve Bluff's Park and funds be made available to meet the needs on the petition, and the proposed patio area be constructed of a pervious type material. Motion seconded by Geffre. Motion carried unanimously. Faclder stated, when they get closer to making the improvements to the park, and if it is approved in the budget, they will send a letter to those on the petition and get ideas for improvements. PROPOSF. D PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR PARK PURPOSES. ADJACENT TO VETERANS PARK Jim Fackler reviewed the memorandum from Ed Shukle, City Manager. Geffre questioned what is the market value of the property. Ahrens stated that they had a realtor look into the value of the property. Mayor, Bob Polston, explained to the Commission how the Council became aware of this property and why they would like to purchase it. He rex/iewed that Councilmember Jessen saw the property for sale and new it was adjacent to park land. It is an undersized lot with an undersized structure on it. The Council saw an opportunity to expand the use of Veterans Park, and they hope to dedicate the park to the veterans in the Mound Westonka area and place a plaque on the property with all their names which the o'%,! Park and Open Space Commission August 8, 1996 VFW has offered to support monitarily. They also hope to expand the recreational use of the property by pursuing canoe rental on Lake Langdon. Darling suggested that the Park Commission support the proposal and hopes they can assist in a plan for the use. MOTION made by Casey to recommend that the City purchase the subject property utilizing the Park Dedication Fund with the intended purpose to expand the existing Veteran's Park with the condition that only non-motorized boats be made available from this property, and that no pavement or parking area be placed on the property in an effort to keep green space. Motion seconded by Darling. Motion carried unanimously. COMMUNITY ICE SKATING RINK UPDATE Peter Meyer reported that he reviewed the skating rink proposal with the Minnetrista City Council, and specifically asked for survey and engineer report money. Minnetrista said they were interested in helping support, but the Council tabled the request so their Park Commission can review the request and give input. He will meet with the Park Commission on Tuesday. All the Commission members who were present thanked Peter Meyer for his time and efforts in moving forward with the plan for the outdoor community ice skating rink. BIRCH LANE TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY INFORMATION, INCLUDING MEMO FROM PETER MEYER - Meyer explained his memorandum and noted he will refigure the numbers without Lost Lake and the School District Property and bring it back. Casey would like the Commission to renew their recommendation to keep this property for park purposes and indicated that the property is not lost until the public auction, and would hope they could convince the council to retain the property before it is finally gone. COMMONS TASK FORCE Darling stated that he would like to see a workshop scheduled. Geffre suggested that they should wait for direction from the Council to meet with the Task Force, and that they should not initiate a meeting since the Council appointed the Task Force, and they have never given us direction to work together. Meyer commented that his main frustrations with the Task Force is that the council decided the number of abutters, nonabutters and citizens at large, but in his opinion it is stacked with abutters. People fishing off the new multiple dock was discussed. II i Park and Open Space Commission August 8, 1996 ...... CITY COUNCIL REPORT Ahrens was not present. PARKS DIRECTOR REPORT Jim reported that basketball hoops have been installed at Philbrook Park. Fackler related Minnetonka Beach's compliance problems with the LMCD and stated that the outcome of their conflict could have an affect on how the LMCD regulates Mound's program. DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT The Dock Inspector was not present. MOTION by Darling, seconded Commission Meeting at 9:16 p.m. by Botko to adjourn the Park and Open Space Motion carried unanimously. 7 Park & Open Space Commission Minutes, August 8, 1996 EXHIBIT A ~OLUT%ON O~T~ C~TY OF ~OUND PAR~ OPEN SP~CE CO~Z~SZON WHEREAS, Mound City Code, Section 255.15, creates a duty Of the Park and Open Space Commission to "... consider matters pertaining to docks, recreation programs, parks, and open spacee ... as members deem proper.. WHEREAS~ Mound City Code, Section 2S5.15, states: "The public policy of the City of Mound is to strive to ... a. present and future residents of the City an unpolluted environment~ b.. provide access to lakes and streams in the community; and c. provide parks which afford natural beauty as well as recreational enjoyment.,, WHEREAS, city of Mound Park and Open Space Commissioners have invested many years of experience in park and open space issues for the benefit of the ~ citizenry of Mound. ' WHEREAS~ the Mound City Council has circumvented the statutory duties of Park and Open Space Commission by creating another bureaucratic entity called the "Commons Task Force,,, which is unsanctioned by City Ordinance and results in the delay of public land use decisions. WHEREAS, the Mound City Council has ignored the requests of the Park and Open Space Commission to consider all encroachments of public lands and all aspects of the public lands permit processes .~% ~_h~same time, WHERF2%S, the deferral by the Mound City Council of public land encroachments until recommendations are.made by the "Commons Task Force" is against public olic because citizens need s e P ' Y p edy decisions and the harmful effects of continuing encroachments upon public lands may be intensified. WHEREAS, the "Commons Task Force" is not representative of the Mound citizenry. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mound Park and Open Space Commission as follows: -1- Park and Open Space Commission Minutes, Augus~ 8, 1996 ~1~ That the Park and Open Space Commission will table. all public lands'permit applicati0ns until: a. The City Council abolishes ~hs "Co~ons Task Force~" or b. The Mound ¢itycounCil under~a~es its responsibility' to submit all publicland issues and permit applications to ~e Par~ and Open Space Co~ission fo~wi~, without delay-or interruption by the "Co~ons Task Force," end.at ~e City Council render i~s'final decision at ~he ne~ re~larly. scheduled citI Co~cil meeting. 2. ~at a copy of'~is resolution be sen= ~o Ci%y Manager, Mound Ci=y council, and ~ker Newspaper at the earliest practical date. Datedl August 8, 1996. -2- MINUTES OF A MF. ETING OF THF. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma, Council Representative Mark Hanus, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle. The following people were also in attendance: Chris Bright, Jack Sobraske, Steve Behnke, James McNeal, Mark Gileczek, Glenn Hurd, John Aquilina, Deb Grand, Steve Grand, Peter Meyer. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 1996 were presented for approval. Weiland noted a correction on the top of page 6, second paragraph, it states the "Planning Commission,, will review the case on July 23, when it should state the "City Council." MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 1996 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-42: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION, 5996 LYNWOOD BLVD., JI?.?. BOTKO, PART OF LOT 20, KO~hLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 0046. City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking approval of a side yard setback variance to construct a 16.39' x 32' garage addition. The new garage will replace an existing one car detached garage and a storage building that encroaches on the neighboring property. The proposed garage has a 3 foot setback resulting in the requested 3 foot variance. Staff can support a finding of practical difficulty given the location of the existing home, and since the Planning Commission has generally supported two car garages in order to reduce the amount of material stored outdoors. The proposed garage is longer than usual, however, the length of the structure is not considered to be a major factor pertaining to the side yard variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance based on a finding that the position of the existing home and the need to allow construction of a two car garage constitutes practical difficulty. The driveway was discussed. The Planner stated that even though the driveway for the two properties are merged into one, they technically each have enough room for their own driveways. The Planner confirmed that it~is-.par~ of-~he~-pla~-to ~emove-the_ol~ garage and shed, and agreed that this could be added as a condition of approval. Planning Commission Minutes August I2, I996 MOTION by weiland to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, with the condition that the existing shed and garage be removed. Motion seconded by Reifschneider. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CASE 96-43: VARIANCE FOR DECK, 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, STEVE HICKS, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK It SHADYWOOD POINTt PID 18-117-23 31 0006. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is proposing to add a 10' x 44' deck to an existing structure that is nonconforming. The proposed deck would be 29 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) line resulting in a variance of 21 feet. The existing structure is 39 feet from the OHW resulting in an 11 foot variance from the required lakeshore setback. Additionally, the property has a nonconforming side yard setback requiring a 4 foot variance from the 10 foot setback requirement. The property conforms to the ordinance's impervious surface restrictions. Staff cannot support an argument of hardship because other options exist on the property for construction of a deck, although, the other options probably do not fit the orientation of the existing home. If it is the view of the Planning Commission that decks constitute a reasonable use of lakeshore property and that minimum sized decks should be allowed, even by variance, then the Commission should approve the requested variance on the basis of practical difficulty. If the Commission does not support practical difficulty for this requested deck, then a motion of denial is in order. The Building official distributed copies of a letter to the Commission that was received from Julius and Luana Webster, neighbors to the north. The letter expressed concern about the location of the proposed deck and stated that they were unable to attend the meeting because they would be out of town. They requested the case be tabled until they were able to be present. The Building official confirmed that the elevation of the lowest floor of the house was raised during the previous remodeling project, and it is now conforming. Burma expressed a concern about how the neighbor's view may be affected by the deck. He would like to see the neighbor's request honored that this issue be tabled. Weiland commented that there are a lot of variances on this property, and now they want to encroach more onto the lake, and they have a lot of area to enjoy the shoreline. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 The Building Official informed the Commission that the ordinance does not require notification to the neighbors, and there is no ordinance regarding lake view. Hanus expressed a concern that the setback dimensions shown on the survey are not right. The Planner commented that the measurements on the survey are very close, they may be off about a foot. It was clarified that the proposed deck isactually only $ feet deep, with 2 feet being a step. Voss moved to table the variance until the neighbor has a chance to attend the meeting. Motion failed due to lack of second. Architect for the owner, James McNeal, stated that the deck is only 24 inches off the ground, and recently the owner had a 36 inch high fence at the perimeter of the property.. McNeal emphasized that when looking at the floor plan of the home, this is a logical place for a deck. He stated there is a patio on the south end of the house that never gets used. There are no railings proposed on the deck. Mueller commented that even though the deck is low to the ground and will have no railings, it will have more of an impact than a fence when there are tables, chairs and people on it. Mueller commented that there is no need for the deck to go all the way to the north end of the house, and maybe the size could be reduced. McNeal stated that the full deck would look better from the lake, and emphasized that a deck anywhere else on house would not be used. Hanus clarified with McNeal that there is a door in the middle of the proposed deck, and a bay window to the south of which may be converted to a door in the future. Hanus noted that there is no other location for a conforming attached deck on this property, except for about 5 feet on the south side, so any deck would need a variance. Voss confirmed with staff that the owner could install a patio instead of a deck and it would not require a variance. Weiland believes there are other possible ways of utilizing this land without increasing the encroachment onto the lake setback. Weiland recommended denial of the variance due to the fact that there are other options available and there is plenty of other useable shoreland, and there are enough variances on the property already, ross seconded the motion. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 Mueller suggested the Commission table the request to give the owner the opportunity to redesign his request and work at the possibility of minimizing the impact on ~the neighbors property. Burma agreed. McNeal stated that a deck is different than a patio, and believes the owner would be willing to accept something smaller. Mueller stated that the architect had implied that you will not see the deck from the lake, so then asked what is the visual need to have the deck stretch the entire length of the house. Mueller also expressed an opinion that an 8 foot deck is not useable for a table and chairs, it is too small. MOTION to deny carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Reifschneider, Weiland, Michael, Voss, and Glister. Those opposed were: Burma, Hanus, and Mueller. This case will be heard by the city Council on August 27, 1996. The Commission requested staff to acknowledge the letter from the neighbor by notifying him of the action taken and about the city Council date. CASE 96-44: CONDITIONAL USE PER~TT FOR ZERO LOT LINE TWIN HOME~. 5214 & 5218 DRUMMOND ROADt MARK GILECZEKt LOTS 4t 5, 14, & 15~. BLOCK 12~ wHIPPLEt PID 25-117-24 21 0025. PUBLIC HEARING~. city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking to divide an existing two family dwelling into two separate legal parcels. Under the Mound Ordinance, divisions of two family dwellings can occur through the issuance of a conditional use permit. In this case, the common wall for the units was not built exactly on the lot line, therefore, a minor subdivision is also proposed in order to modify the common lot line of the two dwelling units. As a result of the proposed lot line shift, the Westerly Parcel will have an area of 6,972 square feet and the Easterly Parcel will have an area of 7,034 square feet. The Mound Zoning Code requires 14,000 square feet as the minimum lot size for two family dwellings. The Ordinance also states, "Each lot so created shall contain no less than 1/2 the minimum land area requirement for a twin home dwelling, and shall be shown on a registered survey." Therefore, as proposed, this request would also involve a lot size variance for the Westerly Parcel of 28 square feet. since the lot line is being adjusted to accommodate the shift in the common wall, it could be further adjusted to render both lots equal in size thereby eliminating the need for the variance. The Zoning Ordinance also contains a number of other provisions that apply to this case. They state: Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 Separate services shall be provided to each residential unit for sanitary sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, telephone, and other utilities. No existing two family structure may be split into two separate ownerships unless and until the common party wall fire rating is brought up to new construction standards contained in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Party walls must provide sound transmission control ratings as per the UBC. - The owner of the property to be subdivided shall execute and record at their expense, a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions,, as approved by the City Attorney. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed conditional use permit and minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: The survey for the minor subdivision shall be amended to depict a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet for both the Easterly Parcel and the Westerly Parcel. Separate services for all utilities shall be provided as per City Code. The common party wall shall comply with the fire rating and sound transmission requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The submitted Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. ® As applicable, the project shall comply with all building codes, fire codes and other regulatory measures. Mueller questioned the street frontage requirementsl Koegler confirmed that each lot is required to have 40 feet of street frontage, therefore, if the lot line is to be shifted to accommodate for the difference in square footage, this should occur at the rear of the lot. Weiland questioned the need for park dedication fees. Koegler stated that he can review the ordinance to see if it applies. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being nobody present to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Mueller questioned the applicant, Mark Gileczek about the utilities. Mr. Gileczek explained that both units have separate water, but are served by one sewer. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, i996 Weiland moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Subdivision, as recommended by staff, including the following conditions: 6.The street frontage remain the same at 40 feet for each parcel. 7. staff review the ordinance and determine if a park dedication fee should be paid. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-46: VARIANCE FOR KILDARE ROAD !~PROVEMRNT, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC. t SETON, BLOCK 11, LOTS 15-32t PIDS 19-117-23 22 0054 ~ 0036-0041 The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a street to serve a series of existing lots of record. Fine Line Design has been working for a number of months to develop 7 lots of record along an unimproved portion of Kildare Road. The project also involves the development of an additional lot that is owned by another party. The project will be built in a somewhat unconventional manner because of topography and drainage concerns. The housing units, all of which are detached single family homes, will be served by a common driveway that will parallel Kildare Road. The reason for this unique access is twofold, first, it will allow the collection and treatment of storm water drainage on the site rather than allowing the water to flow into Kildare Road. This portion of Kildare Road does not have storm sewers, and drainage from the development could cause problems to the east. The second reason that the lots will not be accessed from Kildare Road is because of the developer's desire to preserve existing tree cover. Driveways accessing Kildare Road would require more grading and tree removal than the proposed access. This project has already undergone review by the City Attorney and City Engineer. There are still a number of minor issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order to ensure that the access drive is unobstructed and it has provisions for a vehicle to turn around on the eastern end. These issues can and will be addressed by staff as part of the review of the homeowners association and easement documents. The Planning Commission and city Council do, however, need to take formal action on a number of variances that are necessary in order for the project to proceed. Based on the proposed plan, the following variances need to be approved: 1. Lot 19 - Impervious cover variance of approximately 84 square feet. 2. Lot 21 - Impervious cover variance of approximately 244 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, I996 Kildare Road right-of-way - 30 feet in lieu of required 50 feet. Kildare Road paved surface - 24 feet in lieu of required 28 feet. Se Kildare Road cul-de-sac bubble right-of-way - 80 feet in lieu of required 100 feet. Se Kildare Road cul-de-sac bubble paved surface - 70 feet in lieu of required 80 feet. Ail of the requested variances are attributable to existing topography in the area coupled with the existing development pattern. Therefore, staff feels that all of the variances are justified and that the request meets the City's criteria for granting variances. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances noted above to allow development of the property subject to the following conditions: Information including, but no necessarily limited to the following shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval: ae Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. Final street plan (plan and profile). Final utility plan (plan and profile) All required project details. Project specifications. Copies of all agency approvals such as Health Department, PCA, etc. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be approved by the Watershed District. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for the housing units, the developer shall submit a copy of all homeowner,s association and easement documents to staff for review and approval. e The site plan shall be modified to accommodate a turn-around at the eastern end of the private driveway. Prior to consideration of this request by the City Council, the developer shall submit copies of impervious cover calculation for all lots in the development. Mueller expressed a concern about keeping the access open and asked how this will be enforced. 7 I J J ,k~ Planning commission Minutes August 12, 1996 It was noted that normally two parking spaces per dwelling are required. Koegler confirmed that the covenants would restrict the parking of any recreational vehicles on these properties. Hanus asked the Planner if the sections in the zoning ordinance pertaining to parking were reviewed. Hanus referred to page 85 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:760: Subd. 1. D. "No off-street open parking area containing more than four (4) parking spaces shall be located closer than (5) feet from an adjacent lot zoned or used for residential purposes." Subd. 2. C. ,,Control of off-street parking facilities. When required, accessory off-street parking facilities are provided elsewhere than on the lot in which the principal use served is located, they shall be in the same ownership or control, either by deed or long term lease .... " Subd. 3. D. ,'Parking space for six (6) or more cars. When a required off-street parking space for six (6) cars or more is located adjacent to a Residential District, a ,, fence of adequate design · · . shall be erected . · · Koegler stated that staff would recommend variances to those provisions be granted. Reifschneider commented that he is concerned about the excessive hardcover because of the steep hill, and he would like to see larger lots. Weiland referred to the variance application form and noted that the applicant had listed a variance to street grade. Koegler confirmed that an additional variance will also need to be issued for street grade and explained that a short 15 foot stretch of Kildare Road will max at about 15% of grade to the required 8% grade. Koegler noted that this is not unprecedented for roads in Mound. weiland commented that he does not like the reduced cul-de-sac radius for the reason of fire department access. Koegler noted that variances to the cul-de-sac radius have been granted in the past, and that the fire department agreed with it. Steve Behnke of Fine Line Design group, inc. clarified that the private driveway will serve 6 lots, and the seventh lot will have its own driveway and has been separated from the proposal. He also explained that the two lots on the end are owned separately and are not being included in their application review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He stat~ ~h~t_.~e_~sh~ ~s~g~ .... needs at least four houses to require their approval, so these lots on the end will not need separate approval. 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 Mueller asked when the lots were separated. Koegler explained that these are lots of record that were combined for tax purposes. Mueller stated that to separate these lots should require a subdivision. Koegler stated that the City Attorney did not require a subdivision and noted that the attorney will be present at the Council meeting. The Building Official reviewed the history of this issue. Originally a petition for street improvement was received. They then paid for a feasibility study to be completed. Dock issues have also been reviewed by both the Park Commission and Council. And now the request is brought to ~he Planning Commission because variances are required for the street. Mueller disputed that these will not be lots of record, and feels this development should be a Planned Development Area (PDA). Mueller requested further clarification on why a subdivision is not required. Koegler offered to pursue the attorney,s reasoning for not requiring a subdivision. Mueller moved to table the variance request until the Commission receives clarification regarding the lot of record status and subdivision issues. Seconded by Burma. Motion carried $ to 3. Those in favor were Glister Mueller Burma, Voss and Weiland. Those opposed were Reifschneider, Hanus, and Michael. Koegler requested the Commission to outline the issues, in addition to the lot of record status, that need further clarification: Hanus clarified with Behnke that each lot is one half inch narrower than the required 40 foot width. Koegler will look into the variances aspect of this also. Mueller highlighted the issues he feels need to be clarified: One grading plan shows $ houses, and one shows 6 houses, and questioned if there will be a combined drainage plan. Concern about building close to the bluffs and disturbing bluffs located within the shoreland zone. Concern about a private road being allowed when it was not allowed for Pelican Point, and if the private road is being allowed because of the drainage situation. Major subdivision subdivision. versus minor subdivision versus no Seven boat slips are proposed for six houses, and no boat slips are designated fo~-the.~wo..houses._on~h~_nd~ Pl~nning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 - Drainage situation requires additional fill in a critical shoreland area that is greater than what is allowed per the Shoreland Management Ordinance. - The practicality of allowing variances and the hardship being long narrow lots? Is that enough? - This should be treated as a PDA and it is not. Voss commented that a workshop including the attorney and builder might be beneficial. Weiland stated that the Commission should have been involved in this development prior to this. Hanus requested clarification on the proposed dock access easement. Behnke clarified that there will be a common easement at the back side of the lots. l' Steve Grand, owner of 2620 Kerry Lane informed the Commission that the applicant has already built two houses next door to this area, and they had said that they would preserve the trees, but they have removed every tree from the two lots they just developed. Grand is very concerned about drainage and is concerned that everything will pour down Kerry Lane. He emphasized that it is 4 to 5 blocks to the nearest storm sewer, all the rest of the run-off in this area goes into Black Lake. He is concerned they will be drowned in mud and sand. They have already gotten a lot of mud and sand from the two houses being built now. He feels the development will negatively impact other people in the neighborhood. Hanus requested clarification on the grading and drainage plan which shows an elevation of 953.6 directly adjacent to an elevation of 948 and 946 which shows the drainage arrows going up hill, and he would like to see the plan corrected. Koegler stated that when this application comes back to the Planning Commission, the city Engineer will be present. Mueller questioned the plan which shows the dock crossing Longford Road. Hanus indicated that this may require a construction on public lands permit and it is being reviewed. Mueller asked if there will be bonding requirements for the construction of the private street to ensure it meets design criteria. CASE 96-39: VARIANCE FOR PORCH, 5009 WILSHIRE BLVD., JOHN SOBRASKE, M&B, BLOCK 40, WYCHWOOD, PID 24-117-24 13 0035 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a nonconforming three-season porch. The.applicant has propose~ three options in the hope that one will gain approval, option C is the only reasonable location if approval is to be considered, the 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 other options result in significant encroachment into the required setbacks, and there are no other alternatives that fit the layout of the existing dwelling. Impervious cover is conforming at 40% with the existing drainage situation. existing proposed required yariance Side NW (to deck) 2.8' - 6' 3.2' Side SE 19' 6'+- 10' 4' Lake 14' - 50' 36' The existing dwelling has a minimal amount floor area at about 660 square feet, and the additional living area would enhance the use and function of the property. The adjacent houses in this area are in a similar situation, they are setback fairly close to the lake. Option C follows the existing line of the dwelling and there is no further encroachment towards the lake, however it does have a slight encroachment into the side yard. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the request is a reasonable use of the property with a minimal encroachment into the side yard. This recommendation is based on practical difficulty, as there is no other reasonable location, there is no further encroachment into the lakeshore setback, and the proposal is within the maximum limit of 40% impervious surface coverage. Weiland expressed a concern that they will be blocking vehicle access to the lake with Option C. It was suggested that the side setbacks to the existing deck be verified. Mueller noted that it does not appear there was permission for that deck to be there and it needs to be recognized, or chopped off to meet the 6 foot side yard setback. Mr. Sobraske stated that the deck was there when he purchased the house. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff for Option C. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Burma, Reifschneider, Hanus, Michael, Glister, and ross. Mueller and Weiland were opposed. Weiland commented that it is too much on a small lot, and too close to the lake. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CASE 96-40: VARIANCE FOR SHED, 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JO~_WN_~ £ KATHY AQUILINA, LOT 48, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID 19 117-23 34 0073 Orv Burma stepped down as he is a neighbor to the applicant. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, .reviewed theStaff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the reconstruction of a nonconforming shed on the lakeside. The shed is now partially 11 I I I I ,I I ,~, Planning commission Minutes August 12, 1996 reconstructed and is setback 22 feet from the OHW, a 50 foot ~etback i~ required, re~ulting in a variance request of 28 feet. All other issues with this property are fully conforming. The Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented accessory structure (a lock box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square feet and is a maximum of four feet in height. The lock box must also be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the lake. There does not appear to be any findings of hardship or practical difficulty in this case as the ordinance provides for a lock box and there may be other alternatives to locate a shed on the property that is in conformance with the ordinance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to lack of a hardship or practical difficulty. Glister stated that the shed is already partially reconstructed, and questioned how this came to the attention of the City. Sutherland noted that the City received a complaint. Sutherland commented further that the applicant stated he had contacted the City and someone had informed him a permit was not required for a shed 120 square feet or less, and he was unaware it was required to meet a 50 foot setback. Weiland suggested an alternative location for the shed which is next to the deck. Applicant, Mr. Aquilina, emphasized that due to the severe slope to the lake it would be dangerous to drive their riding lawn mower up and down the slope. He stated there is only a 3 foot wide trail along the side of the lot, and the rider is 4' wide. He stated it took four people to carry the tractor down the steps. Aquilina noted that both the neighbors on either side of him have sheds closer to lake, and they are the same size. He asked why he should be treated differently. Reifschneider noted that the neighbor's sheds are shorter and that his shed looks bigger, and he feels there is .room to move it. further back on the lot. Aquilina stated he was willing to reduce the height of the shed. Aquilina commented that the old shed was dilapidated and unsightly, and the new one is more aesthetically pleasing, and more safe. He noted the foundation is made of railroad ties. Aquilina also feels that the existing location of the shed is best for the neighbor's site line. Michael explained that if they approve this shed, they will be farther away from the City's long term goals and this is their opportunity to gain conformance. Mueller, agreed that the existing location is least impacting on the neighbor's and applicant's property. Mueller recalled that one requirement of the Shoreland Management Ordinance is that structures be screened from view from the lake. He suggested the shed could be screened, the height changed, and the color could be 12 ~77 Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 changed. He does not believe the metal sheds on the adjacent lots will ever go away because metal does not deteriorate as quickly. Previous cases involving sheds on the lake side were discussed. Hanus commented that none of the previous cases involving sheds on the lake side involved newly constructed sheds. Orv Burma, neighbor to the applicant, emphasized that Mr. Aquilina did call to see if a permit was needed, and noted that the shed would be costly to move, and feels that the shed is not offensive to lake users in its present location. Hanus asked how far the shed can be moved back so it is functional. Aquilina stated, maybe 4 feet. Weiland disagreed. Burma agreed that the shed could go back 4 to 6 feet, but not far enough to be conforming, and even if it is pushed back 4 feet the elevation is higher. He feels it would look better where it is. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance to allow the shed, subject to the shed being no more than 7 feet in height, measured from the top of grade on the lake side to the top of the highest peak on the roof, and that a landscaping plan be submitted for screening the shed with vegetation. Motion carried 5 to Z. Those in favor were: ross, Mueller, Glister, Hanus and Michael. Weiland and Reifschneider were opposed. Weiland commented that we are missing the opportunity to remove a nonconforming structure. Reifschneider agreed and believes there is room to move the shed back on the lot. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CASE 96-41: VARIANCE FOR DECK, 4753 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CHRI~ BRIGHT, LOT 10, BLOCK 7t DEVONt PID 30-117-23 22 005~ The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing' nonconforming detached garage in order to allow construction of a conforming deck on the lakeside. According to the applicants site plan, the existing detached garage is setback approximately 4 feet to the front property line, and 2 feet to the east side. The required setbacks are 8 feet to the front and 4 feet to the side for this situation. The applicants proposal is a reasonable use of the property and is conforming to the zoning code, and there is no further encroachment. The nonconforming garage is in good condition and it is unlikely it will be removed at this time. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the proposal is conforming and is a reasonable use of the property. 13 I,I I I Planning Commission Minutes August 12, I996 MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CASE 96-45: Vi%RII%NCE FOR DECK, 4833 ISL/%ND VIEW DRIVE, GLENN & AMY aoRD, LOT 9, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0034. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling and deck in order to allow reconstruction of the deck on the lakeside. The existing deck encroaches onto the adjacent Devon Common by 2.3 feet. existinq propose~ required variance House-rear (south) 9' n/a 15' 6' House-lake 38' n/a 50' 12' Deck -rear (south) 2.3' encroach 2.3' 15' 15' Deck-lake 28' 28' 50' 22' The existing deck is dilapidated and in need of removal or replacement. It has been the past practice of the city to eliminate encroachments onto public and private land whenever possible. Consistent with this policy a recommendation of denial is appropriate in order to eliminate the encroachment of the deck at this time. It has also been the past practice to consider a minimally sized deck to be a reasonable use when there is lake front property with a comparable situation as this site. A Minimally sized deck of 8-9 feet wide would allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. There may also be area for deck expansion to the west that could be considered, in this location the lake setback would still be nonconforming, however the encroachment would be less than the existing situation. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the applicants request to reconstruct the deck in a nonconforming and encroaching situation. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a recommendation of approval for a minimally sized deck of 8 to 9 feet in width that allows for maintenance of the deck on the applicants property, and in addition, that the new stairway from the deck be constructed so it does not encroach on the commons. This recommendation would be consistent with the Zoning Code and allow the applicant reasonable use with a minimum encroachment into the setback. Sutherland also reviewed the staff report for the public lands permit which the applicant applied for, and noted that the Park Commission tabled the request on August 8, 1996. Hanus recognized that one third of the lot on the street side contains a sewer easement which cannot be built on, so noted the property is restricted on the street side. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 Applicant, Glenn Hurd, explained that they only want to replace what is existing, and that it is screened by 6 foot high shrubs so he feels the deck has no impact to the neighbors or the commons in its present location. He noted that this commons is Type C which means you cannot traverse it, and there is no traffic. There is only one other dock in front of his house, and they use the adjacent fire lane to access their dock. He feels that because of the floor plan, it is best to have the deck in front of the house, and he does not want to build the deck to the side which would encroach onto green space. Mueller stated that you should not have a deck on somebody else's property. Hanus noted that the Commons Task Force is looking at the issue of encroachments on the commons, and the Park Commission is not currently acting on existing encroachments such as buildings and decks. He does not know if the task force is addressing the issue of replacing existing encroachments. Hanus suggested that the applicant could be given the option of reducing the deck size to a zero setback, pending the recommendation of the Commons Task Force. The structural condition of the deck was discussed. The applicant stated there are some rotted boards, the handrail is not to code, but it is safe. Weiland stated that they can cut the deck back and the bushes will fill in the vacant space. The applicant stated that the back side of the bushes are dead. The Chair noted the time at 11:00 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the meeting until 11:15 p.m. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance and that the request be deferred to the Park and ~pen Space Commission and that we a~ree with their decision relating to the encroaching port,on. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant confirmed that he could come back to the Planning Commission if the Park Commission takes too long. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES REPORT No comments or discussion. pETER MEYER, PARK AND OPEN SPACE CO__w~ISSIO~ Commissioner Meyer informed the Planning Commission that the Park Commission had recently recommended that a tax forfeited parcel on Birch Lane be retained for park purposes. He reported that the Council approved to release the parcel for sale. Meyer.stated that the City could have retained this parcel at no cost. Meyer handed out copies of a memorandum he had written to the council which 15 planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 emphasizes the need for additional open spaces in our community and asked that the Planning Commission take this into consideration when future tax forfeited properties become available. Hanus highlighted that the Council voted to release this parcel for sale because there is a large park in close proximity. He also noted that Meyer's calculations did not include all the public land in Mound or the school district property. In light of the recent case, the Glenn Hurd variance, Peter Meyer updated the Planning Commission on the resolution which was passed by the Park Commission relating to the tabling of the public land permits. Meyer read the ,,RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION." Hanus commented that it is his opinion that the Park Commission does not have the authority to resolve anything, and that the resolution is not valid, and the methods chosen were not appropriate. Mueller suggested that in all fairness to the previous applicant, and not knowing the situation with Park Commission, that maybe they should reconsider their previous vote. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Motion failed 4 to 4. Those in favor were: ross, Reifschneider, Burma and Glister. Those opposed were: Mueller, Hanus, Weiland, and Michael. Motion by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to continue the meeting for not more than 7 minutes. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were Mueller, Weiland, Burma, Michael, and Hanus. Those opposed were: Reifschneider, Voss and Glister. Mueller moved to re-consider the motion made for Case #96-45, Glenn Hurd. Seconded by Weiland. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Mueller to recommend approval of a variance to allow the deck to be rebuilt up to the rear property line due to the existing sewer easement at the front of the lot. There shall be no construction beyond his property line, including stairways. The trees/bushes on the commons are not a concern of the Planning Commission. Voss seconded the motion. Sutherland commented that staff would be in favor of this motion. Hanus stated that he would like to make sure the applicant is aware of action taken and that the applicant be notified that they can go to the council to appeal. Motion carried unanimously. 16 Planning Commission Hinutes August 12, 1996 This case will be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1996. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to adjourn the meeting at 11:19 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 17 MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION- AUGUST 15, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Members present: Paul Meisel, Jerry Pietrowski, Liz Jensen, Dave Willette, Stan Drahos and Mark Brewer. Members Absent: Jerry Longpre. Absent and excused: Sharon Cook, Ex-officio, not voting member. Also Present: Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Upon motion by Willette, seconded by Brewer and carded unanimously, the minutes of the July 18, 1996 meeting were approved. Lost Lake Improvement Project Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, updated the Commission on the status of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). He also stated that the environmental permit process is underway and the appropriate documents will be submitted in the next two weeks. Ed Shukle, City Manager indicated that negotiations with John Wagman, property owner along the east side of the channel, are on-going. Auditor's Road Improvement Project Ed Shukle, City Manager updated the Commission on the negotiations with property owners regarding acquisition of property. Relationships with Planning Commission and Parks and Open Space Commission Ed Shukle, City Manager reported that there have been concerns expressed by members of the Planning Commission regarding lack of that commission's involvement in the planning of the Mound Visions Project. Paul Meisel indicated that he had made attempts to meet with one of those commission members but was unable to do so. He expressed the desire to try to work with the commissions and getting them involved. Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, indicated he would be attending the Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 1996 to inform the Commission the Visions project. He cautioned the EDC that it was important that the current design of the Lost Lake Improvement Project and the Auditor's Road Improvement Project cannot be changed. Them has been ample time for input and it is important that this design be kept in place as we are approaching the actual construction time frame with it be scheduled to begin next Spring. EDC Minutes August !5, 1996 Page 2 The EDC agreed but still wants to involve the Commissions if at all possible. Also discussed was the presentation made by Councilmember Liz Jensen and Bruce Chamberlain to the Northwest Tonka Lions Club a few weeks ago. The reaction was positive and those that attended enjoyed hearing about what the Visions project is about. OTHER BUSINESS Ed Shukle, City Manager indicated that Councilmember Mark Hanus asked that the EDC discuss the Central Business District (CBD) Parking Program. Shukle indicated that a subcommittee of CBD property owners had several meetings earlier this year to review the existing parking program and suggest modifications to the existing formula. No meaningful results were reached and the City Council agreed to leave the program as is until the Mound Visions program is in place. Councilmember Hanus, however, would like to discuss the matter further and asked for EDC input. The Commission discussed the matter and it was moved by Brewer, seconded by Drahos and carried unanimously, to recommend to the City Council that the Council reaffirm its previous position; that is, leave the current CBD parking program in place until Mound Visions is in place to see if parking requirements are met and parking issues, as they are viewed presently, are addressed through the additional parking that will be created through the Auditor's Road Improvement Project. Mark Brewer asked that a brief discussion be held at the next meeting on the development that is occurring in Navarre at the intersection of County Road 19 and County Road 15 pertaining to the new restaurant and proposed office complex in that area. Stan Drahos volunteered to bring the rolls to the next meeting. Ed Shukle gave a brief update on the Westonka Community Center. He indicated that the Task Force was asked by the School Board to take another look at the Plan B recommendation to demolish the old high school and remodel the pod areas. The Board was concerned that the demolition of the old high school would result in the removal of the old gymnasium which would cause a great deal of difficulty relating the athletic programs that currently use that space. Shukle indicated that the Task Force met a few weeks ago and rescinded their previous motion regarding Plan B and created a new motion that would look at other alternatives regarding gym space. The Task Force is scheduled to meet on August 20 to discuss those alternatives. Upon motion by Willette, seconded by Brewer and carded unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 a.m. EDC Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 3 City Manager · ,I / / v C 022 : ¥9 3BV93 Ot ( ~o:. ! oO / / c~ t August 22, 1996 It ,,I ,,itl i I~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Ms. Gina Anderson Mr. Mark Smith 4665 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Public Lands Pe,-xnit Application - Batch #9 Dear Ms. Anderson and Mr. Smith: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 13, 1996 conceming your application and the applications contained in Batch #9 reviewed at the Parks and Open Space Commission Meeting of August 8, 1996 meeting. The applications were tabled by the Commission and thus, no action was recommended on the permit applications. Under the City's Procedure Manual which is referred to in Section 320 of the Mound City Code, Subdivision 6, a copy of which is enclosed, the City Manager and designated staff have the authority to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit procedures related to private activities on public lands. The Public Lands Permit Process includes review by the Parks and Open Space Commission of permit applications prior to the City Council reviewing those applications. Typically, there is a recommendation made to the City Council from the Parks and Open Space Commission on such matters. Subsequently, the Council takes action on the application and the applicant is either granted the permit or is denied the permit. In either approval or denial, a resolution is drafted stating the reasons for approval or denial. In addition to the Park and Open Space Commission tabling action, the Commission did approve a resolution indicating to the City Council that all public lands permit applications would be tabled until the City Council does two things: "The City Council abolishes the 'Commons Task Force; and The Mound City Council undertakes its responsibility to submit all public land issues and permit applications to the Park and Open Space Commission forthwith, without delay or interruption by the "Commons Task Force..." You may have read the report of the City Council meeting in the August 17, 1996 issue of the Laker printed on recycled paper Letter to Ms. Gina Anderson and Mr. Mark Smith August 22, 1996 Page 2 which indicated that the City Council discussed this resolution at its August 13, 1996 meeting. The Council passed a motion asking the Parks and Open Space Commission "to discuss the resolution again at their next meeting when the full complement of members would be present, and hopefully, to rescind the resolution." Based upon the Procedure Manual references to Park and Open Space Commission review of public lands permit applications and the City Council's request to the Commission to rescind the resolution passed at the August 8, 1996 meeting, I will not be putting your appeal request on the August 27, 1996 City Council agenda. I would encourage you to attend the Parks and Open Space Commission meeting on September 12, 1996 and look for a recommendation on the application to be considered by the City Council at its meeting of September 24, 1996. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. F~~x~~derely' City Manager CC: Mayor and City Council Jim Fackler, Parks Director ORDII~A~CE #62-1993 AN ORDIN/~NCE ~tENDING SECTION 320:00 OF THE CITY CODE BY i~DDING SUBD. 6 RELATING TO A PROCEDURE M~tNU/~L FOR RULES ~ REGULATIONS FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ~C~LE1TDING SECTION 437:05, SUBDIVISIONS 4 AND 6, RELATING TO DOCK PERMITS ~ REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH CITY REGULATIONS The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 320:00 of the City Code is amended by adding a new subdivision 6 which shall read as follows: Section: 320:00. Subd. 6. Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manaqer and desiqnated staff are authorized and directed to promulqate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the Droqram and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said manual shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The City Council may amend or chanqe the Public Lands Procedural Manual bv Resolution. Section 437:05, Subds. 4 and 6 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. Application Filinq. Applications for licenses shall be filed with the Dock Inspector at the City offices and ha the Dock Inspector shall recommend to the City Council that the license be approved or denied. No license will be recommended or authorized until the Dock Inspector determines that the proposed dock complies substantially with the term of all City ordinances. The application shall contain a reminder and/or warninq to the applicant that a dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pendinq concerninq a stairway or structure used to access the dock. The license will not be issued until compliance with the correction order has been completed or satisfactory arranqements have been made with the Dock Inspector to complete the corrective measures. ORDIN~tNCE NO. A_N ORDINA/gCE ADDING SECTION 330:12 TO THE CITY SUBDIVISION CODE ALLOWING FOR A WAIVER OF PLATTING The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 330:12 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 330:12. Waiver of P!attinq. Any Darce! of land, either platted or unDlatted, that has been combined for tax purposes or for other reasons, cannot be reseparated or divided without an approved subdivision or a waiver of the Dlattinq recuirements of this Code. The City has many old subdivisions with small platted lots which standing alone do not meet current zoning requirements. Many of these lots have been combined for tax purposes and for various other reasons, i.e., to create a bui!dinq site, to indicate a desire to combine etc. to avoid or reduce special assessments for improvements, /? M ,/~,~ A waiver of the platting.~cuirement ma~ be Gra~nted by the City Council after receipt of~ackqround information provided by City staff. A request for ~/waiver of the plattinq requirements shall be siqned by the Drop~ty owner on forms prepared for and approved by the City CounciL./ This request or application for a waiver shall be referred to City staff for review. The review by staff shall be conducted to determine if the division or release of the tax combination and the creating of new proogy~.~.d~ntifica~ion parcels for tax and building P6'9~ses is~~ with~.6~f'~y ~.planninq and zoning standards and objectives. The staff shall prepare written findings and recommendations for the Council's consideration. The waiver of Dlatting and the release of the tax combination may be aporoved if it is determined to be re~. The Council may imoose conditions to the waiver and shall require the payment of any deferred or forgiven special assessments which have been avoided by a tax combination. The waiver may be ..... ~ ' ~u~Ic hearings or ~=n~=~ without ~'~' referral to the Planning Commission. Nothing herein shall preclude the staff or Council from referrinq the matter to the Planning Commission if it is d~terminad that their advise will be helpful in determining if the~~~eets the City's planning and zoninq objectives. Adopted by t}fd Mound Cj~ty,Counc~l ~ , /I996. · MU200-1 ITEM//15 August 27, 1996 RESOLUTION//96 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 & NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the following additional list of election judges for the the Primary Election September 10, 1996, and the General Election November 5, 1996: Marilyn Meyers Joan Heitz Liz Jensen Patricia Rodney Jean Robinson Sue Schmidt Marvin Nelson Bob Hanson Marie Jorland The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and seconded by Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk RECEIVED LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday August 28, 1996 Tonka Bay City Hall PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 Excelsior Park Tavem, 685 Excelsior Blvd., Excelsior Bay, Excelsior, Consideration of New Multiple Dock, Special Density License, and Variance applications to increase Boat Storage Units (BSU's) from 32 to 40. The applicant is applying for variance from LMCD side setback requirements. The applicant will provide public amenities for the additional density exceeding 1:50; CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock * Summary review of Executive Director Performance Appraisal READING OF MINUTES- 8114196 Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "' will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. WATER STRUCTURES A. Excelsior Park Tavern, Discussion on New Multiple Dock, Special Density License, and Variance applications Public Hearing; B. Additional Business; 2. EWM/EXOTICS TASKFORCE 3. LAKE USE & RECREATION 4. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff update on office lease renewal; B. Appointment of Board members to nominating committee to make recommendations on Board Officers; C. Additional Business; 5. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; B. July financial summary and balance sheet; C. Additional Business; 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. Continuation of Executive Director Performance Appraisal 10. ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, August 14, 1996 Tonka Bay City Hall · 11 DRAFT ,CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Kent Dahlen, Mirmetonka Beach, Gretchen Maglich, Minnetonka. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; G. Alan Willcutt, Executive Director; Gregory Nybeck, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Paul Stark, Excelsior. Orono has no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no chair announcements. READING OF THE MINUTES Reese moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the July 10, 1996 Regular Board meeting as amended: Babcock noted on Page 7, third paragraph, sentence should end with "docks and land" and next sentence should read "spirit of the ordinances". Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS Fred Bame. owner of Excelsior Park Restaurant.~ expressed concern with actions of LMCD with regards to the storage of eight hydro-bikes, the illegal storage of the Blueline of Excelsior charter boat, and the possibility of a glass-bottom charter boat being stored at either the Tavern or Pavilion property in the near future. He noted he would like feedback from the Board on how to make these changes so he can have his business succeed. Leo Meloche. Minnesota Tran _sportation Museum, spoke in support of Fred Bame. He encouraged the Board to allow the Barnes to park the Blueline of Excelsior where it.currently exists for the remainder of the Summer. ...: Babcock stated this could be addressed under new business on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Zwak moved, Reese seconded to approve thc consent agenda items identified by an "*' on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (Approved agenda items include: Item 2A, Minutes of the 8/9/96 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting; Item 3A, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; Item 4B, Staff recommendations on deposit refunds as outlined in 816/96 memo). Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendment, 3" reading of a transitory ordinance amending LMCD Code 2.12, Subd. 2 relating to non-conforming storage boats and facilities on . ~ Lake Minnetonka, additional consideration of draft amendment as provided by LMCD Counsel. LeFevere clarified the agenda noting the 3~ remting of the ordinance amendment is on the original draft and not the transitory amendment. He added he drafl~ the code amendment as a transitory amendment rather than the standard code amendment. He noted the difference is that a transitory ordinance will not clutter the code book since it would not be codified. He concluded that Board approval of the transitory ordinance would require a majority vote of the total Board of seven votes. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to approve the 1a reading of the transitory as prepared by LMCD attorney. VOTE: MOTION: Ayes 0); Nayes (7, Moiler, Partyka, Reese, Babcock, Maglich, Rascop and Zwak); Motion denied. Partyka moved, Reese seconded to approve 3"~ reading and adoption of the ordinance amending LMCD Code 2.12, Subd. 2. VOTE: Ayes (7); Nayes (3, Foster, Dahlen, Markus); Motion carried. B. Excelsior Park Pavilion, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock and special density license applications. MOTION: Partyka moved, Reese seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock and special density license applications for the Excelsior Park Pavilion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimo~y. C. Robert and Kathy Gill,m, discussion on public hearing for variance from LMCD side setback requirements and adjusted dock use areas. Babcock stated he would prefer to keep the Gillum variance application and the City of Minnetonka Beach dock issues separate on the agenda. He added whether a variance is granted by the Board to the Gillums, issues with Boat Storage Units (BSU's) and dock configuration still exist on the adjacent firelane with Minnetonka Beach. He concluded he felt the discussion should focus on how the dock use areas would be adjusted by the variance request. Partyka stated he believed the two situations are interrelated. He discussed how the acute angle projects the city docks in .front of the Gillum property and how this could be alleviated by changing the angle of the extended lot lines from the 929.4. Zwak stated they are only interrelated because of past expectations on what people own and what existed in the past with regards to property lines. He noted since the current lines are established and the fact the Gillums have sufficient dock use area to place a dock in without a variance, he believed this is a matter the LMCD should not be dealing with. He sympathized with the Gillums and encouraged the interested parties to resolve this on their own. Babcock stated he believed the Board could take some action to resolve the issue tonight since the extended lot lines are established. He added the major change before the Board is how the angle of the extended lot lines have changed with the established lot lines. He noted the property most affected has been the Gillums. He concluded it may be reasonable to compromise existing lot line extensions from the requested perpendicular lot line extensions. LeFevere stated the legal question to be answered is whether there is a legitimate hardship for approval of the variance. He noted the applicant has stated they do not mind the current location of the dock, however, they have concerns with the aesthetics of the docks. He noted the Board has not done this in the past and questioned whether it is legally defensible. Babcock stated if the applicant had less lake frontage, such as 50', it may be easier for the Board to grant this variance request because of converging lot lines. Gillum clarified he never expressed concerns with the aesthetics of the docks and noted privacy is his major concern. He concluded he felt he was encouraged to apply for the variance by the LMCD. LeFevere noted a variance has never been granted for the purpose of privacy as well as aesthetics. Babcock stated he is not convinced the Gillum dock use area is not infringed upon by extending the lot lines into the lake. He stated he believed there may be a more reasonable location for the city docks on the adjacent fire lane. .~ .Robert Mitchell, attorney for Minnet0nka Beach noted the city was surprised with the surveyed lot lines. He noted it is not the city's position to extend the docks in front of either the Gillum or Goodman properties. He stated Minnetonka Beach believes the least impact on all parties would be to place the docks in the way they have been done historically. Zwak stated he believed there is a situation which has occurred for several years. He discussed the need for neighbors to work together, and stated the Board's hands are tied. He stated he did not see a basis for granting the variance because of the lack of a hardship. Jerry_ Arne. Minnetonlc~ Be~¢h rcsiden~ stated he believed it would be difficult for Mr. Goodman to see the fire lane docks from his property. He suggested the municipal docks be placed as they have been historically Nybeck noted site of the municipal docks will be addressed once Minnetonka Beach complies, with LMCD Code. He added currently the dock width of the existing structure is 54' 6". He noted the maximum width of dock structure when in compliance with LMCD Code would be 40'. Foster noted over the years, the size of the boats in this area have increased, however, the size of the dock use area has remained the same. Jim Gilbert noted Mr. Goodman's docks are in full compliance with LMCD Code. He noted health, safety and density are the main issues with regards to the City docks. He added LMCD will make it generally impossible to store four boats legally on this fire lane. Arne expressed concern in that what has been correct for the past fifty years will suddenly be perceived illegal. He added concern with how this will affect Minnetonka Beach residents that have enjoyed this for a long time. Maglich stated she felt the Board is overcomplicating the issues. She noted it appears a hardship does not exist just because it has been done that way for thirty years. She added the main issues are the size and location of the city docks and encouraged them to come into conformance with LMCD Code. Babcock stated the city docks will need to come into conformance with LMCD Code whether or not the Gillum variance is granted. MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact for denial of the Gillum variance application. VOTE: Ayes (7); Nays (3, Dahlen, Reese and Babcock); Motion carried. City of ]Minnetonka Beach, continued discussion on municipal dock situation on Huntington Point fire lane, follow-up on 6/26/96 and 7/10/96 Board meetings. Babcock noted this is continued discussion from the previous two Board meetings. He encouraged representatives from Minnetonka Beach to consider dock configurations within the existing dock use area. Mitchell noted four site plans were submitted. He explained the first two are site plans of dock configurations in 1995 and 1996. He added the second two are proposals with the first one utilizing the existing dock use area and the second one adjusting the dock use area. He noted both proposals would extend out beyond what the Code allows for length. He outlined the specifics of both plans in detail as outlined in the 8/9/96 staff memo. He noted the fundamental issue of number of docks in the fire lane has not been agreed upon between Mr. Goodman and the City of Minnetonka Beach. He presented water depths in conjunction with the proposed slips as requested by LMCD staff. He encouraged the Board to consider the dock as presented in the first proposal with a dock length variance. Babcock noted docks this case can extend beyond 60' to reach navigable waters of 48". He noted intent of the Code does not allow lengths beyond 60' for water depths so all of the slips have 48" of water depth. Mitchell noted the photo of 1985 indicates four boats were present at this site and there has been no substantial increase in size. Babcock noted that the issue is the dock configuration in 1977 because the license is non-conforming and the Code does not provide expansion for such structures. LeFeveTM stated there are very serious issues with the grandfathered use because the historical facts are yet known to the LMCD. He noted if these historical facts were available, questions relating to side setbacks, lengths, density, and sizes of boats could be answered more easily. He stated all issues could be resolved through the variance application process. He concluded no further discussion is necessary if Minnetonka Beach is going to apply for one or more variances. Babcock stated it would be difficult to assist Minnetonka Beach in describing what variances would need to be applied until a dock configuration site plan is provided. Mitchell noted if the Board would like to approve the first proposal, the City of Minnetonka Beach will comply with this. He added if the Board has questions regarding this and would like the proper application, the city is looking for direction on what applications need to be applied for. Foster questioned whether boat size has increased over the years after looking at a 1985 photo of the fire lane. LeFevere stated the records are clear that back licensing was done to 1977 from 1984 for density purposes. He noted the records do not document properly whether boat sizes increased from 1977 to 1985. Maglich suggested that the Board direct the City to design their own dock configuration and submit to staff. If variances are required, they can discuss these with staff prior to consideration by the Board. Babcock noted if the City of Minnetonka Beach wants the Board to consider the first proposal, they need to fill out the proper applications and remm them to staff. He noted conversations have been ongoing with Minnetonka Beach for many months. Dr. Gillum stated the dock proposed is just a different configuration and will pose similar privacy problems to his property. Gilbert stated his client would object to the proposed dock. He stated the grandfathered status does not exist because of the dock changes from 1995 to 1996. He added a hardship does not exist to grant a variance. He stated his client is willing to compromise with Minnetonka Beach and will consent to two docks at this location to resolve this. Paul Pedersen, LMMDOA, responded to a letter written by them. He noted the main concern of this organization is how the Board responds to the intensification of the use of this property over the years and the reconfigurafion from year to year of a non- conforming structure. He noted it is important to enforce the Code consistently to all multiple docks on Lake Minnetonka. Babcock stated the City should be required to come into conformance just as the Gillums were required. He recommended the Board not make concessions to Minnetonka Beach similar to not making concessions to the Gillums Gabriel Jabbour expressed concern in how Mr. Goodman is being treated and how he is being welcomed in..:the community. He noted Mr. Goodman is only asking for fights that a riparian owner has. MOTION: Reese moved, Markus seconded to a~ept the compromise of two docks on this fire lane as presented by Gilbert. Reese stated he would like to note this will not be a precedent-setting in any way. Babcock stated he would prefer to see a motion requiring the city to install a dock in 1997 in compliance with Code. Mik~ Bloom, Minnctonk~ Beach trustee stated density has never been an issue before the Board. He noted the records clearly indicate four boats are allowed at this site. Foster stated he would have a problem with changing the density at this time. He stated he preferred another motion to require the City to come into compliance for the 1997 boating season. Dahlen concurred density is not the issue. He stated he felt bringing the dock into compliance in 1997 would be more appropriate. Jim Gash, Minnetonka Beach resident and ~rmit holder asked the Board to consider working with the four permit holders to work with them on a dock configuration that complies with LMCD. He noted they did not have a clear direction on width, length, and setback issue when they designed the docks in 1996. Gilbert asked if the City is not willing to accept the compromise of two boats, he encouraged the Board to enforce the ordinance immediately He noted that is the LMCD's legal obligation. VOTE: Ayes (4); Nayes (6, Foster, Zwak, Maglich, Dahlen, Babock, Mollet); Motion carded. MOTION: Zwak moved, Dahlen' seconded to require Minnetonka Beach to construct a dock conforming to LMCD Code with 4 BSU's on the Huntington Point West fire lane, to submit a dock configuration plan by 1/1/96 outlining this, and to allow the existing configuration to exist for the remainder of the 1996 boating season. LeFevere noted it is possible the definition of a conforming dock may be different between the LMCD and city. Mitchell noted the conditions of the LMCD Code are 5' setbacks for boats and a dock length of 60'. E® Mollet stated he believed this is a logical compromise due to the lack of historical information. VOTE: Ayes (8); Nays (2, Reese and Markus); Motion carried. Additional Business There was no additional business. EWMIEXOTiCS TASK FORCE B. Update on 1996 EWM Harvesting Program from project manager Norm Paurus. Norm Paurus reported the 1996 EWM Harvesting Program was successful in all aspects. He reported that: * 500 acres, 250 harvester loads, and 98 truckloads were * Equipment performance was excellent due to the performance of Marsh Gabriel. * No cutting was done on Diamond Reef because of weather conditions. * No personnel problems. * Reported positive phone calls with regards to the operation. * Budget is in good shape. C. 818196 Meeting Report Willcutt reported the following on the 818196 meeting. * John Batten reported heavy milfoil growth this summer on Lake Auburn and Independence. * Jay Randall, DNR, reported on National Ballast Program and exotics. * Report 3 new lakes with infestation of milfoil. * Ray Newman, U of M, reported on weevils and their success rate. Bloom thanked the LMCD for the generous use of the high pressure washer and use of Jeremy Arthur to spray the sailboats for the roiling regatta. D. New EWM Harvester, Board discussion and consideration to authorize Marsh Gabriel trip to inspect potential new harvester. MOTION: VOTE: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to approve the $318.50 travel expense for Marsh Gabriel to evaluate the potential new harvester. Motion carried unanimously. E. Additional Busin_~_s There was no additional business. LAKE USE AND RECREATION A~ Business Fos~ stated he has ~ invited to the St. Croix Stakeholders to speak about the laR Minneton experience. NEW BUSINESS Fred Bame restated his previously stated concerns as outlined. They were: 1) the hydro- bikes; 2) the storage of the Blueline of Excelsior Park; and 3) the glass-bottom charter boat. Babcock explained when a license is issued, the apglicant is granted the use of public space as defined by the Minnesota Constitution. He added when the use changes, the applicant needs to be reapproved prior to making that change. He stated this is required of all applicants and is done consistently throughout the lake. He encouraged Mr. Dame to plan their business for the next year and make one new application if necessary. Bame discussed his concerns about not being able to plan his business one year in advance. He noted you need to move when the opportunity arises, citing the glass-bottom charter boat as an example. Ny'oeck addressed the three concerns expressed by Mr. Dame. He stated with regards to the glass-bottom charter boat, the conditions on securing approval were explained, and an application was sent out. He expressed concern that the boat be parked in a designated overnight slip and that this be cleared with the City of Excelsior. With regards to hydro- bikes, he noted they are legal as long as they are strictly stored on land noting they do not qualify as a restricted watererS. He noted the main trouble is where the Blueline of Excelsior Park is being stored. He noted the Barnes moved the charter boat which is being stored in now an illegal location even though they were told not to store it there. He conclud~xl s~f ha~ ar. eiv~d a new multiple dock, a variance, and special density lic~nse~ to park the charter boat where it currently exists. Ms. Bane stated they are aware that the Blueline of Excelsior Park is being stored in an unauthorized location currently. She added applications have been made to store the boat in this location and asked for the Board's approval to park the charter boat in this location. Babctx:k stated the Code does not currently allow two abutting commemial docks to waive side setbacks. He noted the Code does allow for a municipal and multiple dock to waive shared side setback. LeFevere noted the Bames could apply for one multiple dock rather than two separate multiple docks. Foster suggested the Barnes be allowed to park the Blueline of Excelsior Park while the pending applications are processed. The Board concurred. ADMINISTRATION A. Stm't' update o~ office lease renewal. Willcutt noted Dablea, Partyka aad himself had curt'ratty done some office space. He noted October 31 is when the current lease expires at thc current Dahlen reviewed the propo~ draft layout at the Freshwat~ Institute. He reviewed the ~ improvements and noted that leasehold improvements would cost approximately $23,506. He noted these are draft estimates and mom a description of the work. Ce FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment. B. June f'mancial summary and balance sheet. Ra~x~p reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment year-to ~te. MOTION: Zwak moved, Foster seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment. Ce VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Willcutt noted some investments are coming due soon, and the investment committee should reconvene to discuss options. Additional Business There was no additional business. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Willcutt reported on the following: Aerial Boat Count Survey: A copy of the up-to4ate survey being conducted by Schoell and Madsen was circulated. He noted a vefi~al report will be reported in September with a final report in December. Shoreline Boat Count Survey: He circulat~i a copy of the recently conducted report done by Clear Air, Inc. Purchase Order System: He noted it is in place and has been utilized. P~lbli¢ Relations Intern: He noted that Laura Smith has completed her summer internship very successfully. The Board discussed the need to get a web page established. MOTION: Reese moved, Rascop seconded to authorize up to $400 to get a web page established. VOTE: Ayes (7), Nays (2, Babcock, Partyka); Motion carried. Rip Rap_ M~intenance Lom__60ns; tie noted rlmnepin County has plans to do some rip-rap September 11 meefng: Fie noted the meeting space will not be available on 9/11/96. e 11 10. Gabriel Jabbour reported on three issues. They were: 1) the DNR access on Maxwell is moving forward, 2) noted Water Patrol will be temporarily moving to Tonka Bay Marina while the new building is being built, and 3) expressed concern with public compliance with zebra mussel program. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Performance evaluation of Executive Director Babcock recommended the Board conduct this in closed session. LeFevere noted state law allows the Board to discuss this evaluation in closed session. He added the presiding officer at the next open meeting provide a summary of the conclusions. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to conduct a closed session to evaluate the performance of A1 Willcutt. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Babcock adjourned the meeting at 11:20 Douglas Babcock, Chair Joseph Zwak, Secretary £( PETITION FOR LOCAL INPROVE,~ENT MOUND, MINNESOTA ,_~, day of ~, ~_~ TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: We, the undersigned~ owners o¢ not less tharL35 percenL of the rea! property described as ,_~ ~ ~ ~\~O(~ ~_~ O ~,kkU -~ Il PID Nos: and abutting on hereby petition that improvements be made by the construction of pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Description of Property 50/ " ', 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 19. Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. City Clerk NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of , Minnesota as follows: 1. The city of ~0~ will become an associate member of the SRA in accordance with the terms of the SRA offer of August 9, 1996. The Manager and are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the documents and certificates necessary to effect associate membership in the SRA. 2. The manager/administrator is authorized and directed to contact the SRA regarding the City's decision to become an associate member as offered and to obtain the details of associate membership. 3. is designated as the city's first director on the Board of Directors of the Suburban Rate Authority and is designated as the alternate. 4. The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certified copy of resolution for filing and mailing to the Suburban Rate this Authority. Passed and adopted this day of , 1996. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk JMS108341 SU160-3 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION S -:ZT ct ° AUGUST 26, 1996 UPDATE ON VARIi~NCE REQUEST TO IMPROVE KILDARE ROAD, AND . . . PROPOSED ORDINANCE ~j~RNDMENT R~n~TING TO T~E DIVISION OF TAX COMBINED PARCELS: SECTION 330:12, WAIVER OF PLATTING (Note: these items were discussed simultaneously.) Building official, Jon Sutherland, gave a verbal update on what has transpired since the last Planning Commission meeting relating to Case 96-46, variance for Kildare Road Improvement. The Planning Commission tabled the variance request until they receive clarification regarding the lot of record status and subdivision issues which were outlined at the meeting. Sutherland noted that the City Planner, Mark Koegler, wrote a letter to the City Attorney outlining the Planning Commission's concerns, and the attorney's response was a proposed amendment to the subdivision ordinance. It is the attorney's opinion that the City needs to have a process which more clearly spells out a procedure for authorizing a separation of a tax combined parcel. Mueller confirmed that the Kildare Road case will be back on the Planning Commission agenda of September 9th. Mueller stated that he would like the Planning Commission to be able to review the City Planner's letter which was written to the attorney outlining their concerns and issues on this case. Sutherland noted that there were two previous cases which were similar that involved the separating of tax parcels, and they were handled administratively rather than being sent through the whole subdivision process (specifically the Bristol case and the Pieper case). It was determined a separation of tax parcels could be handled administratively, as long as they were consistent with the zoning code, and no variances were required. Mueller commented that without knowing this case history, they are handicapped in understanding where this proposed ordinance amendment comes from. Sutherland commented that the Attorney agrees with the Planning Commission's concerns, and the Kildare Road case has more complexities than a simple variance case. It may be that a PDA is not required, however, the issues are more extensive than a variance. He noted that Koegler has not had the opportunity to review the proposed ordinance amendment. Hanus commented that they have used the combination of lots as a common tool to help shape or mold projects, and is concerned that there is nothing that prohibits people from separating their parcels again in the future. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 Sutherland noted that the Attorney now has more information to review than what was originally available. Weiland stated that he is apprehensive about making an addition to the code just to allow something else to happen. He also feels that the verbiage in the proposed ordinance is too loose, specifically the last paragraph where it states that the Council can refer the request back to the Planning Commission. He is concerned that if the Council does not like the proposal, they will send it to the Planning Commission, and then it will go back to the City Council, until it gets rolled around enough that they will not be able to deny it. Sutherland noted, based on the applicant's initial information, they could have installed the road and then had driveways run up the hill to each house. It was staff's opinion that the lots were buildable and that they could get building permits if they had road frontage, then the plan changed to include a private driveway which created variances. The idea for a private driveway probably was a result of Fine Line Design addressing concerns of staff. Mueller asked what prevents them from withdrawing their variance request, putting the road in, and building houses? Sutherland commented that this may be possible. Hanus asked if the proposed ordinance amendment was specially written to get the City out of a bind, or is it something the City needs long-term? And what is the benefit to the applicant to adopting this ordinance? Weiland asked, what about park dedication fees, sewer and water, easements, etc? He feels these issues need to be addressed. Hanus noted that the ordinance does address assessments. Mueller recalled a minor subdivision on Avon Drive which required the payment of park dedication fees. Mueller handed out a memorandum he wrote to the Planning Commission, Council, Mayor and Staff regarding the Fine Line Design Group, Inc. Road/Development/Variance Request. Mueller summarized that it is his opinion that this development should be a subdivision or a PDA. He apologized for not having the subdivision ordinance available for review when he wrote this memo. Mueller highlighted Section 350:460, Planned Development Areas (PDA), Subd. 1, and noted that this project has topographic conditions, an unusual location, and other natural resources requiring unique and controlled platting techniques, and therefore feels a PDA is warranted. Mueller noted that there is a time limit on reviewing variance applications, and asked, if the City received the incorrect application, is the time limit still in effect? DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 Mueller feels this project may be an asset to our community, and agrees that the city needs something in the ordinance that clarifies when something is a subdivision, a separation, or a PDA. However, an ordinance amendment "should not be approved in such an arbitrary and capricious manner (on a whim, with a whim), in order for it to get through in a less time consuming or complicated procedure.I' Mueller stated that he has submitted this memorandum as an individual, and moved that this memorandum become part of the minutes. Motion seconded by Hanus. Carried unanimously. (The memorandum is attached to these minutes as Exhibit A.) Sutherland clarified that there is a time limit by which the City must process the zoning request. This application has been tabled, and as long as it is on the table, the time stops. He will be sending a letter to the applicant following the city Council meeting. Hanus clarified with the Building Official, that in order to qualify for a waiver, as outlined in the proposed ordinance amendment, the proposal needs to be conforming, and the separation must occur on the original lot lines. Hanus asked if this waiver will help the Kildare Road project because those lots have a nonconforming width. Sutherland stated that this amendment was written as a result of this project, and the Attorney has recognized the ordinance needs to be modified to provide for a waiver for certain conditions. Hanus noted that the proposed ordinance states, "The review by staff shall be conducted to determine if . . (it) is consistent with City planning and zoning standards and o~jectives." Hanus ask if this means "conforming?" If it doesn't, then it should say that. He feels that the way it is written is too subjective and feels the proposed ordinance is not well written. Hanus also thinks the proposed ordinance needs the Planner's input. Vice Chair Mueller took a poll and asked the Commissioner's if they feel the Kildare Road proposal should be followed under this waiver. Clapsaddle, Burma and Reifschneider were undecided. Hanus, Weiland, Mueller, Voss and Glister agreed that it should not. Mueller suggested that the ordinance amendment be put on hold at this time. Hanus agreed, as long as it can be done without creating a time problem for the Fine Line Design variance request. It was the consensus of the Commission that they are uncomfortable with the Council approving this ordinance amendment at this time. Weiland stated that it is not being done properly. Hanus stated that he would like the Planner's input and feels the ordinance is not written well and is incomplete. Sutherland noted the Attorney stated the ordinance is a draft that it needs the input of the Planning Commission. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 MOTION by Mueller to inform the City Council that it is the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed ordinance amendment relating to waiver of Platting should be put on hold so it may be reviewed by the city Planner and Planning Commission, and also possibly have a public hearing. The Commission would like time to review the impact it may have on the City and feels the ordinance amen4ment is missing features that should be included that they have not had the opportunity to address yet. Motion carried unanimously. II ,I Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 EXHIBIT 'A' page I of 3 ROAD EVELOPMENT/VARIANCE REQUEST TO: Mound Advisory Planning Commission Mound City Council & Mayor Mound City Staff On August 12, 1996, the Planning Commission received a packet for a variance request for a Road Improvement project on Kildare Road. The City Planner's concise report spoke of a development that needed approval of lot variances (hardcover) and road variances for Kildare Road extension not meeting the criteria for City Road Standards. City Staff, Council and the developer(s) have worked long and hard in trying to resolve the roadway issues in order to provide access to a couple of parcels of land owned by two different parties in the same new development on Lake Mirmetonka. It appears as though what started off as a concern for public road access mined into a development request and somehow is being treated differently than other projects developed throughout the city over the past 10 years. First, it is unclear as to why the request was not treated as a subdivision under Mound City Code 350:310, Subd. 134 - Definitions: "Subdivision: A subdivision is the dividing of any parcel of land into two or more parcels." Not having the subdivision code available m this time, it is difficult to know why this is not being treated as a major subdivision. Some of the provisions for being included as a major subdivision include the extension and/or placement of new utility services, not having access to an improved public right-of-way and the creation of a private access drive serving more than one parcel. Second, if not a major subdivision, it is unclear why the project is not being treated as a Planned Development Area (PDA). Section 350:460 Planned Develot)ment_ Areas (PDA): Subd. 1. "Purpose The purpose of this section of the zoning code is to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, ... Planning Commission Minutes EXHIBIT 'A' August 26, 1996 page 2 of 3 or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relation to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires more unique and controlled platting techniques to protect and promote the quality of life in the City." This project has topographic conditions, an unusual location, and other natural resources requiring unique and controlled platting techniques (e.g., the creation of a private road to deal with topo~aphic and drainage concerns, and a road standard variance - 15% slope - narrowness, etc.). One of the PDA criteria is that the parcels in the project constitute not less than 2 acres. This project has over two acres. If the project were treated as either of the two above (as past developments have been treated), the cost would be higher and the time frame extended for the developer, however those citizens most affected (within 350' of the project) would be formally informed via the public heating process. No~v the City Attorney, in response to the concerns of the Planning Commission, has stated in a letter to Jon Sutherland dated August 19th, 1996 that the City needs to amend its subdivision ordinance rather than follow a previously established procedure.. The letter states that the process would be shortened by allowing a waiver thereby not requiting public heatings or referral to the Planning Commission unless the Staff or Council feels it is necessary to do so. While it may very well be necessary to have a waiver amendment, it is unclear why the Council would consider such an amendment without looking at the long-term impact of such with respect to the number of parcels within the City this would affect, i.e., does it meet the City's long term plmming and zoning goals, m~d is it beneficial to more than one or two parties. Typically an amendment to the zoning code or subdivision code has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and these questions are brought forward. The letter further states that the use of the waiver should be allowed only when: The division can only be approved using original subdivided lot lines. If the division is requested on any property that goes beyond the old lot lines, it should be considered a replat or new division... A detailed review ... by staff to determine that it creates a site or parcel of record which can be developed without the need for variances... I ! , ~ It I ,~,~. Planning Commission Minutes EXHIBIT 'A' August 26, 1996 page 3 of 3 The request before the Planning Commission does not meet either of the above criteria as the lots of record will be utilizing other land than their own to provide access to the water/docks. (See pages 66 & 68 of the Planning Commission packet for the August 12th meeting.) It is clearly shown both on the City plat and the survey provided that the lot lines are exceeded to the north into the Longford Road platted right-of-way before the 929.4 contour line, and actually exceeds the road to the north of Lot 15. The wording of the proposed amendment is difficult to understand and interpret and needs review by the Planning Commission as it has been their function to draw out these concerns and not unduly burden the Council with these discussions. In a nutshell, this project started as a public improvement project with concerns about topo~aphy, storm water management and access. It has turned into a PDA or at least a major subdivision. Citizens directly impacted need to be heard through a public hearing process on this project as their input and insight is often incorporated into development/requirements and these are our constituents as well. The project may be a huge asset to the City as presented, however, it should not be approved in such an arbitrary and capricious manner by changing the subdivision code (without review by the Planning Commission) in order for it to get through in a less time consuming or complicated procedure (without a public heahng.) As a Planning Commissioner since Steve Smith was mayor, I have never seen our city government not try to deal with everyone in a consistent manner. This is ne~' and it is not good government at work. My dad once said if it doesn't feel right in your gut, it probably isn't. The way this project is now being handled, it probably isn't. Sincerely, /~ ~/7'/ Michael Mueller Mound Advisory Planning Commissioner Attorneys at Law ROBERT A. ALSOP BRUCE M. BATTERSON RONALD H. BATTY STEPHEN J. BL~L'L JOHN B. DEAN DANIEL J. GREEN~VEIG DAVID J. KENNEDY CHARLF_~ L. LEFEVERE JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT C. LONG JAMES M. STROMMEN CORRINE H. THOMSON KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-93OO Facsimile (612) 337-9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL 337-9221 August 19, 1996 JAMES J. THOMSON LARRY M. WERTHEIM BONNm L WmrdNS JOE Y. YANG DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929-1991) OF COUNSEL ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT L. DAV1DSON WELLINGTON H. LAW FLOYD B. OL~ON CURTIS A. PEARSON T. JAY SALMEN Mr. Jon Sutherland Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 RE: Section 330:12 Dear Jon: I am in receipt of a letter from Mark Koegler under date of August 15, 1996, raising questions concerning Fine Line Design on Kildare Road. It is my understanding that currently 12 lots have been combined into one tax parcel. It is my further understanding that the developer now wishes to create six building sites by dividing the tax combined parcels along original lot lines with two lots comprising one building site. There is reference to prior cases; i.e., a Mr. Bristol wherein you made an administrative review and approved a division of the tax parcels. ~-.,-,-,'", .... ",-"",,",,,s "" al! cf. -*,,he '~-+~":~'~,,,,,,,,,.,..~ hhat were sent, it appears to me that v,'e need to have a process which more clearly spells out a procedure for authorizing a separation of a tax combined parcel. I have drafted an ordinance that could be considered by you, the planner, and/or the Planning Commission to see if this might clear up the method by which this type of proceeding is processed. As I have indicated to you on the phone, it is extremely important that before the division of tax combined parcels is approved, there be a standard established with at least the following included: ao The division can only be approved using original subdivided lot lines. If division is requested on any property that goes beyond the old lot lines, it should be considered a replat or new division and should go through the entire process. CAPI08971 MU200-1 Mr. Jon Sutherland August 19, 1996 Page 2 bo A detailed review should be made by staff to determine that it creates a site or parcel of record which can be developed without the need for variances and which is consistent with the City's long term planning and zoning goals. The process is shortened by not requiring public hearings or referral to the Planning Commission unless it appears in the best interests of the City or unless your department determines you should request the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission. This draft ordinance would then allow a waiving of the platting requirements to be granted by the City Council without public heating and further complicated and time consuming procedures. It is unfortunate that we do not have a current process which allows for a waiver, but at some time in the past when the subdivision ordinance was redone the waiver of platting provision was removed. It appears from prior cases that people combined their parcels to argue against paying two water assessments or sewer assessments, etc., and then when it is in their best interests to divide the property and create new tax parcels, they expect to do so without City approval. If this is allowed and we do not have any formal process in place, it will then be difficult for the staff to get additional contributions for the sewer and water improvements or for various other things, and we want to be sure that there are conditions imposed by the Council in allowing the waiver which protects the City from this kind of occurrence. Since this is a proposed amendment to the subdivision ordinance, it does not need to go through the heating process and could be adopted as early as August 26, 1996. I am sending a copy of this to Mark Koegler, but I understand he is currently on vacation. Jon, if you have any comments, suggestions, or recommended changes, please advise and we can discuss in more detail. Si~erely, //~ City Attorney CAP:lh Enclosure cc: Mr. Mark Koegler CAP108971 MU200-1 ! I I ,a, ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINAi~CE ADDING SECTION 330:12 TO THE CITY SUBDIVISION cODE ALLOWING FOR A WAIVER OF PLATTING The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 330:12 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 330:12. Waiver of Plattinq. Any parcel of land, either platted or unplatted, that has been combined for tax purposes oz for other reasons, cannot be reseparated or divided without approved subdivision or a waiver of the plattinq requirements ol this Code. The City has many old subdivisions with small platted lots which standinq alone do not meet current zoninq requirements. Many ol these lots have been combined for tax purposes and for variou:; other reasons, i.e., to create a buildinq site, to indicate desire to combine to avoid or reduce special assessments foz improvements, etc. A waiver of the plattinq requirement may be qranted by the City Council after receipt of backqround information provided by Cit~ staff. A request for a waiver of the plattinq requirements shall be siqned by the property owner on forms prepared for and approved by the City Council. This request or application for a waivez shall be referred to City staff for review. The review by staf~ shall be conducted to determine if the division or release of th~% tax combination and the creatinq of new Property Identificatio~ parcels for tax and buildinq purposes is consistent with City planninq and zoninq standards and objectives. The staff shall prepare written findinqs and recommendations for the Council'~ consideration. The waiver of plattinq and the release of the tax combination may be approved if it is determined to be in the bes~. interest of reachinq the qoals of the City planninq and zoning{ requirements. The Council may impose conditions to the waiver and shall require the payment of any deferred or forqiven special assessments which have been avoided by a tax combination= · · · ~ The waiver may be qranted without public hearinqs or referral to the Planninq Commission. Nothinq herein shall preclude the staff or Council from referrinq the matter to the Plannin~ Commission if it is determined that their advise will be helpful determininq if the decision meets the City's planninq and zoninq objectives. Adopted by the Mound City Council , 1996. Attest: Mayor City Clerk CAP108966 MU200-1