The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-09-24 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE *~ONSENT AGENDA ~A) APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING .................................. 3097-3103 APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ............................ 3104-3107 C. CASE//9647: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION., ~'(49 _~'~/ JAMES SUHON, 6219 WESTWOOD CIRCLE, PART OF LOT 8, 3108-3123 BLOCK 2, WESTWOOD, PID 23-117-24 23 0019 ........................ D. CASE//9648: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.., ~;{6.~ .4~ CLIFFORD & SHIRLEY LARSON, 4570 DORCHESTER ROAD, LOTS 14-17 BLOCK 12, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 31 0114 .......................... 3124-3135 E. d/¢ ~ CASE 96-49: VARIANCE FOR FENCE MATERIAL, SANDRA SAVAGE & DENNIS STEARNS, 2116 NOBLE LANE, M&B, PART OF BLOCK 1, A.L. ADDN TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 31 0001 .................. 3136-3146 / F. ]~?CASE g96-50: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGe, ALAN & KATHRYN '~q~ -~ LEACH, 2645 SHANNON LANE, LOST 1-3 & 8-10, BLOCK 22, 3147-3160 SETON, PID 19-117-23 23 0134 ................................... G. CASE g96-51: VARIANCE FOR COVERED PATIO~ DAVID & E~y--~ JACKIE GREENSLIT, 5046 BAYPORT ROAD, LOT 14, BLOCK 2, JOHN. S. CARLSON ADDITION, PID//13-117-24 43 0033 .................. 3161-3171 H. _CASE/196-53: MINOR SUBDIVISION~ DAVID THURK, ~ ~ '~ 1749 SUMACH LANE, DEAN HUNTER - 1755 SUMACH LANE & JOEL & SANDRA LASKEY, 1761 SUMACH LANE, LOTS 13, 14, 15 BLOCK 15, PID'S 13-117-24 14 0046/0047/0039 ......................... 3172-3188 3094 ll Mound City Council Agenda - Pg 3. September 24, 1996 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMIT BY BEVERLY VANLAANEN TO ALLOW FOR AN INVISIBLE FENCE TO BE LOCATED ON ADJACENT ALLEY ADJACENT TO 2137 ASHLAND LANE, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 7, AL. ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK ..................................... 3267-3277 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMIT BY FRANK & ANDREA AHRENS TO INSTALL UNDERGROUND PIPE ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED ADJACENT TO 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOST 17 & SE 1/2 OF 18, ................................................ 3278-3283 BLOCK 1, DEVON. 8.,.~CITY ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO [:~ SHERWOOD DRIVE .............................................. Booklet Insert 9. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. AUGUST 1996 FINANCIAL REPORT AS pREPARED BY 3284-3285 GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ............................. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 9-9-96 ........................ 3286-3297 C. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES 3298-3318 OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 ....................................... D. LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA CLERKS AND FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION INFORMING LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK, THAT SHE HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION AS A 'MINNESOTA CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK.' ....................................... 3319 CONGRATULATIONS, LINDA! E. MEMO FROM JOANNE PORTER, SPRING PARK RE: CROSSWALK ON COUNTY ROAD 15 NEAR HOUSE OF MOY .................. 3320 F. REMINDER: LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGIONAL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996, AT THE NEW WATERTOWN CITY HALL. THERE IS AN AFTERNOON PROGRAM BEGINNING AT 2 PM, SOCIAL HOUR BEGINS AT 5 PM., FOLLOWED BY A DINNER AT 6 PM. PLEASE LET LINDA KNOW IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS EVENT IS ALSO THE SAME DAY AS THE SCHEDULED WORKSHOP WITH THE MCWD RELATED TO THE LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. YOU COULD ATTEND THE AFTERNOON SESSION BUT WOULD HAVE TO MISS THE EVENING DINNER AND PROGRAM. THERE ARE OTHER REGIONAL MEETINGS SCHEDULED AROUND THE STATE BUT THE CLOSEST IS WATERTOWN. 3O96 J! Mound City Council Agenda - Pg. 2 September 24, 1996 SET SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A WORKSHOP ON THE LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (WORKSHOP WILL BE ATTENDED BY CITY COUNCIL, MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS, EDC, CONSULTANTS, CITY STAFF AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS. SUGGESTED DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996, 7'.30 PM. SET CANVASSING OF CITY OF MOUND MUNICIPAL ELECTION SUGGESTED DATE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996, 7'.30 PM .............. 3189 SET BID OPENING FOR SNOW REMOVAL FROM PARKING LOTS IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) FOR 1996-97 SNOW SEASON. ............................... 3190 SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1996. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3191 SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1996 .............................. 3192-3202 PAYMENT OF BILLS .......................................... 2. (~vCASE #96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE, RANDY MORIARTY, 4356 DENBIGH ROAD, AND ROBERT BAUMGART~N, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID//19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048. DENIAL RECOMMENDED .d~.Z~ .~"'. ................................... 3203-3238 .,/ PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 6-12, 1996 AS "MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK" IN THE CITY OF MOUND ........................... 3239 4. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH//9 ..................... 3240-3253 Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Arlene Eskedahl 4815 Island View Drive Carrell Kucera 4823 Island View Drive Jerry Marek 4829 Island View Drive Glenn & Amy Hurd 4833 Island View Drive Stephen Hewitt 4849 Island View Drive Mark Goldberg 4853 Island View D~ 41830 .,~.,42406 43020 43080 43120 43180 43235 43420 Mark Smith & Gina Anderson 4665 Robert Eidem & Nicole Blum 4743 Curtis Olson 4801 Michael Kane 4805 5. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION ~L~'u~ FROM STEVE CODDON FOR A STAIRWAY AND PATHWAY ACROSS THE UNIMPROVED R.O.W. OF BLACK LAKE LANE, LONGFORD ROAD, AND PARCELS 23, 29 & 30 IN BLOCK 11, SETON ......................................................... 3254-3266 3095 ! ! t t I I Il WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Independent School District No 277 SPECIAL/STUDY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM IV. COMMUNITY SKATING RINK SITE WHEREAS, the Mound City Council is concerned about committing dollars into site work for the Community Skating Rink upgrade, without a guarantee that the proposed area will be designated for skating for a reasonable number of years. WHEREAS, the Community Skating Rink site will not be sold and no other use is planned. WHEREAS, the Community Skating Rink site is outside the footprint of the new Community Center facility. WHEREAS, the existing 1991-1996 long range Outdoors Facilities Plan designates this area for skating. NOW THEREFORE, the Westonka School Board guarantees the Mound City Council that the Community Skating Rink area be designated skating rink for a minimum of two years provided the City of Mound builds this facility by February 1, 1997. BACKGROUND Peter Meyer continues to work diligently toward collaboration between the City of Mound and the Westonka Schools for the benefit of community access to an additional recreational skating site. The City of Mound is requesting formal School board action supporting the Board's informal support given to Mr. Meyer at the September 14, 1996 board meeting. See attachments. Disk: C. Drive ItemIV MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Attorney Curt Pearson, Finance Director Gino Businaro and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Amy L. Cicchese, Mark Gileczek, Ken Berres, Jim Robin, Peter Marino, John Wagman, Denis and Jeanine Shesterkin. The Mayor opened the meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mayor Polston stated Councilmember Andrea Ahrens would be 15 minutes late. Mayor Polston stated he had received several phone calls regarding the new crosswalk law recently passed. The callers had asked if the Police Department had been enforcing the new law. He stated the Police are enforcing the law. The City Manager, Police Chief and City Council are all supportive of the new law. Also, overtime has been approved by the City Manager to enforce this new law for the protection of the citizens of Mound. 1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 27, 1996 REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Jensen stated she had abstained, along with Councilmember Hanus in the vote regarding the City joining the Suburban Rate Authority. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the August 27, 1996 regular meeting as amended. 1.1 CASE #96-44: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ZERO LOT LINE TWIN HOME, 5514 & 5518 DRUMMOND ROAD, MARK GILECZEK, LOTS 4, 5, 14 & 15, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0025. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the owner has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to divide an existing two family dwelling into two single parcels of record with the party wall acting as the dividing lot line. This may be allowed only by Conditional Use Permit in the R-2 Zoning District, subject to the conditions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance Section 350:630, Subd. 3 & 4. 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. The Planning Commission has recommended unanimous approval. The applicant was present. Councilmember Hanus stated that Park Dedication Fees were not in the resolution and they do not apply in this case. Minutes - Mound City Council September 11, 1996 Mayor Polston opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak either in favor or against this Conditional Use Permit. There was no one. He closed the public hearing. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the recommended resolution: RESOLUTION//96-87 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE TWlNHOMES AT 5214/5218 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOTS 4, 5, 14 & 15, BLOCK 12, WHIPPLE, P&Z CASE//96-44. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 REQUEST FROM MOUND FREE CHURCH TO USE THE DEPOT AT MOUND BAY PARK FOR THE CHURCH'S YOUTH GROUP ON WEDNESDAY EVENINGS BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 18 THROUGH MAY 21, 1997 (EXCLUDING WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 16TH, DUE TO THE DEPOT BEING RESERVED) City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Mound Free Church has requested use of the Depot at Mound Bay Park for Wednesday evenings through May, 1997. He stated another church did similar a few years ago and there were no problems. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens arrived at 7:45 PM. Ken Ben'es, a spokesperson from Mound Free Church spoke with the Council. He stated the need as the church was too small to accommodate the large group of youth. He requested a discount in the normal fee as it would be used long term and the fee would add up. Councilmember Jensen stated that normally there is no charge for non-profit groups. However, would the church be willing to cover the cost of power, heat and trash? Ben'es stated they would leave it cleaner than when they arrived. He also suggested youth volunteer activities in lieu of funds for the use of the Depot. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the use of the Depot at Mound Bay Park for the Mound Free Church for Wednesdays through May 21, 1997, with the exception of October 16, 1996, with no set fee as it is a non-profit organization. A request was made for the church to cover the cost of utilities during their use. 1.3 APPLICATION FOR A DANCE PERMIT AND TEMPORARY BEER PERMIT FOR MOHAWK JAYCEES - ALUMNI DANCE DURING MOUND WESTONKA HIGH SCHOOL HOMECOMING. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Alumni Committee of Mound Westonka High School through the Mohawk Jaycees wants to hold an Alumni Dance, with a band for adults on Saturday, October 5, 1996 Minutes - Mound City Council September 11, 1996 in the parking lot behind the Pond Arena. They have applied for a beer permit also. Jim Robin of the Alumni Committee spoke to the Council. He stated the game is at 3:30 on Saturday and the under age people should be out of the area by then and they do have their own dance at the high school. He has spoken with Police Chief Len Harrell and was informed of the need for one police officer to be there. Robin stated there would probably be three officers/reserves present. He went on to say this is a fund raiser for the Alumni Club and he hopes this is the first of many alumni dances planned. He stated he would like the adult community to visibly show their support for the students and their activities. Councilmember Jensen was pleased that the committee was sensitive about the youth and their being elsewhere during this event. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve the request of the Alumni Committee through the Jaycees to permit a public dance in the parking lot of the Pond Arena and to allow the sale of non-intoxicating beer during the event on Saturday, October 5, 1996 from 8pm - 12 am. Security will be provided by the Mound Police Department. 1.4 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. The Council moved the next item up as an Executive Session was proposed for the following agenda item. 1.5 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) ASSESSMENT AND UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS. SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1996. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to set October 8, 1996 at 7:30 pm for a public hearing to consider the unpaid water and sewer bills Assessment and the Central Business District (CBD) Assessment. 1.6 RESOLUTION APPROVING COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REGARDING AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Council had directed the City Attorney to prepare documentation to commence condemnation proceedings regarding various properties within the Auditor's Road Improvement project and the Lost Lake Improvement project. The reason being that the needed easements have not been acquired through negotiations and the proposed time frame is running out. The Attorney had prepared documents and the need for an Executive Session was warranted to discuss the upcoming Council action. The Council dismissed themselves at approximately 8:15 to Executive 3 Minutes - Mound City Council September 11, 1996 Session. The Council returned from Executive Session at 9:10 pm. City Attorney Curt Pearson discussed the revised resolution he had prepared regarding condemnation proceedings to acquire easements for the Auditor's Road and Lost Lake improvement projects of the following properties: Lindquist property, Carlock property, Johnson property behind Carlock property, the Wagman property and the Post Office property. He went on to say that discussions had been held with all of the owners, however, the only agreement was a verbal one from the owners of the Post Office property. Negotiations will continue and should agreements be reached between the City and owner, that property will be removed from the condemnation proceedings. Mayor Polston asked if anyone present had any questions. There were none. Mayor Polston stressed again that if the owners of these properties wished to negotiate with fruitful outcomes, the condemnation process on their property would cease. Mayor Polston moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following revised resolution: RESOLUTION//96-89 RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS PROPERTY. AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL Councilmember Jensen stated she is not opposed to the entire project. However, she could not vote to condemn the entire Wagman property. She is in support of the project as it is in the best interest for the City, project and the public. She preferred to condemn only the easement needed for the project, not his entire property. Mayor Polston called for a roll call vote. The resolution carried 4-~, Councilmember Jensen voting nay. City Attorney Curt Pearson re-emphasized that the City is willing to negotiate with any and all of these property owners and stop condemnation proceedings if agreements were made. 1.7 PRESENTATION OF 1997 PROPOSED BUDGET AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET. City Manager Ed Shukle stated this is the tenth year he had worked with the staff to prepare the budget. He said the City is required to follow Truth in Taxation, a law passed by the State Legislature. The enclosed budget is a preliminary budget which includes a proposed levy and needs to be approved by September 15, 1996. The Council also needs to set two public heating dates and report those dates also by September 15, 1996. The calendar was difficult as several dates were already taken by other governmental entities. The dates of Wednesday, December 4th and Wednesday, December 1 lth have 4 Minutes - Mound City Council September 11, 1996 been selected as public hearing dates. The final budget must be certified by December 28, 1996. Shukle then briefly reviewed the 1997 Proposed Budget with the Council. He thanked the staff for all of the time and effort in preparing this budget. Councilmember Hanus suggested looking into "CMED" a county program for auto fuel. He thought there was a significant cost of fuel discount available through this program. However, he was not aware of how to acquire this program. Shukle said he would look into this. Mayor Polston suggested he would like to see a zero dollar increase in the 1997 Budget. He asked the City Manager and Council to identify and reduce areas in the Budget to a $0 increase for 1997. He wishes to send a message to the legislature to introduce a "property tax reform~ bill as the property tax issue needs to be addressed and the citizens insist upon a change. Councilmember Hanus agreed. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Council needs to adopt the preliminary Budget and set the public hearing dates. Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//96-90 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1997 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,591,760; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $1,895,080 LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $490,975, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,404,105; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1997; AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1997. City Manager Ed Shukle stated this resolution was needed to defray the operation cost of the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound for 1997. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: 5 Minutes - Mound City Council September 11, 1996 RESOLUTION//96-91 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMF~NT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $240,662.31, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR AUGUST, 1996. B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR AUGUST, 1996. C. NOTICE FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES RE: REGIONAL MEETINGS. THE NEAREST ONE TO MOUND IS IN WATERTOWN, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17. THERE IS AN AFTERNOON PROGRAM BEGINNING AT 2 PM. SOCIAL HOUR BEGINS AT 5 PM, FOLLOWED BY DINNER AT 6 PM. IT WILL BE HELD AT THE WATERTOWN CITY HALL. IF INTERESTED IN ATTENDING, LET LINDA KNOW ASAP. D. INVITATION FROM THE CITY OF WATERTOWN TO ATTEND THEIR GRAND OPENING OF THEIR NEW CITY HALL ON SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 14TH, 10 AM - 2 PM. E. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1996. NOTICE FROM MIKE LOOBY, CO-CHAIR, WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE, REGARDING A MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1996, 7:30 AM, WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER, ANTICIPATED SCHOOL BOARD ACTION TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 6 Minutes - Mound City Council September II, 1996 CENTER AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW BUILDING AND POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT IN THE NEW BUILDING BY AREA CITIES AS IT RELATES TO COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS, I.E., SENIOR CENTER, MULTI-PURPOSE GYMNASIUM, ETC. AS IN THE PAST WHERE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITIES ATTENDED, THE TASK FORCE IS ASKING THE MAYOR AND A CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND. SINCE COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN IS A MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE, THE TASK FORCE IS REQUESTING THAT MAYOR POLSTON ATTEND THIS MEETING. I HOPE YOUR CALENDARS ARE CLEAR SO THAT YOU CAN ATTEND THIS MEETING. PLEASE LET ME KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Councilmember Jessen extended her and the Council's sympathy to the family of the lady who was hit by a cab in the mid-block crosswalk on County Road 15 on Tuesday. The crosswalk is a source of anxiety for the Council. Councilmember Hanus stated that two properties have taken advantage of the new ordinance for streamlining variances. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-SEPTEMBER 17, 1996-7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Mayor Bob Polston; Councilmembers: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Jessen. Also present: Tom Reese, LMCD Representative; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Lineal Footage Breakdown for LMCD Commercial Dock License Tom Reese, Mound's Representative to the LMCD was present to answer questions related to the City of Minnetonka Beach and a private resident of that city relating to public docks adjacent to the individual's property. The Council was concerned about the uncertainty that may exist regarding the total lineal footage of the City of Mound's docking program as it relates to what is permitted under LMCD regulations. Reese assured the Council that he believes that the City of Mound's program is not in jeopardy and that the LMCD was not going to conduct an investigation on the total lineal footage estimated by the City of Mound. Councilmember Hanus stated that he wants a reasonable set of numbers and it was suggested that the City study this matter in whatever way they choose to assure everyone's anxiety relating to the total number of lineal footage in the dock program. Other LMCD Issues Reese discussed the Bil Hawks houseboat/boathouse issue occurring in Minnetrista. Mound Visions Project-Relocation of the Mound Post Office Ed Shukle, City Manager, presented two methods the Postal Service uses in locating or relocating post office facilities. He indicated that in one method, the Postal Service advertises, through public solicitation, that they are receiving proposals and interested developers can "bid" on the project based upon the Postal Service's plans and specifications. The Postal Service will conduct a two phase bidding process to select a site and a developer/property manager. In the second method, the City becomes directly involved. The City would purchase a site, selling it the USPO or a developer. The developer is selected by the USPO on a competitive bid basis. Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, answered questions regarding what sites were being looked at for possible relocation of the post office. Following that discussion, the City Council indicated, by consensus, that they were in support of the second method and would prefer to become directly involved in the site location. With regard to the actual site, they did not indicate which site they ultimately favor but asked that Chamberlain develop a list of objective criteria related Committee of the Whole Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 2 to each site discussed and to bring that back to the November 19, 1996 Committee of the Whole meeting. Lost Lake Improvement Project - Possible Workshop Meeting with MCWI), EDC, Consultants and City_ Staff Bruce Chamberlain and Ed Shukle, presented the idea of holding a workshop meeting with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Economic Development Commission, Consultants and City Staff with the purpose of discussing concerns that have been expressed by the MCWD relating to the Lost Lake Improvement Project. The workshop would hopefully diffuse some of these concerns prior to holding a public hearing on the Environmental Assessment (EA), the federal environmental step in the permitting process for this project. The City Council agreed to setting a special workshop meeting and it was scheduled for Thursday, October 17, 1996, 7:30 p.m. at Mound City Hall. They also agreed to set the EA public hearing for Tuesday, November 12, 1996, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Letter and Enclosures from Bill Darling, Vice-Chair, Parks and Open Space Commission A letter from Bill Darling, Vice-Chair, Parks and Open Space Commission was reviewed along with enclosures that he had sent to some of the City Council. The Council reviewed the enclosures and addressed each issue. The Council directed the City Manager to write a letter to Mr. Darling and the Parks and Open Space Commission indicating the Council's response. Update on Housing and Redevelopment Authority_ (HRA) City Manager Ed Shukle presented some information from the City Attorney's office regarding the conversion of the existing HRA to the Mound City Council. Phyllis Jessen will communicate to the existing HRA board the City's intentions and ask the HRA board to indicate to the Council when they wished to resign to allow the City Council to be appointed pursuant to the Attorney's letter. Information on HRA's, Economic Development Authorities (EDA's) and Port Authorities A's) Ed Shukle presented some information from the City Attorney's office regarding these entities and asked that the Council review them and they can be discussed in more detail at a later date. 1996 Fall Leaf Pickup/Other Recycling Issues Ed Shukle indicated that the City was receiving many phone calls regarding a leaf pickup for this fall. Also, the City is being asked if it is going to hold a Cleanup Day this fall. Shukle indicated that 80 cu.yd, bins could be brought in so that leaves and other yard waste could be deposited and Committee of the Whole Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 3 picked up. The leaf disposal would be open to Mound Residents Only. The Council agreed that there is a need for a leaf pickup program and asked that the Lost Lake site be used the last two weekends in October for this purpose. The Council emphasized again that there will not be a fall cleanup day. Annual Christmas Party. Ed Shulde presented a memo from Linda Strong, Acting City Clerk, regarding a new approach for the annual Christmas Party. Strong suggested that the dinner be held at A1 & Alma's on a Sunday evening with a dinner and program. The use of a disc jockey has not been successful and Strong believes that deleting that part of the program will provide the extra dollars to use on a dinner at A1 & Alma's. The Council consensus was to hold the Christmas Party on Sunday, December 15, 1996. The Council, in addition to inviting the normal list of guests, suggested inviting the Commons Task Force as well. The Commons Task Force, present and past members will be added to the guest list. "Consent Agenda" Ed Shukle indicated that the Council has recently been adopting resolutions on planning items on a consent basis and wondered if the Council would like to implement a Consent Agenda. The consensus was to try it and see how it works. Other Business Ed Shukle indicated that Peter Meyer wishes to be on the 9/24/96 City Council agenda to discuss the proposed outdoor skating rink on the Westonka Schools property. The City Manager indicated that the item would not be on the agenda until the School Board decides what they are going to do with the Westonka Community Center property. A decision is expected by October 15. The City Council was in agreement that this makes sense and agreed not to consider the item at its next meeting. Councilmember Jessen indicated she was receiving phone calls regarding weeds growing on the sidewalks along County Road 15 and County Road 110. The City Manager will follow up on this matter. Councilmember Ahrens expressed her concern about a phone call she received from Ron Johnson, Dorchester Road, regarding the City's tree trimming practices. The City Manager explained that he had also received a call from Mr. Johnson. He and Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent viewed the property and Shukle indicated to Johnson that the City would come out and chip up the brush left by Johnson who had done some cleanup after the City's crews had done their work. Two other property owners were also mentioned as complaining about the City's tree trimming practices. The City Manager is following upon these complaints. Committee of the Whole Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 4 It was noted that the next Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled for October 15, 1996, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. The only item on the agenda will be a detailed discussion of the 1997 Proposed Budget. There being no further business to discuss, it was moved by Polston, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A NONCONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 6219 WESTWOOD CIRCLE LOT 8, EXCEPT THAT PART..., BLOCK 2, WESTWOOD PID 23-117-24 23 0019, P&Z CASE #96-47 WHEREAS, the owner, James Suhon, has applied for variance to allow construction of a 12' x 28' garage addition with a nonconforming setback. The garage is proposed to be setback 23 feet from the front yard to the east, resulting in a 7 foot variance request, 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 to both Westwood and Westedge Blvd., a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, concrete slab, and; the property is currently conforming to the ordinance, and; the applicant is now using this area for parking a boat, and there is an existing WHEREAS, there is a similar situation across the street on Westedge, and the proposed addition will not block the view to vehicle operators on that coruer, and; WHEREAS, there is a fair amount of boulevard between the proposed addition and the curb of Westedge, and the impact will be minimal, 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 that finding of practical difficulty as this is a corner lot with 30 foot setback requirements to both streets, and since the house faces the other front. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 7 foot front yard setback variance to the east to allow construction of a nonconforming 12' x 28' garage addition. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 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 28' one story garage addition. Proposed Resolution Suhon p. 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 8 except that part thereof lying Westerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the Southwesterly corner of said lot; thence East along the South line of said lot a distance of 11 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting left 103 degrees to the Northwesterly line of said lot, and there ending, Block 2, Westwood. 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 TIlE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI qSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 CASE ff96-47: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION, JAMES SUHON, 6219 WESTWOOD CIRCLEt PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 2, WESTWOOD, PID 23-117-24 23 0019 The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming 12' x 28' garage addition. The property is a corner lot and has a 30 foot setback to both streets, and is currently conforming to the ordinance. The garage is proposed to be setback 23 feet from the front yard to the east, resulting in a 7 foot variance request. The applicant is now using this area for parking a boat, and there is an existing concrete slab. In this case it is difficult to find a condition of hardship, however the Planning Commission and Council has in the past considered the full 30 foot setback requirement to both streets a practical difficulty for corner lots. We have also considered the possibility of studying the issue of corner lots and weather there is a need to relax the setback requirement to one of the front yards. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the condition of the corner lot and determine that a finding of practical difficulty could be made depending on the amount of encroachment that would be acceptable with this condition. Reifschneider asked if they could add a stipulation that the owner not be allowed to add a cement slab to the side of the proposed garage. Koegler confirmed that there is nothing that would restrict him from installing a slab in that location as long as hardcover is met. Weiland pointed out a similar situations across the street on Westedge, and noted that the proposed addition would not block the view to vehicle operators on that corner. Reifschneider feels the addition would look better than it does now. Mueller noted that there is a fair amount of boulevard between the proposed addition and the curb of Westedge, and feels the impact will be minimal. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as requested based on practical difficulty that this is a corner lot with 30 foot setback requirements to both streets, and since house faces the other front. Motion carriedunanimously. The applicant stated that the current slab on the side of the garage was for a dog kennel, however, they no longer have a dog. This case will be reviewed by the CitY, Council on September 24, 19.96. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD 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 September 9, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Suthefland, Building Official ...]t')kt .~ Variance Request James Suhon 96-47 6219 Westwood Circle, Part of Lot 8, Block 2, Westwood, PID 23-117-24 23 0019 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming 12' x 28' garage addition. The property is a comer lot and has a 30 foot setback to both streets, and is currently conforming to the ordinance. The garage is proposed to be setback 23 feet from the front yard to the east, resulting in a 7 foot variance request. The applicant is now using this area for parking a boat, and there is an existing concrete slab. In this case it is difficult to find a condition of hardship, however the Planning Commission and Council has in the past considered the full 30 foot setback requirement to both streets a practical difficulty for comer lots. We have also considered the possibility of studying the issue of comer lots and weather there is a need to relax the setback requirement to one of the front yards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the condition of the comer lot and determine that a finding of practical difficulty could be made depending on the amount of encroachment that would be acceptable with this condition. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is sct~ttu!~l to be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996. printed on recycled paper ttl VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 L-/ pplicatior . Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: -~/o City Planner City Engineer Public Wor~ Case No.~. &4f~ DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) Block Subdivision IA_)~'S4- t3) rD (~ d ZONING DIST~CT R-lA OOI q Plat # (~2._[ ~O R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Phone (H) Name Address Phone (H). Oh/). .(M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (X} no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 12/8195) 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.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NS~w) (NS ) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE I000{] sq ft qS~K.,K- sq ft I~ sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. ff yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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 Appllcant's~ Signature Date ~ ' ! {~' Ci ~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA ~?~'~SQ. FT. X 30% : (for all lots) .............. J ~, ~ J LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... J J LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. J J *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. "-~,b ~ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = X TOTAL HOUSE X = X -- TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = t2- x 2_~ = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER(indicate difference) ..... .. ...... ~_ .................. -3115 " I Certificate of.. Survey: " I- hereby certify, that this is a true and correct representation of a _ . survey of the boundaries of ~t 8 except that part thereof lying West- - -, - .... erly of a line described as follSws: Commencing at the Southwesterly '-',..:..' i:' "corner Of said lot;-thence East-along the South line of said lot a dis- . .:.....:...'.v...........:. tance'of ll feet t6 the point of beginning of the line being described; :.X ::i:. ~:.' !-:.: ::.: thence:: deflectin~ left 103° to the Northwesterly line of said lot, and · '-'::?-::~! .':.there' ending, '~Block 2, Westwood, and of the location of all buildings, .' ,-~'i.i..i.'i.i.:':?:'i'~:'.:':':.'"'"if any', thereon, and the prooosed location of a proposed building. It -. 7:.-:~''':'~;?-~'.:~'i:.!':.does'not purport to show.':other ~mprdvements or encroachments. 71-196 7-6-71 : P~ESOLDTzO~ WA/V~I,~G RE~;]UZ!IE~EI~S' O~ CHA_~fER 2~ ' 03 THE VZr~_g~E CODE ~O~_qDI~O T~ DIVISION 0F P~OPE~y .(Lots 7 and 8, Block 2,. Wes~ood) lamP'AS, an application ~o waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 ~'l.~he Vii!ak~ Code'has ~en'filed ~ith %he Vil!&ge of MOund,. ~d ~, - request for a waiver ha~ b~n reviewed by the ~!znzing Commission and th~ ~"~ ' V~i_age Council, and ?.i~P~AS, i~ is hereby determined that there are special c ....... s* .... ~ affecting said property such that the strict ap- ol~ .... ion of th~ ordinnnc~ ~ould d~prive th~ applican~ of the reason- zbze us~ of his ~d; tkz~ ~h~ waiver is necessary for the prezerva~!on znd enjoyment of a sUbztant!a! pro~rty right; and ~hz~ ~ .... ~-~.' e~rlmsntal to the public ..... ~-s the waiver ~il! not be d ~ ' '" ~elfzre.gr injurious ~o other property owners, and '¢F~P~S,..the existing dwelling on Lot 7, Block 2,.Westwood was.located wrong on the property, and ~P~.S, the existing bo~dary line be~een Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Westwood does not allow the proper setback, NOW, T~F0~, BE IT~SOLVED BY T~VI~GE C0~CIL OF M0~, MO~D, M~SOTA: 1. The request of William Jotmson for a waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of Zhe Village Code and the request to subdivide property of~less than five acres is hereby ~anted to~ermi% division of the following property in the follow- That the pro~mrty of Lot 8 as shown on th~ attached s~ey be ~de a part of Lot 7, Block 2, Westwood. 2. It is determined that the.foregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable co,unity development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. 3. The Village Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolu- tion to the applicant for filing in the office of the ReCster of ~e~s or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin Co~ty to show compliance with the subdi%ision regulations of this village. Adopted by the Council this 6th day of July, 1971. 71-196 7-6-71 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE $ /2- FEE OWNER ~a~mx~i~[xxyx~mx. PLAT William Johnson PARCEL Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: Lots 7 and 8, Westwood 6219 & 6225 Westwood Circle Single Family 10,000 sq.ft. ZONING A1 residential To be divided as follows: ~/~ Add the westerly 1~' of lot 8 to lot 7 so that i1'# ~r, Lot 7 has the proper side yard. (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: Westwood Homes, Inc. New Lot No. Lot7 From I0 ¢'.r,e Square feet TO 11.200 Square feet Lot 8 10 ~ e~-~i~ Reason: A house was built on Lot 7 too near the east ne so to correct we need to ad this portion of Lot 8 to Lot 7. Reason: AP.LmANT ~'' / /~? "7 ~.~.C'1 f/~t~'~ ~EL. NO. 474-5~71 ADDRESS '~ --DRTI? June 21, 1971. Applicant's interest in the property: Builder This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. 3LANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION= Varlanc~ 1:0 granted DATE 6.24.71 COUNCIL ACTION Resolution No. DATE APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID. A list of residents and owner~ of property within ,feet must be attached. this Plat of Survey for ~estonka Properties in I~ts 7 and 8, Block 2, Westwood {{ennepin County, Minnescta Certi f'i hate of L:ura. e:.,: ! hereby eertl"y th,it this is a tr~e and correct r~nresentst~on of a su~'ey o~' the boundar}e[: r,l' ~t V and t,h~t pa~t c"~' ~t ~! lyint: ~esterly cC na~d ~-,t, ~: l~:,~nat: ~;~st. al?nF tho South line cf s~id ~l. g a n' ll feet tc the noin? .?,[' beg~nnir, f~ of the line being desart[,e~!; thence defleetlnK l~['t 1~ ]o tc the Northuesterly line of sa~d ~t ?], and t[:.ere endJn~, ail in ':lock ~, Westwo(-~, ,~nd oi' the location of all thereon. It does not purpc, rt Lc sbo~' cthor~ ~lmDrovenentr ,?r~~nts.~. 5ca~e: 1" = ~' Gordon H. Coffin ~t8 : 6-11-71 Land Su~eyo~ and Planner o : Iron ~Fker ~n[' Lake, Minnescta llOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR CITY OF MOUND - Z,Q,NING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: E1A 6~ 000/40 B2 20~. 000180 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 '~ E W N S E w N S EO NOE W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF REQUIRED J EXI,~:rlNG/PROI~)SED LO'r {~{DTH: LOT DE~H: ~ VARIANCE 50' lO~R 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF OROT,,ER,,ETAC.ED ',U,LD,NOS r'"3one .7 50' 5OR30' . .,o, oC , This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requiremenl~ outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conh~ct the City of Mound .Planning Department at 472-0600. .,- ~5 6 RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A NONCONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 4570 DORCHESTER ROAD LOTS 14 - 17, BLOCK 12, AVALON PID 19-117-23 31 0114 P&Z CASE//96-48 WHEREAS, the owners, Clifford and Shirley Larson, have applied for a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming 22' x 20' garage addition. The garage is proposed to be setback 10.1 feet from the from yard to the west resulting in a 9.9 foot variance request, 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 to the south and north, a 20' front setback to the west, and a 8 foot side yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the property is both a corner lot and a through lot, with Richmond Road to the north which is unimproved and is located in a wetland area, and; WHEREAS, the property has a large area to the north where a conforming detached garage could be constructed, however this area is limited due to topography and wetlands, this area is also fully wooded and it is impractical to locate a detached garage to the north for the above reasons. WHEREAS, the impact is minimal because Stratford Lane is a dead end, and there are trees and hedges which screen the corner of the lot, and the garage will not impact any of the neighboring properties, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval based on a finding of practical difficulty due to fact that there is no existing garage, the site is limited due to topography and wetlands, this is a corner lot with a 30 foot setback requirement to both streets, and there is a recognized need for a garage on the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 9.9 foot from yard setback variance to allow construction of a nonconforming 22' x 20' garage addition. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 22' x 20' garage addition. Proposed Resolution La~'$otl p. 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17, Block 12, Avalon, according to the plat thereof, 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. MINUTES OF A MF ETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 CASE ~96-48: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITIONt CLIFFORD & SHIRLEY LARSONt 4570 DORCHESTER ROAD~ LOTS 14 - 17~ BLOCK 12~ AVALON~ PID 19-117-23 31 0114 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a nonconforming 22' x 20' garage addition. The property is a corner lot that has a 30 foot setback requirement to Dorchester and a 20 foot setback requirement to Stratford. Richmond Road is unimproved and is located in a wetland area. The garage is proposed to be setback 10.1 feet from the front yard to the west resulting in a 9.9 foot variance request. The applicant has a large area to the north where a conforming detached garage could be constructed, however this area is limited due to topography and wetlands, this area is also fully wooded and it is impractical to locate a detached garage to the north for the above reasons. In this case the Planning Commission may consider a finding of practical difficulty due to the fact that there is no existing garage and the site is limited due to topography and wetlands. In addition, in the past we have considered the full 30 foot setback requirement to both streets a practical difficulty for corner lots. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request based on a finding of practical difficulty due to the topography and the wetlands, and the recognized need for a garage on the site. MOTION made by ross, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance request, as recommended by staff. Weiland noted that the road ends to the north of where the existing slab is, and then there is a fence in the back, and feels a garage could be put in the back yard, even though a retaining wall may be required. Weiland recognized that the back yard is used for their dog. Mueller stated that if the garage is put in the back yard, that is the only useable yard on the whole side, and the balance of the yard is wooded and wetland. Mueller feels it is more conducive to have the garage on the side of house. He feels the impact is minimal because Stratford Lane is a dead end, and there are trees and hedges which screen the corner of the lot. Weiland agreed, and stated that the garage will not impact any of the neighboring properties. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996. -~. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. Planning Commission Agenda of September 9, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official '~'~ '~ Variance Request Clifford & Shirley Larson 96-48 LOCATION: ZONING: 4570 Dorchester Road, Lots 14 - 17, Block 12, Avalon, PID 19-117-23 31 0114 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a nonconforming 22' x 20' garage addition. The property is a comer lot that has a 30 foot setback requirement to Dorchester and a 2 foot setback requirement to Stratford. Richmond Road is unimproved and is located in a wetland area. The garage is proposed to be setback 10.1 feet from the front yard to the west resulting in a .9 foot variance request. The applicant has a large area to the north where a conforming detached garage could be constructed, however this area is limited due to topography and wetlands, this area is also fully wooded and it is impractical to locate a detached garage to the north for the above reasons. In this case the Planning Commission may consider a finding of practical difficulty due to the fact that there is no existing garage and the site is limited due to topography and wetlands. In addition, in the past we have considered the full 30 foot setback requirement to both streets a practical difficulty for comer lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request based on a finding of practical difficulty due to the topography and the wetlands, and the recognized need for a garage on the site. The abutting neighbors have been nottfied of this request. This caae is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996 .;:~,. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 i. AUG 2 I I L: -:Application- Fee: $5o.'oo (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: q Distribution: "~-'~.'~ City Planner DNR ~ ~-Z~, City Engineer Other ~ Public Works SUBJECT Address ~[~" 70 .~ 0 f" C iq ~codC ~ D R4' PROPERTY Lots/¥, LEGAL Subdivision A PROPERTY Name OWNER Address Phone (H) q 7~- 3 ~ 6 ~'- ON) (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address va~,~ Phone (a) .ON) .(M). OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( )yes, p~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of res61utions. 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 ~4, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: ( N~E W ) ( N S~W~) (N S E(.~) (NSEW) (NSEW) · (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ,,.~q~ ft. 253 ft. c~ ' ft. -~0 ' ff. }O,I ft. t q,c~/ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ff. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ff. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes t74, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use fox' 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. 12/8/95) 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 ~X). If yes, explain: ,\ Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No/(~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that 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 ~~~~~ Date ,/~,~//'/~::~ Applicant's Signature .__Date 'il PROPERTY ADDRESS: [IOWNER'S NAME: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA_. ~,,,~,. ~(~C~ SQ. FF. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FF. X 15% (for all lots) .............. (for Lots of Record*) ....... (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE .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 X = X = TOTAL HOUSE X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. /5- ~x ,3m ~ = · 'z.$ x & : ~ ¥ ~ x 5"/~ = ~.~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. 8' x /c~' =_ °~o X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... x ~' X = TOTALOTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... FOR: CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY _ 0 Denotes 'iron monument Denotes offset stake X O00. O Denotes existing elev. (000.0) Denotes proposed elev. Denotes surface drainage Proposed garage floor elev.= Proposed lowest floor elev.= Proposed top of foundation elev.= BENCHMARK: 1AND SURVEYORS, INC. 30~0 Harbor LMle N~ PI,)mauth, MN 5S441 Phme: ( 6~ 2) 559-0;08 I hereby cerlify that this is o true and correct representation of o survey of t~*: boundaries of the above described land and of the location of till buildings, if any, thereon, and oll visible encroachments, if ony~_from or on said land. As surveyed by me this /~/~ day of J~a~,' ' 19 ~,~ . David E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 File No. Book-Page Scale FOR: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ..~.ots 14, 15, 16 and _ock 12, Avalon, co the recorded Hennepin County, o X 000.0 ( ooo.o ) t ,81 ,mi,, I ~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ED t/,q t~DO DAB2014/~/<'1 RICHMOND according plat thereof, Minnesota. Denotes iron monument Denotes offset stake Denotes existing elev, Denotes Proposed elev, Denotes surface drainage Proposed garage floor elev,= DEMARS . GABRIEL .,LAND SURVEYORS, INC. i ~ ,--ga oo j4e, ,r. - ,... f..-' 6", c.1.,t I 7 DORCHESTER ROAD Proposed lowest floor elev. Proposed top of foundation elev. BENCH MARK: ]'o? o[ 3030 Harbor Lane No. Plymouth MN 55441 Phone: (612) 559-0908 t hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land. and of the location of ~,11 buildings, if any, ther/~n, and all visible encroachments, if any, frgm or on said land. y me this ./<55~,/.,~. , d~.y,,, o~f ~ ,1 ~2~. File No. 54~Z-A Book - Page I0/- g Scale /"~. ~' CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET LOT OF RECORD? C/// NO YARD I DIRECT]ON I I1OUSE ......... ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: '~z i0,ooo/60~.l 7,500/0 -R1A 6,000/40 .B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 93 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 $Eg ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED [ EXISTING/PROPOSED SIDE REAR n _.S E W N SOW N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF , GARAGE, SIIED ..... 50' GR30' LOT~IDTH: LOT D E'~PTg VARIANCE FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR OR OTIIER DETACHED N~ E W NS E W~ N S ,~W N S E W 15 ,q ' LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF BUILDINGS 4: OR 6' ~O~L~ 50' R30' This Z.ning Information Sheet o~y ..m~izes a portion of the requiremeYls outl[~e]{ ~e ~:ty of Mound Zoning Ordin~c,. For ~rther informati .... onmct the City of Mound ~]nnning ~p~tment at 472-~. >131:21. I ',' I~:xt ::/:si ,si ::l :~1 :gl ~Jl~ - ('vat ;cC tZ53~) ~D 0 (~ o O_ ~ t O ~t RESOLUTION //96- P, ESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A AT VARIANCE FOR FENCE MATERIAL 2116 NOBLE LANE, M&B, PART OF BLOCK 1 A.L. ADDN TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 31 0001 PID P&Z CASE//96-49 WHEREAS, the owners, Sandra Savage and Dennis Stearns, have applied for a variance to construct a wooden picket fence within the required 50 foot lakeshore setback area. The proposed fence will be three feet in height which conforms to the ordinance. According to the City Code, "Fences to be located within any portion of the fifty (50) foot principal structure setback shall not exceed a maximum of three (3) feet in height and shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain-link type fence. All fence materials must be treated so as to blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area." And; WHEREAS, a cedar picket fence does not have the same level of visibility as that of a chain link fence, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot from yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, in this particular case, topography in the area is such that all of the homes look out over the top of the proposed fence and it does not interfere with sight lines. The proposed fence would serve as an extension of an existing fence that partially encloses the property. The color and materials of the fence would be compatible with new stairs on the property and would blend into the environment, consistent with the statement in the code that addresses blending with the natural environment, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the requested fence variance with a finding that a situation of practical difficulty exists in this case since the continuation of the existing fence material creates a more attractive enclosure for the property and since topography is unique in this case and the fence will not impede views either from the property or from surrounding properties, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to hereby grant a variance to the "see-through visibility level" for fences to allow construction of a wooden picket fence within the required 50 foot lakeshore setback area at 2116 Noble Lane. MINUTES OF A M ETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 Ci%SE ~96-49: VARII%NCE FOR FENCE MATERIALt SItNDRA S]%VAGE & DENNIS STEARNSt 2116 NOBLE LANE~ M&B~ PART OF BLOCK 1~ ]%.L. ADDN TO LAKESIDE PARKt PID 13-117-24 31 0001 The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a wooden picket fence within the required 50 foot lakeshore setback area. The proposed fence will be three feet in height which conforms to the ordinance. According to the City Code, "Fences to be located within any portion of the fifty (50) foot principal structure setback shall not exceed a maximum of three (3) feet in height and shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain-link type fence. All fence materials must be treated so as to blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area." Staff does not believe that a cedar picket fence has the same level of visibility as that of a chain link fence. In this particular case, topography in the area is such that all of the homes look out over the top of the proposed fence and it does not interfere with sight lines. The proposed fence would serve as an extension of an existing fence that partially encloses the property. The color and materials of the fence would be compatible with new stairs on the property and would blend into the environment, consistent with the statement in the code that addresses blending with the natural environment. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested fence variance with a finding that a situation of practical difficulty exists in this case since the continuation of the existing fence material creates a more attractive enclosure for the property and since topography is unique in this case and the fence will not impede views either from the property or from surrounding properties. Reifschneider believes the proposed fence will look nicer than a chain link fence. Mueller reviewed his interpretation of the intent of the fence ordinance, and feels that in this case because there will be green space between the shore and the fence, and due to topography with the hill behind the proposed fence, the impact will be minimal. Mueller believes this situation is unique, and does not want to set a precedence. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by Staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design RECEIVED SEP 0 6 1996 Hoisington Koe~ ~/i~,o~p~tlO~ ,~, !NSP, I'i']l t"4H PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Request - Fence Material APPLICANT: Sandra Sarage and Dennis Stearns CASE NUMBER: 96-49 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5x LOCATION: 2116 Noble Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a wooden picket fence within the required 50 foot principal structure lakeshore setback area. The proposed fence which will be constructed of cedar will be three feet in height which conforms to the ordinance height requirements. According to the City Code, "Fences to be located within any portion of the fifty (50) foot principal structure setback shall not exceed a maximum of three (3) feet in height and shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain-link type fence. All fence materials must be treated so as to blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area." Staff does not believe that a cedar picket fence has the same level of visibility as that of a chain link fence. According to represematives of the fencing industry, chain link fences are approximately 95% open. The Zoning Code limits lakeshore fencing to chain link and similar materials so as not to impede lake views, particularly fi.om adjacent properties. In this particular case, topography in the area is such that all of the homes look out over the top of the proposed fence and it does not interfere with sight lines. The proposed fence would serve as an extension of an existing fence that partially encloses the property. The color and materials of the fence would be compatible with new stairs on the property 7300 Metro Paml. evard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Fence Variance September 4, 1996 Page 2 and would blend into the environment, consistent with the statement in the code that addresses blending with the natural environment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested fence variance with a finding that a situation of practical difficulty exists in this case since the continuation of the existing fence material creates a more attractive enclosure for the property and since topography is unique in this case and the fence will not impede views either from the property or from surrounding properties. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $50.00. (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No.~ DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DES¢o PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Lot ~_.~ Subdivision /%~r/ a_ .u . _.~.4.., ~A~ ~ ZONING DIST~CT R-1 ~R-I~) R-2 R-3 B-1 Phone ~) ~f¢- 4~Z-o4~L ~) ~-g~-- gzg-xq%L (m) Block -- Plat # ~V'/3o B-2 B-3 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,~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of rg¢olutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): s'4,',4 ,_ ,_ I ~ / j ' m ,m ~ · il ,I,~, ,L,, Variance Application, P. 2 Case NO. Do the existing structures comply ~w½th all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 9~' No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setbackS/lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: Does the prese,n] located? Yes REQUIRED (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ff. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ff. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is No (). If no, specify e,3. ch 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 ~,4/topography ( ) soil ( ) too small /( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. e Was the hardship described above created by the action of any.oge having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: / 7. Was,,tl]e hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of h~dship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes 1~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? / 9. Comments: .//P/,~ . . ~ I I ~ . . ' I ceffi~ that ~ of ~e above statements ~d the sm~ments con~n~ in ~y r~uk~ papers or plus to be sub~ herewi~ app~cafion by ~y au~ofiz~ offici~ of the Ci~ of Mound for ~e pu~se of ~s~fing, or of pos~g, m~~g ~d removing such notices as may be r~uk~ by law. Applicant's Signature ~~~~ Date CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET YARD DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10.noO/60 BZ 7,500/0 B2 ~-Rll 6,000/40~ 20,000/80 '~z b,vvv/~o B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EX]STING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: IDTH: LOT DEPTH: 7_7.0.- +- VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S EU~~ 5 E W S E W I0' 50' ~O~OR 30' GARAGE, STIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF OR OTltER ~CHED 5 E W SEW NS E W N 50W BUILDINGS 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' OOR30' CmOm.G, *~,NO0 i.Y:~ linED: _ This Zoning Information Sheet only summ~i~s a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zo~ng Ordinance. For ~rtber information, contact the City of Mound lOv . . · Planning Department at 472-0600. · 40.05 ~ -40.05 I I RESOLUTION #~6- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2645 SHANNON LANE, LOTS 1,2,3,8,9 & 10, BLOCK 22 SETON, PID 19-117-23 23 0134 PID P&Z CASE//96-50 WHEREAS, the owners, Alan & Kathryn Leach have applied for variance to recognize and existing nonconforming detached garage which is located 2 feet from the north front property line resulting in an 18 foot variance, to allow construction of a conforming 22' x 22' detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Clare and Galway, a 6 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, The nonconforming garage is used for storage only, and there is no driveway to it, and; WHEREAS, the nonconforming use section of the ordinance is written in order to eliminate nonconforming situations where possible, and there is a lack of hardship in this case, and; WHEREAS, WHEREAS, to setbacks, and; the nonconforming garage is in poor condition, and; ~: > if the nonconforming garage is removed, the property will be totally conformingbt~¢~l /,--"-'~-,. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimo~!y_recomme_o_.d_ed approval of a one-year variance to allow the existing nonconforming garage to remain for one year order to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, subject to an agreement to be prepared by ) the applicant that is suitable to the City Attorney to guarantee removal. ,tt ~/ c~{ ..................... N~O'~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a one-year variance to recognize an existing nonconforming accessory building with a front yard setback of 2, to allow construction of a conforming accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: a. This variance will expire one-year from the date of City Council approval. bo An agreement shall be prepared by the applicant that is suitable to the City Attorney to guarantee removal of the nonconforming garage within one-year of date of approval of this variance. This agreement must be executed prior to release of this resolution and prior to building permit issuance for the new garage. Proposed Resolution Leach p. 2 o o 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. 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 conforming 22' x 22' garage with attic storage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10, Block 22, Seton. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hermepin 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 TItE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEFIqgMBER 9, 1996 C~SE ~96-50: V~RI/~NCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, ALAN & KATHRYN LEACH, 2645 SHANNON LANEt LOTS 1t2t318~9 & 10t BLOCK 22~ SETON~ PID 19, 117-23 23 0134 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming detached garage in order to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The property is a corner lot and has a 20 foot setback requirement to both streets. The nonconforming garage is located 2 feet from the north front resulting in an 18 foot variance. The applicant is now using this garage for storage and would like to continue its use. The nonconforming use section of the ordinance is written in order to eliminate the nonconforming situations where possible, and there is a lack of hardship in this case. Our recent variance streamlining provisions require the building official to look at the structural condition of the nonconformity and determine if it is sound, in this case the nonconforming garage is in poor condition. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. If the applicant is willing to remove the detached garage a variance would not be required to construct the new garage. A recommendation for approval of a short term variance could be made that would provide for removal of the old garage as soon as the new garage is constructed or within a maximum of 60 days from permit issuance. An agreement prepared by the applicant and suitable to the City Attorney would need to be a condition if this were approved. Clapsaddle stepped down due to a personal affiliation with the applicants. Hanus stated that he visited site, but did not get inside the garage. He did notice that the roof sinks. Weiland noted that there is rotting on the lower end of the garage, and some rotting along the south part. Koegler stated that he did not discuss the condition of the garage with the Building Official, other than he had told him that it does have a fresh coat of paint and it looks in better condition than it is. The applicant, Alan Leach, stated that the street side of the garage has a cement floor, but the other side does not. The garage sits on blocks, it was built in the 1940's, and he offered to pass pictures around for viewing. Mr. Leach stated they have signatures of all their neighbors stating that they do not object to the garage. He only uses the garage for storage of water skis, lawn mower, etc. They have lived at this property for eleven years. ross asked, if the applicants feels the garage is in good enough Planning Commission Minutes September 9, I996 shape, what would preclude them of moving it to a conforming location? Koegler agreed that it could be done. The applicants stated that it would not be financially feasible to move the garage due to the condition of the structure. They feel the garage adds character to the property, rather than being and eyesore. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommended denial of the request, as recommended by staff. Mueller commented on the poor condition of the garage, and feels that the garage looks out of place because it sits by itself and it does not appear that it is part of the same property. Michael asked the planner what amount of time they could consider for a short term variance. Koegler indicated that enough time to allow construction of new garage should be adequate, and would suspect that one year is more than what the Building official had in mind. Voss commented that it is the city's intent to try and eliminate variances, by getting rid of deteriorated nonconforming structures, and in this case, if the nonconforming structure is removed, the property would be totally conforming. Weiland suggested that the~ allow the applicant the option to relocate the structure to a conforming location. The applicants feel the building is nice looking, they use it for storage, there is no driveway to it, and if they will allow it to remain temporarily, they would like at least one full year, but they would rather just keep it. Mr. Leach emphasized that the garage is solid, the overhead door operates smoothly, and if it were ready to fall over, he would have a problem with it. Mueller noted that the Commission has recommended other structures be removed that were in better condition than this building. Burma commented that he does not like the attitude of requiring the building be removed before they will be allowed to build new. Hanus, stated, if the garage is in poor structural condition, then it is time for it to go, but he has not' heard that. He would like to see more evidence about the condition of the structure. The applicants stated that it would be their last choice to have a time limit put on the removal of the garage as they need more time to financially prepare before they can deal with what to do with the garage. MOTION to deny failed 3 to 4. Those in favor were: Weiland, Voss, and Reifschneider. Those opposed were: Burma, Hanus, Mueller, and Michael. Planning Commission Hinutes September 9, 1996 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of a one year variance to allow the existing nonconforming garage to remain for one year in order to allow construction of a oonforming detached garage, sub]ect to an agreement to be prepared by the applicant that is suitable to the City Attorney to guarantee removal. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of September 9, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official c-~ . Variance Request Alan & Kathryn Leach 96-50 2645 Shannon Lane, Lots 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, & 10, Block 22, Seton, PID 19-117-23 23 1034 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming detached garage in order to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The property is a comer lot and has a 20 foot setback requirement to both streets. The nonconforming garage is located 2 feet from the north front resulting in an 18 foot variance. The applicant is now using this garage for storage and would like to continue its use. COMMENTS: The nonconforming use section of the ordinance is written in order to eliminate the nonconforming situations where possible, and there is a lack of hardship in this case. Our recent variance streamlining provisions require the building official to look at the structural condition of the nonconformity and determine if is sound, in this case the nonconforming garage is in poor condition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. If the applicant is willing to remove the detached garage a variance would not be required to construct the new garage. A recommendation for approval of a short term variance could be made that would provide for removal of the old garage as soon as the new garage is constructed or within a maximum of 60 days from permit issuance. An agreement prepared by the applicant and suitable to the City Attorney would need to be a condition if this were approved. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. ~ case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996 printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ~' ApplicatioffF~e: .... $50:0~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: q -zq-q , City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) Address - .1' 2, Subdivision ~"~/~ iQ__.. PID# /~ -- / I "7 - Z5 Z ~ 0[3¢ ZONING DISTRICT R-I R-lA (~ R-3 Phone ~) q 3 ~ O ) I Block Plat Name ~.~.~2 Coc~ Address i ~'$'7.- Co-,~ o -/bt/.. B-1 B-2 B-3 or) ~%.~,../- s-s-I -, v] (M)_ Phone (H) (W) ~ '4 C .-0 3'~ } (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~(no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resotuti'ens. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all }rea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No)~Ja If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area', etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUE. STED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (biS E W ) ~//, ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: (~S E W ) r-~O ft. ~' ft. I~ ~ue~.,: ~*-v ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) dl ~ ft. ft. a,, ,.~ ,% ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) t~l~ ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) 10Is ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) al/~ ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: 1j ! ~ ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: ~{n sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: ~/j~ 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: Se Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ~;X:),.other: specify (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (,~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes'~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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. '~Owner's Signature //'"~/~///b f~ Date '~/~1']/~ L/Fi Applicant's Signature ,~ Date (Rev. 12/8/95) CiTY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: AI&~'~ LOT AREA 201 ~ SQ. ~. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ~'~I q~O SQ. ~. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA ~. ~00 SQ. ~. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1 la," min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. A.~- ~& X G,~ = X ~ X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... ~2o'-d' _. . -~ -.:.'- ~ ~.~t~q~ ..- i ' ...... ,~:.. ~ ..[. ~ ~ ._. ,, ~ ~~ t''= '' Mr. & ~rs. Al teach ' 2~45 Shannon ¢n. ~~n~~: Uound55364 J J l CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET IlOUSE ......... FRONT N S ~S E W SIDE W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E LAKE N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 i0,000/60 B1 ?,500/0 R1A 6.000[40 B2 20,000/80 ~R~- ~rO00(40 ~ ~3 10,000/60 'E2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: VARIANCE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ! ! 30' AG ,40 t. 55) F 1~5 .'1'" ~3 r~, ~?) ,'~ t( ~)v I OR OTIIER DETACHED E w NS E W w N S E~~) NS E W BUILD1NOS 4' OR 6' 4-' 50' HARDCOVER 30% 0~'0~ f'l This Z.ning Information Sheet only summarizes n portion of the re;re'eats outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinnnce. For ~urther information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-O600. I0 ~c 0 0 RESOLUTION//96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PATIO ROOF AT 5046 BAYPORT ROAD, LOT 14, BLOCK 2 JOHN S. CARLSON ADDITION, PID 13-117-24 43 0033 PID P&Z CASE//96-51 WHEREAS, the owners, David and Jackie Greenslit, have applied for a side yard setback variance to allow construction of an 8' x 12' nonconforming patio roof which is proposed to have an overhang of one foot will further extend into the existing nonconforming dwelling setback of 4.2 feet, resulting is a 2.8 foot setback variance, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings 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 proposed roof is intended to correct a roof and drainage problem at the rear entry/deck area. The new roof is to be constructed on the same side of the dwelling that is nonconforming, and; WHEREAS, the Zoning Code allows a maximum of a 2 foot projection into the setback for roof overhangs. Koegler stated that the Building Official has indicated that Fire Codes allow for a 3 foot setback to the side property line, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the request to allow the construction of the roof area with the overhang to be setback 3 feet from the side property line due to the obvious need to modify the roof and eliminate the drainage problem. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a side yard setback variance of 2.8 feet to allow construction of a (8' x 12' +/-) roof over the existing patio, with the overhang not to exceed 1 foot past the existing wall line. 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 (8' x 12' +/-) roof over the existing patio. Proposed Resolution Greenslit p. 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 14, Block 2, John S. Carlson Addition. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMB 9, 1996 CASE ~96-51: VARIANCE FOR COVERED PATIO, ~REENSLIT, 5046 BA~ORT ROADt LOT 14t BLOCK ADDITION, PID 13-117-24 43 0033 DAVID & JACKIE JOHN S. CARLSO~ The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow for construction of an 8' x 12' nonconforming covered roof area. The proposed roof is intended to correct a roof and drainage problem at the rear entry/deck area. The new roof is to be constructed on the same side of the dwelling that is nonconforming. The required setback is 6 feet to the side yard. The existing building setback is 4.2 feet resulting in a recognition of a variance of 1.8 feet. The applicant revised the proposal to have a one foot overhang versus a two foot overhang into the already nonconforming setback, resulting in a 3 foot side setback to the proposed roof overhang. The Zoning Code allows a maximum of a 2 foot projection into the setback for roof overhangs. Koegler stated that the Building Official has indicated that Fire Codes allow for a 3 foot setback to the side property line. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the modified request to allow the construction of the 8' x 12' roof area with the overhang to be setback 3 feet from the side property line due to the obvious need to modify the roof and eliminate the drainage problem. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the reduction in the size of the overhang will still correct the drainage problem. Mueller feels this is a minimum encroachment to solve and existing problem on the site. Hanus questioned if the drainage problem could not be corrected with landscaping. The applicant stated that it cannot be corrected with landscaping, and explained that the roof of the tuckunder garage is actually part of the patio in the rear that they walk on and the house was added onto the top of the garage, but because the wall does not extend to the end of the garage, the water seeps under the sill plate through the ceiling in the garage. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Reifschneider, to recommend approval of the variance allowing for a 3 foot setback from side yard to the overhang. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 24, 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 September 9, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official <~E~'~/~ Variance Request David and Jackie Greenslit 96-51 5046 Bayport Road, Lot 14, Block 2, John S. Carlson Addition, PID 13-117-24 343 0033 R-2 One and Two Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow for construction of an 8' x 12' nonconforming covered roof area. The proposed roof is intended to correct a roof and drainage problem at the rear entry/deck area. The new roof is to be constructed on the same side of the dwelling that is nonconforming. The required setback is 6 feet to the side yard. The existing building setback is 4.2 feet resulting in a recognition of a variance of 1.8 feet. The proposed roof overhang is 2.2 feet from the side property line, resulting in a 1.8 foot variance request to the new overhang. The Zoning Code allows a maximum of a 2 foot projection into the setback for roof overhangs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. Due to the obvious need to modify the roof and eliminate the drainage problem, the Planning Commission may wish to consider approval if the applicant revises their plan so there would be no further encroachment into the side setback that what is existing. Tht abutt~g neighbors have been notified of ~ request. This case is scheduled to be lu~ard by the ELy Council on September 24, 1996 prinied on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364-. Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 i 2 2 Igor' Application Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: q-q-g I City Planer D~ City Engin~r Public Wor~ SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address 5 ~' '~ /~ Y'~6~V gQ Lot /~' Block ~'- Subdivision PID# I ~Z~ _ i[-'"']._Z24 ~ ~{:~)(~ ~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lAdR-: R-3 Address Plat# (_~'_ t~SO B-1 B-2 B-3 Phone (H) ~?~ - D ? / o (W) 4-7 Y - I ?? ~[ (M). Phone (Iq) 42Y-- 7/5 7 (W) 5~;?,c- (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (~,. n/mos) .~ t co ~ Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. ge Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reasor, for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N~)E~W ) ;Z 0 ft. ~ ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S~ ) ~' ft. -- ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E ~_,,)) ~ ft. 4, 7,-' ft. Rear Yard: ~ E W ) /~ ' ft. ~- ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) /v/~ ff. ff. ff. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~' ft. ft. ff. Lot Size: ~,or~ sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: ~o~,q sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ~96 ~ ~O l i..~ //,/6 c. ci /,. ~'/c-N u,/¢f~.l Fro t,,c'~.9 c~,./,-,-o ~ / 7°-0 (_~,. 12/8/95) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA ~¢/O ~ SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% (for all lots) .............. j (for Lots of Record*) ....... J.. 3~0 (for detached buildings only) . . J *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH 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 WIDTH SQ FT x dL ~ = x ~-~. 2-. = ~, x = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = /~,-,¢TF?T~AL DETACHED BLDGS X /? = ~f ~*~¢""'~ ~' X ~' ~ = 3~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. ' c¢. TOTAL DECK OTHER X // = U TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ,3~6q ~" I OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I PREPARED BY ,,~""[~U//-I ,/~£~AC-,Z¢- -- ':-~ DATE · ,~. '5; . , : ,~"'i · ;: .. ,,.'."' . :, ; ~ _ · :...:;~ .! ".:~.· ..... ,..,.. . .,"-"'~'-"., .. .':'. .": .:'....-'.:.'.'",. . :~., .".....:.-~:.:. .. ,, .:~. ~:.-_ .,...,. ~'~ ..... . ;. ~... . .. ..~../..:..'~. .,, ~.,..,. . . . '. . .~ . :,.. . .~". j.,.../'-. ...' ~. '..-' ~ .,,.,; . ...~.:~...~* :'"' ' ~ - '/~7~ .c'' ' ../.~",,.-'..'' .'. ., '~r.- ..... . - ~. .. ~.. ~." . . ~ /~ .---- : . '~'~,'~,. ~ .,' . ~ ? .. . ;.. , . .. , ..... . - · . · , · .'. ~, ?~..;:..'. : ; .:~' . ,.. ~: ~: .., , " b ~'0 '' ' '""~"':; ' :~' · -s:' : ''.- . ~:~" ...' . ''" . · .' :'~7~'- u'/~. '- '' '~>:'-'7" '~.',. ' '-" .' ' ~' .... :"~"' .... . .. :.~.~ ": . ' " ' ~ .-r.~ ..-' . -~ : - t ' ;' ~' :'~ ~': '"' : ' =' """ ':' ' ' · ,. . ': ... '.. -. ~/ · ' ' ' :, · i. .... .' ~;~. ~ . ; " * ' :~ ~,~ · ~ '.' ....... o" ' ' · ~": .'- -- :' '-c~c~zOrq~; · . CERTIFICATE OF ~CA~ ~.,.0~.~,, ~+~.: . . : ' :, · · '. -5 -" ' · · '" ".- . ' ' ,.: '. '~'.~.~ '. ". A~'~:~'.":'~'~¢~.~...~-..': ~' -' ...-. :, :'-;" : .' .'-" ,;':;, ": ". ~~ x .~~..~...,, . ~ .,, . .... . . , I I t J I CITY OF MOUND - ZONIN( INFORMATION SHEET LOT OF RECORD? ~ NO YARD -- I DIRECFION I HOUSE ......... ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri RiA ~3 REQUIRED 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 6.0OO/40 B2 20,000/80 6,000/40~B3 10,000/60 14,ooo/8o SEE ORD. I1 30~000/100 EXISTING/PROPOSED FRONT N S E W SIDE N S W N S E(W') LAKE [ N S E W TOP OF BLUFF L90Eo~TST~I/TOHL..°T SIZE: VARIANCE GARAGE, ~liEO ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE ~(~)OR 30' OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS N S E W N S }W 4' OR 6' N S E 4'OR6' NS E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF [ HARDCOVER 30% O[ f"~ CONFORMING? YES / DATED: '~7~'~ ~.,.1~ ~ This Zoning Information Sheet pnly summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For f~rther information, contact the City of Mound .Planning Department at 472-0600. WOODRIDGE 6 (25) 1444. Y; ~'E'~ .? (3;) :5 "-=5) I (fa) RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 13, 14 & 15, BLOCK 15, PID'S 13-117-24 14 0046/47/39 P&Z CASE//96-53 WHEREAS, the owners of Lots 13, 14, and 15 (listed below), have submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder: Lot 13: Lot 14: Lot 15: Joel & Sandra Laskey, 1761 Sumach Lane Dean Hunter, 1755 Sumach Lane David Thurk, 1749 Sumach Lane WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings 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 owners are proposing a minor subdivision to create two parcels out of three. Parcel A will have a lot area of 8,400 square feet and Parcel B will have 9,600 square feet, respectively. Existing homes are located on Lots 13 and 15 and the purpose of the subdivision is to adjust lot lines and property ownership in order to allow construction of a new detached garage on Parcel B, and; WHEREAS, the proposed lots, as well as the homes on the lots, conform to the applicable zoning criteria. Additionally, the proposed garage meets all setback requirements and the lots conform to hardcover requirements, and; WHEREAS, both of these parcels will retain their lot of record status after subdivision, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision as shown on the attached Exhibit 'A', and subject to the following conditions: ao The application for the building permit for the new detached garage shall also include a grading, drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Building Official and City Engineer. bo Construction of the detached garage shall comply with all applicable building code requirements. 2. The existing legal description is: Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 15, Shadywood Point. Proposed Resolution Case #96-53 p. 2 The proposed legal descriptions are as follows: Parcel A: Lot 15 and the Northeasterly 20 feet of Lot 14, Block 15, Shadywood Point. Parcel B: Lot 13 and that part of Lot 14 lying southwesterly of the Northeasterly 20 feet of said Lot 14, Block 15, Shadywood Point. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. E](1:ITRTT ~ A ~ RESOLUTION ~96- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY and PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT for DAVE THURK in LOTS 13,14,15 Block 15, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN ,% dr4oo*. ~.~-~. ., E~istin~ Legal Descriptions // 'Lots 13,14 and 15, Block 15, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN. Proposed Leqal Descriptions A...Lot 15 and the Northeasterly 20 feet of Lot 14.,. Block 15, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN. B. Lot 13 and that part of Lot 14 lying southwesterly of the Northeasterly 20 feet of said Lot 14, Block 15, SHADYWOOD POINT,. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN. REGEIVED ron marker from previ'ous field work. MOUND PLANNING & 1VZiNLrl S OF A M ETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 CASE #96-53: MINOR SUBDIVISION, DAVID THURK - 1749 SUMACH LANE, DEAN HUNTER - 1755 SUMACH LANE, & JOEL & SANDRA LASKEY - 1761 SUMACH LANE~ LOTS 13t 14 & 15t BLOCK 15t PID'S 13-117-24 14 0046/47/39 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The owner of Lots 1~, 14, and 15 are proposing a minor subdivision to create two parcels labeled A and B which have lot areas of 8,400 square feet and 9,600 square feet, respectively. Existing homes are located on old Lots 13 and 15 and the purpose of the subdivision is to adjust lot lines and property ownership in order to allow construction of a new detached garage on Parcel B. The proposed lots, as well as the homes on the lots, conform to the applicable zoning criteria. Additionally, the proposed garage meets all setback requirements and the lots conform to hardcover requirements. Since the proposed lots comply with all applicable zoning criteria, approval of the minor subdivision is recommended by staff, subject to the following conditions: The application for the building permit for the new detached garage shall also include a grading, drainaqe and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Building Official and City Engineer. Construction of the detached garage shall comply with all applicable building code requirements. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Burma, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision, as recommended by Staff. Motion carried unanimously. Weiland noted that the shed is not shown on the survey. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 24, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design RECEIVED SEP 0 6 1996 Hoisington KoeCer NING PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: David Thurk and Joel & Sandra Laskey CASE NUMBER: 96-53 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5y LOCATION: 1749- 1761 Sumach Lane EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The owners of Lots 13, 14 and 15 are proposing a minor subdivision to create two parcels labeled A and B which have lot areas of 8,400 sq. ft. and 9,600 sq. ft. respectively. Existing homes are located on old Lots 13 and 15 and the purpose of the subdivision is to adjust lot lines and property ownership in order to allow construction of a new detached garage on parcel B. The proposed lots as well as the homes on the lots conform to the applicable zoning criteria. Additionally, the proposed garage meets all setback requirements and the lots conform to hardcover requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Since the proposed lots comply with all applicable zoning criteria, approval of the minor subdivision is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. The application for the building permit for the new detached garage shall also include a grading, drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Building Official and City Engineer. 2. Construction of the detached garage shall comply with all applicable building code requirements. 7300 Metro Ba~levard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fe~: ...... planning Commission Date:,, q--~--q ~:~ Distribution: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: $1,000 City Planner DNR Deficient Unit Charges? I"~) ~ ~ <' Public Works Other City Engineer D,linquent Taxes? .~ ~,,~ VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: .................................................... INFORMATION / / - -- LEGAL ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 The~plicant is: ~owner other: {if other then Phone (H) (W) (M) SU~V~O~/ ' Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes, { } no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Th/s app//cat/on must be s/gned by a_L// owners of the subject proper~y, or ~)explanat/on g/ven why th/$ /s not the case. Date '. .Dwner's Signature ,, /~ ' ~ ~r s ~Si~at~Jre-/ ~ Date A · ~,4oo~ fo''~' Certifi. catc of Sur,~c:y for Dean Hunter Lot 1'{, [{lock 15, SIIAbYWC]OD PI)INT t~O. oo LEGAL DERCR l P'P~TQN o : Iron marker · Datum: Mean sea E~;~.~~Lw"e) : Spot e].ouation 0 ~-. s-: G C ~ ~ C 5 C C C ~ , ~ C~ C~ ~o~ ~_~0 g L,) ~o~ C m m. c.. 4.-. / / ,I Plat for ~sa~an Inveat-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t~t Lot 1~ R.~ok 1~, Sh~d~m~ood Foint · ~nnepin County,. l~inm~ote O~rttfficate of Survey~ ! hereby cortify that thie is a trtm and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 15, Block 15, Shady~ood Point. It does not purport to sho~ improvements or encroachments. S~ale, 1" = 40' BAte : 6-7-72 1 Iron ~rker : .Spot elevation l~t~m asoumad ~ordon a. Coffin ~g.¢~o..606~. Land Surveyor and P!armer Long Lake, Minnesota CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA (~c-{C)(~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. 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. LENGTH WIDTH SQ F~ X = HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening bet~Neen boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = ~2-C~ x ~ = TOTAL DECK .......................... -~ × ~ -- X = TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I I UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY - ~ DATE CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA (for all lots) .............. [ SQ. FT. X 30% ~l SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I 3~wO I __~J~~SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . J Iq L~L~ 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, 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 X = TOTAL HOUSE TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. .~ % x 30 = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. lb X I 0 . = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = -)00 XTOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY '~ DATE P~UILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 Business Name/Tennant The applicant is: ~ner ~contractor .__tenant ,;G^, Lot --5, DESCRIPTION Subdivision '~,',,c' Ir Address ~ Phone (H) ~ ~ - I~ ~) ~ ~--~ I~1 (M) CON~CTOR Company Name Contact Person ' Address Phone (HI (WI (MI ARCHI~CT Name ~ ~OR Address ~GINEER Phone (HI (WI (MI VALUATION OF WORK: VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN ISO DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A ~ERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. TIM E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORM ED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN ED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTERIORB OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (11 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30I BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK W1LL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE - - DATE ' - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED I ZONING BLDG SIZE ISQ FT} # STORIES RRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON F1LEf YES~! NO YARD DIREL~FION ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~0~000/60 BI 7,500/0 "~2 6,000/40~B3 10,000/60 :"'~2 14,000/80 R3 Sgg ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/P~ROPOSED ~ LOT WIDTH: VARIANCE IlOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W GARAGE, SIIED ..... (~ E W N S E~W~ N S E W ' b' 50' "~ OR 30' OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS 7 FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W ~t N S E W N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4'OR6' NS E W 4' N S E W 50' IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFO ,N ( ) No I BY: This Zoning Inform-~ion Sheet only summarizes a portion of the reqnire~ Planning Department at 472-0600. outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further informnlion, contact the City of Mound 15 3 / ! CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE~'~/ NO LoT o. RE O.D? llOUSE ......... ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B! 7,500/0 R1A 6¢000/~0 B2 20,000/80 6,bOo/4o~.3 ~o,ooo/~o R2 14;OO0/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: REQUIRED FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W EXL~ING/PROPOSED VARIANCE LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SllED ..... OR OTHER DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE N S E W N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4' OR 6' NS E W 4' N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% ; CONFORMING? YF~ / NO ? ]BY: I DATED: This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound pInnning Department at 472-0600. 0 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ' SURVEY ON FILE I NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R! 10,000/60 B1 7,500]0 B2 20,000/80 B3 10,000/60 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED LOT ~b VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR .s( w S E W lq E W NS E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 50' (~IOR 30' GARAGE, SHED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINOS FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' NS E W NS E W N S E W HARDCOVER /~ 30% OR 40% CONFORMING?~..~/ NO ? [BY: This Zoning Information Sheet only ~ummarizes a portion of the require~ent~ .Planning D~pm'tment at 472-0600. ~0 4' OR 6' 50' outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound ~ I O ~0q I-~ ro a CO '' 0 0 ---I 0 ITl I I aB ,,m , ~ i ,m, ,1~, Il CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-O620 September 17, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK ~ CANVASS BOARD - NOVEMBER 6, 1996 Following the General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, the City Council needs to schedule a "Canvass Board Meeting'* for Wednesday, November 6, 1996, 7:30 pm to verify the results of the voting from November 5, 1996. ls printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 534t MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS SNOW REMOVAL FROM PARKING LOTS Ihl CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MOUND, MINNESOTA The City of Mound will receive bids at 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota until 11:00 AM on Friday, October 18, 1996 for snow removal from the Central Business District parking lots and other areas as designated. The successful bidder will be required to post a Performance Bond or Certified Check in the amount of $500.00. The successful bidder must furnish liability of not less than $200,000 for each individual, $600,000 for each occurrence, and against liability for property damage of not less than $50,000 for each occurrence. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities. Bid forms may be obtained from Public Works, 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, Mn. Edward 3. Shukle, Jr. City Manager printed on recycled paper Public hearint, notice for pub/ication dates of September 21 and November 2. 1996 in The Lake. ADVERTISEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING For S.P. 145-080- 01 and S.P. 145-090-01, the LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT and the LOST LAKE GREENWAY PROJECT in Mound, Minnesota. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 23, United States Code, Section 128, notice is hereby given that the City of Mound will hold a public hearing at Mound, Minnesota in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, on November 12, 1996 at 7:30 pm, to discuss major design features and the social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed improvement of Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation project and Lost Lake Greenway project in Mound, Minnesota. The proposed improvement is to upgrade the level of pedestrian, bicycle and boat traffic in and adjacent to Lost Lake and connecting to Lake Mirmetonka. An Environmental Assessment which supports the determination that the proposed action will have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment along with maps, drawings and other pertinent information relating to the project will be available for public inspection and copies will be available at the building inspections desk, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364. Tentative schedules for the start of construction are dependent upon federal approvals. Written statements and other exhibits in place of, or in addition to, oral statements will be accepted at the hearing and for a ten day period following the hearing and will be made part of the official record. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake Project Manager City of Mound BILLS. .September 24, 1996 BATCH 6092 TOTAL BILLS $206,534.50 $206,534.50 il ,ii, Z _CASE #96-3~: ~!NOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE, RANDY MORIARTY, 453d DENBIGH RO~Dt AND ROBERT BAUMGART~t 4552 DENBIGH ROADt LOTS 4 - 8t ~LOC~ 2t AV]LLONt PID 19-117-23 24 0008 & 004& ~ Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed the p~ng report. Koegler rev%ewed that a slightly different version this case was previously reviewed by the Commission in June and denial was recommended. Subsequently, the case was withdrawn prior to the City Council meeting, and a modified request has now been submitted. The primary reasons for previously recommending denial was that it created a new nonconforming lot and it violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal eliminates the nonconforming lot concern, but still has a substantial impact on the bluff. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B, and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will eventually be removed and replaced with a new residence. Ail three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. The variances involved in this request are: A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15 28 feet. · - A variance for having only one off-street parking space on Tract B. The Zoning Code requires two parking ~paces per single family dwelling unit. - Setback variances for the existing home on Tract C, unless the structure is removed prior to filing of the subdivision and variance approval. The existing detached garage will require a 16.6 foot front yard setback variance, and more information will be necessary to clarify the variances for the home as the survey is illegible. All three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography. The construction methods as proposed were reviewed. The creation of the additional lot appears to be an economic issue that does not substantiate a hardship finding. The location of the new home is a concern because it lies wholly within the bluff area itself. The surrounding neighborhood contains homes that are constructed in a similar physical environment although they are perhaps not as severe as the subject lots. However, this proposal involves the creation of a new lot, not simply to add or replace an existing grandfathered dwelling. Koegler reviewed the recommendation for denial received from the DNR. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances and minor subdivision because of the lack of hardship in this case. If the Planning Commission moves to Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it is suggested that consideration be given to tabling the request pending preparation and submission of a detailed grading, drainage and utility plan for all three Tracts for review by the city Engineer prior to final action on this request. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request either now or at a subsequent meeting, conditionS of the approval should include: 1. Compliance with the park dedication requirements of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A should either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. 3. Unless submitted as part of a previous requirement, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides and front lot lines and 15 feet in width along rear lot lines. 5. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of the resolution for recording. Jack Cook who is representing Mr. Moriarty, stated that there is a problem with the bluff zone, but Mr. Moriarty considers that as a hardship. Cook emphasized that a benefit to this proposal is that the house on Tract C will be removed, and he emphasized the poor condition of this dwelling. Hanus asked if they would be willing to remove the house prior to the filing of the subdivision resolution. Mr. Cook confirmed that they would be willing to remove the dwelling on Tract C in conjunction with the approval. Hanus asked the planner if it would be the preference of the City to have to bluff line remain as is, or to fill the area of the bluff on Tract A to bring it in line with the bluff line of Tracts B & C. Koegler replied that they would not support a reduced front yard setback to mitigate the bluff impact, because space is needed in the front for off-street parking. He indicated that the normal comment from the DNR is, any time there is a bluff situation it is a recommendation for denial. The neighborhood is similarly constructed, but the DNR looks at it differently when someone is Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 building a new structure versus replacement or adding onto an existing structure. Koegler summarized, if you can bring the house a little closer to the street without infringing upon the public safety, it is probably preferable from a bluff standpoint. Koegler noted that the Shoreland Management Ordinances requires permits for fill in a bluff zone. Reifschneider received clarification from the Planner on how this plan differs from the original request. Reifschneider commented that he has problem with proposed Tract A due to the steep topography and feels that Tract A would be better utilized for driveway and off-street parking use to serve Tracts B & C. He also expressed a concern about the conjestion on Denbigh when cars are parked on the road. Voss confirmed that the street would probably never be widened. Cook stated that there is an erosion problem on Tract A and feels that construction of a home on the parcel will correct this situation. Mueller questioned Mr. Cook about the seven trees that are more than 7 to 10 inches in diameter that are existing on the property and asked if they would be removed. Cook confirmed that some trees would need to be taken out, but they could be replaced. Mueller noted that with the new dwelling the surface run off will be created more drainage and faster drainage. Cook stated that the existing tree root system, new trees, and new retaining walls will help the run-off situation. Mueller confirmed that the width of the structure proposed is 26 feet. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to recommend denial of the subdivision request and variances due to lack of hardship, as recommended by staff. Hanus stated that there is no other way to build a house in this area without impacting the bluff zone. He feels the applicants have redesigned their request and worked to alleviate problems that were presented the first time through, and he believes that with the right types of retaining walls, gutters, and other mitigating avenues, even with adding hardcover, the water can be controlled better that with what is there now. Mueller feels that by planting more trees, any erosion problems could be alleviated. Hanus stated, assuming the home proposed on Tract A meets all the required setbacks, he does not have a problem with the proposal. Voss stated that he agrees with the DNR and staff in that hardship has not been demonstrated in any way for creating a new lot or for granting a variance. Planning Commission H/nutes September 9, 1996 Mueller referred to the letter in the packet which was received on June 25, 1996 which expresses a concern about the parking of vehicles on Denbigh Road and adding another residence for the sole purpose of creating an additional lot in order to benefit financially. Mueller does not see a hardship to allow the creation of a new lot. MOTION carrie4 ? to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsa441e, Burma, Weiland, Michael, Voss, Reifschneider, and Mueller. Hanus was opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design RECEIVED SEP 0 6 996 MOU, t PLAN, ]ING & INSR Hoisington Koegler Or(3up Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variances APPLICANT: Randy Moriarty and Robert Baumgarten CASE NUMBER: 96-31 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-51 LOCATION: 4536 Denbigh Road and 4552 Denbigh Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-IA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission first reviewed a subdivision request for this property in June of this year. At that time, the proposal received a denial recommendation from staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial on an 8 to 1 vote. As a result, the request was subsequently withdrawn prior to the time that it went to the City Council. The request has now been modified and is back before the Planv~g Commission for review and action. The original request was denied for a number of reasons, the primary ones being that it created a new nonconforming lot and it violated the bluff provisions of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The new proposal eliminates the concern about creating a nonconforming lot but still has a substantial impact on the bluff that exists on the site. The proposal that is now before the Planning Commission seeks to establish three tracts labeled as A, B and C. Tract A will be established as a new lot and Tracts B and C contain existing homes. It appears from the survey that the existing home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. As shown on the survey, all of three of the tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variances September 5, 1996 Page 2 In order for the minor subcliv~ion to be approved, the Planning Commission will also need to approve a number of variances. Because of the topography of the site, the bluff line meanders through the upper one third of all three of the parcels. This results in virtually all of the proposed home on Tract A lying within the bluff, substantial portions of the home on Tract C lies within the bluff and a portion of the existing home on Tract B lies within the bluff. As a result, a variance from the bluff setback provisions of the ordinance will be needed for each of the lots in order to approve the subdivision. Variances will also be needed for the two existing homes. The home on Tract B is proposed to remain. It observes required side and lakeshore setbacks but is located 4.72 feet from the front lot line resulting in a required variance of 15.28 feet. The Zoning Code also requkes two parking spaces per single family dwelling unit. The existing home on Tract B appears to only supply one space in the existing garage. There will also be variances necessary for the existing dwelling on Tract C unless the structure is to be removed prior to the filing of the subdivision and variance approval. The survey that was submitted was so illegible that it is impossible to identify the exact variances required. From the survey it is possible to determine that the existing detached garage is located 3.4 feet from the front lot line resulting in a 16.6 foot variance. More information will be necessary to clarify the locations and magnitude of variances for the existing home on Tract C. All three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography. The lots drop approximately 40 feet from Denbigh Lane to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. As was noted previously, all are in a bluff area and in some cases, the slope exceeds 45%. Constructing homes in this area will need to involve extraordinary measures. The method proposed for constructing the new homes is shown on the applicant's attachment labeled Full Cross Section. Construction will involve the installation of a retaining wall in the lower reaches of the property which will have a height of approximately 17 feet. The back of the home will then be built on the new grade that is established by the retaining wall. From the information submitted, the Building Official has determined that it appears that the height of the building complies with the height restrictions in the Zoning Code. Building height will be reviewed again upon submission of a building permit application. The Full Cross Section drawing shows the front setback at 15 feet which is not consistent with the site survey which identifies a 20 foot setback. The five foot shift will have a minor impact on the height and location of the proposed retaining wall. COMMENT: The issuance of variances requires a finding of either hardship or practical difficulty. In this particular case, staff cannot support a hardship finding since the property has an existing use as two single family homes. The creation of the additional lot appears to be an economic issue that does not substantiate a hardship finding. The location of the new home is also a concern because it lies not only within the requked bluff setback area but also almost wholly within the bluff area itself. Planning Report - Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variances September 5, 1996 Page 3 Admittedly, the surrounding neighborhood contains homes that are constructed in a similar physical environment although they are perhaps not as severe as the subject lots. In this case, however, the proposal is to create a new lot, not simply to add to or to replace an existing grandfathered dwelling. If the Planning Commission feels that the facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty, approval of the variances and the minor subdivision could be granted. If it is to be approved, however, staff feels that additional engineering information needs to be submitted because of the extreme grade conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances and minor subdivision because of the lack of hardship in this case. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it is suggested that consideration be given to tabling the request pending preparation and submission of a detailed grading, drainage and utility plan for all three Tracts for review by the City Engineer prior to final action on this request. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request either now or at a subsequent meeting, conditions of the approval should include: 1. Compliance with the park dedication requirements of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance. The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A should either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. o o Unless submitted as part of a previous requirement, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides and front lot lines and 15 feet in width along rear lot lines. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of the resolution for recording. SENT BY: DNR; 9- 5-96 IO:06AM; 6127727573 => 612 472 0620; #2/2 Minnesota Demtrtment of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 120B Warner R. oad, St. Paul, Mlq 55106-679:5 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 September 5, 1996 Mx. Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Variance Request, 4536/4552 Denbigh Road, Moriarty, Revised Case No. 96-31, Lake Mirmetonka - Black Lake (27-133-12), City of Mound Dear Mr. Sutherland: I have reviewed the background information that was distributed for Revised Case No. 96-31 on Aul,mst 29, 1996. This case essentially involves a replatting in order to create two lots. Within both of the new lots a variance is requested to place the proposed primary structures entirely within the bluff and bluff impact zone; city regulations require a 10 foot setback from the top of the bluff, We recommend that the city deny the variance request. Hardship has not been demonstrated. The only apparent reason for the request is to gain greater economic benefit from the parcel of land. The state statute addressing variances (Chapter 462.357, Subd. 6, (2)) clearly states that "(e)conornic considerations alone shall not constitute undue hardship..." As required by the city's ordinance, a copy of the city's decision on this variance request shall be sent to me within 10 days of the final decision. If the city does not deny the request, a copy of the record the decision was based on shall also be forwarded. Please ¢omact me at 772-7910 (772-7914 - direct/voice mail) if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Cell Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS C; Minnehaha Creek Watershed District City of Mound Shoreland File Application for ,hONOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 f_~ . Distribution: .: : ............ .= ~ j~fi~/' ~g, ! Escrow Deposit: ~(~ City Planner ti DNR i ~ ,g=;<'. Deficient Unit Charges7 *1 Public Works Other ' s City Engineer Delinquent Taxes? $5o.oo $1,000 .................................................................................... VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: ........ ' .................................................................... PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION 009,8 e 002 ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT OWNER (if other than applicant) The applicant is: ~' owner other: ' __ Name Address Phone ( H )~~LJ.~ (W) Name.. '~. S C.- ~,,1~. ~t~.~ (M) SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Phc.e(,) c~72-Szzt _(w)__~? Z-3 z z. i (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,~{j~'no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. RECEIVED dvl/ner s s/i~'nature ' --7 case. Date Owner's Signature - Date ~ = ~zoo [oT-f LC)T- E ~o TRACT A ND SURVEYING INC. The Nodheasterly 15.00 feet of Lot 7 and the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. TRACT B The Southwesterly Half of Lot 4, all of Lot 5 and Lot 4, except the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of said!Lot 4, TRACT C Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 feet of said Lot 7. , I hereby cerllfy Ihal lhls plan, survey or ~eporl was prepared by me or under my dhect supervision and that I am a dutyReglslered Land Surveyor under the laws of Ihe Slate I-~ Oe~no. MN ,5532~ i-- ../ TRACT ^ The Northeaslerly 15.00 feet of Lot 7 and the Soulhwesterly 35.50 feet of Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. TRACT B The Soulhwesterly Half of Lot 4, all of Lot 5 and Lot 4, except the Southweslerly 35.50 feet of said Lot 4, ~l~)ck 2, Avalon. TRACT C Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 leer of said Lot 7. I hereby cattily Ihel Ihls plan, survey or leport was prepared by rne or under my direct suporvisior~ a.d Ihel I em a duly Reglslered Land Surveyor under Ihs laws ol the Slate t~ ll n L o d HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT ,AREA SQFrX30% = ] SQ F1~ X 15% = EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: LENGTH opf._ x X X WIDTH TOTAL HOUSE ........... GARAGE: /CA.- TOTAL GARAGE x X,£ = X = DRIVEWAY: TOTAL DRIVEWAY x /5'" = DECK: / 7.- x / d T O q_'_~_L. D~C_~. : "' . ...... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ ~ TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCO~ ·. .... : ........ MEETS .- . . · '.'. · · . . ~,YES NO CiTY OF MOUND HARDQOVER q:A[,CULATiON~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} -PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. X 30% = (for allloTs) .............. I I X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... ] "~7~ I 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 0~an decks (1/4" min. opening between board=) with a pervioue surface under are not counted as herdcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SO FT z,~ x '~ /, 3 = ' ,~ 2 ~ /! x I,¢' = /Z, 5- x ~o = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~- x ~ s'-- = 7~ x z. = / ¢0 TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. /¢ x /&'z = X = TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER X ~ TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VER. difference[ .~ ............................. (indicate PREPARED BY ~/-~~ . ' DATE ,' CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER QALCULATiON-~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% -- (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ~,~ ~;~4 SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Recorc~') ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) eExisting 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 ~"A~ (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with · LENGTH WIDTH SO FT /~ x z~'. ~ = ~-~5'-- ~'~, ~ x ~---~, 5 = ~'OZ-, ~- X TOTAL HOUSE X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDG$ ................. ~'.~ X ~ =~ __ ... ~,~ x ~,~ = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = 7 7. ZS' X ~ pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover TOTAL DECK x / = ~-~ X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... ~"'~ PREPARED BY~ HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I, '~OVER. (indic .............................. ;I i L MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIZ, - JUNE 25, 1996 1.6 CASE ,q96-31: MINOR SUBDMSION, RANDALL MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 6, 5, & NELY 1/2 OF 4, 'BLOCK 2, PID 19-117-23 24 0008.. City Manager Ed Shulde stated the applicant had requested this item to be pulled from the agenda. The Planning Commission had recommended denial and he was going to re. apply with different plans. CITY OF MOUND: I REQUEST TO HAVE MY APPLICATION PULLED FROM TI~ AGENDA OF THE 25TH OF JUNE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I WISH TO RESUBMIT WITH REVISED DRAWINGS OF PROPOSED HOUSE TO MEET NEW LOT SIDE YARD SETBACK LIMITATIONS. (10 FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK). I WILL SUBMIT DRAWINGS, SURVEY AND REQUIRED SETBACK AND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS IF REQUIRED THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. YOURS TRULY, RECEIVED JUN 2 0 1996 ' ~iOUND PLANNING & INSP. s e p. , ~ o~.~ p o_. k , A or ~.O'D jUM ~ ~ £~o~- C_~. ?s. t~ p r o lo l e..m,.s o. ,a ok rrt ck~ b e_ ec,-tl MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 CASE 96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION RANDALL MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH RUAu, LOTS 6, 5, & NELY 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 24 0008 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report, and noted that the applicant has submitted a revised request which provides conforming lot sizes for both Tracts A and B. Tract A has a total of 6,020 square feet, and Tract B has a total of 8,400 square feet. In order for the subdivision to be approved, the following variances are requested: Recognition of an existing front yard setback variance of 15.28 feet for the existing home. e Approval of a variance from the bluff restrictions contained in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. e The house on the new lot, Tract A, is proposed to have a nonconforming front yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking approval to create a new lot which is nonconforming due to size and slope. Most of Tract A lies within a bluff that according to the survey has a slope of 49%. The Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) prohibits buildings from being located any closer than 10 feet from the top of the bluff. According to the applicant's survey, only a small portion of a proposed garage on Tract A actually lies outside of either the bluff or the required bluff setback. The proposed subdivision creates a new lot that does not comply with the minimum standards of the Mound Zoning Code. Therefore, staff cannot support the minor subdivision and recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial. Koegler noted that when the application for this case was submitted, it did not include the required variance application and fee. The applicant stated that the variance applications were submitted and the fees were paid. The Planner confirmed that this was true. Mueller questioned if the proposed house meets the minimum height restrictions. Sutherland commented that it is difficult to determine with the plan that was submitted, and that he would need more information. It was noted that Moriarity's property received a variance in 1994 for construction of the decks. Mueller clarified with staff that since the lot line is being changed, these lots will loose their lot-of-record status, therefore, the required side yard setbacks will be 10 feet and the~ maximum amount of hardcover allowed will be 30 percent. ~ 2-2-3 Mr. Jack Cook, representative for the applicant, questioned why when his property was recently divided it was permitted to retain the lot-of-record status. He would like the lot-of-record status also retained for this property. The Planner stated that this subdivision will be creating a totally new lot, whereas Mr. Cooks subdivision did not. Koegler offered to ask the attorney, John Dehn, to render an opinion before it goes to the council. Mr. Cook stated that Lot 6 was a separate lot before, but then a previous owner combined them. Mr. Cook emphasized that most all of the homes along this road are built into the same bluff. He feels it would be beneficial to this property to be developed as retaining walls will become part of the construction. He stated that the hillside is starting to erode. He would like to improve and clean-up the neighborhood. Voss moved to deny the applicant's request based on staff's analysis and recommendation. Motion seconded by Burma. Mueller commented that it is admirable to want to clean-up the neighborhood, but this may not be the best way to do it. He commented that Denbigh Road is narrow, and this would allow another house too close to the road. He is strictly opposed to the subdivision as it would be allowing construction in a bluff. Mueller recalled that only one other time was any construction allowed in a bluff and it was part of a PUD and the type of construction was limited. He also feels this lot is too narrow. Hanus does not believe construction in the bluff is a major issue since this whole area is in a bluff. Hanus referenced a recent case were the Planning Commission allowed a porch to be constructed in a bluff. Hanus feels that denial is too harsh and suggested a tabling action. Mueller commented that the side yard setbacks are also a problem in his opinion. Motion to deny carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Voss, Burma, Michael, Glister, Reifschneider, Weiland, and Mueller. Hanus was opposed. Hanus commented he would have liked to have given the applicant more time to work with staff. The Building Official noted that the applicant could submit a written request to pull this request from the Council agenda in order to allow him time to revise their plan which could then come back to the Planning Commission for review. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see a better cross section drawing. Itl, Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ~H PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variances APPLICANT: Randall Moriarty CASE NUMBER: 96-31 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-51 LOCATION: 4536 Denbigh Lane EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels. Tract A is proposed to have a lot area of 5,720 square feet. Tract B which contains an existing nonconforming home will have an area of 8,700 square feet. In order for the subdivision to be approved, a number of variances are being requested. They include: 1. A lot area variance of 280 square feet for Tract A. 2. Recognition of an existing front yard setback variance of 15.28 feet for the existing home on Tract B. 3. Creation of a new .5 foot side yard variance for the existing home and deck on Tract B. 4. Approval of a variance from the bluff restrictions contained in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. COMMENT: Mound's Zoning Code is focused on bringing as many properties as possible into compliance with stated requirements. As the Planning Commission and City Council know, this is 7300 Metro Boule0ard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Moriarty Planning Report June 5, 1996 Page 2 difficult but not impossible when the subject request involves one existing lot. In the case of the proposed subdivision, the applicant is seeking approval to create a new lot which is nonconforming due to size and slope. Tract A does not meet the 6,000 square foot minimum size requirement. Additionally, most of the lot lies within a bluff that according to the survey, has a slope of 49%. The Shoreland Management Ordinance limits construction in the bluff to only stairs and walkways necessary to provide access. It further prohibits buildings from being located any closer than 10 feet from the top of the bluff. According to the applicant's survey, only a small portion of a proposed garage on Tract A actually lies outside of either the bluff or the required bluff setback. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed subdivision creates a new lot that does not comply with the minimum standards of the Mound Zoning Code. Therefore, staff can not support the minor subdivision and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend its denial. Note: When the minor subdivision application for this case was submitted, it did not include the required variance application and fee. Therefore, the minor subdivision application is incomplete at this time and it shall not be considered complete until the application for the variances as noted herein, as well as the corresponding fee are submitted. The statutory 60 day time limit for action on this item is suspended and this case will not be scheduled for City Council action until such time as all application materials are submitted. Upon submission of required materials, the 60 day time limit will resume. FOK: BUII.DING PERMIT SURVEY RECEIYL:::D J UN 1 0 1991 MOUND PLANNING f ~-~,/.~E,~:~ y ~ ~/~ ' WOOD STAKE B~AR[NGS ON ASSUMED DATUM O "IRON MON. SET PROPOSED INFORMATION 1st FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. ")~= DRAINAGE 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV. 1000.0,)' PROPOSED ELEV. L~SCHOBORG ND SURVEYING INC. ~/2-3221 ~r~ Cry. Roi. 13 SE Dm~, MN S532a £ / · = IRON MON. INPLACE I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State o! Minnesota. Date: /~, ~/~,,/'~/t r/'~~ ~:~t_. Registration No. 14700 GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. E&P_ 000.0 - EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. JOl~ # Book - Page Scale /'L- AUgllst 23, 1994 ocl 12 T~NSFER ENTERED p .... '.~UNT'¢ TAXPAYER SERVICES 8EP RESOLUTION//9~116 ~i~~-~/~ ~ DEPUTY RESOLUTION TO APPROVE, ,4, VARIANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE DW'F~I.LING AND A DECK 4536 DEN'BIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6 AND SOUTHWESTERLY 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PI])//19-117-23 24 0008 P&Z CASE/D4-60 WHEREAS, the owner, Randall Moraixty, has applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 4.72 feet, resulting in a variance of 15.28 feet, to re-construct a 10' x 20' two story portion of the dwelling, and to construct two new decks within the bluff impact zone, an upper deck 6' x 20' and a lower deck 15' x 20', and; W'HEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water level, and; WHEREAS, the subject property contains a bluff. A 10 foot setback from the top of the bluff is required for all structures, and; WHEREAS, the 10' x 20' portion of the dwelling was removed and reframed without the proper permits, and new roof trusses have been installed over 31 feet of the rear portion of the home. Prior to the variance application, building permits were issued for interior remodeling, but not for reconstruction of the exterior walls or the roof truss modification, and; WHERJ&AS, the contractor has stated that during the remodeling process, after the removal of the interior wall surface, they discovered the extremely poor construction and condition of the exterior walls, and; WHEREAS, the portion of the dwelling which was reconstructed is set at the top of the bluff, and the proposed decks would encroach into the bluff, and; WHEREAS, the footprint has not changed, and during construction, vegetation on the steep slope has not been disturbed. The buildable footprint of this property is limited by the bluff and the required setbacks, and; WHEREAS, when the upper level was reconstructed, joists were cantilevered out 4 feet to allow for a future deck. Originally, there was no door on the upper level. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined to afford the owner reasonable use of the property, a minimum deck is rational, and; 242. August 23, 1994 WHEREAS, dense vegetation on the lot helps screen the view of the house from the lake, and the setback to the ordinary high water is approximately 80 feet, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance for the reconstruction and two decks, as modified, with conditions. Findings of Fact are: The appearance from the lake will be enhanced by the decks. The buildable footprint between the road and the top of the bluff is very. shallow. Dense vegetation to the east of the house discourages construction of an addition or a deck in that location. Reasonable use of the property will be maintained by allowing the minimally sized decks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming 4.72 foot front yard setback and grant variances to the required setback from the top of a bluff to allow reconstruction of a 10' x 20' two story portion of the dwelling, with new roof trusses, and allow the construction of two new decks, as follows: Lower Deck: maximum 10' x 20' deck with not more than 3 piers. Upper Deck: with a projection of 4 feet maximum from the house, with the comers cut off at 45 degree angles. 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 these alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6, 5, and Southwesterly 1/2 of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. 243 Auqust 23, ~994 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. e The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk 244 09:09 CITY OF MOUND BUII._nING PERMIT SURVBY 1:3 = WOOD STAKE PLACED B.M:- ~,~,e4~;' ,~'/.,,,~' -. ~'~ BEARINGS .ON. ASSUMED DATUM DRAINAGE O = IRON MON. SET PROPOSED INFORMATION 15t FLOOR ELEV. ' ooo.o-- ~,,~. ~,. ~oo~.~.1. ~.o.o~ ~v. · = IRON MON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. i TOP BLOCK ELEV. E & P= EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. 000.0 Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: ' ,~~ City Planner Public Works City Engineer Other 55364' ...... Application Fee: Z $50.00 Escrow Deposit: $1,000 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: INFORMATION ~.~,.~~o~/.,,es c.~'~ ~ ~vg (~ v-~/-o+ ~ .o~ ~- ,~, DESCRIPTION Subdivision r / ZONING Circle: R-1 R-1A~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 DISTRICT APPLICANT The applicant is: ~;;~owner other: OWNER Name {if other than applicant} Address Phone~'~'~ (W) (M) ENGINEER Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, {~)~no. If yes, / list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. (Th~/ applic~t/on must Jpe s/gned by~all owners of the subject property, or an exp/anat/on g/ven why th/s /s not the case. ~Tner gnature Date ~ECEIVED DateNA¥ 2 3 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. RECEIVED MAY 3 0 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. !"(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION Planning Commission Date: Application Fee: City Council Date: CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 $50.00 Case No.q~s7"'?,~ { Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Plat# ~'~ ~0 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Address (M). Address c_[ Phone(H) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ,~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolu'- tions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 12/8195) Wu-lance 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 ~0-. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: I~QLTII~_,D REQUESTED (or existing) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) ]0~ ft. Street Frontage: ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft VARIANCE ft. /5"Z ft. ft. ft. ft. ft- ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~0" ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage 0<) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: V~-'iance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982).9 Yes (), No t~). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road9. Yes (), No (k). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes 00, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the iCity of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. -~'~Qwner's Signature ~ Applicant's Signature (Rev. 1218195) Date ~,~,~-/~/~ ~'(~ Datj3-'~ ~.~ c qlec FOR: BUll.DING PERM/T SURVEY RFC, FIVFD NAY 3 1996 MOUND PLA lING & INSR ~C~A Lot 6, Block 2, - Avalon. TRACT B Lot 5 and the northeasterly half of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. O ' WOOD STAKE PLACED B.M;- ~/~/~' ~'~-' = BEARINGS .ON. ASSUMED DATUM O = IRON MON. SET PROPOSED INFORMATION 1st FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. DRAINAGE 000.0=EXIST. ELEV. (000.0,)' PROPOSED ELEV. · = IRON MON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. , TOP BLOCK ELEV. E & P= EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. 000.0 I hereby cei'tify that this plan, sur~ey or report was. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: /'~ ~/~'/~/.'/~ ~ Registration No. 14700 Book - Page Scale /',- ~ CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: ~ · ~.~ · ~ ~;ooo~o - ~s ~o, ooo/~o LOT OF RECORD? ZONING DISTImJCT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: HOUSE ......... YARD F DIRECTION ] REQUIRED { EXIS'I]LNG/PROPOSED FRONT R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ' ^,.©I N E W 15' E W 50' GARAGE, SiI~U ..... OR OTHER DETACHED FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER ~ {/~R 40% This Zoning Information Sheet ~ a portion of the requir, .Planning Department at 472-0600. I (47) ,.>~I///p'~'' :8 EXISTING LOT SIZE: IZ--/O00 LOT WIDTH: LOT VARIANCE I0' 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 50' -'~)OR 30' ents outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound I ("IT.~ 3 R 5 ¥ I ~ t 0 rn- I 0 0 '-h 0 0 OO CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZEtWlDTH: LOT OF RECORD7 YES YARD HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N $ E W ~E w B1 7~500/0 B2 20~000/80 R2 R2 R3 REQUIRED GARAGE. SIIED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS E~{ ~ ~l FRONT N $ E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N 5 E W 4'OR6' SIDE N 5 E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' 6,000140 B3 10,000/60 14,000/80 SEE: ORD. I1 30,000/100 VARIANCE HARDCOVER 3~0% OR 40% ~'~ ~' ~ i - , co. Fo~I~O: w (,.~97 ~'~ ]~v: ~ [DATED: ~(~-_~ _3~',--C'd~ I This Zoning Information Sheet only mmm~izes n portion of the requlrem~t~ outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordln~nce. For further informntion, contact the City of Mound Planning Depm'tment at 472.-0600. .C --~ t 0 0 $ 0 OO September 24, 1996 RF~OL~ION//96- RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING "MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK" IN THE CITY OF MOUND OCTOBER 6-12, 1996 WHEREAS, the daily accomplishments of cities, their officials and volunteers provide the cornerstone for creating, supporting and building the well-being of our communities; and, WHEREAS, most Minnesotans now live in cities, and it is there that the democratic process is most closely seen and understood; and, WHEREAS, decisions made by Congress and the Minnesota State Legislature impact our municipal governments and the quality of life in our cities and neighborhoods; and, WltEREAS, constructive decisions of the impact of these national and state issues will educate citizens and may lead to a sense of common community purpose; and, WHEREA~[~e Cities Week 1996 theme of Making Cities Count - Preserving Our Quality of Life offers/am,.i~nportant opportunity to educate citizens about the important work that cities do and to disc~ms4~e impact of national and state decisions on cities' quality of life. WHEREAS, Tuesday, October 8th will be "Open House" day for the City of Mound featuring city vehicles and personnel to demonstrate to the public, displays within city hall, refreshments, information to the schools, press releases, sharing with the public a positive relationship while promoting the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the week of October 6-12, 1996 be acknowledged as "Cities Week" in the City of Mound and that Tuesday, October 8, 1996 to be "Open House at the City of Mound" sharing a positive relationship of the City of Mound with the public. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 STAFF REPORT FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 24, 1996, Revised September 6, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission Those Persons Listed on the Attached Batch #9 Jon Sutherland, Building Offici~--~J~ Jim Fackler, Parks Director Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector Update of Public Land Permits, "Batch #9", D~)ck Sites 41824, 42406, 42961,43020, 43080, 43120,43180, 43235, 43420, and 43450 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting: September 12, 1996 City Council Meeting: September 24, 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 Dock Inspector according to the Procedure Manual as approved by the City Council. Batch #9 will be reviewed by the Park Commission on September 12, 1996, and then the City Council will take final action on these permits at their meeting on September 24, 1996. Recommendation: Staff recommends apC'~of a 5-year permit for Batch #9, subjecl~ ~as noted on the attac~d. All conditions of approval must be completed~" ~within one (1~ approval by~/City Council or the dock license will be withheld until .~pletion. Permits m-'~-t-b~-~m-ewed with change in dock license holder. pJ Enclosures~ .___ ..... f~' Abutting property owners / dock site holders will be notified. printed on recycled paper Printed 9/6/96 Batch #9 Public Land Permits Park and Open Space Commission 9/12/96 City Council 9/24/96 DOCK I ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE I DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 41824 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. 42406 DEVON COMMON, CLASS D 4743 ISLAND VIEW DR ROBERT EIDEM & NICOLE BLUM CONTACTED? YES - STAIRWAY APPROVE STAIRWAY WITH REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT TO BE MADE BY APPLICANT AND AS APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. 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 43080 DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 4815 ISLAND VIEW DR ARLENE ESKEDAHL CONTACTED? YES - 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 printed 9/6/96 ABUTTING ADDRESS I ENCROACHMENTI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 43120 4823 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. CARRELL KUCERA CONTACTED? YES - PLATFORM APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. 43180 4829 ISLAND VIEW DR - STORM WATER/ APPROVED AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. JERRY MAREK ROOF DRAIN CONTACTED? 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). DEVON COMMON, CLASS B 4849 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY (A) ON APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. STEPHEN HEWITT HILLSIDE 43420 CONTACTED? YES - STAIRWAY (B) ON RIP RAP 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 - RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 4853 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY (A) ON APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. MARK GOLDBERG HILLSIDE 43450 CONTACTED7 YES - STAIRWAY (B) ON RIP RAP - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET 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.* 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. Mark Smith & Gina Anderson 4665 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Robert Eidem & Nicole Blum 4743 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Curtis Olson 4801 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Michael Kane 4805 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Arlene Eskedahl 4815 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Carrell Kucera 4823 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Jerry Marek 4829 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Glenn & Amy Hurd 4833 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Stephen Hewitt 4849 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Mark Goldberg 4853 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 ABUTTING OWNERS TO BE NOTIFIED: ,-. ad Miller 4747 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Scott & Linda Mack 4657 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Paul Jereczek 3225 Devon Lane Mound, MN 55364 Michael Henry 4737 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dennis Halleron 3179 Devon Lane Mound, MN 55364 Elizabeth Dillon 4768 Tuxedo Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Don Swenson 4857 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING AUGUST 8, 1996 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH//9 41830 Mark Smith & Gina Anderson 42406 Robert Eidem & Nicole Blum 42961 Curtis Olson 4801 43020 Michael Kane 4805 43080 Arlene Eskedahl 4815 43120 Carrell Kucera 4823 43180 Jerry Marek 4829 43235 Glenn & Amy Hurd 4833 43420 Stephen Hewitt 4849 43450 Mark Goldberg 4853 4665 Island View Drive 4743 Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive Island View Drive This item has been tabled as a result of the previous motion. ! ! '130 42856 4269! 52 Ii I1,,~ Io ~' ~c~ .... DEVON LANE ~X'FORD LANE ROANOKE LANE ! State of Minnesota Board of Electricity Malinda Joyce Sampson Area Electrical Representative Post Office Box 18638 Minneapolis Minnesota 55418-4016 May 9, 1996 Jon Sutherland, Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Sutherland: Phone 612-781-4110 (8-9 AM) RECEIVED AUG 0 7 1996 IVIOUND PLANNING & INSR At your request, I made an inspection of existing electrical wiring at the Gina Anderson and Mark Smith residence, 4665 Island View Drive on Monday, August 5, 1996. The existing wiring on the Commons area consists of a single steel pole about ten feet tall with three lighting fixtures mounted on top and separate switches in individual weathertite condolets at about three feet off the ground. Adjacent to the switches two standard receptacle boxes are mounted, each with a single 120 volt 15 amp receptacle. One of the two has the original screw-on type cover, which makes the installation watertite when not in use. The cover for the other device is missing. At about a foot off the ground, there is a telephone junction box and an outdoor convenience telephone jack. I met Ms. Anderson at the property and discussed with her my evaluation of the installation: 1.) The two existing single receptacles mounted on the light pole are not GFCI protected. The owners have purchased and are using a listed, portable ground fault circuit interrupting cord set and a portable cord to extend 120 volt power to their dock, which does provide the required protection on a temporary basis. Both devices should be replaced with permanent GFCI receptacles per NEC 2I O.& 2.) The extension cord used to provide power to the boat when parked at the dock, remains plugged into the device which is not protected from the weather (this is a wet location.) A receptacle cover which prot, cts the d~vice when a cord is attatched should be installed per NEC 410-56(b). When there is mutual agreement between the City of Mound and the individual landowner, the Board of Electricity will make an inspection of existing electrical wiring in the commons area for the purpose of identitifying safety concerns. Minnesota state law requires that all corrections, alterations or repairs to the existing wiring be made by a licensed electrical contractor who has filed a Request for Inspection certificate with the Board of Electricity. Upon reciept of a Request for Electrical In~ectio._n, the inspector will verk~ with the City of Mound that permission for the electrical work has been granted. ~ Sincerely, STATE BOARD OF ELECTRICITY MAraeliTEd ~eJc~rY~aI RepPr;~enntative John A. Schultz, Director of Inspections Allen Tollakson, Contract Electrical Inspector Gina Anderson, property owner JIM FACKLER & PARK COMMISSION 8-8-96 182-1 University Ave · Ste S-128 · St. Paul, MN 55104-2993 · (612) 642-0800 · Fax (612) 642-0441 ° 'FI-Y/MRS 297-5353 Metro or (800) 627-3529 Greater Minnesota / ¢~o~ conc. road 15 I (937.B) .,,~ EXISTING HOUSE S 89°49' W (947.7) z 15 ~ B I o c k t o p ', D r i v eL.:: 35 0-/'- ~.~' ~ ' LOT AREA= ' 79.35 ~ SQ. FT.', I /I i""t I I ~./ I I I 10.7- I Existing deck to I be removed (]nd replaced with '"t" : .~.o~,~q/~'"~ new deck ~ · : over- ' " 2.3 over. ,"' ~.p o° · ,. ,. ,,, 74.7 ' ,'-' "-- s 5.,.~ ........... ~ I I I I~I · ..-931.5 Contour Line ""929.40ontour Line (O.H.W.) N ~1.0 ~"' (,938.2) J Deck ~/,~/<'E-/W//t,//t'/2- 7-0/V'/<' A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 9 and 10, Block 15, DEVON \(~)0 ' denotes iron marker (9;47.~-)-: denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum., :~,~ : dbnotes distance as shown on the plat of DEVON t~Jearings shown are based upon on assumed datum. SEE SURVEY VERT PO DOUBLE o 4'-o" TREATED TO MAT( TREATED '---EXlSTING DRIVEWAY-~.,,~ /~'--~SEE SURVEY FOR EASEMENTS~..~.~ / I PLANTE R"--~.~ ! /// // EXISTING STAIR"-~ -EXISTING CHIMMNEY r~EXISTING GARAGE~ ~/EXISTING STAIR / / '~EXISTING PA TlO'~x.l EXIST OAK TREE---~ (~ .... EXISTING 14'-0" SHRUBS /// WOOD WALKWAY~ EXISTING PLANTER/ SEE SURLY ENTRY XISTING PAT EXISTING OAK \ \ \ ENTRY ~'~EXISTING HOUSE-~...~ PLANTER- 24'-6" GLASS PATIO DOOR ~==NEW / / EXISTING 7'-0" SHRUB TO EXISTING 7'-0" SHRUB~ DECK TO PINE / WALKWAY- LINE SEE SURVEY \ \ \ \ AND STAIR '" SIZE TO MAT, CIt E XlS TING~..~..~E XiST plG L,j)--OAK 'TREE i 2X12 JO~ O24"O CANTILE~ DECK TO COMMON' 2X12 TR BEAM'.---.- SONA TL FROST [ EXISTIN( AND GR, '7 0 ~ IVIINL1TES OF A MEETING OF TI-IF. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1996 CASE 96-45: VARIANCE FOR DECK, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, GLENN AMY HURD, 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 proDosed 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. 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, 1996 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 Reifschnelder 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 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 to the existing sewer easement at the line due 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. ross 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. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MTNUTES OF A M'EETING AUGUST 8, 1996 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FROM STEVE CODDON FOR A STAIRWAY AND PATHWAY ACROSS THE UNIMPROVEi~ ROW OF BLACK LAKE LANE, LONGFORD ROAD, AND PARCELS 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 conf'u'med 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 sure 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. CITY OF MOUND Staff Report 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: August 6, 1996 MEETING DATES: August 8, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission August 26, 1996 City Council TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director SUBJECT: Construction on Public Lands Permit Application from Steve Coddon for a Stairway and Pathway Across the Unimproved Right-of-Way (ROW) of Black Lake Lane and Longford Road, and Parcels 23, 29 and 30 in Block 11, Seton BACKGROUND. The applicant, Steve Coddon, is seeking a Construction on Public Iamds Permit to install a stairway and wood chip path on public lands. The sole purpose of the stairway and path is to provide access to a privately owned parcel that the applicant is using as a dock site location. The stairway is proposed to be located on an unimproved portion of Black Lake Lane (actually Lot 9, Block 11, Seton). The proposed wood chip path is approximately 300 feet in length and meanders along a combination of the unimproved Longford Road and City owned parcels 30 and 23. Parcels 23, 29 and 30 were conveyed to the City of Mound from the State of Minnesota in 1988 to be used exclusively for conservation purposes (note City Council Resolution//88-21 and conveyance document Exhibit A). The area hacs4te~p-Sl-6i-3~'~yi~_th significant tree cover and remains in a relatively natural state, with the lower~~etlands. ~'Tl~i-g City prop-~-~, along with 200+ other parcels, were inventoried th'~ ~-~rk Commission's 1992 review of potential nature conservation areas (NCA's), and was not designated, but remains a potential NCA site. As noted on the dock location map, this property is flanked on both sides by shoreline that is classified as Type E, "wetlands, wildlife area, beaches and boat landings. No Docks." (Note Exhibits B, C, & D.) According to the survey dated 10-5-95, most of the applicant's parcel is located below the ordinary high water (OHW). The balance of the parcel appears to be in the floodplain, and this land (approximately 90 sq. ft.) may not be accessible during periods of high water. If the land is flooded out the owner will n o o tarn a pu ~c lands dock permit if he wishes to extend the dock to dry land located on the adjacent public ROW, Longford Road. Staff Report Coddon Page 2 COMMENTS.. The proposed stairway and path do not appear to be in conflict with the NCA plan, however this is an extensive proposal for a private improvement on public lands, and there is potential for substantial ramifications that should be addressed at this time. If approval of the request is to be considered, and since it is on public property, it is appropriate to look closely at the improvements and the means necessary to construct and maintain the improvements as though they were part of a public project. The City has a direct interest in seeing that the project is constructed and maintained at appropriate standards since it will be available for use by the general public. The Park Commission/City Council could determine that wood is not an appropriate material based on the long term maintenance costs. The most recent stairways constructed by the Parks Department have been of masonry construction. The plan that has been submitted does not show contours or detail how the proposed wood chip path is to intersect with the hillside, it also does not identify if there is any tree removal planned. It appears some benching will be needed on the uphill side of the path, and due to the steep slopes the proposed woodchip surface may pose a significant maintenance problem due to washouts. The Park Commission may wish to consider an alternative type of base material that is less susceptible to erosion. Maintenance is a long term Parks Department issue that must be provided for and that the applicant has not addressed. Erosion control measures should also be provided for during construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends the Park and Open Space Commission recommend approval of the applicant's request to install a stairway and path to provide access to the privately owned parcel, subject to the following conditions. 1) The plan shall be revised to address the concerns of staff as listed in this report. Provide details/contours of the slope, enough to define any needed excavation/benching, and any erosion control measures that will be needed during construction. Identify location of existing trees in excess of 4" in diameter within the proposed path and 3 feet on either side that will require trimming or removal. Provide for a maintenance contract or dedication to the City of Mound that is suitable to the City Attorney and Parks Director. Provide a suitable base material that is less subject to erosion, to be approved by the Parks Director. a, ,mt ,,1~, j Coddon Page 3 2) Provide a performance bond acceptable to the City Attorney and Parks Director to insure proper completion of the work. 3) Any debris generated or exposed during construction shall be removed from the site by the applicant and at the applicant's expense. 4) The stairway shall be installed according to the Building Code, as approved by the Building Official. Js:pj The abutting property owners have been notified of this request. 27 January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88-.21 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE F~OH THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LA~DS .WHEIUEAS, there are certain lots in the City of Mound which are tax forfeit; and WHEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council either release.these lots for public auction; release for pri.vate sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be improved because of non-compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance; and WHEREAS, it appears in the best interest of the City to obtain certain lots for various reasons, i.e. wetlands, storm sewer drainage, street or park purposes, or topography. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to make ap- plication to the State of Minnesota for conveyance of.the lots listed below for'the public purpose listed: PARCEL LEGAL DEscRIPTION 19-117-23 21 0023 Lot 1, Block 11, Seton PURPOSE Topography makes it un- buildable 19-117-23 21 0029 19-117-23 21 0030 That p~rt of Lots 7 & 8 lying bet the Nly line and Sly line of Lot 2 extended across said Topography makes it un- Lots 7 & 8, Block 11, Seton buildable That part of Lots 7 & 8 lying N of the Sly line of Lot 1. extended across said lots 7 & Topography makes it un- 8, Block 11, Seton buildable The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Abel was absent and excused. - Att~est: City--Clerk / / 0 0 I BIT ESSE~ _-J II TYRONE II ii 600 :32920 I'1 I' Ii CLARE I I ii [r~-:-:~'- r-- ~r-',; I WEXFORD DEVON I I I! II L II ii i Ii i II i i iI \\ 30884 50924 3092~ 30954 I I % o 0 0 0 0 o ~3 ~ r~ ~ 0 Type A: Type B: Type C: Type D: Type E: Parks S_hoteline Tv p_. Shoreline thai"i~ traversible only on top: need stairway to shoreline, accessible by public right-of-way. . Shoreline traversible along the wateffs edge: access points available to traversible shore- line. Shoreline with no traversible space: stairs needed to shoreline, not accessible by pub- lic right-of-way (abutting property owners only). Shoreline that is traversible on the top, and traversible along the w ' ater s edge: acces- sible by public right-of-way. Shoreline such as wetlands, wildlife area, beaches and boat landings. No Docks. /96 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 55364 DISTRIBUTION: 3-~ BUILDING OFFICIAL ,, PARKS DIRECTOR DNR MCWD PUBLIC WORKS PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE l~.one~/ ~-~ CONBTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND pERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I~1 I pUBLIC LAND MAINT~.NANC~. PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). I I CONTINUATION OF BTRUCTURE - 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. S_~a~__~0nstruction must meet the S~ate Building Code_when the permit is for new construction, or a he. permit is applied for due to ch~e % d~ck site holder. Applicant Name J~U~ C~ O d~O~/ Address ~ ~ 70 C 0/'4.~4 p~O~ E[-(/O ~Oy ~,~ Phone (home) ~/~- ~ ~6 (work) - ~ ~utting Address Pro9erty Owner Legal Lot Block Description Subd. Public Name Property ~ ~/~ Shoreline Type f , Contractor Name ~~ ~~~ ~. .. Address ~)~ ~ ~~ k~ Phone ~ -q ~ ~ VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS) ~S_i~a~6re.__f_..: Of Applicant / - ' ~e ~ o Denotes ircxt mt Denotes offset stake x 000.0 Denotes existing elev. (000.0) De~otes proposed elev. ~ Denotes s~face ~ainage Proposed garage floor eJev.= Proposed lowest Iloo~ elev.= Proposed top of foundation elev.= BENCHMARK: PREPARED FOR Z -r" EMMETT PLFICE BLRCK LRKE KENMARE COMMON . h'age ~. CONCEPT LANDSCAPING,' INC. [] REMODELING. INC. '~ CONCEPT LANDSCAPING & ROCK RITCHIE CONCEPT GROUP, INC. 3153 Pdest Lane Mound, MN 55364 , 472.4118 or 750-4374 PROPOSAL SUBMIT'FEDTO STREET CIW, STATE and ZIP CODE ARCHITECT IDATE OF PLANS PHONE JOBNAME JOB LOCATION IJOBPHONE We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: ~J~g ~ropas[' hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the 's'um of: , 'I ' dollars ($ .......... ,Payment to be made ~ follo~: _- ~1 ~te~ is gu~te~ to ~ ~ s~ified. ~1 wo~ to be complet~ i¢ a womanlike ;' ' I/~:~'~~' ' ' " ' " ~ner a~rding to s~d~d prances. ~y a~eration or de~aaon from ~ve s~ifi~Bons A~h~dzed ' invo~ng e~a ~ will ~ executed only u~n w~en ordem, and wll~ ~me ~ e~a Signature '' ~ ~~/ ~ge ~er. ~ ~ve ~e esfi~te. NI agreemen~ ~ntingem upon s~k~, a~iden~ --/ or dela~ ~yond our ~ntr~. O~er to ~r~ fire, toredo and o~er ne~ tnsuran~, Note: ~is proposal may be Ourwo~e~e~lly~er~WWo~man's~mpen~tionl~uran~, ' withdraw~ by us ~ pot. a~tedwit~i~ ~. . ~]'.~. ~ ~".'. day~, :'an¢'Con~ons are sa~sfacto~ and am hereby accepted. You am:au~orized Signa~ure 4" x 4" green 36" 2 2x6 green tread 3. 2" x 12" greenjack Handrail 42" frost footing concrete footing 42" concrete w/4x4 green post standard Jack---2x12 green tread--2 2x6 green 8" riser 11.5" tread handrail--2x6 plowed on back Landing 1--3'x3' 2x6 green Rise: 932 to 948 Hillside 23 treads and one landing Note: handrail only-no guard rail planned Stair Case for Steve Codden 9657 Black Lake Lane / Black Lake CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-O6O0 FAX (612) 472-0620 Staff Report DATE: September 5, 1996 MEETING Park and Open Space Commission - September 1.2, 1996 DATES: City Council - September 24, 1996 TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant FROM: JimJ°n Fackler, Parks Director ~ Sutherland, Building Offi~tt-h -.-~OM~ ~-~ SUBJECT: Public Lands Permit Application from Beverly VanLaanen, 2137 Ashland Lane, Dock Site 22180, Type D, WATERSIDE LANE, Lots 3 & 4, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park /Ba~kgrou nd/Comments: //' The applicant is seeking an after the fact Construction on Public Land Permit to allow invisible /': pet fencing to remain on Waterside Commons. Staff became aware of the installation through / a co.mA~lgint from a dock site holder. There are about seven dock sites that access at this point. ThiS'~hdividual expressed concern about how closely the dog is allowed to roam by the dock sites and access walkway as Well aS the apparent lack of restraint. From an on-site inspection and discussion with Joseph VanLaanen, the applicant, the northeast corner of the applicant's property was staked. In the application it was noted that the invisible fence line was encroaching eight feet onto the public lands to the north and east. By staff's request, the fence's electrical line was located by the firm that did the installation, Invisible Fence Company of Minnesota. This was done at no charge to either the City or the applicant. The flags on the fence line, as noted on August 6, 1996, shows the line encroaching nineteen feet to the east over the access point adjacent to the dock sites, and over sixty feet to the north (note attached pictures dated 8-6-96). In the Procedure Manual, adopted by the City Council Resolution//93-52, all encroachments on- site are to be addressed to allow for a concurrent renewal dates for the abutting property. At this time the only encroachment is plantings approved by resolution//94-58 with the condition that access is not blocked and the planting area not increased. prinled on recycled paper g Staff Report Vanlannen Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request, as follows: The electric fence line on public lands shall be disconnected and a twenty four hour notice during normal working hours be provided to City staff and to be verified by visual inspection that the work has been completed. If there is to be a reinstallation, all fence wire must be on private property. 2. Resolution g94-58 remain valid, allowing the plantings to remain, as approved. The adjoining property owners have been notified. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Mal~wood Road, Mound, M~ Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 55364 ISTRIBUTION: '~_~BUILDING OFFICIAL ~'"~_PA.RK S DIRECTOR DNR MCWD ~PUBLIC WORKS DATE RECEIVED PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE lcheck ~one): ~__~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L~D PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I--I ~__~ PUBLIC L~ND MAINTEN~_NCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). i i ~ ~ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). I--i ~ ~ LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). ..... .... ; i hdc.' The st c r or w r y u equ in is an i i n publ cly o d 1 ructu es 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 .... n dock site holder. Applicant Name~//~L-~/~/ //~/J /~'~/~ Zg:LZ/~/ Phone (home)j/~ 3~ ~' (work) ~,~) <"~. ~ ~utting Address / ~ Propert~ Owner Legal Lot ~ +~ . Bl~ck~ Description Subd. Abr nq h nln Ac n. Publlc Name Property Dock Slte ~ Shoreline Type Contractor Name ~ U;% /~Zd~ ~C/~__ d 0 o~ ~ ~none ~ ~/~/~ ~ VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS). 'j~ /3 8/ '~0 DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: Gr~V~/5/Z~z~:-' /~-~/¢ ¢ ~¢/~_ ~7'~/~ ~Jp_~ //J-<7-~-0 ~ - ~" j~ ~/~o ~ - ~S_ignatu~re of Applicant Date ~271 PK. ~e looP wire is a solid or stranded-copper, insulated wire, ~l~ich carries a harmless radio signal. There is no hazard in ting or exposing the wire; the wire carries only low- ~,,tage electricity. ¢ome installations are unique. The following measure- nents are guidelines for typical installations. Protected area (acres) 0-8 8-12 Feet of Loop Wire 400-2500 2500-3000 Feet of Twisted Pair up to 150 up to 150 Wire size AWG 14 AWG 12 ~ ICT 75 SERIES Protected area (acres) 0-1 Feet of Loop Wire up to 500 Feet of Twisted Pair up to 50 ~'~-e size AWG 14 ~, 950 SERIES Protected area (acres) Indoor use only Feet of Loop Wire up to 200 Feet of Twisted Pair up to 200 Wire size AWG 18 or 22 SYMPTOM CAUSE · Dead or weak battery · Collar not adjusted properly · Break in wire Pet getting out · Signal field too narrow · Power not supplied to Trans- mitter or power is out · Pet needs additional training I Green light blinking -Break in wire (ICT 75 & ICT 150 Series) .Loop wire not connected to Transmitter or LP · Break in wire Beeping Sound 'Loop wire not connected to (~cr ~50 & nv 950 s~es) Transmitter or LP · Power surge to unit · No power from outlet Green light out 'Transformer plug loose or disconnected · Power surge to unit · Dead battery · Battery in backwards (posi tive side should be facing cap) Receiver not working (R5000 only) · Signal field setting is too low · 7K/10K channel switch on transmitter not set the same as the receiver Consult your Dealer immediately if your problem persists after checking the above chart. 'he LP 3000 is for use only with Invisible Fencing System receiver models R5000, R6000, R6500, R21 and RI2 and transmitter models CT4000 Series, nd ICT Series. The LP 3000 is a patent-protected product of Invisible Fence Co., Inc. Malvern, PA 19355-9603. US Patent No. 4996945. The LP3000 ; IlL listed. The wall transformer is UL and CSA listed. The Invisible MaskTM is FCC approved. INDUSTRY CANADA CERTIFIED. AT 950 (Canada 430 101 530). ~' "~o5 Invisible Fence Co., Inc., 355 Phoenixville Pike, Malvem, PA 19355-9603. Made in U.S.A. Printed in U.S.A. Invisible, Invisible Fence, Invisible ~g, Invisible Barrier, Invisible Boundary, Invisible Power, Your Neighborhood Pet Containment Professionals, Power Cap and OffLimits are registered 'a,~marks of Invisible Fence Co., Inc. Break-Alert, Safe Dog, Computer Collar, Softwear, and Invisible Mask are trademarks of Invisible Fence Co.. Inc. 'he Invisible Mask is patent pending. Invisible Fence Co., Inc. products are covered by various patents, both domestic and foreign. Invisible 'encing..2Always there for the life of your pet. Trademark uses licensed. Trademark owner: Invisible Fence Co. Inc., USA. Questions or comments? Please all 1~8 _0~-_ 538-DO..G; in Canada 1-800-661-6286 · IF 1/96 P/N 502-0026-01 · IA%rISIBLE ~E CD. OF MN 6407 CITY ~ PRAIRIE ~iN 55344 PHf3.%~E 6t 2-941-5100 HOME PHONE DeliVery/ ~ Installation Date: / / (Circle One) a.m. p.m. Training Date: / / (Circle One) a.m. . p.m. agree to purCas~ an I,NVISIB~[,_E FENCING Brand System Id_ 7/37-~U'I'~-OOR SYSTEM ~ installed r-I Self-installed $ INDOOR SYSTEM El Installed El Self-Installed $. ~ EXTRA RECEIVER(S) $ /:-2 A¢OI'?I;ION~/~ ,NSTALLA~OST $ /_ (acreage, terrain features, ~nveways~ / ( ~ ,1~ ¢~,~1 _. ~ i , ~. '~.,1~. , (CUSTOMER: CHECK ONE & INITIAl} ~ ACCEPTED BY ~ REJECTED BY / .. LIFETIME WAR~N~ ON EQUIPMENT $ ~,O6) (CUSTOMER: CMECK ONE & INIT~L) .~ ACCEPTED BY . 'O REJECTED BY Subtotal $ Less Deposit $, SPECIFICATIONS: Size &/~/Extra Loops Other EQUIPMENT SNs: T R T R LP R Amp. R Collar Sizes. SOURCE: Payment by: Cash Credit Card Exp. Date Check SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: NOTICE TO PURCHASER · References to "COMPANY" pertain to the company whose name appears in the box (above). · The limited warranty, limitation of liability and other terms and conditions of this purchase agreement appear on the back of this document. Read carefully before you sign this agreement. WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER DAMAGE INCURR'=D BY/~CTS OF GOD. · You, the cuStomer, may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight of the third business day after the date of this agreement. See the attached "Notice of Cancellation" form for an explanation of this right. · You, the customer, agree to train your pet to the system, as prescribed in The Invisible Fencin,q Trainin,q Manua!, for 10-15 minutes per day for at least seven days and such additional times as may be reasonably requested by COMPANY. COMPANY agrees to excute the first training session with the dog without any additional charges to the customer. · You, the customer, agree to maintain the unit and to participate in a one-year battery plan established by COMPANY. · You, the customer, agree to notify COMPANY im.rnediately upon each incident of unsatisfactory performance of the unit or / installation~ _ (/~ ~/,1. OwnerX'- +' ~ -..,.,~ /Signature .,11 .a /Sales Representative · ..._.-_ · '~"7 ~- ' '~Vhite- Company Copy Canary - Customer c~py Dat~ Date Pink - Office Copy April 26, 1994 RESOLUTION #94-58 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND "BATCH #3" PEABODY LANE, WATERSIDE COMMON, LONGFORD ROAD, AND EXCELSIOR LANE lands, and; WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed these permits and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve Public Land Permits for "Batch #3" as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: Unless otherwise noted in the "Comments/Recommendation" column on the attached "Batch #3", permits shall be approved according to (14) on the Decision Flow Chart, "Grant Permit up to 5 Years and Renewable." b. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. c. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. do 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 foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. 115 115 116 April 26, 1994 CouncilmemberJensen was absentand excused. Attest: City Clerk EXHIBIT A Batch #3 Public Land Permits 20050 5500 BREEZY ROAD WOOD/TIMBER APPROVE. CONDITION IS SOUND. Michael Kraemer STAIRWAY WATERSIDE COMMONS, CLASS D 22180 2137 ASHLAND LANE MISC. PLANTINGS & APPROVE. DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS OR INCREASE Beverly Vanlaanen TREES SIZE. (Park Commission is reviewing policy for plantings) 23150 2163 FAIRVIEW LANE BRICK FIRE RING OWNER SHALL RELOCATE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. Sharon Weber 30450 4832 LONGFORD RD ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR Richard Carlson & PUMP REMOVE. EXCELSIOR LANE, CLASS D "Il 31950 2654 SHANNON LANE ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR Bill Thorson & PUMP REMOVE. 32040 2700 SHANNON LANE ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR Ron Purdes & PUMP REMOVE. ~ ,a~ ,,l~, I IL Ii,, CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FIL~ LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD I DIREC'rION IH)USE ......... OT SIZE,%VIDTH: Bi 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 {R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 IR2 ~,ooo/~o R3 5~ ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXI$~qNG/PROPOSED EXISTINO LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF t0' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... OR OTItER DETACI1ED BUILDINGS FRONT N $ E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO NS E W 50' I0' OR 30' 30% OR 40% [BY: [DATED: This Zoning hfformation Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoalug Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound .Planning Department at 472-0600. < > CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Staff Report DATE: September 5, 1996 MEETING DATES: Park and Open Space Commission - September 12, 1996 City Council - September 24, 1996 TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Offici~.. FROM: Jim Fackler, Parks Director SUBJECT: Request for Public Land Permit f~om Frank & Andrea Ahrens 4673 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon Dock Site 41902, Devon Common, Type D Shoreline Background/Comments. The applicant ~s seeking a constructaon on Pubhc Lands Permit to allo / for a below grade 1-1/2" PVC pipe to carry water to a pump which will be located on private [ property. The pipe will be located approximately 6 inches below grade, and as shown on the { enclosed survey. Special permits are required for construction of any type on public land as/ x,,,,..__ specified in City Code Section 320. _// There are no other existing encroachments located on this portion of Devon Common. Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a five (5) year permit for the below grade PVC pipe, as requested. This permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The abutting property owners have been notified of this request. printed on recycled paper PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Mavwood Ro~d, Mound. MN Phone: 472-0~00, Fax. 472-0620 55364 ISTRIBUTION: BUILDING OFFICIAL PARKS DIRECTOR DNR MCWD PUBLIC WORKS DATE RECEIVED PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE tcheck one): --I ~ ~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). ~ ~ PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ~__~ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing 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). h; ....... i' ;r r r .s n is'~n ac i~i~ on I c ~ a ;t tur;s S ru ur, r w d ........ f ed ;ds.' like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change n dock site holder, t Applicant Name ~ k ~ ~~ ~~ Phone (home) ~7~-- /ff~O (work). Abutting Address -. / Property Owner ,/ /'/ I~/~ ~ Legal Lot F--X,~[ V~ % ~ Block Description Subd. ~ { Public Name Property Dock Site ~ Shoreline Type Contractor Name Address Phone VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): n; ~na=ure of Ap~nt ' ' bate - ~ %zvq CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~RA~/K Prepared fort ~ _ II~ ll'5" x II .% 6~az~o LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17 and the southeasterly 25.00 feet, p~ front and rear, of Lot 18, in Block I of · ~_~/~, DEVON, according to the plat thereof on ~ /~ ~/Xh rile or of record in the office of the "~' /;~ =~..egistrar of Titles, Hennepin County, ~/ ~_ Minnesota. ' FOR A WATER PUMP AND WATER LINE ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK SITE//43520 WITEREAS, Donald and Geraldine Swenson have applied for a Construction on Public Land Permit to allow a water pump and~atgr line~' be placed on Devon Common abutting their property at 4857 Island View Drive to accommodate for lawn sprinkling, and; WHEREAS, there is an existing stairway on the commons used to access the applicant's dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public Land Permit is applied for. The stairway is in acceptable condition, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons, and; WHEREAS, The Park and Open Space Commission have reviewed this request and unanimously recommend approval, with conditions as recommended by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a five (5) year Construction on Public Land Permit for a stairway and pump system and electrical supply for Donald and Geraldine Swenson, Dock Site//43520, Devon Common, abutting 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 5 & 6, Block 14, PI3) 25-117-24 11 0038, subject to the following conditions: The electrical shall be installed by a qualified license electrical contractor and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the Building Official to verify this work is completed and has been approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The proposed electrical line will, and the water line may cross a 20 foot permanent easement that has an eight inch clay sewer line at an eight foot depth. They will need to indicate the depth of proposed water and electrical line, and the owner of 4857 Island View Drive will be responsible for locating them if excavation is needed in this easement for sewer line repair. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the date of City Council approval, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. 4673 Island View Drive Frank Ahrens 8-30-76 furnace/a/c #3048 8-11-95 GAZEBO #10217 9-23-93 REROOF N SIDE HOUSE #10278 11-5-93 Devon 37870 ~/ Lot 17 & SE½ of 18 Block 1 30-117-23 22 0008 Survey yes R-2 GOVT LOT 1 30-117-23 4O ISLAND VIEW DR CITY OF '~OUND CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT August 1996 66.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments August 1996 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,280,640 0 654,743 5,800 250 3,325 77,1 O0 6,604 88,710 890,740 10,565 474,908 48,250 722 6,988 60,000 7,129 44,553 35,200 5,383 12,970 43,500 0 0 10,000 1,249 8,383 PERCENT VARIANCE RECEIVED (625,897) 51.13% (2,475) 57.33% 11,610 115.06% (415,832) 53.32% (41,262) 14.48% (15,447) 74.26% (22,230) 36.85% (43,500) 0.00% (1,617) 83.83% TOTAL REVENUE 2~451 ~230 31,902 1 ~294,580 {1.1 56,650) 52.81% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 307,570 13,753 236,888 (70,682) 77.02% 108,320 5,238 72,649 (35,671) 67.07% 1,430,000 162,564 1,006,034 (423,966) 70.35% 410,000 41,354 268,733 (141,267) 65.54% 766,500 67,928 526,797 (239,703) 68.73% 5,1 O0 0 2,290 (2,81 O) 44.90% 70,800 252 68,650 (2,150) 96.96% 09/10/96 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT August 1996 August 1996 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE ..EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 68,730 1,901 43,890 Pro motions 4,000 0 4,000 Cable TV 600 100 544 City Manager/Clerk 185,030 16,145 98,621 Elections 11,300 674 2,585 Assessing 54,450 0 472 Finance 163,600 17,525 108,225 Computer 22,000 661 12,246 Legal 106,440 5,793 44,679 Police 804,640 83,850 536,493 Civil Defense 3,780 299 2,455 Planning/Inspectio ns 167,320 14,761 103,525 Streets 398,840 27,952 291,941 City Property 92,790 4,695 59,776 Parks 135,300 14,279 88,234 Sum mer Recreation 29,700 0 0 Contingencies 40,000 28 3,589 Transfers 155,310 11,783 94,261 GENERAL FUND TOTAL .2~443~830 .200~446 1 ~495~536 VARIANCE 24,840 0 56 86,409 8,715 53. 978 55 375 9 754 61 761 268 147 I 325 63 795 1 06.899 33 014 47 066 29 700 36,411 61,049 .948~294 66.67% PERCENT EXPENDED 63.86% 100.00% 90.67% 53.30% 22.88% 0.87% 66.15% 55.66% 41.98% 66.67% 64.95% 61.87% 73.20% 64.42% 65.21% 0.00% 8.97% 60.69% 61.20% Area Fire Service Fund 307,570 17,695 196,099 11 ~ ,471 63.76% Recycling Fund 122,420 10,136 100,294 22,126 81.93% Liquor Fund 205,930 18,819 148,571 57,359 72.15% Water Fund 413,410 23,557 214,982 198,428 52.00% Sewer Fund 963,180 92,144 709,438 253,742 73.66% Cemetery Fund 5,570 628 3,015 2,555 54.13% Docks Fund 37,470 3,894 27,607 9,863 73.68% exp95 09/1 O/96 G.B. MINLrlT OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTENIBER 9, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; Building official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Becky Glister was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Alan & Kathy Leach, James Suhon, Joel Laskey, Clifford Larson, David Greenslit, Karen & Jeff Boser, Sandra Savage, Dennis Stearns, and Jack Cook. The Planning Commission Minutes of August 26, 1996 were presented for approval. The following changes were recommended: - Hanus referred to page five, fifth paragraph, and stated that this comment has a negative connotation to it, but what he was trying to indicate was that the increased traffic is not a bad thing, and requested the statement to be rephrased to be positive. Mueller requested clarification on how Hanus wants this paragraph restated. Hanus stated that his comment was in response to Mueller's previous comment, and what he was saying is that the people heading south on 110 will be taking a short-cut through Auditor's Road, so he does not feel that Auditor's Road will be a quiet street. He stated that the Secretary can reword his statement. Mueller clarified that his statement is not a "concern" but actually a ,,clarification." Hanus clarified that he was stating that he felt the traffic would be heavier on Auditor's Road than what Mueller believed. - Voss referred to page two, second to the last paragraph, and stated that he asked the question, not Mueller. - Clapsaddle referred to page five, sixth paragraph, and requested the following change, ". · . the plan shows that Auditors Road will have ~e a weak connection to the existing downtown businesses, · · ." - Michael noted a correction on page five, third paragraph, the word ,,clarified" should be ,,clarification." - Michael referred to page four, and asked who seconded the motion. Voss stated that he seconded the motion. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 26 1996 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, I996 CASE ~96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE, I~%NDY MORIARTY, 453¢ DENBI~h ROADt A~D ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROADt LOTS 4 - 8t BLOCK 2~ AVALON, PID 19-117-23 24 0008 & 004~ Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed the planning report. Koegler reviewed that a slightly different version this case was previously reviewed by the Commission in June and denial was recommended. Subsequently, the case was withdrawn prior to the City Council meeting, and a modified request has now been submitted. The primary reasons for previously recommending denial was that it created a new nonconforming lot and it violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal eliminates the nonconforming lot concern, but still has a substantial impact on the bluff. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B, and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will eventually be removed and replaced with a new residence. All three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. The variances involved in this request are: - A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. A variance for having only one off-street parking space on Tract B. The Zoning Code requires two parking paces per single family dwelling unit. Setback variances for the existing home on Tract C, unless the structure is removed prior to filing of the subdivision and variance approval. The existing detached garage will require a 16.6 foot front yard setback variance, and more information will be necessary to clarify the variances for the home as the survey is illegible. Ail three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography. The construction methods as proposed were reviewed. The creation of the additional lot appears to be an economic issue that does not substantiate a hardship finding. The location of the new home is a concern because it lies whOlly within the bluff area itself. The surrounding neighborhood contains homes that are constructed in a similar physical environment although they are perhaps not as severe as the subject lots. However, this proposal involves the creation of a new lot, not simply to add or replace an existing grandfathered dwelling. Koegler reviewed the recommendation for denial received from the DNR. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances and minor subdivision because of the lack of hardship in this case. If the Planning Commission moves to 2 Planning Commission ~inutes September 9, I996 approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it is suggested that consideration be given to tabling the request pending preparation and submission of a detailed grading, drainage and utility plan for all three Tracts for review by the City Engineer prior to final action on this request. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request either now or at a subsequent meeting, conditions of the approval should include: Compliance with the park dedication requirements of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A should either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. 3. Unless submitted as part of a previous requirement, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides and front lot lines and 15 feet in width along rear lot lines. 5. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shal~ be paid prior to release of the resolution for recording. Jack Cook who is representing Mr. Moriarty, stated that there is a problem with the bluff zone, but Mr. Moriarty considers that as a hardship. Cook emphasized that a benefit to this proposal is that the house on Tract C will be removed, and he emphasized the poor condition of this dwelling. Hanus asked if they would be willing to remove the house prior to the filing of the subdivision resolution. Mr. Cook confirmed that they would be willing to remove the dwelling on Tract C in conjunction with the approval. Hanus asked the planner if it would be the preference of the City to have to bluff line remain as is, or to fill the area of the bluff on Tract A to bring it in line with the bluff line of Tracts B & C. Koegler replied that they would not support a reduced front yard setback to mitigate the bluff impact, because space is needed in the front for off-street parking. He indicated that the normal comment from the DNR is, any time there is a bluff situation it is a recommendation for denial. The neighborhood is similarly constructed, but the DNR looks at it differently when someone is Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 building a new structure versus replacement or adding onto an existing structure. Koegler summarized, if you can bring the house a little closer to the street without infringing upon the public safety, it is probably preferable from a bluff standpoint. Koegler noted that the Shoreland Management 0rdinanG=s requires permits for fill in a bluff zone. Reifschneider received clarification from the Planner on how this plan differs from the original request. Reifschneider commented that he has problem with proposed Tract A due to the steep topography and feels that Tract A would be better utilized for driveway and off-street parking use to serve Tracts B & C. He also expressed a concern about the conjestion on Denbigh when cars are parked on the road. Voss confirmed that the street would probably never be widened. Cook stated that there is an erosion problem on Tract A and feels that construction of a home on the parcel will correct this situation. Mueller questioned Mr. Cook about the seven trees that are more than 7 to 10 inches in diameter that are existing on the property and asked if they would be removed. Cook confirmed that some trees would need to be taken out, but they could be replaced. Mueller noted that with the new dwelling the surface run off will be created more drainage and faster drainage. Cook stated that the existing tree root system, new trees, and new retaining walls will help the run-off situation. Mueller confirmed that the width of the structure proposed is 26 feet. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to recommend denial of the subdivision request and variances due to lack of hardship, as recommended by staff. Hanus stated that there is no other way to build a house in this area without impacting the bluff zone. He feels the applicants have redesigned their request and worked to alleviate problems that were presented the first time through, and he believes that with the right types of retaining walls, gutters, and other mitigating avenues, even with adding hardcover, the water can be controlled better that with what is there now. Mueller feels that by planting more trees, any erosion problems could be alleviated. Hanus stated, assuming the home proposed on Tract A meets all the required setbacks, he does not have a problem with the proposal. Voss stated that he agrees with the DNR and staff in that hardship has not been demonstrated in any way for creating a new lot or for granting a variance. 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Mueller referred to the letter in the packet which was received on June 25, 1996 which expresses a concern about the parking of vehicles on Denbigh Road and adding another residence for the sole purpose of creating an additional lot in order to benefit financially. Mueller does not see a hardship to allow the creation of a new lot. MOTION carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Burma, Weiland, Michael, Voss, Reifschneider, and Mueller. Hanus was opposed. This case will be heard by the city Council on September 24, 1996. CASE ~96-47: VARIANCE FOR G~RAGE ADDITION, JAMES SUHON, 6219 WESTWOOD CIRCLE, PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 2, WESTWOOD, PID 23-117-24 2~ 0019 The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming 12' x 28' garage addition. The property is a corner lot and has a 30 foot setback to both streets, and is currently conforming to the ordinance. The garage is proposed to be setback 23 feet from the front yard to the east, resulting in a 7 foot variance request. The applicant is now using this area for parking a boat, and there is an existing concrete slab. In this case it is difficult to find a condition of hardship, however the Planning Commission and Council has in the past considered the full 30 foot setback requirement to both streets a practical difficulty for corner lots. We have also considered the possibility of studying the issue of corner lots and weather there is a need to relax the setback requirement to one of the front yards. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the condition of the corner lot and determine that a finding of practical difficulty could be made depending on the amount of encroachment that would be acceptable with this condition. Reifschneider asked if they could add a stipulation that the owner not be allowed to add a cement slab to the side of the proposed garage. Koegler confirmed that there is nothing that would restrict him from installing a slab in that location as long as hardcover is met. Weiland pointed out a similar situations across the street on Westedge, and noted that the proposed addition would not block the view to vehicle operators on that corner. Reifschneider feels the addition would look better than it does now. Mueller noted that there is a fair amount of boulevard between the proposed addition and the curb of Westedge, and feels the impact will be minimal. 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as requested based on practical difficulty that this is a corner lot with 30 foot setback requirements to both streets, and since house faces the other front. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant stated that the current slab on the side of the garage was for a dog kennel, however, they no longer have a dog. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 24 1996. , CASE ~96-48: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ~DDITION, CLIFFORD & SHIRLEY LARSON, 4570 DORcg~STER ROAD, LOTS 14 - 17, BLOCK 12, AVa?.ON, PID 19-117-23 31 0114 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a nonconforming 22' x 20' garage addition. The property is a corner lot that has a 30 foot setback requirement to Dorchester and a 20 foot setback requirement to Stratford. Richmond Road is unimproved and is located in a wetland area. The garage is proposed to be setback 10.1 feet from the front yard to the west resulting in a 9.9 foot variance request. The applicant has a large area to the north where a conforming detached garage could be constructed, however this area is limited due to topography and wetlands, this area is also fully wooded and it is impractical to locate a detached garage to the north for the above reasons. In this case the Planning Commission may consider a finding of practical difficulty due to the fact that there is no existing garage and the site is limited due to topography and wetlands. In addition, in the past we have considered the full 30 foot setback requirement to both streets a practical difficulty for corner lots. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request based on a finding of practical difficulty due to the topography and the wetlands, and the recognized need for a garage on the site. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance request, as recommended by staff. Weiland noted that the road ends to the north of where the existing slab is, and then there is a fence in the back, and feels a garage could be put in the back yard, even though a retaining wall may be required. Weiland recognized that the back yard is used for their dog. Mueller stated that if the garage is put in the back yard, that is the only useable yard on the whole side, and the balance of the yard is wooded and wetland. Mueller feels it is more conducive to have the garage on the side of house. He feels the impact is Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 minimal because Stratford Lane is a dead end, and there are trees and hedges which screen the corner of the lot. Weiland agreed, and stated that the garage will not impact any of the neighboring properties. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996. CASE ~96-49: VARIANCE FOR FENCE NATEBT~L~ Sl%NDR~ SAVAGE & DENNIS ST~RNSt 2116 NOBLE LkNEt M&B, PART OF BLOCK 1~ A.L. ADDN Tu LAKESIDE PARK~ PID 13-117-24 31 0001 The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a wooden picket fence within the required 50 foot lakeshore setback area. The proposed fence will be three feet in height which conforms to the ordinance. According to the City Code, "Fences to be located within any portion of the fifty (50) foot principal structure setback shall not exceed a maximum of three (3) feet in height and shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain-link type fence. Ail fence materials must be treated so as to blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area." Staff does not believe that a cedar picket fence has the same level of visibility as that of a chain link fence. In this particular case, topography in the area is such that all of the homes look out over the top of the proposed fence and it does not interfere with sight lines. The proposed fence would serve as an extension of an existing fence that partially encloses the property. The color and materials of the fence would be compatible with new stairs on the property and would blend into the environment, consistent with the statement in the code that addresses blending with the natural environment. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested fence variance with a finding that a situation of practical difficulty exists in this case since the continuation of the existing fence material creates a more attractive enclosure for the property and since topography is unique in this case and the fence will not impede views either from the property or from surrounding properties. Reifschneider believes the proposed fence will look nicer than a chain link fence. Mueller reviewed his interpretation of the intent of the fence ordinance, and feels that in this case because there will be green space between the shore and the fence, and due to topography with the hill behind the proposed fence, the impact will be minimal. Mueller believes this situation is unique, and does not want to set a precedence. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by Staff. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 This case will be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996. CASE ~96-50: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, kLAN & KATHRYN LEAOHt ,2645 SHANNON L~NEt LOTS 1,2,3,8~9 & 10t BLOCK 22t S~ON, PID 19 117-23 23 0134 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming detached garage in order to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The property is a corner lot and has a 20 foot setback requirement to both streets. The nonconforming garage is located 2 feet from the north front resulting in an 18 foot variance. The applicant is now using this garage for storage and would like to continue its use. The nonconforming use section of the ordinance is written in order to eliminate the nonconforming situations where possible, and there is a lack of hardship in this case. Our recent variance streamlining provisions require the building official to look at the structural condition of the nonconformity and determine if it is sound, in this case the nonconforming garage is in poor condition. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. If the applicant is willing to remove the detached garage a variance would not be required to construct the new garage. A recommendation for approval of a short term variance could be made that would provide for removal of the old garage as soon as the new garage is constructed or within a maximum of 60 days from permit issuance. An agreement prepared by the applicant and suitable to the City Attorney would need to be a condition if this were approved. Clapsaddle stepped down due to a personal affiliation with the applicants. Hanus stated that he visited site, but did not get inside the garage. He did notice that the roof sinks. Weiland noted that there is rotting on the lower end of the garage, and some rotting along the south part. Koegler stated that he did not discuss the condition of the garage with the Building Official, other than he had told him that it does have a fresh coat of paint and it looks in better condition than it is. The applicant, Alan Leach, stated that the street side of the garage has a cement floor, but the other side does not. The garage sits on blocks, it was built in the 1940's, and he offered to pass pictures around for viewing. Mr. Leach stated they have signatures of all their neighbors stating that they do not object to the garage. He only uses the garage for storage of water skis, lawn mower, etc. They have lived at this property for eleven years. Voss asked, if the applicants feels the garage is in good enough 8 Planning Commission Hinutes Sep=ember 9, I996 shape, what would preclude them of moving it to a conforming location? Koegler agreed that it could be done. The applicants stated that it would not be financially feasible to move the garage due to the condition of the structure. They feel the garage adds character to the property, rather than being and eyesore. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommended denial of the request, as recommended by staff. Mueller commented on the poor condition of the garage, and feels that the garage looks out of place because it sits by itself and it does not appear that it is part of the same property. Michael asked the planner what amount of time they could consider for a short term variance. Koegler indicated that enough time to allow construction of new garage should be adequate, and would suspect that one year is more than what the Building official had in mind. Voss commented that it is the City's intent to try and eliminate variances, by getting rid of deteriorated nonconforming structures, and in this case, if the nonconforming structure is removed, the property would be totally conforming. Weiland suggested that the allow the applicant the option to relocate the structure to a conforming location. The applicants feel the building is nice looking, they use it for storage, there is no driveway to it, and if they will allow it to remain temporarily, they would like at least one full year, but they would rather just keep it. Mr. Leach emphasized that the garage is solid, the overhead door operates smoothly, and if it were ready to fall over, he would have a problem with it. Mueller noted that the Commission has recommended other structures be removed that were in better condition than this building. Burma commented that he does not like the attitude of requiring the building be removed before they will be allowed to build new. Hanus, stated, if the garage is in poor structural condition, then it is time for it to go, but he has not heard that. He would like to see more evidence about the condition of the structure. The applicants stated that it would be their last choice to have a time limit put on the removal of the garage as they need more time to financially prepare before they can deal with what to do with the garage. MOTION to deny failed 3 to 4. Those in favor were: Weiland, Voss, and Reifschneider. Those opposed were: Burma, Hanus, Mueller, and Michael. 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of a one year variance to allow the existing nonconforming garage to remain for one year in order to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, sub]ect to an agreement to be prepared by the applicant that is suitable to the City Attorney to guarantee removal. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1996. CASE ~96-51: VARIANCE FOR COVERED PATIO, DAVID & JACKIE GREENSLITt 5046 BAYPORT ROAD, LOT 14, BLOCK 2, JOHN S. CARLSOI ADDITION, PID 13-117-24 43 0033 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow for construction of an 8' x 12' nonconforming covered roof area. The proposed roof is intended to correct a roof and drainage problem at the rear entry/deck area. The new roof is to be constructed on the same side of the dwelling that is nonconforming. The required setback is 6 feet to the side yard. The existing building setback is 4.2 feet resulting in a recognition of a variance of 1.8 feet. The applicant revised the proposal to have a one foot overhang versus a two foot overhang into the already nonconforming setback, resulting in a 3 foot side setback to the proposed roof overhang. The Zoning Code allows a maximum of a 2 foot projection into the setback for roof overhangs. Koegler stated that the Building Official has indicated that Fire Codes allow for a 3 foot setback to the side property line. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the modified request to allow the construction of the 8' x 12' roof area with the overhang to be setback 3 feet from the side property line due to the obvious need to modify the roof and eliminate the drainage problem. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the reduction in the size of the overhang will still correct the drainage problem. Mueller feels this is a minimum encroachment to solve and existing problem on the site. Hanus questioned if the drainage problem could not be corrected with landscaping. The applicant stated that it cannot be corrected with landscaping, and explained that the roof of the tuckunder garage is actually part of the patio in the rear that they walk on and the house was added onto the top of the garage, but because the wall does not extend to the end of the garage, the water seeps under the sill plate through the ceiling in the garage. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Reifschneider, to recommend approval of the variance allowing for a 3 foot setback from side yard to the overhang. Motion carried unanimously. 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 24, 1996. CASE ~96-53:. ~!NOR SUBDIVISION, DAVID THURK - 1749 SUMACH LANEz... DEAN HUNTER - 1755 SUMACH tawE, & JOEL & SANDRA LASKEY - 1761 SUMACH LANE, LOTS 13, 14 & 15, BLOCK 15, PID'S 13-117-24 14 0046/47/39 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The owner of Lots 12, 14, and 15 are proposing a minor subdivision to create two parcels labeled A and B which have lot areas of 8,400 square feet and 9,600 square feet, respectively. Existing homes are located on old Lots 13 and 15 and the purpose of the subdivision is to adjust lot lines and property ownership in order to allow construction of a new detached garage on Parcel B. The proposed lots, as well as the homes on the lots, conform to the applicable zoning criteria. Additionally, the proposed garage meets all setback requirements and the lots conform to hardcover requirements. Since the proposed lots comply with all applicable zoning criteria, approval of the minor subdivision is recommended by staff, subject to the following conditions: 1. The application for the building permit for the new detached garage shall also include a grading, drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Building official and city Engineer. 2. Construction of the detached garage shall comply with all applicable building code requirements. MOTION ma4e by Voss, seconded by Burma, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision, as recommended by Staff. Motion carried unanimously. Weiland noted that the shed is not shown on the survey. This case will be reviewed by the city Council on September 24, 1996. UPDATE: KILDARE ROAD / SETON BLUFFS VARIANCE Koegler stated that he will be meeting with the applicants and the attorney this week, and stated that they are not ready to come back to the Commission yet. The variance application will be extended as permitted by state Statute. He does not know when the case will return to the Planning Commission. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES & REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Mueller expressed a concern that the Planning Commission's recommendation relating to the "Waiver of Platting" ordinance was ignored. 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Hanus stated that the Attorney insisted this does not require the Planning Commission to give input. Hanus reviewed what the Attorney told them at their Council meeting. When the subdivision ordinance was amended in 1988, it was changed to include "major" and "minor" subdivision provisions, and inadvertently, the "waiver of platting" section was dropped from the code. The Attorney feels it is important to have an ordinance regulating the "waiver of platting." Hanus noted that the Council did make some changes to the proposed ordinance. A copy of the signed ordinance, as published, was handed out to the Commission. It was noted the ordinance was published on Saturday, September 7th. Hanus clarified, if someone comes in for a request to divide their lots on previously plated line, and if any aspect of the subdivision is not conforming, they will need to go through the normal subdivision process. Hanus commented that the Attorney alsO insisted that this has nothing to do with Kildare Road project and that the Kildare Road project does not qualify under this waiver. Mueller stated that he does not understand why it needed to be passed so quickly, especially since the City has not had such an ordinance in effect since 1988. Hanus asked what message he should send to the Council. Mueller stated that he thought the Planning Commission and City Planner should have had the opportunity to review the ordinance before it was adopted, but it is too late now. Hanus stated that the ordinance can be changed. Mueller stated that they should then review it. Hanus requested the following be written verbatim. Voss stated, "The message I would like to send is . . the Council, to not include us, we are citizen representatives, and I think we should have had more involvement and further discussion on this prior to the City Council making a decision." Weiland added, "Because it does pertain to planning issues." Voss continued, "They did not consider our feelings at all and it is just a matter of slighting us in our importance and I think it is demeaning to us." Weiland, Reifschneider, and Mueller agreed. MOTION made By Weiland, seconded By Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Attest: Chair, Geoff Michael 12 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMIgSION MINUTES OF A MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 Present were: Vice Chair Bill Darling, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, Mary Goode, Rita Pederson, and Bev Botko, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was Chair Tom Casey. The following persons were also in attendance: Mark Hanus, Steve Coddon, Ann Jepson, Doug Jepson, Kristi Dzik, John Dzik, Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, Mark Smith, Gina Anderson, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker, Bev and Joseph Ludwig/VanLaanen, and Glenn Hurd. Vice Chair Darling opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Botko noted a change in the COW minutes, page 77 of the packet, paragraph two, as follows: " . distributed to the Commission at the e~ beginninq of the meet~n~ by the Chair and Vice Chair . · ." Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Byrnes, to approve the minutes of the August 8 1996 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Meyer, requested they add discussion on the Birch Lane Tax Forfeit Property to the agenda, and commented that it in a way it goes along with Agenda item ~9. The Vice-Chair added the item to the agenda as #9.a. Meyer requested they add ,'Community Skating Rink" to the agenda. The Vice-Chair added to this to the agenda as item 14.a. REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL TO ~CONSIDER RESOLUTION T]~BLING PUBLIC LAND PERMITS Darling opened the issue for discussion. (The balance of these minutes have been written verbatim.) Goode: I have a question, Is it possible for people to go directly to the city Council for approval of their permit? Darling: I will have to refer that to Andrea. Ahrens: I am sorry that Tom Casey is not here this evening, because I believe the City Attorney contacted him. Peggy, do we have a copy of the ordinance which establishes the Park Commission and states what their responsibilities are? Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Fackler: I can go get it. Ahrens: I don't want to mis-quote it, but there is a paragraph in the ordinance which establishes the Park Commission which the City Attorney has told me and the rest of the Council, says that any issues that we would like to have the Park Commission make recommendations on, that we should direct them to the Park Commission and that the Park Commission shall. He tells me that there is no option for the Park Commission, that they are an advisory body established by the City Council, and that the ordinance says that they shall act on any issues the City Council sends to them, and the process right now is for permits to be sent to the Park and Open Space Commission (P&OSC). So it is the City Attorney's interpretation that the P&OSC is not carrying out their responsibility and duty as stated in the ordinance by not acting and making a recommendation to the Council. I don't know for a fact, but one of the things that we deal with on all other things is that there is a 60 day iimit on requests for permits. If the 60 days transpires and there is no action taken, the permit is automatically granted. Liz Jensen on the City Council expressed her extreme concern that if the P&OSC did not act on the issues regarding maintenance permits, then she wanted to see them immediately, she did not want anyone's maintenance permit going into affect because the P&OSC didn't act on a recommendation. Goode: Act on a recommendation? Ahrens: As far as making a recommendation to the Council so that the 60 day time period was adhered to. Botko: So if we tabled it, that would be bad, right? Ahrens: My understanding is that the City Attorney's conversation with the Park Commission's Chair is that the P&OSC does not have the ability to say we are not going to do what the City Council directs us to do because the ordinance says that the P&OSC, as a Commission shall deal with any issues sent to us by the City Council, so. Goode: Any issues? Ahrens: Any issues. Any issues. Not just maintenance permits, any issues the City Council directs to the Park Commission for a recommendation. Goode: Regarding Parks and Open Space. Ahrens: Right, well, I would presume the City Council would not send an issue that didn't deal with Park and Open Space. Goode: Does it also say that the City Council shall send them to the P&OSC? 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Ahrens: No it doesn't. I don't believe it does. Darling: I'm going to go ahead and say something. I had a chance to watch the City Council meeting, and first I was disappointed they were looking at all kinds of reasons why we should or should not act, versus taking a look at our concerns and seeing if there was any actions or end they could do to resolve the issue. One of the things that was brought up in that city Council meeting, if you had a chance to see it was, we as any other commission do have a right to table things until such time we feel we have the appropriate information or whatever actions we need, and tabling is a normal part of the process. So if we have not chosen to not do any actions, we chose to table, we read the resolution. We had some concerns about the responsibilities of the Commons Task Force and the Park Commission and we were looking for clarification of those and I think that our concern is that we're asking for that clarification so that we can make a recommendation is a very appropriate motion. To go on with that we can always just continue to sit there and fight each other and say, alright fine, you did this, we did this, and go back and forth. I think we would be remiss if we don't say or let's figure out some action plans of what we can do to move ahead, and if we have people that out there that are wondering what happened to our permit, I think this Commission has a responsibility to make some kind of recommenda- tion, what do we want to do? We have voiced our concerns, our frustrations with the Committee of the Whole (COW) and the City Council and now I think it is time to make some recommendation for action. What I would like to do is pass out to you some recommendations that I'm thinking about to open up for discussion. So with that, take a copy and I will go ahead and read it to you. Darling: I am going to make a motion. The intent of this motion is obviously to press ahead so we can get going back with the business of government here. I'd like to make a motion of the Mound Parks and Open Space Commission, that: ,The Mound Parks and Open Space Commission would immediately rescind its resolution of Tabling Public Land Permit Applications, dated 8 August 1996, and would convene a MP(SC special session as soon as practical to review and recommend all tabled applications, if the City of Mound city Council agree that the following outcomes are acceptable and take the appropriate actions to implement and incorporate these outcomes. The Commons Task Force (CTF) remain a separate entity from the Mound Parks and Open Space Commission (MPOSC), and the MPOSC remain the reviewing/recommending body for all issues dealing with public lands as defined by current city code. That any current overlap of responsibility and authority (either real or perceived) be eliminated and roles of the CTF by clearly defined, by the city Council Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 and documented as such. The CTF mission should include (1) What are the specific objectives and deliverables of the CTF, (2) What is the deliverable dates indicating the completion of the CTF's mission. Forward all Public Lands Permit Applications to the MPOSC for review and recommendation, as defined by city code, including commons issues without delay as a result of awaiting recommendations of the CTF. The MPOSC would make recommendations on the entire applications, not just non-CTF issues removing the need for applicants to be heard twice, as is the current practice. Public land permit applications would not be automatically renewed/approved where the applicant does not agree with the recommendation of the MPOSC and subsequent decision of the City Council supporting the MPOSC recommendation, as is the current practice. The CTF present their findings to the MPOSC , wi th the final recommendation requiring City Council decision on public lands coming from the MPOSC. The MPOSC would use the findings of the CTF in making a recommendation, and would incorporate the findings/supporting data of the CTF when forwarding the recommendation. The City Council would make a final decision of the MPOSC forwarded application and would not delay such, awaiting the CTF recommendation, and is the current practice. If the MPOSC makes a recommendation and the City Council,s decision supports that recommendation, and later at such time that the CTF completed its research on applicable issues, allow the applicant to resubmit their request through the MPO$C if the CTF findings would support the applicant but the decision was against the desires of the applicant. Change the work rules to eliminate the potential for double jeopardy and potential conflict interest created by the current procedures allowing the City Council representatives to vote at both the commission level and the council level. The role of the council representative would change from a voting commissioner to a non-voting council advisory position. As stated by members of the City Council in the August Committee of the Whole meeting, the views and interest of 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 an elected official should be in direct support of the constituents who elected them, while the views and interest of an appoint commissioners should be in direct support of the mission and objectives of that commission as define by city code. These two views are many times in direct conflict with each other. Allowing a council represe~tativ~ the ability to vote twice on any one issue ls at best a perception of double jeopardy and conflict of interest. 6. Document a stated city policy that city council representatives sitting on commissions should not remove their ,,commissioner hat" while that commission meeting is in progress, to put on their "Council hat", in a manner that is disruptive to the professional nature and efficiency of the meeting. Actions, like getting up from the bench to whisper to applicants where the commission found against the desires of the applicant, leaving the meetings prior to its conclusion, or sitting with the constituents, are all examples of actions the MPO$C deems inappropriate and unprofessional." Botko: So Bill, what are you saying, that if this acceptable you would consider rescinding the resolution? Darling: We cannot discuss it until there is a second. a second? is all Is there Meyer: I will second the motion. Darling: Ask it again. Botko: Are you saying on this paper, that everything on here has to be acceptable before we would consider not rescinding the resolution we had last time? Darling: These are my recommendations. I am more than open to friendly amendments. Botko: Okay. Byrnes: I believe that the council representative has always been a voting member of any commission that they have been on. Darling: That is not a true statement, years ago they were not voting members. Byrnes: When was that? Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Darling: I don't know the date, that was brought up in the COW meeting, in fact, by Liz. Ahrens: I believe that is an incorrect statement, not always voting members. Pederson: I really like it when we bring out a piece of humanity to the audience when someone that has a vast knowledge of how the government works and consults with the people that they are giving different alternatives as to what possibly can be done, it kind of takes away the, it brings more cooperation between whom we are suppose to be working for, and a better understanding, a meeting of the minds. Darling: Agreed. Pederson: Because it is hard to be here this hour and leave and say, gee I wish I would have said this or done that, and then when you have the opportunity to talk one on one with somebody who understands the system, it really helps. Darling: I agree. Are there further comments? Any comments from the public at large? Mark Smith: I came here on August 8th and Mr. Darling, in cahoots (for lack of anything better), did something to the chairman at that point in time, something that a hastily prepared resolution that reads as a legal document. There is no way that you just produced this in a short span of time, and you brought it to the Council, you put it on the agenda, nobody had a chance to look at it, you.tabled everything, you wasted my time and everybody that was heres time. Now you have basically prepared another document that reads like the Unibomber's Manifesto, you have read it out loud, now you want to table us again? I don't think so. This is totally, and I repeat totally, off the boards, because you are not Czar sitting up here, you are just appointed. People are here for very simple things, I am here for a very simple thing, let me outline it for you. I'm here because I bought a house that had a light pole on it, and I have been getting grief about it time after time. I just want to get my light pole .approved. I've been here twice now. I have taken up staff's time, I've taken up everybody's time. Approve my light pole. I'll get out of your life. That'll get you guys out of my life. This is ridiculous. I know you are running for Mayor, but don't do it on my time. This is ridiculous. Botko: I have to agree with Mr. Hurd, I think that even the tabling. . . Ahrens: Mr. Smith. Secretary: Please state your name for the record. 6 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Smith: Mark Smith, 4665 Island View Drive. I'm outraged, ya know, I really am. This going on time after time. Ya know, if you are going to do this, at least have the dignity to send this to us. This didn't just happen, your first one just didn't happen overnight. I mean, I read it after you sent it to me, whereas, whereas, whereas, a lawyer wrote this! You didn't just bring this to the meeting and go, oh I drafted it this afternoon. There is no way. Are you going to tell me you drafted that in one afternoon. Darling: I have no requirement to answer your questions. Smith: Your just chicken. Darling: Excuse me. You are trying to attack me at the meeting, that's not the purpose of that. Smith: Well, Bill, you're wasting our time. Darling: I believe you knew this resolution was still standing coming into this meeting. Smith: Oh, I do, but ya know, we have got to get on with government, I can't even imagine people willing to do that, don't follow the lead here, this is not appropriate. Botko: Absolutely. I agree. Byrnes: I agree. Smith: Did all you guys read this? Byrnes: Yes. Smith: Did anybody know that this was just drafted? resolution, did you read this before? The last Byrnes & Botko: No. Smith: Are you going to do this at every meeting? Darling: We would not have done it if we did not think there were concerns. Smith: Who's we? Half the people never even saw it. Are you considered a "We"? Is that how you would like to run city government as a "We"? Darling: It was voted by the majority at the meeting. Smith: What was? Darling: That resolution. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Smith: I think a lot of people probably would have shown up if they ever thought this was going to be on the agenda. But you don't have the dignity to give it to them. Darling: Any other comments? Byrnes: May I make a statement? The last meeting that resolution was put it was not put in our packets. And I might add that I was at the park because I was the master of ceremonies. I wish to apologize for the people that were here and I was not here to vote for you, that I was over there as the master of ceremonies for the Music in the Parks, so I was doing something for the City that night. Some of the other people that were gone that night were on business out of town and could not be here. We did not get a chance to vote on it, we weren't here. Botko: That's true. Byrnes: The vote would have been different. Smith: Yeah, I guess what I'm thinking about is, this hidden agenda things gotta go, I mean, I can't come here time after time to do this. Byrnes: I don't blame you. Smith: I mean, the day that I did that I wasted probably two hours of staff time, because I had to get an electrician there, I did all those kind of things, I talked to staff, I said, did you get the report from the electrician because I was under the deadline, and I bounced from person to person. Jon Sutherland, you can ask him, I was there. Yes mam? Goode: Some of the guidelines that you are following, one of the problems, one of the reasons this happened is that we have been following guidelines. Now there is a Commons Task Force, and the last time that I spent a full day running up and down rip rap checking out dock sites and seeing if things were conforming to the guidelines, I was told that my vote wouldn't make any difference because it had to go to the Commons Task Force first, so everything was held up anyway. And that's the kind of leadership the Commission has had in the past, so that if you're frustrated, this has occurred out of equal frustration on our part and a lot of time spent, so it is not just what he came to the meeting with a piece a paper that looks like a legal document, it is a lot deeper than that. Smith: But Mary, I live next door to Frank Ahrens, he's on the Task Force, I have no idea what the Task Force does, but does that give you the right to waste my time? I mean, maybe your time's not wasted. I don't know, I can't speak to that. But I can speak to one comment, and I can say, hey, that probably could have been handled better. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Goode: What happened to you that wasted time? Smith: I'm here, aren't I? Botko: For the second time. Darling: I will comment that that particular resolution was brought up multiple times, that's the first time it was put in a very formalized format. That resolution was originally passed back in early Spring, and then it was defeated the month after. Our concern goes back 18 months where we have been asking applicants like you to come back once to hear what parts that we can hear and then a second time when the Commons Task Force, and we said this is crazy for people to do that. Our intent is not . . We are sorry that you are getting the brunt of this point, but the fact is that its been going on for 18 months and we have been asking for a clarification of roles between the Commons Task Force and the Park Commission, and then our message was to the City Council to try to create something to resolve this. Identify who has what responsibility and what's going to happen. They chose to ignore us. We reacted. Smith: So do you think its appropriate to just bring it to the meeting, pass it out real quick, read it to everybody, and then pass it? Darling: I could have done the same thing that I'd done last time, only I just brought it up by verbal, all I did was put those words down on paper. I mean, we all make resolutions. Smith: But the matter of fact is, that you had the thing done, why didn't you put it in the packet so that everyone could read it. If you've already done it once, and you tried to pass it, you've obviously had a good framework of what your trying to get accomplished. If that's the case, why didn't you put it in everybody's packet so they could all read it and go, okay, it's on the agenda first. I came here, I thought, wow, ya know, I'm going to make my brother's birthday party because mine is almost first on the agenda. It didn't work. Ahrens: I just want to point out that you keep saying that the Park Commission has asked for a clarification from the city Council on how things were going to be handled. The City Council gave the Park Commission a clarification on how things were going to be handled. I'm sorry that there are certain members of this Park Commission that are unhappy with the Council's decision, but the Council specifically told this Park Commission we were going to hold back on any issues that the Commons Task Force was dealing with, i.e. encroachments. There is your clarification. You said earlier on in the meeting, and I'll have Peggy read it back verbatim, "if we would have gotten a clarification, we could be moving on these issues." There is your clarification. It has been in your minutes at least four times. Apparently you don't read your minutes. And if you want to talk about attacking people, I 9 m , · J ,m Ill, JJ j,~, Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 think any member of this public can come up here and attack any one of us. If you want to have a certain amount of civilness on this Commission, then I don't think we need to be attacking the Park Commission's Representative from the Council, and I think that's exactly what this silly little resolution says. And I would like to call for the question. And in case you are not familiar with Robert's Rules of Orders, calling for the question means we are going to vote on this resolution because I want to see how this Park Commission stands on it. So lets vote! Smith: (Tried to speak.) Darling: She has called for the question, I'm sorry, she brought up the question, she called the question, you have to sit down, I'm sorry. It's not my choice. All in favor of this motion say aye. All opposed? Abstained? Motion does not carry. Darling: I'm more than open to suggestions . . . Ahrens: I'd like a roll call vote please. Geffre: Abstained. Ahrens: Abstained? Meyer: Aye. Darling: Are you not going to give your call? Ahrens: I was waiting for the Secretary to call the names. normally the way a roll call vote is done. It is The Secretary announced the names. Geffre: Abstained Ahrens: No. Meyer: Yes. Pederson: No. Darling: yes. Botko: No. Byrnes: No. Goode: Abstained. Ahrens: Motion passes, correct? Darling: No, the motion did not pass. 10 % Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Secretary: Motion failed. The motion to pass this resolution failed with four no's, two yes's, Ahrens: No, two abstentions. They don't count as no's. Secretary: There are four no's, two yes's, and two abstentions. Ahrens: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So the motion fails on this resolution. Ahrens: I'd like to make a new motion. I'd like to move that the Park and Open Space Commission rescind the motion of August Sth, and deal with the City and tax payer's business that they are here for, that this Park Commission has been directed by the City Council to deal with under Section 255:00. Byrnes: I'll second the motion. Darling: There has been a second. Is there discussion? Meyer: Mr. Chair. Darling: Yes. Meyer: The Commons Task Force is not representative of the Mound citizenry and has gone beyond its original mission of resolving problems regarding Mound's dock program. The Task Force is unfairly biased with a majority of it's members being abutters. Mound's 180 commons abutting land owners comprise only five percent of Mound's 3,300 households. Mound Park and Open Space Commission is a much better representative of Mound citizenry composed of three abutters, three lakeshore owners, and three inlanders. The Task Force is recommending guidelines without Park and Open Space Commission input to privatize public lands which are dedicated to all Mound citizens equally. Over many years, Mound Council, staff, and advisory committee's have developed our flow chart and other guidelines which address the public land permit process fairly. This process should not be discarded because it does not cater to the private needs of a small minority of Mound citizens. Byrnes: Mr. Chairman. I beg to differ with you Pete. Up until Bev Botko came on this commission, I was the only one that was an abutter, and I have been the only abutter on commons for the last five years, and that's the only reason I have been here for ten years, and that's the only reason I've stayed because you people were not represented as an abutter. Andrea is an abutter, but she is our representative. Now we have Bev Botko. And I have really pushed to try to get abutters. The Commons Task Force was organized so that there were abutters, nonabutters, and people at large. And the people, it has worked very well. Those that are nonabutters and people at large on that have been very strong people, very opinionated people, and you cannot imagine how well it has gone on and worked together and we have done really in the last year that it's been organized by the City Council, it has done a 11 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 lot of good for everyone in town, and I beg to differ it is one sided, it isn't. Botko: Mr. Chairman, may I add just another note to Pete. When you say that it represents such a small number of Mound citizenry, you have to remember that the Commons Force is dealing only with people who have docks, we sent out, and I have them I think with me, like 500 or something to citizens at large and got very little response. Byrnes: 650. Botko: 650, okay. And they're just not interested. Its the people who have the docks, either abutters or nonabutters, and the rest of the citizenry is not concerned, it isn't that we did not approach them, it was that they did not respond. Byrnes: We just advertised in The Laker for other people to come forth and be on the Task Force. And how many applications have we had, Peggy? Secretary: They are not coming to me, I don't know. Fackler: They go to the City Manager. Byrnes: They go to the City Manager. how many? Do you have any idea Jim, Fackler: No I don't. Ahrens: The last time I checked it was zero. Byrnes: Any, Mark? Okay, they are not rushing, they are not breaking down our door to come. Darling: Rita. Pederson: The Commons Task Force is doing a really good job and I think do represent the City of the people who use the dock program which is made up of commons, tax forfeited lands, parks, and unimproved streets. I think, Peter, the people that are getting ignored are the other 9,000 people that need parks, and this Park Commission, all we talk about is commons, and now we have a Commons Task Force to do that and we can concentrate on Park items. Darling: I'm going to say something. First off, I know I'm just speaking for myself. My message is not to the Commons Task Force. I have absolutely no concern about the people on the Commons Task Force and what they are doing. My concern was how the City Council has been using the Commons Task Force. I guess I'm going to say the second part is, I came here trying to throw some recommendations out, and did not necessarily think you were going to agree with all of them, but I'm disappointed I am not hearing any recommendations coming back for, How can we resolve this issue? 12 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 It is the same answer we have been asking for 18 months and we are getting the same thing. No answers. No recommendations. No actions. Just demands. And I have a real hard time saying, sure, let's just go drop this resolution when we have asked at Committee of the Whole Meetings, at City Council meetings, clarify the roles between the Commons Task Force and the discrepancies of their responsibilities. We asked it, and we have also said, do not make these people come twice, because you havetwo different Task Forces and a Commission looking at the same . . . Ahrens: Well, let's make them come three times. Darling: I'm sorry, you are out of order. Ahrens: Let's table this and make them come five. Smith: Will you take motions from the floor? Darling: I'll open up in just a minute, please. And with that, I have to question, when is it that we get to ask the City Council to try to live up to their side of this bargain, when is it that we get to ask the City Council that they need to make some decisions and make some recommendations? They want to walk away from this decision time and time again, with no actions other than motions and I'm getting really tired of it. Ahrens: Mr. Chair. Darling: Rita. Pederson: I guess I understood it as the Parks Commission would not address the encroachments, we could address the things that were already, lighting, stairs, and that we're in a growth period, we're in a transition period, and I think the public is willing to work with us, I mean they've been here twice, If they do have to come twice because they may have a light and an encroachment, then let it be that way, why is that so hard to work with? Darling: Andrea. Ahrens: First of all, I wanted to respond to some of the things that Peter said. The statistics can be skewed any way you want. If you look at the dock program and you compare it to the entire City when we've only got enough dock spaces for 448 docks, well of course you can't compare it to the entire 10,000 population, you have to look at the 448 people participating in the program. If you've got a merry-go-round with ten horses on it, you can't put on 125 people. Second of all, the flow chart was developed in the mid-70's, this is 1996. I don't think we ought to be living in the 1970's. If we were still living with some of the laws that they formulated in the 1800's, we'd have hitching posts all over the place instead of parking meters. Second of all, I don't believe that I'm hearing what I'm hearing from the chair, he was at the Committee of the Whole meeting and he sat at the same meeting that 13 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 I sat at, and there's a council member who is in the audience, and I believe that the Park and Open Space Commission was given direction at that Committee of the Whole meeting, and the direction was, is to consider rescinding this resolution that was passed on August 8th, or you are deliberately taking yourself out of the process, and you've got no complaints about the fact that you can't deal with any of these situations. As long as you continue to hold onto this silly resolution passed on the 8th of August, you can't deal with anything, and the City Council will have no choice but to deal with the public's business. Darling: Bev. Botko: I don't know if this is in order or not, but I was wondering if we could not wait with this discussion until later in the evening so our people can get their things done, and that's what they're here for, and then we can . . . Ahrens: We can't deal with any of their things until this resolution is rescinded. Botko: I though it was, I thought it was voted down. Ahrens: No, we voted down the original motion. It has only been moved and seconded. Darling: I'm going to make a statement, if you look at page 77 when we asked about the notes, its says right there from the Committee of the Whole minutes, on the Parks and Open Space Commission, "the Council was not interested in developing work rules for the Commission.,, It goes on further to say, "There was no consensus on what to do with these concerns and the Council then moved on to the next agenda item." I am failing to understand, what direction or understanding did we come to in that meeting. Ahrens: Mr. Chair. Do you have discussions with the, I realize you are the Acting Chair, do you have discussion's with the Chair when you are going to be chairing a meeting in his absence? Darling: Just to find . . . he let's me know that he is not going to be there. Ahrens: And that's all? Darling: Pretty much. Ahrens: You had no discussions with him regarding his conversation with the City Attorney regarding the Park and Open Space's Commission responsibility to deal with . . , well I would draw your attention then to what Jim passed out to us which is the ordinance which establishes the responsibilities of the Park Commission. In the last paragraph on the second page, states, "The Commission reports conclusions and recommendations shall . . ." and I emphasize, double emphasize, and triple emphasize the word "shall 14 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 be made", "shall be made." The Park Commission has no choice on making its recommendations. These issues were sent to you by the City Council and you shall make a recommendation, and if you don't have enough information I'd understand perfectly a tabling motion, but I don't believe that any of the citizens that are before this commission tonight that staff hasn't adequately provided us with information to vote on these issues. We are prohibited however from voting on these issues until the resolution that was passed on August 8th is rescinded. Darling: Mary. Goode: I would suggest that the problem is not so much the Commons Task Force, as the lack of leadership from the City Council and the attitude that we have of a critical parent who sits there yelling and calling motions silly. It really puts me off, it really makes me feel upset, it really makes it difficult to come here. You don't need to raise your voice. Darling: I'm going to open it up to the public. that all of us up here are volunteers . . . I'm gonna say Ahrens: Mr. Chair, I call for the question. Darling: I'm sorry, you're not recognized, I'm talking. Darling: I'd like to say that all of us up here are volunteers. We all came here with the intentions of trying to do the best for the City. We're told it doesn't make a difference what you say, it doesn't count. And that's really what's been told to us, and that's our frustration. You got people who come and spend hours and hours looking at properties, coming back, making a recommendation, then its thrown back to us, it doesn't make a difference what you say, we've got rules that over-ride you, without having to vote on it, and we're saying that's wrong. That's our message, they don't have to vote, they don't have to show what they think about it, they put rules in place that say, let's see what the Mound Park and Open Space Commission says, we are automatically going to give that to them, we're going to make them look like the bad guys and we don't have to discuss it. I think that's wrong, they have a responsibility to discuss it to you. And that's our frustration. We didn't ask for this, we came up voluntarily, thinking we're doing some good, and we are so disempowered and our frustration level is at a high. 18 months worth at this point. Andrea. Ahrens: I call for the question. Darling: I'm sorry, she called for the question. favor say aye. Would you repeat the motion please? Ail those in 15 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Secretary: Ahrens moved that the Park Commission rescind the motion of August 8th and deal with the City and the tax payers and the business they have been directed to deal with under City Code Section 255. Byrnes seconded the motion. Darling: Any clarifications? All those in favor say aye. All opposed? The motion fails. Would you do a roll call please? Geffre: Against. Ahrens: For. Meyer: No. Pederson: Yes. Darling: Against. Botko: For. Byrnes: For. Goode: Against. Darling: The motion fails. Ahrens: Well, why don't you tell everybody to go home. Cause that pretty much clears up the rest of the agenda. Darling: Items 4 through 7 will not be looked at at this time due to the resolution being looked at. We will move onto item #$. Fackler: I do have to make an announcement, Mr. Chair. I have been informed that these public land permits will continue onto the Council, they will be heard on September 24th, 7-30 p.m at City Hall. ' ' Hurd: (Difficult tO hear this portion.) Jim, I petitioned to the City Manager last time that I get heard. The City Manager wrote back to me and said they cannot hear this issue because it is in their jurisdiction. . · ? Has the City Manager reversed his opinion at this point? Fackler: Yes, it will be heard on September 24th at 7:30 p.m., City Hall. The same council chambers you are in now. Smith: (This portion on the tape was not very clear.) Ya know, I've got to take great issue with you. I run a company, I've got to build consensus everyday, and that I do with a bunch of employees, and If my employees learn that this is how I was going to run a company, I'd basically just come to them and say, hey, my way or the highway, and you're basically just dealing on these kind of directives. I mean, you build consensus, but you've got to build 16 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, I996 consensus by opening things up. Do you hear me? Janis? If you guys just basically get this and say, hey, this is the way it's got to be, and we're going to vote on it, you don't get a chance to read it or digest it. You've got to be able to give people a chance to look at these things. You guys are being unjust to everybody, not just yourselves if you don't have the opportunity to read this stuff. I would have liked to had the chance to read this stuff and really thoroughly digest it. I would have read my minutes. I would have looked at it. I would have tried to build consensus. It makes a nice platform Bill, I understand it, its a nice platform, but its not fair to everybody around. Is this how you run everything? Its ridiculous. Mary. Goode: I agree it would have been nice to get this ahead of time. It also would have been nice to be able to discuss it without having somebody constantly calling for the question and disrupting the meeting · · · Smith: I mean, okay, maybe if we talk about this a little bit, we can bring it back up and we can get this thing done. Would that be a clear statement? Goode: It's pretty difficult to get any work done here, as you can see. Smith: No but, I mean, you voted against it. Okay, you voted against everything. Goode: I abstained on this. Do you have the light you need? Is it all set, except for the permit? Smith: Yeah. Goode: Then do you know that the permit for it will be voted on and happen whether or not you are at the meeting, that it isn't required of you to be at the meeting? Smith: It think it is important for everybody to be accountable. I am accountable for people, and I want to see how you are accountable for me. You may be just a volunteer, and I respect that, because you are a volunteer, but n°ne-the-less, you've got a citizenry that you do have to reflect and get votes from. Goode: No, she does, I'm not voted for. Smith: Well, but you're appointed, and you should not only represent your opinion, you should represent the public in general opinion. Goode: What I am trying to explain is that the inspector would come out and check it out, the State Electrical Inspector, and all those things would happen irregardless of whether you spent time at the meeting or not. 17 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Smith: Yeah, but I spent time, I had to make sure I was there for the State Electrical Inspector, which I've already done. Goode: So eventually the permit will happen. That's what I mean, eventually the permit will happen, so you wouldn't have to waste time here. Smith: So I shouldn't have come here? Ahrens: It is going to pass whether you are here or not. not right Mary, you are misleading him. That's Goode: That's not what I said. Darling: Point of order. Smith: Jon has said that it is best to come in case there is a question, I know there is probably absolutely no reason it wouldn't be approved. But I live with somebody who is an incredible detail person and she says, is this thing happening? And now that I've actually seen this beast, and seen the under-belly of it, and Mary, you may have a problem with the Task Force, I don't know. Goode: It isn't the Task Force. Smith: Get together with these people. When its the Council, I mean, to a certain extent, if you get away from Bill and you sit down with these people, I mean, I've sat down with the Mayor and talked to him and he seems like a pretty reasonable guy, he's a small business owner in Mound, he's always around. Goode: I can talk to Bill. Smith: But my problem is, he does these kinds of things. And I'd think you'd have a problem with it. Unless you got a copy previously. Did you get a copy of the earlier one previously? Goode: Smith: Goode: Unfortunately, I missed the last meeting. I mean, if you would have got it, would you have come? No, I was busy, I couldn't come. Smith: Okay, If you had further discussion about this thing and then took a vote to abolish his previous thing, now, at this point in time prior to having a civil discussion about it, would there be a chance that we could get your vote so that all of us could get our permits approved so we can get out of your life? Goode: Well, I had some questions on this one that was voted down which is why I abstained, I didn't know if it was to rescind it or not. We might have been getting there. 18 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Geffre: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address something. I also abstained because there were questions I had on this. However, this one, we've had it a month now. Smith: Janis. Did you get it before the meeting? That's my question Geffre: No I didn't, before the meeting a month ago. Smith: How did that make you feel? Geffre: We talked about this. Actually I appreciated the fact that it got put in writing because it has been talked about month after month, the fact that it didn't really matter that we spent our time and energies going out and looking at all the properties, I think we felt that, why should we go out and spend hours looking at properties, finding out where they are, only to have the City Council give you an extension, no matter what our vote is. And, the fact that I understand you've had to come back twice, and I feel bad about that, but everybody was having to come back twice. We had hoped that you wouldn't have been asked back tonight until this had been settled, that was the City Manager's recommendation that everyone come back tonight and I think it was to force an issue for us. I absolutely want the best for the citizens in Mound. I do not have a personal agenda in this, but I also want direction from the City Council as when the Task Force is going to be completed, and I do agree on this, that the Task Force was formed without any recommendation from us at all, we were just informed one day that there was a Task Force. We were informed one day that the Task Force was going to handle all the encroachments, except for electricity, water pumps, in other words if there are doll houses down there, if there is, the idea is for the commons to look like it is public lands, and in the past, a lot of citizens, and I understand they want it to be private, but it isn't private, and a lot of encroachments are on the commons to make it look as if its private, and I think therein lies the conflict. Smith: I can understand your point, but when you think it, and you come to a meeting, and this is put before you, how does that make you feel? Geffre: I just said, I was glad to see it on paper. Smith: When you have an established agenda . . . Geffre: There are always new things on an agenda. Smith: But there's not something that's gonna just basically null and void a bunch of people . . . Geffre: If I didn't feel comfortable on it, I would have voted it no. I think that speaks for itself. 19 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 Smith: So you were okay with that. Geffre: I was okay with that. Smith: Well I guess that's your deal. (Difficulty hearing balance of this statement) Personally, . . .? there is a set agenda, and I'm here for that agenda, and somebody changes that agenda only because they have the power to do so, and puts it on the agenda, I find that to be kind of an inconvenience and I kind of take offense at it, which is a concern and why I've got a problem with it . . .? Darling: I'm going to respond to that. If you notice item #3, it says, "Request from City Council to Reconsider Resolution Tabling Public Land Permits." Its been out there for several weeks. This is my recommendation dealing with that exact issue, so I am not circumventing or jumping any issues. Smith: Well, you did with your previous one. It would have been nice for everybody to read it. I think it would have made a dramatic different response if people could read it, Bill. The message doesn't work. ? . the only one here that's got a problem with that kind of thi~gl I don't know, but we've go a few people that don't, I think that's pretty reasonable. Coddon: I'm Steve Coddon, and I had one of the items on that agenda. I appreciate that it's going to the Council and I appreciate that it will probably be voted on. However, what I'm requesting, if it's possible you see, I really came here to get some help. I do not know what is best on these stairs, the Council won't have the background the Parks Commission has for this, and I'm seeking some advice. Can we discuss mine separate from any recommendation so I can get input for when I go to the City Council and get some help in knowing what do? I went to Jim Smith he does work for the City, and he gave a recommendation that it would be ecologically sound to have woodchips and so forth and so I just took his recommendation. My coming before the Park Commission was to get input and get it discussed so that I could have something and then go to the Council and I don't think the Council is really in a position to judge my situation properly. I'm not asking for advice or anything official, is it possible that this could have some discussion so that I would kind of know what I should be asking for from them? Darling: I'm going to refer that question to Jim because I don't think we're in a position as far as the construction of a stairway, that comes from the City Inspector, is it not, the Building Inspector? Fackler: That is correct, I think in the background that's given in your handout, number 36 and on, basically explains staff's position, comments and recommendations. Coddon: It made it equivocal that maybe something different should be done with the walkway, maybe it should have cement, maybe it 20 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 12, 1996 should be wood, maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. I'm trying to, is the Council set up to give me direction on what it should be? Fackler: Yes, I believe they can give you that. The staff cannot tell you how to construct it, all we can do is give you recommendations and comments towards that and the Council takes that same information and utilizes it to determine exactly how its going to be built. Coddon: Okay, because, what I did is I went to someone who works for the City and asked would you please recommend what should be done. Alright, well thank you. Someone in the audience: Is Mr. Coddon's new dock still in violation of the building code? Coddon: No. Fackler: I think what you need to do is discuss that with either Jon Sutherland, the Building Official, or the city Manager. I don't have the background on that. Darling: I'm gonna ask-that you take that conversation elsewhere, and Jim if you could help them talk with who they need to talk to. Before we move on with this agenda, are there any other comments from the public at large? Okay, item 9, excuse me, item 8. Ahrens: Mr. Chair we need to be recorded as absent at this point. At this time, Ahrens, Botko, Byrnes, and Pederson left the meeting. Due to lack of a quorum, the meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. 21 BOARD MEMBER~ Thomas P. Ferber, President City of Richfield City Clerk John Douvllle, Vice President City of Warren City Clerk/Treasurer Verena Weber. Secretary City of Colcl Spring Clerk/Coordinator Joel young. Treasurer City of Chatfleld City Clerk Beverly Wilson, Region I V.P, City of Breckenriclge Deputy Clerk Theresa GoDle. I~egion II V.P. City of Brainerd Deputy City Clerk achel Stapleton, Region III V,P, City of St. Joseph Clerk/Admin./Treasurer Susan Olesen, Region IV V,P. City at Burnsville City Clerk Laurel Haake, Director at Large City of Fisher City Clerk Marlene Buker, Director at Large City of North Mankoto City Clerk J~ECEIyED SEP ]6 !996 September 12, 1996 Linda Strong, Acting City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Linda: Congratulations! I am pleased to inform you that you have met the. requirements for certification as a "MINNESOTA CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK". It is an honor to have a person of your professional capabilities as a member of the Municipal Clerks and Finance Officers Association. As you know, this certification is granted after someone has met the high educational, experience level and service requirements as set by the MCFOA and the IIMC The receipt of this honor signifies the quality and competency that you bring to your job in your service to your community. It will be my pleasure on behalf of all the members of the Municipal Clerks and Finance Officers Association of Minnesota, to present you with a plaque and pin symbolizing your achievement at the MCFOA Annqai.-Conference to be held in St. Cloud on March:11-14, 1-3_97. Again, 'congratulatiOns on this achievement. Sincerely, Thomas P. Ferber, CMC President Municipal Clerks and Finance Officers Asso~:iation of Minnesota HEIOELBERG RECEIVED ~E? '1 ?-19~