The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-10-22 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 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 APPRECIATION TO MERRIEr AND DARYL GEYEN, AL & ALMA'S, FOR PARTICIPATION DURING LAKE MINNETONKA EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1996. ............................................... 3569 *CONSENT AGENDA APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ............................... 3570-3580 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ............................... 3581-3586 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 15, 1996 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ............................ 3587-3589 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD. CASE//96-31 ..................... 3590-3631 RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR AHRENS, 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO INSTALL AN UNDERGROUND PIPE ON DEVON COMMONS. ........................................ 3632-3636 Fo VARIANCE FOR DECK, WILLIAM DUNKLEY, 3016 WESTEDGE BLVD., LOT 1, BLOCK 1. HALSTEAD ACRES. CASE//96-54. .............. 3637-3649 G° MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT), ROBERT FLOEDER, 3027 BLUFFS LANE, AND RONALD EMMONS, 3019 BLUFFS LANE. CASE//96-55. ................................... 3650-3662 3565 Agenda - Mound City Council - October 22, 1996 - Page 2 H'XO I. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO HOUSE, JAMES KOCH, 4398 WILSI-IIRE BLVD. CASE g96-56. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO DETACHED GARAGE, MARK RESCHKE, 4737 ABERDEEN ROAD. CASE g96-57 ...................... K. I°q VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT DWELLING, LORI & JERRY MAREK, 4829 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. CASE//96-58 ..................... VARIANCE FOR DECK REPLACEMENT & EXPANSION, STEVE & MARY CHASE, 1765 JONES LANE. CASE//96-59 ................ Lo Mo BID AWARD: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING SNOW REMOVAL. (WILL BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY NIGHT). PAYMENT OF BILLS .......................................... REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY ....................... REQUEST FOR BEER SALES - STEVE BEDELL, 'BY THE WAY SNACK SHOP' FOR 1997 .................................. 5. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 6. DISCUSSION: SUBURBAN ALLIANCE ................................... RESOLUTION ELECTING TO BEGIN PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1997 ............................................. 8. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Ao SEPTEMBER 1996 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ............................. Bo MEMO FROM JIM MILLER, LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES RE: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND 1997 NLC POLICY AND STEERING COMMITTEES. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE ADVISE SO WE CAN SUBMIT YOUR NAME FOR CONSIDERATION ............................... LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 MEETING ................................... Eo PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE POLICIES PREPARED BY COMMITTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM). ADOPTION OF THESE POLICIES WILL TAKE PLACE ON NOVEMBER 14, 1996 IN ST. PAUL. (BOOKLET INSERT - COUNCIL) PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1996 ........................................... 3663-3672 3673-3684 3685-3705 3706-3719 3720-3731 3732-3760 3761-3765 3766-3793 3794-3796 3797-3798 3799-3802 3803-3810 3811-3823 3566 Agenda - Mound City Councio - October 22, 1996- Page $ Fo Go Ho PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 1996 ........................................... 3824-3837 THANK YOU LETTER FROM THE SOUTHWEST TRAIL ASSOCIATION FOR CITY SUPPORT .................................... 3838 REMINDERS: CANVASSING OF MUNICIPAL ELECTION IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6TH, 7:30 PM. CITY OFFICES ARE CLOSED NOVEMBER 11, 1996 IN OBSERVANCE OF VETERAN'S DAY. ANNUAL LAEGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES LEGISLATIVE POLICY ADOPTION CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 22ND~....IN MINNETONKA AT THE RAMADA PLAZA HOTEL. PLE~ADVISE LINDA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING .................................................... 3839 3567 l,tl m z 01 0 !", o 0 1", "q' ~ ~ O) q;) 01 0 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-0621 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 September 27, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. Daryl Geyen Al & Alma's Super Club 5201 Piper Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Daryl & Merritt: Thank you for your contribution to the Lake Minnetonka Emergency Preparedness Exercise held September 21, 1996. Your cooperation and support throughout the planning meetings and the provision of your charter boat for the exercise are to be commended. The event could not have happened without your involvement. The exercise included 200 public safety personnel and volunteers who were given thc opportunity to learn thc unique problems that can occur should a large scale accident ever take place on the water. Our formal critique is scheduled for October 4, 1996, but thc preliminary feedback indicates that the exercise was a great success! Al & Alma's has a fine reputation for food, recreation, and safety. Your unselfish participation and assistance continue the tradition of excellence for which you arc known. Please know that your efforts are greatly appreciated. The lunches were great also! Sincerely, Chief of Police MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 24, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jri, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Clifford Larson, Susan Roberts, Marilyn Byrnes, Amy Cicchese, Randy Moriarty, Todd Hovren, Steve Coddon, Bev Botko, Jack Cook, Jim Suhon, Marlin Sicheneder, Kristi Dzik, John Dzik, Doug Jepson, Ann Jepson, A1 and Kathy Leach, David Greenslit, Frank Ahrens, Mark Jorland, Peter Meyer, Mark Goldberg, Mark Smith, Gina Anderson, Joseph Vankaanen. Mayor Polston opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECYCLOTTO WINNER. Mayor Polston announced that Leland Lundgren of Evergreen Road had received 50 Westonka dollars for his recycling efforts. Mayor Polston stated that the agenda contained a Consent Agenda, which meant that the items in this portion of the agenda would all be voted on by roll call in one vote. He then asked if anyone of the Council or persons in attendance wished to discuss any of the following items. There was one minor correction to the Minutes of 9-11-96. None of the persons in attendance spoke. The following items were moved by Councilmember Ahrens, seconded by Councilmember Jensen, and by roll call vote, passed unanimously: *CONSENT AGENDA 1.0 APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1996, MEETING. As amended. REGULAR COUNCIL 1.1 APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 1.2 RESOLUTION//96-92 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. PZ//96-47 Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.3 RESOLUTION//96-93 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. PZ//96-48 Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.4 RESOLUTION//96-94 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR FENCE MATERIAL AT 2116 NOBLE LANE, M&B, PART OF BLOCK 1, A.L. ADDN TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 31 0001. PZ//96-49 Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.5 RESOLUTION//96-95 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, LOST 1-3 & 8-10, BLOCK 22, SETON, PID 19-117-23 23 0134. PZ# 96-50 Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.6 RESOLUTION//96.96 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. P&Z//96.51. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 2 Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 1.7 RESOLUTION//96-97 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 13, 14, 15, BLOCK 15, PID'S 13-117-24 14 0046/0047/0039. P&Z//96-53. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.8 SET SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A WORKSHOP ON THE LOST LAKE IMPROV~NT PROJECT (WORKSItOP 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. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.9 SET CANVASSING OF CITY OF MOUND MUNICIPAL ELECTION. SUGGESTED DATE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996, 7:30 PM. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.10 SET BID OPENING FOR SNOW REMOVAL FROM PARKING LOTS IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) FOR 1996-97 SNOW SEASON. SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1996. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.11 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1996. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS.:. 1.13 CASE//96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE. RANDY MORIARTY, 4356 DENBIGH ROAD, AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, 3 Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID //19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048. DENIAL RECOMMENDED. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the report. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of a different version of this plan in June. Part of the reason it was denied in June was that it created a new nonconforming lot and violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract A will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. All three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for nonqots of record. There are 4 variances applied for. All three of the proposed tracts are in an area of very steep topography. Sutherland stated that the creation of the third lot appears to be an economic issue and not a hardship issue. He also mentioned the survey was not clearly understandable and more information would be needed. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the request. Randy Moriarty and Jack Cook spoke before the Council regarding their efforts to make this plan workable. Hanus stated he had voted against the denial at the Planning Commission because the lots would be conforming except for the bluff area. Building on bluffs has been done before. He stated they had alleviated all nonconformities physically possible. Jensen stated she did not want another house built on a bluff. Jessen stated the Shoreland Management Plan does not allow this type of building, she was not in favor. Polston asked if the applicant could possibly redesign the plans to work around the bluff and they responded that they already had done that to remove the as many variances as possible. The only problem that is left is the bluff. (Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused from the October 8, 1996 meeting when these minutes were up for approval. He submitted comments on this item, they are as follows). "Hanus stated that in a previous variance granted on the easterly property, one of the findings was practical difficulty due to the location of the bluff line leaving a restricted building envelope and that this applies in this case as well. He said if it were possible to build outside of the bluff or even more outside of the bluff he would be strongly in favor of this. But this is not possible in this entire area. He said all conditions of the new center lot are conforming except for the location of the bluff. He also pointed out other cases that received similar approval for like conditions. Hanus stated that it is his intention that any building constructed on this lot would be fully conforming except for the bluff setback. Hanus pointed out that in the Planning Commission minutes there was reference to the easterly 4 Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 property not having enough parking but clarified that this is an error. There actually are two spaces on this lot, one in the garage and one alongside the garage, so this property does have the required two spaces. Hanus said that there is an erosion problem that exists today because runoff is funneled into one area on the center of the proposed center lot. He felt that with proper mitigating techniques such as gutters, retaining walls, and other landscaping methods to direct and slow water flow, that an actual improvement could be realized over what exists today. Hanus said that the gain to the city is that it will get the removal of a very old, small, rundown house and get new housing in its place. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a minor subdivision and variance for lots 4-8, Block 2, Avalon and to include the 5 conditions listed in the Planner's report and to add condition//6 to include the removal of the house to the west (Tract C) before approval of the subdivision. The vote carried 3-2, Jensen and Jessen voting nay. 1.14 PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 6-12, 1996 AS "MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK" IN THE CITY OF MOUND. City Manager Ed Shulde stated the Acting City Clerk Linda Strong had been preparing plans for an Open House. Strong stated October 8, 1996 was planned for an Open House at Mound City Hall to celebrate the "Minnesota C~t~es Wee in Mound. She mentioned several activities going on that day; The Laker will have information. Schools and parents and the public were invited to stop by to learn about their city government. She stated it would be a non-political campaign event. Ahrens moved, Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//96-98 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING CITIES WEEK" IN THE CITY OCTOBER 6-12, 1996. "MINNESOTA OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH//9. Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 41830 42406 42961 43020 43080 43120 43180 43235 43420 43450 Mark Smith & Gina Anderson 4665 Island View Robert Eidem & Nicole Blum 4743 Island View Curtis Olson 4801 Island View Michael Kane 4805 Island View Arlene Eskedahl 4815 Island View Carrell Kucera 4823 Island View Jerry Marek 4829 Island View Glenn & Amy Hurd 4833 Island View Stephen Hewitt 4849 Island View Mark Goldberg 4853 Island View Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Jon Sutherland, Building Official stated the staff recommended approval of this batch of public lands permits. There were no structures involved. Stairs over the rip-rap of dock//43450 were discussed briefly. Sutherland stated the applicants had one year from approval date to take the appropriate action. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to approve Batch//9 of Construction on Public Land Permits. A resoultion will be prepared for the October 8th meeting. 1.16 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION 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. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, stated the applicant is requesting a Construction on Public Lands Permit to install a stairway and wood chip path on public lands. The only 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 area has steep slopes and significant tree cover and is a natural area, with the lower portion being wetlands. This is not a dedicated NCA area yet. According to the a survey dated 10-5-95, most of the applicant's parcel is under the ordinary high water (OHW) and may not be accessible during periods of high water. Staff recommends approval with several conditions. The Council discussed this with Mr. Coddon. Polston stated he had walked the area and he would recommend denial as the steps would cause a problem with the natural area, the walkway would be under water often and the area would be open to the public and cause parking problems along Black Lake Lane. Ahrens stated the Council had never granted a Construction on Public Lands Permit to access private property. Coddon said he could eliminate the path. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to direct 6 Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 staff to prepare a resolution of.d.einal for.a _C.o.__n~t_A_r~. ~ct..i_o~O~eP~u~mCr,?ovne~ Permit for Steve Coddon for a statrway ano pamwa:~ a~,,,~,, -- ~- right-or-way of Black Lake Lane and Longford Road and parcels 23, 29 and 30 in Block 11, Seton. 1.17 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. Jori Sutherland, Building Official, stated the applicant is seeking an after the fact Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow invisible pet fencing to remain on Waterside Commons. Staff became aware of the installation through a complaint from a dock site holder. There are about seven dock sites that access at this point. The individual expressed concern about how closely the dog is allowed to roam by the dock sites and access walkways as well as the apparent lack of restraint. Mr. VanLaanen was present and stated the fence is underground and the frequency is high enough so the dog does not go onto the commons. Hanus stated the dog could still be on public property. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to deny the after the fact Public Lands Permit application from Beverly and Joseph VanLaanen, 2137 Ashland Lane for an invisible fence to be located on the Waterside Commons. The electric invisible fencing is to be removed and the City is to inspect the site following the removal. 1.18 REQUEST FOR pUBLIC LAND PERMIT BY FRANK & ANDREA AHRENS TO INSTALL UNDERGROUND PIPE ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED ADJACENT TO 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 2, 17 & SE 1/2 OF 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the applicant is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow for a below grade 1-1/2 7 pipe to carry water to a pump which will be located on private property. The pipe will located approximately 6" below grade. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to approve a Public Lands Permit for Frank and Andrea Ahrens 4673 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon, Dock site//41902, Devon Common, Type D Shoreline for 7 Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 an underground PVC pipe. The vote carried 4-0, Ahrens abstained. ~, 1.19 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. } Mayor Polston asked if there was anyone present who had a comment or suggestion. Peter Meyer, member of the Parks and Open Space Commission and a member of the Westonka Citizens for a Community Skating Rink, stated he was there to ask for support to ~complete the community skating rink located on school property, this fall. He asked that the Council allocate $3200 from the NCA budget to benefit the rink. He also stated that the Pond Arena now does not offer any open skating time. He presented the Council with a resolution he had prepared. The Council will take the proposed resolution with additional information under consideration at a future meeting. There were no more comments or suggestions. 1.20 CITY ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO SHERWOOD DRIVE. City Engineer John Cameron presented the Preliminary Engineering Report for the Improvement of Sherwood Drive. He reviewed the report with the Council and stated the improvement project was feasible. He did suggest the City pay a portion, this would be to cover the street area of the cost. This has been done in the past. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to accept the Engineer's Feasibility Report on Public Improvements to Sherwood Drive and to set a public hearing date of November 12, 1996. The residents affected will be notified. 1.21 EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the City is negotiating with property owners around the Lost Lake Improvement project for the purchase of land for permanent easement purposes. He requested to meet with the Council in Executive Session to discuss with them an update. The Council went into Executive Session at 8:50 PM. The Council returned from Executive Session at 8:59 PM. Pearson stated that a tentative agreement had been reached with Mr. Wagman, one of the property owners. The Council needed to take action to direct him to prepare the proper documents. ~"77 Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to reduce to writing the proposed settlement with Mr. Wagman and accept the settlement. 1.22 iNFORMATiONiMIgCEI JI JANEOUS: A. AUGUST 1996 FINANCIAL REPORT AS pREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996. C. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES 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." CONGRATULATIONS, LINDA! E. MEMO FROM JOANNE PORTER, SPRING PARK RE: CROSSWALK ON COUNTY ROAD 15 NEAR HOUSE OF MOY. 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. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Polston and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. 9 Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 Attest: Acting City Clerk City Manager 10 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 8, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 8, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Absent and excused: Mark Hanus. Also in attendance: Acting City Manager Gino Businaro, City Attorney Curt Pearson and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Sue Wilkens, Doc and Dottie Meier, Marilyn Byrnes, Dotty O'Brien, Elta Erickson, Gert Fevert, Bill Darling, Milbert Mueller, Doug Anderson, Bradley Wolfe, Vern Schwalbe, Gen Bravell, Lyle Loehoors, Eric Montvedit, Betty Strong, Bernice Putt, Gladys $ohnson, Vera $ohnson, Rita Pederson, Bev Botko, Cathy Bailey, Leah Weycker, Tom Casey, Peter Meyer, Mike Aspelin. CONSENT AGENDAp The following items were moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. A roll call vote was called. The vote on the following consent items was 4-0, Hanus absent and excused. 1.0 RESOLUTION//96-99 RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS KNOWN AS DEVON COMMON, "BATCH //9" DOCK SITES 41824, 42406, 42961, 43020, 43080, 43120, 43180, 43234, 43420 AND 43450. Jessen moved, Ahrens seconded, carried unanimous. 1.1 RESOLUTION g96--100 RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF STEVE CODDON FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT. Jessen moved, Ahrens seconded, carried unanimous. 1.2 SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 500 RE: FEES FOR VARIOUS LICENSES AND PERMITS. SUGGESTED DATE'NOVEMBER 12 1996. Jessen, Ahrens, unanimous. 1.3 STREET LIGHT RE UEST FOR GROVE LANE AND BEACHWOOD ROAD Jessen, Ahrens, unanimous. October 8, 1996 Minutes - Mound City Council 1.4 NIELSON TO WALTER AND LAVONNE NESKE. Jessen, Ahrens, unanimous. 1.5 APPR VAL OF KNIGHT OF COLUMBUS PERMIT FOR 11/23/96 12/15/96 AND 2/7/97. Jessen, Ahrens, unanimous. 1.6. PAYMENT OF BILLS IN THE AMOUNT_ OF 247 156.02 WHF_.aN FUN1)S ARE AVAILABLE. Jessen, Ahrens, unanimous 1.7 APPROVE ~TES OF SEPTEMBER 24 1996 REGULAR COUN IL MEETING. Councilmember Hanus had submitted changes to the Minutes but he was absent. Councilmember Jensen suggested continuing the Minutes until 10-22-96. MOTION by Jeusen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to continue the Minutes until October 22, 1996. 1.8 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR LOTS 4- 8 BLOCK 2 AVA N RANDY M RIARTY 4536 DENBIGH ROAD AND ROBERT ~ DENBIGH ROAD. CASE//96-31. Mayor Polston stated the applicant had requested this item to be continued until October 22, 1996 City Council meeting. MOTION by Jeusen, seconded by Jessen, carried unanimously to continue P & Z Case//96-31 until the October 22, 1996 City Council meeting. 1.9 RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR AHREN 4673 ISLAND Ahrens stated a four fifths vote was needed to pass this type of resolution. She recommended deferring this item until October 22, 1996, when a full Council will be present. MOTION by Jeusen, seconded by Jessen, carried unanimously to defer the Public Lands Permit of 4673 Island Park Drive until October 22, 1996. 1.10 PUBLIC HEARING: UN~_AID WATER AND SEWER BILLS. Mayor Polston opened the Public Hearing regarding the unpaid water and sewer bills for the current year. He asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding this item. There was no 2 Minutes - Mound City Council October 8, 1996 one. Mayor Polston closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ahrens moved, Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g96-101 RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER ASSESSMENT BILL IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,956.88, TO BE CERT/FIFJ~ TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTERF~T, LEVY//13743. (The actual amount will decrease before the certifying date of November 15, 1996, as residents may still pay their delinquent utility bill with an additional $25 administration fee.) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 PUBLIC HEARING: CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on the CBD Parking Maintenance Assessment. Gene Gravell, and Brad Wolfe, Mound Masonic Lodge, had questions regarding the ownership of their parking lot and signage on the lot being needed to keep people that lived in the next door apartment building from parking over night and during Masonic events. They also asked about the amount being assessed. They had a notice dated July 1996. He was told that a document with the correct amount of $284.59 had been sent to the Lodge in August. Once they were aware of the correct amount, they did not question the amount. Councilmember Jensen stated that all of the CBD assessments went down some as the seal coating of the parking lots in the CBD was paid for by the City through Liquor Store profits this year. Councilmember Ahrens moved, Councilmember Jessen seconded the following resolution as recommended: RESOLUTION//96-102 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1996 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $9796.18, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST, LEVY//13744. Motion carried. 1.12 WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS - CATHY BAILEY SENIOR CITIZEN COORDINATOR. Cathy Bailey spoke with the Council regarding the relocation process the Westonka Senior Citizens are going through. They want to remain a part of the community. She mentioned the Senior Foundation. A group of the Seniors had toured four other Senior Centers that day and had several ideas for one of 3 October 8, 1996 Minutes - Mound City Council their own. Cathy stressed that the City of Mound partner with them in location, support and interest. Councilmember Jensen is a member of the Westonka Community Center Task Force that has been researching the development of either a new facility or to remodel the current facility. The direction has been to demolish the current building on Commerce. Decisions were being made now as to what and where to build a new facility. This new facility may or may not have room for the Senior Center. The options before the Task Force were briefly discussed. Jensen stated the School Board had to make some preliminary plan decisions soon. Bailey thanked the Council for their concern. 1.13 PR PERTY OWNED BY WEST NKA SCH OL DISTRICT AND CATED WEST OF POND ARENA - PETER MEYERL Peter Meyer, member of the Parks and Open Space Commission, spoke with the Council regarding the proposed public skating/hockey rink that the Parks Commission, Hockey Association and School District would like to have constructed on School District//277 property on Commerce Blvd. He asked that the Council allocate $3200 for leveling and birming the rink site this fall. He had estimates of responsibilities each organization would incur to provide this skating rink for this winter and the winter · e of the alt's responsibilities was estimated at 4 hours a day to ?l_ean .and r. esfi.rfa~ the .of 199,~7._ ,O..~ ~, .... ~ YS- 10 weeks. The Council consensus was the .n..eed Ior ~e ,,nn,~_),_s_~ere~ Ice. ln¢ um .... . _.,. ...... : .... r,~..t, nevartment start is very small, oatmooma, However, they had several quesuons: llaOltlty, could this be located on City owned property? City Attorney Curt Pearson suggested the City, School District and Hockey Association should enter into a Joint Powers Agreement, outlining who was responsible for what responsibility and for what time frame· This Joint Powers Agreement would have to be approved by all three entities involved. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to direct staff to work with the School District and Hockey Association to prepare a contractual agreement, a "Joint Powers Agreement" so the City can become involved in the proposed skating rink on School District Property. 1.14 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. Doug Anderson, 1750 Shorewood Drive, came before the City Council. He referred to the auto accident that occurred at the mid-block crosswalk on County Road 15 recently. He asked the Councilmembers that had voted to reinstall this crosswalk to take whatever steps possible to remove the crosswalk. He stated the safety efforts that were installed were not working. Peter Meyer came before the City Council. He commented on the tax forfeit property on Birch Lane that had been released for sale through the County. He mentioned retaining this for Park Land acquisition· PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF RELATIONSHIP WITH WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN 1.15 SERVICES PLANNESI_G BOARD A.K.A. SUBURBAN ALLIANCE. 4 Minutes - Mound City Council October 8, 1996 Acting City Manager Gino Businaro stated the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board has closed its doors, leaving a financial obligation to the joint powers cities. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the City probably does have a legal obligation. Consensus was to defer the item until the October 22nd meeting. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to defer action regarding W.H.H.S. (Suburban Alliance) until October 22, 1996 when more information could be obtained. 1.16 -INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR SEPTEMBER. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN THIS REPORT ARE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU HAD AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. ALSO NOTE A CLARIFICATION FROM JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR, REGARDING QUESTION #4 & #5. MATERIAL PREPARED BY BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN IN PREPARATION FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 1996 WORKSHOP MEETING WITH THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND OTHERS RE: LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING THIS MATERIAL WITH YOU TO THE MEETING. LETTER FROM NORM COLEMAN, MAYOR, CITY OF ST. PAUL, INVITING THE CITY OF MOUND TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996 IN ST. PAUL. WE CAN SEND UP TO 6 PEOPLE. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO INVITE 4 MEMBERS FROM THE EDC WHICH WOULD INCLUDE COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN AND BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN AND MYSELF. IS THIS OK? 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 ATI'ENDING. 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. 5 October 8, 1996 Minutes - Mound City Council Go REMINDERS ON UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS/WORKSHOPS: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1996 - COMMYITEE OF THE WHOLE - 7:30 PM DISCUSSION WILL BE HELD TO THE PROPOSED 1997 BUDGET. PLEASE BRING COP!F~q OF THE BUDGET WITH YOU TO THE MEETING. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996 - WORKSHOP MEETING WITH MCWD - 7:30 PM, CITY HALL. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 - CANVASSING OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION - 7:30 PM. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1996. Gino Businaro, Acting City Manager, stated that Tuesday, October 8th had been "Cities Day" for Minnesota Cities Week sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities. He stated Linda Strong, Acting City Clerk, prepared an Open House day at city hall. She gave a brief report. City Attorney Pearson suggested this meeting be continued until October 17, 1996, when there will be a special joint meeting with the Council, EDC and MCWD. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to continue the meeting until October 17, 1996. This portion of the meeting was closed at 9:20 pm. Acting City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 6 MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-OCTOBER 15, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Mayor Bob Polston; Councilmembers: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and .lessen. Also present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Proposed 1997 Budget Ed Shukle, City Manager, indicated that the City Council had set this issue on the Committee of the Whole agenda for purposes of reviewing it in greater detail prior to the public hearing set for December 4, 1996. He asked the City Council if they were interested in going over the budget in detail by every department or if they had some other concerns related to the proposed budget to discuss. Mayor Polston indicated that he was interested in seeing no increase in the property tax levy. Rather, he would like to see the City levy the same amount for 1997 as they had levied for 1996. He did not seem interested in going department by department or line by line over the budget. The City Manager explained that the danger in not increasing the tax levy as proposed (2.65%), was that in a few years (3-4), the City Council at that time may find themselves having to increase the levy greater than the normal inflation type increase. Other members of the Council expressed the same concern about setting up future councils with difficult economic decisions. Other discussion focused on capital outlay, use of Fund #30 or the Capital Improvement Fund for capital outlay, recycling and water and sewer issues. Following this discussion, the City Council consensus was to direct staff to prepare the revised numbers based upon a zero increase in the tax levy for 1997 and levying the same amount in taxes as it had for 1996. The Council also stated that they had no problem with the proposed Uniform Building Code (UBC) fee schedule which would replace the 1988 schedule the City is currently using. By doing so, the City may realize $110,000 in revenues for building permits. In addition, the Council consensus was to reduce the general fund balance to assist in making up the difference that would not be realized through a zero increase in property taxes. By taking such action, the City Council would be bringing the fund balance percentage closer to 35% versus 36% to 37% where the budget had proposed the fund balance would be based upon the proposed expenditures and revenues. From an auditor's point of view, 35% is an adequate level to be at for a city the size of Mound. The Council asked the staff to bring the revised numbers back to the November Committee of the Whole for review and discussion. Committee of the Whole Minutes of October 15, 1996 Page 2 Community_ Center. Mayor Polston indicated to the Council that he and the City Manager met with School Officials regarding possible city involvement in the development of a Community Center. Mayor Polston indicated that it looked like it would be difficult to participate either individually with the School District or with area cities because of the complexity of funding. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that the School Board did take action this past Monday to "mothball" the existing community center and build a building adjacent to the Shirley Hills Elementary School. This action was primarily based upon the fact that the School Board did not want to use approximately $700,000 of its $1.9 million tax levy to pay for the demolition of the existing community center. In addition, the School Board must move forward before March, 1997 to expend the original $1.9 million levied or face redistributing it back to the taxpayers. Both Mayor Polston and City Manager Shukle stated that the School had been contacted by a developer who may possibly be interested in purchasing the existing Community Center property. Very little information was available on this and the School District was not able to share much as to who the developer was or what development could be located on the site. The Council speculated on the possibility that a Tax Increment Financing project could be set up to assist this prospective developer which would remove an eyesore from downtown and would bring economic growth to the City. The Council briefly discussed the proposed skating rink at the Community Center site. They reviewed their action from the October 8 meeting relating to a joint powers agreement that they directed the City staff to work on with the School District and the Hockey Association. U comin Meetin with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District The Council discussed the agenda for the upcoming meeting with the Watershed District. They stressed the importance of not making the meeting controversial or adversarial. The Mayor indicated that he was going to introduce the meeting as a public meeting and not a public hearing. He wanted to keep the discussion at the table between the Council and the MCWD Board of Managers. The Council consensus was that this was a good approach to try to establish with the MCWD the importance of this project to the city and to recognize the Watershed District's role in the process. By bringing both interests together, hopefully, a project will result that will be beneficial to all concerned. Other Business The Council did discuss the calls being received regarding no cleanup day this fall. Councilmember Committee of the Whole Minutes of October 15, 1996 Page 3 Ahrens was very emphatic regarding the need to continue cleanup days in 1997. Council consensus was that in whatever way possible, cleanup days should be held in 1997. Staff will continue to work on this and will bring back revised numbers for the Recycling Budget at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. It was noted that the next meeting o£the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for November 19, 1996, 7:30 p.m. Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Polston and carded unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager RESOLUTION//96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES FOR LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4~ BLOCK 2, AVALON 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 P&Z CASE//96-31 WHEREAS, the owners of the subject property, as 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 5 & Swly 1/2 of Lot 4 - Randy Moriarty, 4536 Denbigh Road Lots 6, 7, & 8 - Robert Baumgarten, 4552 Denbigh Road and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District, which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and a 10 foot setback from the top of a bluff, and; WHEREAS, the subdivision establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence, and; WHEREAS, all three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record, and; WHEREAS, there are three variances involved with this request, as follows: - 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. - Setback variances for the existing home on Tract C, unless the structure is removed. The existing detached garage would require a 16.6 foot front yard setback variance, and more information would be necessary to clarify the variances for the home as the survey is illegible. WHEREAS, all three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended denial with 7 in favor and 1 opposed, and; Proposed Resolution Moriarty P. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a practical difficulty exists and the proposal is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, it is desirable to have the house on Tract C removed, and the minor subdivision and proposed new dwellings are consistent with the development in the surrounding neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, the majority of the properties on Denbigh are similarly situated as far as impacting the bluff. 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 subj~t to the following conditions: A park dedication fee of $500.00 for the one new parcel being created shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for filing. 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 shall either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond, prior to release of this resolution for filing. Co 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 lot lines, 15 feet in width along rear lot lines, 10 feet in width along the front of Tracts A and C, and 4.5 feet in width along the front of Tract B. The easement descriptions and easement documents must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and then must be filed in conjunction with this resolution at the County. Proof of filing the easements must be provided to the City of Mound prior to building permit issuance. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for recording. The house and garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see//7). A demolition permit is required. Proposed Resolution Moriarty P. 3 The City does hereby approve the following variances in conjunction with the minor subdivision: a. A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. b. A front yard setback variance for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. The existing legal description is: Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Avalon, and Lot 5 and the Southwesterly half of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. The proposed legal descriptions are as follows: Tract A: The Northeasterly 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 6, except the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of said LOt 6, Block 2, Avalon. Tract C: LOt 8 and LOt 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 feet of said Lot 7. 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 or it shall become null and void. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by Proposed Resolution Morarity Pg. 4 The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager RESOLUTION {96 :EXHIBIT t TRACT A The Nodheasterly 15.00 leet 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, excepl the SoulhwesteHy 35.50 feet of sad Lot 4, BlOc 2, Avalon. TRACT C Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except tl~e Northeasterly 15.00 leer of said Lot 7. INC. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIl', . SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 1.13 CASE//96--31: MINOR SUBDMSION & VARIANCE~ RANDY MORIARTY, 4356 DENBIGH ROAD, AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048. DENIAL RECOMMENDED. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the report. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of a different version of this plan in June. Part of the reason it was denied in June was that it created a new nonconforming lot and violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract A will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. All three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. There are 4 variances applied for. All three of the proposed tracts are in an area of very steep topography. Sutherland stated that the creation of the third lot appears to be an economic issue and not a hardship issue. He also mentioned the survey was not clearly understandable and more information would be needed. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the request. Randy Moriarty and Jack Cook spoke before the Council regarding their efforts to make this plan workable. Hanus stated he had voted against the denial at the Planning Commission because the lots would be conforming except for the bluff area. Building on bluffs has been done before. He stated they had alleviated all nonconformities physically possible. Jensen stated she did not want another house built on a bluff. Jessen stated the Shoreland Management Plan does not allow this type of building, she was not in favor. Polston asked if the applicant could possibly redesign the plans to work around the bluff and they responded that they already had done that to remove the as many variances as possible. The only problem that is left is the bluff. (Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused from the October 8, 1996 meeting when these minutes were up for approval. He submitted comments on this item, they are as follows). "Hanus stated that in a previous variance granted on the easterly property, one of the findings was practical difficulty due to the location of the bluff line leaving a restricted building envelope and that this applies in this case as well. He said if it were possible to build outside of the bluff or even more outside of the bluff he would be strongly in favor of this. But this is not possible in this entire area. He said all conditions of the new center lot are conforming except for the location of the bluff. He also pointed out other cases that received similar approval for like conditions. Hanus stated that it is his intention that any building constructed on this lot would be fully conforming except for the bluff setback. Hanus pointed out that in the Planning Commission minutes there was reference to the easterly 5 Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 property not having enough parking but clarified that this is an error. There actually are two spaces on this lot, one in the garage and one alongside the garage, so this property does have the required two spaces. Hanus said that there is an erosion problem that exists today because runoff is funneled into one area on the center of the proposed center lot. He felt that with proper mitigating techniques such as gutters, retaining walls, and other landscaping methods to direct and slow water flow, that an actual improvement could be realized over what exists today. Hanus said that the gain to the city is that it will get the removal of a very old, small, rundown house and get new housing in its place. MOTION by lqanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a minor subdivision and variance for lots 4-8, Block 2, Avalon and to include the 5 conditions listed in the Planner's report and to add condition #6 to include the removal of the house to the west (Tract C) before approval of the subdivision. The vote carried 3-2, Jensen and Jessen voting nay. ADVISORY PLANNING COI M/SSION SEPTEMBER DERBIG~ ROAD AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN 4552 DENBIG~ ROAD LOTS 4 - 8 BLOCK 2 AVALON PID 19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048 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. 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 . constructed in a simil . . contains homes that are ..... ar physical environment although they are pernaps no= as severe as the subject lots. However, this proposal involves the creation of a new lot, not s' existing grandfathered dwel~ l~ply }o add or replace an · · .~"~. ~oeg±er 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 Minutes September 9, 1996 approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it ' ested that consideration be given to tabling the request ls ~ugg - ' ~ mission of a detailed grading, drainage penuing preparation and ~ub ' by the city and utility plan for all three Tracts for review 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 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 Ordinances requires permits for fill in a bluff zone. Reifschneider received clarification from the Plan plan differs from the original ............ n~ on how this that he has ~roblem w~ ___~=~u~. ~elrscnnelaer commented = ~ p~oposea Tract A due to the stee topography and feels that Tract A would be bet ' ' P driveway and off-street ~ark~ ........ ter utilized for ~ ~ u~ ~o serve Tra expressed a concern about th .... ~ .... _ ~s B & C. He also parked on the road. Voss c~%~%~?~n=~n D~nbl~h when cars are never be widened. - ........ = =n=u =ne street would probably Cook stated that there is that construction of a situation. an erosion problem on Tract A and feels home on the parcel will correct this 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 wa to buil ~rea without impacting the bluff z~-- y -- - ? a house in this · uu=. ne Ieels the applicants nave 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 carrie4 ? 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. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design PLANNING REPORT RECEIVED SIP O 5 _ _MOUPJ9 ?LANP, IINO & INSP. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 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- lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission fuTst 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 modffied and is back before the Plarm/ng Comm/ssion for review ~d 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 bluffprovisions 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 fi'om 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 subdivision 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 requires 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 requked. 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: 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 wi/l 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. 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. o 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. 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 envkonment although they are perhaps not as severe as the subject lots. In this case, however, the proposal is to create a new lot, not sknply 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 difficuky, 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. 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. BY: DNRj 9- 5-96 IO:06AM; 6127727573 => 612 472 0620; #2/2 ~ - ,zuu warner Road, St. Paul./VIN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 September 5, 1996 Mr. ;Ion Sutherland City of Mound 5341 M'aywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Variance Request, 4536/4552 Denbigh Road, Moriarty, Revised Case No. 96-31, Lake Minnetonka - 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 Aug'ust 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 ~ the variance request. Hardship has not been demonstrated. The only apparent reason for the request is to gain greater economic benefit fi.om the parcel of land. The state statute addressing variances (Chapter 462.357, Sub& 6, (2)) clearly states that "(e)eonomic 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 I0 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 contact 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 ---J(,-615';, I-sc~)-7(,(,.(~.~nj . TTY: 612 296 54~4, I 800 657 .'kll J;qtl:lJ {.}['ju]lli~lttl) I:mph,yct ~ J~rill~oJ m, ~c~clvd I';q~,~r t'~l~l.:ihin~ ;~ Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472 0600, Fax' 472-0620 s · -,-- Commission Date: q'~ "q (~ ~ i°l'(~- ~ ~-(~-'- ' Case N. ............. ' ........ Escrow Deposit:_ Di~fibution: ~ ~ ~blic Wor~ _ Other Ci~ Enter $50.0O $~,ooo Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VA~UA~C~ ~qUm~V? Plesae type or print the following information: _._.__.__ PROPERTY Subject Address~ EXISTING Lot_ LEGAL Subdivision ~1 ~' .4. ~ ~ PID# DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner _other: Name applicant) (M) Phone (H)~ (W) Name~ _ SURVEYOR/ Address ENGINEER ,ho.. ~,~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this prop~rW? { } yes, ~no. if yes, list daters) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. RECEIVED 'plicatio mustbe ignedbyall wners or an explanation ~/Ov~DwPt~~j~ ~J~ph'e case' Date Date EXISTING LOT .AREA EXIS'I/NG LOT AREA SQFFX30% = I. SQ FT X 15% = LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: ~ f'- x ~ X X TOTAL ~tOUSE SQ FT GARAGE- - X TOTAL GAP. AGE ' DR/VEWAY: [ ~ x / ~ = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY DECK: "TOTAL PROPOSED H-CRI)COYER " DATE _~__YES _ NO CI"FY OF MOUND HARDCQVER CALCULA.'i'[ON$ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} LOTAREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA · ~'~ SO. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record') ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) · Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as oudined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:l 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be subsided and apl3roved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQFT zo x 4/,3 = ~ 26 // x I,¢ = I~-~' /Z, 5"' x ~o = ZG-~ TOTAL HOUSE ......................... /OEZ,~" DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS OI3en decks (1/4" min. Ol3ening between boards) with a 13ervioue surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X '"' X ¢- x ~¢- : ,E- x ~, = -50 70 x z... _ = /¢0 TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. x /&~ ,= X X~ / ,¢'z.. TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VER (indicate di f CiTY Of MOUND. ~t~RDOOVER CALCULATioN~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7__~_.._~- OWNER'S NAME: ~,,~~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA_~4?O SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Recor(~*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. J I 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 ~l~ (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" rrdn. opening between boards) with pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER E 77, U4(d._ LENGTH WIDTH SO FT /~ x_ z~.~- = Z-~- X TOTAL HOUSE TOTAL DETACHED 8LDGS '4 X -zT~ TOTAL D~IVEWAY, ETC X TOTAL DECK X TOTAL OTHER X x / = .~-~ X = Zoz._ ~ HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~.~ OVER (in d icg.t-e~ i f f~.;e nc e y'). ............................. PREPARED BY. DArE MINU~S - MOUND CITY COUNCFL - JUNE 25, 1996 LOT 6 5 & N-ELY 1/2 OF 4 BLOCK 2 PI'D 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 reapply with different plans. CITY OF MOUND: I REQUEST TO HAVE MY APPLICATION PULLED FROM THE 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 JOli 1 0 1996 i ~---'~ JUN :::' 5 '96- _ _. FTL. O M p~.~,~o .. c~ r'o,.~4ed,._. 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: 1. Recognition of an existing front yard setback variance of 15.28 feet for the existing home. 2. Approval of a variance from the bluff restrictions contained in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. 3. 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. 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. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: 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 Boulevard, 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 ne._.~w 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 bluffthat 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. FOR~ BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY RECEIVED JUN 10 19~ MOUND PLANNING f = WOOD STAKE PLACED BEARINGS .ON ASSUMED DATUM --+ = DRAINAGE O = IRON MON, SET PROPOSED INFORMATION 1st FLOOR ELEV, BASEMENT ELEV, 000,0 = EXIST, ELEV, (000,0~)-' PROPOSED ELEV, ~CHOBORG ~ND SURVEYING INC. ~'2-,3221 Delan~. MN 5532~ £ · = IRON MON, INPLACE I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was. prel3ared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of M~~, Date: ~ Registration No. 14700 _ GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. . TOP BLOCK ELEV. E & P_ EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. 000.0 - JOB # Bool~ - Page Scale 1"-~6 August 23, 1994 OCT 1 2 199 NSFER ENTERED TAXPAYER SE, .=VICES RESOLL~ON//94-116 ~'~ ,~"I~tTY MINN. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A (~~'~~F ~~~Pu~ VARIANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A PORTI DWELLING AND A DECK 4536 DEN'BIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, t5 AND SOUT]~WESTERLY 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PI/)//19-11%23 24 0008 P&Z CASE ~4-60 WHEREAS, the owner, Randall Morairty, 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; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 fat 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; WHEREAS, 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 WttEREAS, 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; WltEREAS, 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, TItEREFO~, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the 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. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of 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 August 23, 1994 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 (I). 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 fried 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 --) CITY OF MOUND P.BI BUT[ .DING PEKM1T SURVEY = WOOD STAKE PLACED BEARINGS .ON. ASSUMED DATUM -.~ = DRAINAGE O = IRON MON- SET pROPOSED INFORMATION --1st FLOOR EI. EV. · BASEMENT ELEV. 00O.O= EXIST. ELEV. (00~.0=)= PROPOSED ELEV. ~ $CHOBORG ~EYING ---~-- - INC. - · = IRON MON. INPI.ACE __ GARAGE FLOOR EL~. ,. TOP BLOCK ELEV. I hereby cattily that ~ia plan, ~ut'vey or report prepared tm)' ma ae under my direr suge~slan and that of M~ m=~et ~ Re~ist~Uon No. 147Q0 E & P= EXIST, & PROP. ELEV. JO6 ~ - page 3/--.~ ~caie I,,-~6 "'~' I App.catlon lot MTNOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: Case No. [ 'it3' Council Date: ~ ApplicationYee: Distribution: ¢ Escrow Deposit: -- City Planner b_~ C~ (,~ DNR Public Works Other Deficient Unit Charges? -- _ City Engineer $1,000 Delinquent Taxes? .................. : ........................................... VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please ~ or print the following information: ................................................................................................... INFORMATION LEGAL - DESCRIPTION Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT APPLICANT OWNER (if other than applicant) SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Circle: R-1 R-1A~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 The applicant is: /~owner other: Name~ Phone 2-, 2 Name Address _._____(M) Phone (H) (W~(M) Has an application everbeen made forzoning, variance, conditionalusepermit, orotherzoning procedure forthis prope~y? I)yes, o. Ifyes, listdate(s) ofapplication, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies ofresolutions. ~n mus~e s/gned by/all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Date Owner's Signature ~ECEIVED Datetqgy 2 3 1996 RECEIVED NAY 3 0 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION_ CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~ $$364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $50.00 City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) Lot ' ' Subdivision ' o ,D ~ ZONING DIST~CT R-1 R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Address Name ,jU'-~ ~J< ~^ Address ~-{ q Z ~ ~ J2..~~'[~_ { ~. (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.): ~ariance AppLication, p. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regular/ohs 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.): 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 ) -['~)PO~ ~/-AJ'~¢' : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED fee fto ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft _sq ft REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. _ D' ft. IO' ft. ft- ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in wh/ch 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 (,X) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: '-- V.',.riancz 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)2 Yes (), No jK~). If yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~, No (). 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 iCity of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's S~gnature~ ~ C Applicant's Signature~ ~VE¥ FOR: MAY 3~f~ 1996 MOUND PLA~ING & INSP. · RAC~ A Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. TRACT B Lot 5 and the northeasterly half of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. E3 = WOOD STAKE PLACED B.M..- ~,o,~,~- ~_. = ?~.~ BEARINGS .ON. ASSUMED DATUM o = IRON MON. SET DRAINAGE PROPOSED INFORMATION 1st FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV. IO00.O,),PROPOSEDELEV' _~$CHOBORG I ~L.~ND SURVEYING INC. · = IRON MON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV, TOP BLOCK ELEV. E&P_ 000.0 - EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that ! am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: ~ Registration No. 14700 JOi~ # Book - Page Scale /"- 3~ CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET~ ZONING DISTKICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ADDRESS: B2 20,000/80 LOT OF RECORD? YES HOUSE ......... FRO~ W 6,000/40 83 10,000/60 14,000/80 S~E ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXL~ING~ROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZ~: LoT WIDTH: LOT D EP'I'I~,' VARIANCE ;IDE SIDE REAR LAKE OF BLUFF E W E W 15' 50' SIIED ..... 30' OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINOS A0 ~ FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER CONFORMINO? This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizea a portion of the Planning D~partment at 472-0600. NS E W NS E W N S E W N S E W N S E W NS E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' OR 30' lents outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound \ \ x, 27 I t'XT C' ADDREss: SURVEy ON / NO LOT OF RECORD7 YES t~ YARD HOUSE ......... FRONT CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: a 4'4ec l:z:;{ .2 ,,,.ooo/Bo D! REL'I'ION REQUIRED E W FRONT N $ E W SIDE N S SIDE N E REAR E W LAKE E W TOP OF BLUFF 7,500/0 20,000/80 10,000/60 30,0o0/100 VARIANCE GAILAGE, SHED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED -------------- BUILDINO$ E,J(i ~RoNT N s E w ~ FRONT N S E W ---'----'-'--- =----------- SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' '-"----------- SIDE ~ NS E W REAR ~ 4' OR 6' _________ N $ E W LAKE ~ 4' N $ E W ~ ----------- 50' TOP OF BLUFF ~ This Zoning Information Sheet ~ n ortion of t ' . · rang Ordmanc~ For ~rtber lnformaimn (47) : O ,g , (8) " -- Cr%'T l nTq R R o RESOLUTION//96- . RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT FOR AN UNDERGROUND PVC WATER PIPE TO BE LOCATED ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK SITE #43520 WHEREAS, Frank and Andrea Ahrens have applied for a Construction on Public Land Permit to allow the installation of an underground PVC water pipe to be located on Devon Common abutting their property at 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon, Dock Site #41902, and; WHEREAS, the purpose of the pipe is to carry water to a pump which will be located on private property, and; WItEREAS, the pipe will be located approximately six inches below grade, and as shown on the attached Exhibit 'A', and; WHEREAS, there are no other existing encroachments located on this portion of common, 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. 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 an underground PVC water pipe to be located on Devon Common abutting the property at 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon, Dock Site #41902. This permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. RESOLUTION ~96- EXHIBIT 'A' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepored ('Or: FRAhYK AFkRENS 4857 I~land View Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~ Lot 17 and the southeasterl 25 · , /~"/~ ..- front and rear, of L .... 'Y _:00. feet, EV ~ mo, lB Block 1 o ~-~///> ~ ON, according to the -~ ..... f / w-~,~ ~ nnereoz ' ~ne OZ ' ~ ~7~ t,~__ .egistrar of Titles, Henne-~-lc~ o£_the ~.. ~ Minnesota. . ~xn uoun~y, ME~-UTES ' MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 8, ~_996 1.9 RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT F R AHRENS 4673 ISLAND Ahrens stated a four fifths vote was needed to pass this type of resolution. She recommended deferring this item until October 22, 1996, when a full Council will be present. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen, carried unanimously to defer the Public Lands Permit of 4673 Island Park Drive until October 22, 1996. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMB~ 24, 1996 1.18 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMIT BY FRANK & ANDREA AHRENS TO INSTALL UNDERGROUND PIPE ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED ADJACENT TO 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 2, 17 & SE 1/2 OF 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON. Building Official Jon Suthefland stated the applicant is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow for a below grade 1-1/2 8 pipe to carry water to a pump which will be located on private property. The pipe will located approximately 6" below grade. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to approve a Public Lands Permit for Frank and Andrea Ahrens 4673 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon, Dock site #41902, Devon Common, Type D Shoreline for an underground PVC pipe. The vote carried 4-0, Ahrens abstained. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Staff Report DATE: MEETING DATES: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 5, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission - September 12, 1996 City Council - September 24, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Bufldin Official ~t,~, ' Jon Sutherland, ' g '~....~ Jim Fackler, Parks Director .~_ D_ Request for Public 1.and 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 is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow 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 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. RESOLUTION//96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK AT 3016 WESTEDGE BLVD., LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HALSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDITION PID 23-117-24 33 0012 P&Z CASE #96-54 WHEREAS, the owner, William Dunkley, has applied for variance to allow reconstruction of a 6' x 12' deck on the lake side of the dwelling with a 47 foot setback to the ordinary high water resulting in a 3 foot variance request. In addition, an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 10 feet to the shed is also requested, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming, 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, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the buildable footprint on this property is limited by its unique shape, and; WHEREAS, the deck replacement is minimal in size and it enhances the use and function of the home with minimal impact, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal encroachment. The encroachment is slight and reasonable due to the shape of the lot and limited buildable footprint. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 3 foot lake side setback variance to the deck and a 10 foot front yard setback variance to the shed to allow reconstruction of a 6' x 12' deck. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 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 6' x 12' deck on the lake side. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot I, Block 1, Halstead Acres 2nd 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. Proposed Resolution Dunkley P. 2 o 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. MINUr OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADV/SORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1996 CASE 96-54. VARI ...... ' ' ~=u FOR DECK WILLIAM DUNKLEY 3016 WESTEDGE 33 0012 AUUITION PID 23-117-24 The applicant is seeking a variance to allow reconstruction of the existing nonconforming deck on the lakeside. The required setback to the lake is 50 feet, the existing/proposed setback as shown on the applicant,s site plan is 47 feet resulting in a variance request of 3 feet. Also noted on the applicants site plan is the shed in the front yard that is nonconforming to the front yard where a 30 foot setback is required. Impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming. The buildable footprint on this property is limited by its unique shape. The deck replacement is minimal in size and it enhances the use and function of the home with minimal impact. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal encroachment. The encroachment is slight and reasonable due to the shape of the lot and limited buildable footprint. MOTION made by Burma, seconded by Voss to recommend approval as recommended by staff Motion carried unanimously. · This case will be reviewed by the City council on October 22, 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 10-14-96 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~. Variance Request William Dunkly 96-54 3061 Westedge Blvd., Lot 1, Block 1, Halstead Acres 2nd Addition, PID 23-117-2433 0012 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND_: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow reconstruction of the existing nonconforming deck on the lakeside. The required setback to the lake is 50 feet, the existing/proposed setback as shown on the applicant's site plan is 47 feet resulting in a variance request of 3 feet. Also noted on the applicants site plan is the shed in the front yard that is nonconforming to the front yard where a 30 foot setback is required. Impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming. COMMENTS: The buildable footprint on this property is limited by its unique shape. The deck replacement is minimal in size and it enhances the use and function of the home with minimal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION,:. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal encroachment, The encroachment is slight and reasonable due to the shape of the lot and limited buildable footprint. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 22, 1996. prJnted on recycled paper ~OR~-'~-FICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ,.AUG3 Application Fee: $50.00 'Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: }O-ld--qG [0..- [ City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No. q~-~4 SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) / Plat # B-2 B-3 Sallie 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 resoluUons. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 12/8/95) 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: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. '-ft. ft. ft. ft. 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 ~, 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 11, Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the act/on of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)7 Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No~ If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date 12/8/95) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS ~)~j~d (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 lo : X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indica?te dif/ference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE Il_ Ill (~ ii( ~) I1.1 III Ill 21 I-- I1 X-~ u,~ ... Q m )- LOT OF RECOR NO YARD IH)USE ......... "'"' I lit, 11, CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFO__~RMATION SHi~-ET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT S1ZECWIDTH: ~el 7,500/0 "-~ o, uuu/qu B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 83 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I! 30,000/100 DIRECTION ~-~-~~G/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: + VARIANCE FRONT SIDE ~ ~ SIDE REAR __.___.____ N S E W ~ ~ ~ LAKE .-.__._.______ N S E W(~ t ~ , ...... TOP OF nLUFF ~ '"l ' ~ 10 ])~ :Z~, 4- GARAGE, $IIED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGs FRONT FRONT ~~ ~='~'~='~'-~------~ ----------- SIDE ~ ~ o ~ W 4' OR 6' ~ ------------- S~DE .[ s~E w I ~'~T, ------------ ---------__ REAR -~-.--~l,.~Z" L._~4' OR 6' N S E W ~ -- -------------- This Zoning/nformation Sheet ~ a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound .Planning Department at 472-0600. ;:c ;,52) I~0¢- ~,o ~ O ',,0 "~ I O r",- I < -- 0 Ix) RESOLUTION //96- ' RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) FOR LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 2, THE BLUFFS PID'S 22-117-24 44 0002 & 0003 3019 & 3027 BLUFFS LANE P&Z CASE//96-55 WHEREAS, the owners, Robert Floeder (3027 Bluffs Lane), and Ronald Emmons (3019 Bluffs Lane), have submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision to relocate a lot line in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, 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 from yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the lot line change will not significantly impact the size of either lot (13,273 sq. ft. and 10,048 sq. ft.). Both the lots remain above the minimum size requirement, and; WHEREAS, the shift in the lot line does not create any structural setback variances, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has~re.v, iewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as the proposal complies with all Zoning orainance and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision to relocate an existing lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, The Bluffs. 2. The minor subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions, and according to the attached "Exhibit A." Parcel A (3019 Bluffs Lane): That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, The Bluffs, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 17 minutes 16 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 2, a distance of 12.80 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 15 minutes 37 seconds East, a distance of 134.02 feet to the easterly line of said Lot 1 and there terminating. Parcel B (3027 Bluffs Lane): That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, The Bluffs, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 17 minutes 16 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 2, a distance of 12.80 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 15 minutes 37 seconds East, a distance of 134.02 feet to the easterly line of said Lot 1 and there terminating. Proposed Resolution Emmons/Floeder P. 2 o o 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. RESOLUTION ~96- _, EXHIBIT 'A' PROPOSED LOT SPLIT FOR: 'RON EMMoNs / N 'Id t~ J bJ ,13.1 N MINUTES OF A MEEa'2NG OF MOIJND ADVISORY PLANNING COMg,USSION OCTOBER 14, 1996 ~SE 96-S5~ ~ _S_U_~D~VIS~ON LOT L~NE REARRA~GEMEi~p~ . ROBERT FLOEDER 3027 BLUFFS LANE LOT 2 BLOCK 2 THE BLUFFS PTD 22-117- 24 44 0003 AND RONALD F, MHONS 3019 BLUFFS L~NE LOT i BLOCK 2 THE BLUFFS PTD 22-117-24 44 0002 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request. They are proposing a minor subdivision to relocate an existing lot line to remove a problem with a driveway encroachment. The lot change will not significantly impact the size of either lot (13line · ,273 sq. ft and 10,048 sq. ft.) Both the lots remain above the minimum size requirement. The shift in the lot line does not create any structural setback variances. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the proposal complies with all Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Glister to recommend approval of the sub. division as recommended by staff· Motion carried unanlmously. This case will be reviewed by the City council on October 22, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: October 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Robert J. Floeder CASE NUMBER: 96-55 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5aa LOCATION: 3027 and 3019 Bluffs Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-I) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to relocate an existing lot line to remove a problem with a driveway encroachment. The lot line change will not significantly impact the size of either lot (13,273 sq. ft. and 10,048 sq. ft.). Both of the lots remain above the minimum size requirement. The shift in the lot line does not create any structural setback variances. RECOMMENDATION: The subject proposal complies with all Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 ...... Planning Comnfission Date: £ity Council Date: Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 lO-lq ..ct ~ ~O Distribution: 1/~ -- I City Planner DNR t, Public Works Other ~' City Engineer s$364 SEP 2 0 Case No Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges Delinquent T~es?_ $50.00 ................................................... VARIANCE REQUIRED9 Please type or print the following information: ........................................................................................ ~: ................. .~. ~ ---..-.--_...=~ PROPERTY' Subject Address IN"ORUATION ~;;:Z i ~:, . EXISTING Lot DESCRIPTION Subdivision ~ __.__.___ PI D #~<::~c.~ ZONING DISTRICT '~ R-1A R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ;~owner ~other: Phone ~ (W! (M) OW. ER Nama (if erbar than Phone ENGINEER Address~ 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. the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Owner's Si,~ure' Date Owner's Signature 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 DNR Other 55364 Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? $50.00 $1,000 Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address INFORMATION EXISTING Lot LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision~~_~. ZONING ~ DISTRICT Circle: R-1A R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 S-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~__owner ~other: OWNER {if other than applicant} Nama Address_ Phone (H) (w) (M) SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Name ~'~D1 ~'5 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 yea, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Date wner's Signature -- Id t ! L_\/ I J-~25.00 Iq 89°4~'44"L.-. % N86°1 ~ Y'~ (HALSTED . BAY) , II .S _C A .L .E.' .. I IN_CH -:50 F,E, ,E,T, "PROPOSED LOT SPLIT FOR: RON EMMONS That.'part of Lots I and 2, Block 2, THE BLUFFS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 17 minutes 16 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 2, a distance of 12.80 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 15 min9tes'37 seconds East, a distance of 134.02 feet to the easterly line of said Lot 1 and.there terminating. That part of Lots i and 2, Block 2, THE BLUFFS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southe=ly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest. corner of said Lot i; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 17 minutes 16 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 2, a distance of 12.80 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 15 minutes 37 seconds Eas~, a .distance of 134.02 feet to the easterly line of said Lot .1 and ~here terminating. WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO RON EMMONS THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WAS. PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY! 1991. .James R:::Hil:i,'inc'. "" PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 2500 W. CTY..RD. 42 · BURNSVILLE. MN. 55337 · 612-890-6044 CITY OF MOUND .HARDCOVER CALCULATI'ON~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA _ i.~ ,l ?.,R' ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) SQ. FT. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. ' HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ~¢' x ,~' = /~ ~ X TOTALHOUSE X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS /¥ ' x ~,~'~ X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X TOTAL DECK X X TOTAL OTHER X TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / (~"/R (~te difference) ............... .~.~.4 .~ .r.- .......... PREPARED B¥~J~~~~v~~~~-~~-~---~j' '~ ~DATE CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS. (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) IIPROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ,., . . LOT AREA i'E. P~¢~ '3 SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x q/,,,' = ~ /.~/." 3' X 5'2, = X~ O TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFAcE UNDER/O-V~'R (in/d~ differenq/e) ............................... · , f// r pi= ~.PARED B ~'"'~~" DATE ADDRESs: / NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD llOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ItARDCOVER CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ]~"~E CT10 N ZONING D/STRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~R1 10' O00/6~) B1 7,500/0 RIA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/$0 R3 SEg ORD. I1 30,000/100 EX/STING/PROPOSED N S This Zoning Information Sheet ~ a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, .Planning Department at 472-0600. EX{STING LOT SIZE: .OT DEPTH: VARIANCE OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS .... 4' OR 6' NS w O~ILO! A contact the City of Mound R- 110. 48 g (2t (~ (?8) CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: [ EXISTING LOT $1ZE:~ ~.~ ~o,ooo/~o / ~ ~ .~ ~,ooo/~o .~ lo,ooo/~o ~~ y~CE ~ -~-DDRESS: SURVEY ON F1LE?~E~ NO LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE DIRECTION-~ REQUIRED N S NS E W ,SEW SIDE ~EAR LAKE NS E W TOP OF BLUF~~j~ (' (' (' (' (' (' (' (' (' (~GE, SIIED ..... 7RONT FRONT SIDE 50' 10' OR 30' OR OTHER DETACHED NS E W N S E W .UILD,NOS ? nOr~'~ 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4 __._._=.___ 30% O-- HARI)COVER This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes n portion of the requirements outlined ia the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. II ....... 7 2zt OUIL01 r- RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 4398 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 87 & 100 & P/86~ PHELP'S ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION PID 19-117-23 24 0022 P&Z CASE #96-56 WHEREAS, the owner, James Koch, has applied for variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 11 feet to allow construction of a nonconforming 8' x 20' second story addition on the front of the dwelling that follows the existing footprint, and a conforming 16' x 24' two story addition onto the lake side of the home, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, All other issues are conforming with this property, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is in good condition and it is unlikely the nonconforming portion can be eliminated at this time. The proposed addition in the front does not encroach any further than the existing situation and both the front and rear additions are logical expansions of the home, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with no additional encroachment and is a reasonable use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 11 feet to allow construction of a nonconforming 8' x 20' second story addition on the front of the dwelling that follows the existing footprint, and a conforming 16' x 24' two story addition on the lake side of the home, and; The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 8' x 20' second story addition and a 16' x 24' two story addition. Proposed Resolution Koch P. 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 87 and 100, and that part of Lot 86 lying South of the North 151 feet thereof, Phelp's Island Park First Division. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1996 ~ASE 96-56: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO HOUSE, JAMES KOCH, 4398 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 87 & 100 & P/86t PHELPS ISLAND, PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID 19-117-23 24 0022 The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming second story addition on the front of the dwelling that follows the existing footprint. The proposal also includes a conforming two story addition onto the rear or lakeside of the home. The existing front yard setback is 11 feet+-, a 20 foot setback is required and this results in the recognition of a variance of 9 feet +-. All other issues, are conforming with this property. The existing dwelling is in good condition and it is unlikely the nonconforming portion can be eliminated at this time. The proposed addition in the front does not encroach any further than the existing situation and both the front and rear additions are logical expansions of the home. The proposal will enhance the use and function of the home with no additional encroachment. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with no additional encroachment and is a reasonable use of the property. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by ross to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City council on October 22, 1996. 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 10-14-96 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request James Koch J~J~, 96-56 4398 Wilshire Blvd., Lots 87, 100, and part of 86, Phelps Island Park 1 st Division, PID 19-117-23 24 0022 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming second story addition on the front of the dwelling that follows the existing footprint. The proposal also includes a conforming two story addition onto the rear or lakeside of the home. The existing front yard setback is 11 feet-I--, a 20 foot setback is required and this results in the recognition of a variance of 9 feet +-. All other issues are conforming with this property. The existing dwelling is in good condition and it is unlikely the nonconforming portion can be eliminated at this time. The proposed addition in the front does not encroach any further than the existing situation and both the front and rear additions are logical expansions of the home. The proposal will enhance the use and function of the home with virtually no additional encroachment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with no additional encroachment and is a reasonable use of the property. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 22, 1996. printed on recycled paper (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 SEP 2 6 Application Fee:, $50.00 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: _OCT OCT lO-I Case No. q¢ ..-_~ ~(~ City Planner DNR City Engineer Olher Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot_ Subdivision PIDg ZONING DISTraCT N~e Address Phone ~)=, q Block -- r,t t~tt:r .rt.to,o .4t. so/ Pt~ t~f Hat # R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Name (I Address Phone (H) (M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with ail area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No i~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): OoE$ too~' ~ SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUF_~TED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard:(NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) :(NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Z2., ]OO Hardcover: ~ZO ft. ~i - ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 2 ~.. ~oo .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 (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow !~ shape Please describe: 'FHE $t~c4. ADDI1761~J tp~?O$EJ9 15 soil existing situation other: specify ¢o~Fo~m~N6' TO (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, p. 3 l J, 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 I~1. 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: O,ol~,,,oto~ -r~ ~pL.~O:~h.ff~ ~ ¢0 RD tZS 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: ~PLlt~lq"~ [B6GE'$ w(b ~C.O.F,,-~... CO~F~IZ~ I ce~¢ ~at ~I of %e above statements ~d the s~tements con~ in ~y r~uir~ papers or pl~s to be submitt~ herewi~ ~e me ~d accu~te. I consent to ~e ent~ in or upon ~e premises deschb~ in tbs applimfion by ~y authofiz~ offici~ of the Ci~ of Mound for the pu~ose of inspecting, or of posting, m~n~ning ~d removing such notices as may, be r~uir~ by law. '"owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date ti-go-9~ (Rev. 12/8195) ~ANO SURVEYORS I I o .,42. / ! · CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA ~2,~0(~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) LOT AREA_ ~Z~, 300 SQ. FT. X 40% (for Lots of Record*) ....... I~I LOT AREA_Z2:,,~OC)_SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. J_-5, ~ct~ 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. DECKS Open decks (1/4' min. opening bet~veen boards) with a pe~ious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SO FT t~ ~Z. -- 5Z ~7-ci zo ~ x Z~ ~r= 5~0 X TOTAL DETACHED 13LDGS ................. 3Z x ¥5= !,'.1~o - 11 x_il_= W x zo = FO Lq x_ IQ = 7_gO X = X TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER 2, qo _._~HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I_" q~ 7 ~?. PREPARED BY DATE CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET LOT OF RECORD? ~'~--~ NO YARD HOUSE ......... :RONT FRONT SIDE SIDE lEAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri ~0.000/60 si ?,5oo/o EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: . · VARIANCE 82 20,000/80 83 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 SEg ORD. I1 30,000/100 GARAGE, SllED ..... FRONT :RONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DIRECTION REQUI~D [ EX~,~ I taNG/PROPOSED N EW N S E W N S(~W N S E~.~ NS E W OR OTHER DETACHED N S E W 10' OR 30' BUILDI.OS 0. N W 4' OR 6' N S E 4' OR 6' S E W 4' E W 50' 10' OR 30' /..f- nARDCOVER a0~ CONFORMINO? YES /~'~ ? ] This Znning Information Sheet only summ~izes a portion of ~e requiremen~ outlined in ~e City of Mound ~ng Ordinance. For ~er information, contact the City of Mound Planning Dep~tment at 472-~. RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 4737 ABERDEEN ROAD LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 5, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0036 PID P&Z CASE//96-57 WHEREAS, the owner, Mark Reschke, has applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming house and garage in order to allow construction of a 10' x 20' addition onto the garage that is slightly nonconforming. The proposed addition follows the existing side yard setback of the garage. The following variances are being requested/recognized: House Existing Required Variance S Front Hanover 17.3' 20' 2.7' W Side Oxford 5.3' 10' 4.7' E Side 5.6' 6' 0.4' Garage E Side 5.7' 6' 0.3' 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 Aberdeen and Hanover, a 10 foot side setback to the unimproved Oxford Lane, and a 6 foot side yard setback, and; WHEREAS, this is a through lot and a corner lot that has a difficult buildable footprint. The Proposed garage addition is a reasonable expansion and has a minimal encroachment into the side yard, and; WHEREAS, the nonconforming front deck on the south side of the dwelling has been removed, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as the request is a reasonable use and enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal encroachment, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby recognize the following variances to allow construction of a 10' x 20' addition onto the existing detached garage: House Existing Required Variance S Front Hanover 17.3' 20' 2.7' W Side Oxford 5.3' 10' 4.7' E Side 5.6' 6' 0.4' Garage E Side 5.7' 6' 0.3' Proposed Resolution Reschke P. 2 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 10' x 20' addition onto the existing detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 10 and 11, Block 5, Devon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of fding 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. MlhlJTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING CONIMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1996 CASE 96-57: V;tRIA/~CE FOR ADDITION TO DETACHED GARAGE MARK RESCHKE 4737 ABERDEEEN ROAD LOTS 10 & 11 BLOCK 5 DEVON PID 30 117-23 22 0036 - The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming house and garage in order to allow construction of a 10' x 20' addition onto the garage that isslightly nonconforming. The proposed addition follows the existing side yard setback of the garage. The following variances are being requested/recognized: House S Front Hanover W Side Oxford E Side Garage Existing Required Variance 17.3 ft 20 ft 2.7 ft 5.3 ft 10 ft 4.7 ft 5.6 ft 6 ft 0.4 ft E Side 5.7 ft 6 ft 0.3 ft This is a through lot and a corner lot that has a difficult buildable footprint. The Proposed garage addition is a reasonable expansion and has a minimal encroachment into the side yard. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as proposed, as the request is a reasonable use and enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal encroachment. The Building official confirmed that the front deck has been removed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City council on October 22, 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 October 14, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ Variance Request Mark Reschke 96-57 4737 Aberdeen Road, Lots 10 & 11, Block 5, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0036 R-2 One and Two Family Residential BACKGROUND.: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming house and garage in order to allow construction of a 10' x 20' addition onto the garage that is slightly nonconforming. The proposed addition follows the existing side yard setback of the garage. The following variances are being requested/recognized: House Existing Required Variance S Front Hanover 17.3 20 2.7 W Side Oxford 5.3 10 4.7 E Side 5.6 6 0.4 Garage E Side 5.7 6 0.3 COMMENTS: This is a through lot and a corner lot that has a difficult buildable footprint. The Proposed garage addition is a reasonable expansion and has a minimal encroachment into the side yard. Staff Report Reschke P. 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as proposed, as the request is a reasonable use and enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal encroachment, JS:pj The abutting property owners have been noEfied of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 22, 1996. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 i i SEP 26~¢;~ APplication 'Fee: $50.00 , (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: IO-Z2--q City Planner City Engineer Public Works No. DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESCo PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot /O .¢-//' Subdivision PID# ,~0--II ZONING DISTRICT R-1 --R-lA (R-__2) R-3 Phone (H) </22-.5 B-1 Block %-7 B-2 B-3 (M) Name Address Phone (H) .(W). .(M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, p. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with ali area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ¢~.. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): o SETBACK_ _S: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) Front Yard: ((I~S~W) ~ 0 ft. ~o ft. Side Yard: ( N ~...E~) [ O~-~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S,S,,_E(]b~/) ft. ~", ~ ft. -Re~, Yard: ( N S(.~E W ) Z ~ ft. / 7, 3 ft. ~eside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. S~t Frontage: ~t Size: H~dcover: ft. z/o ft. sq ft~4Od~ sq ft c~ (C sq ft .16(6, '7 sq ft e5 VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes {K).,.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? (~5-too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: ( ) soil ( ) existing situation (.,xkother: specify / (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)2 Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (2~. 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 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/_Tequired by law. Owner's Signature /~ Date ~ Applicant's CERTIFICATE OF SURVI Y I LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 10 and 11, Block 5, DEVON., Hennepin County, Minnesota. o DENOTES IRON FOUND /%/ · DENOTES IRON SET "-'~DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW xxx DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION (~xx) D/NOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED ELEVATIONS LOWEST FLOOR GARAGE FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) )PERTY ADDRESS: C ~IER'S NAME: LOT AREA (~D~'/ SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA ~ SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ~ = DETACHED BLDGS ~/~ (GARAGE/SHED) f~ ~'cJEF ~/Xa TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING .~ ~'[ X AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ~ ETC. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I 'lb:,/~,7 ..I UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... p R E pa R E D By_~~~e~__~~ DATE ~-~' ~1/'''~'~ 't E.Y,I STI ~ & 6AP-AC~E 0 '*~': I 0 - BO - 9 5 ~": :/4" : I'- o - CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET IADDRESS: O LOT OF RECORD? Y~/ NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B! 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 B3 ~0,000~60 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 E~)ISTIHG LOT SIZE: /qlO+_ LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: I 0' VARIANCE llOUSE ......... FRO.T SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SHED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W 15' N S E W 50' I0' OR 30' OR OTHER DETACllED N S E(~ NS E W N S E W 50' 10' OR 30' This Zoning lnt'ormation Sheet only summarize~ a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. e- o 11 I RESOLUTION #96- RF~OLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK, LOT AREA, AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING AT 4829 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 8, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0033 PID P&Z CASE//96-58 WHEREAS, the owners, Lori and Jerry Marek, have applied for a number of variances in order to reconstruct an existing home. In 1991, the City of Mound approved a variance for the property allowing construction of a new garage. The owners are now proposing to leave the garage intact and remove and reconstruct the existing home. The following variances are being requested: Existing/ Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 14.0 feet 20 feet 6.0 feet Side Yard 3.3 feet 6 feet 2.7 feet Rear Yd Deck 8.3 feet 10 feet 1.7 feet Lakeshore 40.0 feet 50 feet 10.0 feet Lot Size 3,964 sf 6,000 sf 2,036 feet Hardcover 2,275 sf 1,585 sf 690 sf WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation, and; WHEREAS, the proposed home is approximately the same size and footprint as the existing structure. The proposed footprint is, however, shifted slightly toward the lake. The principal structure maintains a 50 foot setback from the OHW, will observe a conforming 6 foot setback on one side and a 3.3 foot setback on the other side, and; WHEREAS, the proposed 3.3 foot side setback expands on the former setback which only totaled 1.9 feet, and; WHEREAS, the corner of the proposed deck is 8.3 feet off of the rear lot line which abuts Devon Common, and other variances that have been approved for decks in similar situations, and; WHEREAS, this property is a lot of record and there was a house there before, and there is no opportunity to increase the lot size from either side of this property, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent dwelling is just as close to the rear lot line than the applicant's proposed deck, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. Proposed Resolution Marek P. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, Minnesota, as follows: BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, The City does hereby grant the following variances to allow reconstruction of the dwelling: Existing/ Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 14.0 feet 20 feet 6.0 feet Side Yard 3.3 feet 6 feet 2.7 feet Rear Yd Deck 8.3 feet 10 feet 1.7 feet Lakeshore 40.0 feet 50 feet 10.0 feet Lot Size 3,964 sf 6,000 sf 2,036 feet Hardcover 2,275 sf 1,585 sf 690 sf o Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall prepare and submit a grading plan or spot elevations demonstrating compliance with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound City Code. The requirements of this section pertain to techniques that are required for impervious cover for lots of record. b. The principal structure shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the OHW. c. The exterior of the dwelling must be finished within one year of permit issuance, as required by City Code. 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: Reconstruction of a dwelling, according to the attached Exhibit A. 5. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: o o Lot 8, Block 13, Devon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. CERTIFICATE .~F. SURV~.~ FQR HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L~EGAL DESCRIP. TION: Lot 8, Block 13, Devon ..... This survey shows the location of an existing house, deck and wood.retaining wall iri relationship to the above described prpo~.r~v It does no.t purp6rt to' show any other improveme~t.~ or encroachments' "'. o : Iron Marker Foun'd ': ......... '" (~oo.o): Existing Spot E].evation " Datum : Mean Sea Level ,... :.' · Searings shown are based upon an assumed datum. ~ OF A MEF TING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COM vIISsION OCTOBER 14, Lq96 CASE 96-58: VARIANCE TO ~CONSTRUCT DWELLING~ LORI & JERRY M~EK~ 4829 ISLAND FIEW DRIVEr LOT 8~ BLOCK 13~ DEVON~ PID 25-117- 24 11 0033 city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking a number of variances in order to reconstruct an existing home. In 1991, the City of Mound approved a variance for the property allowing construction of a new garage. The owners are now proposing to leave the garage intact and remove and reconstruct the existing home. The following variances are being requested: Existing/ Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 14.0 feet 20 feet 6.0 feet Side Yard 3.3 feet 6 feet 2.7 feet Rear Yd Deck 8.3 feet 10 feet 1.7 feet Lakeshore 40.0 feet 50 feet 10.0 feet Lot Size 3,964 sf 6,000 sf 2,036 feet Hardcover 2,275 sf 1,585 sf 690 sf The proposed home is approximately the same size and footprint as the existing structure. The proposed footprint is, however, shifted slightly toward the lake. It appears that the principal structure maintains a 50 foot setback from the OHW. The new home will observe a conforming 6 foot setback on one side and a 3.3 foot setback on the other side. The 3.3 foot setback exp~nds on the former setback which only totaled 1.9 feet. The corner of the proposed deck is 8.3 feet off of the rear lot line which abuts Devon Common. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances listed above in order to allow reconstruction of the existing home subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit a grading plan or spot elevations demonstrating compliance with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound city Code. The requirements of this section pertain to techniques that are required for impervious cover for lots of record. 2. The principal structure shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the OHW. Building official, Jon Sutherland, stated that he worked with the applicants prior to them submitting their variance, and this proposal does represent an improvement from their first couple of plans. Weiland expressed a concern with the amount of hardcover. Koegler emphasized that this property is a lot of record and there was a house there before. Staff would not support intensifying the situation. There is no opportunity to increase the lot size from either side of this property. Sutherland stated that staff did not feel the deck setback was a substantial issue considering other variances that have been approved for decks in similar situations. Sutherland informed the commission that a complaint was received from a neighbor regarding the length of time it took the Marek's to complete construction of their garage and a concern that this will not happen with reconstruction of the house. Sutherland noted that the City now has an ordinance the requires the completion of the exterior within one year of permit issuance, and wanted to make sure that the applicant's are aware of this requirement. Voss expressed a concern about the lot size and deck setback. It was noted that the adjacent dwelling is just as close to the rear lot line than the applicant's proposed deck. Koegler stated, for the record, that the neighbor to the west has submitted a letter stating they are in favor of the request. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael, to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, with the additional condition that the exterior of the dwelling be finished in one year. Voss asked if the applicant would consider a narrower house. Koegler stated that they are maintaining the setback of the existing garage . The other side setback will be confo~-ming. Burma noted that the new house will actually have less of a variance on the one side than what is existing, and feels the improvement will enhance the neighborhood. Glister stated that the Island View Drive area is all over-built and she is not worried about the deck setback. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 22, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. rill PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: October 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Lori and Jerry Marek CASE NUMBER: 96-58 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5bb LOCATION: 4829 Island View Drive EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a number of variances in order to reconstruct an existing home. In 1991, the City of Mound approved a variance for the property allowing construction of a new garage. The owners are now proposing to leave the garage intact and remove and reconstruct the existing home. The following variances are being requested: Existing/Proposed Required V__ariaa~ Front Yard 14 feet 20 feet 6 feet Side Yard 3.3 feet 6 feet 2.7 feet Rear Yard (Deck) 8.3 feet 10 feet 1.7 feet Lakeshore 40 feet 50 feet 10 feet Lot Size 3,964 sf 6,000 sf 2,036 sf Hardcover 2,275 sf 1,585 sf 690 sf The proposed home is approximately the same size and footprint as the existing structure. The proposed footprint is, however, shifted slightly toward the lake. It appears that the principal structure maintains a 50 foot setback from the OHW. The new home will observe a conforming 6 foot setback on one side and a 3.3 foot setback on the other side. The 3.3 foot setback expands on the former 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - October 8, 1996 Marek Variance Report - Case 4/96-58 Page 2 setback which only totaled 1.9 feet. The comer of the proposed deck is 8.3 feet off of the rear lot line which abuts Devon Common. COMMENT: The proposed plan represents replacement of an existing home that has become obsolete. Since it is approximately the same footprint as the existing stmcture, it does not represent an expansion of a nonconforming use. It constitutes reasonable use of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances listed above in order to allow reconstruction of the existing home subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall prepare and submit a grading plan or spot elevations demonstrating compliance with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound City Code. The requirements of this section pertain to techniques that are required for impervious cover for lots of record. 2. The principal structure shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the OHW. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 pplicaUon Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Address Lot ~ Subdivision PID# ~25- ~17 -~q - II ~ OO33 ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ) R-3 B-1 PROPERTY Name OWNER Address Block APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Plat # ~3~'70 B-2 B-3 Phone (14) (.o~2 472 4t 14 (w) ~12 q~4 ~4q ~ (M) Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ yes, ( ) 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.): ~e~ Co~'S'tgt,lc'Dod OF /'4 ~%'ro~)/ FroZe k,~'rH p, FLtLL. 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 b<~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ((~ S E W ) 20 ft. Iq ft. Side Yard: ( N S (~)W,~,,) {o ft. 3,3 ft. Side Yard: ( N S E ~_J) _. (.o ft. _ (o ft. Rear Yard: ( NC~)E W ) 2Jj" lo ft. ____~_~ft. Lakeside: ( NCS_)E W ) Ko ft. ,'-[OZ ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: 2.7 ft. /0~ ft. ft. qO ft. gO ft. ~ ft. G,ooo sq ft 3,q&q sq ft 2,05(~ sq ft _._~sq ft ~, ~'-/5 sq ft boq sq ft to all regulations for non-conforming use: Does the present use of the property conform located? Yes t~)', No (). If no, specify each the zoning district in which it is Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~) too narrow (×) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage (~ existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No ~. If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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, Date maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. - ~ Owner's Signature x~/~/, v ._... -'/ AppliCant,s Signature~ ~. ,~z~/~>z.(: Z Date LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 13, Devon % % , HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~-~.~'C~) <r' C~r; ¢v'tt.,j-~. J4~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA ~c~G//I SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, '--"~ ETC. _~eav~ · ~ ~; V~. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SO FT ~1 X 1'7.~' = ~(~7 -~' q.~- x ~7 ~;- = ~o.~' TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = ,~5- x 35- = s~.,~' TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER/~_____~ (indicate difference) ............................... J~L~,~___J / ~70/ 246 sEPTEMBER 24, 1991 RESOLUTION ~91-130 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COl(MISSION TO GRANT A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND GARAGE SIZE VARIANCE AND TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK AND UNDERSIZED LOT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A G~%RAGE ADDITION FOR LOT S v BLOCK 13v DEVONv PID %25-117-24 11 0033 (4829 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE) P&Z CA~E NO. 91-042~ AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF THE HARD COVER AS DIAGRAMED ON THE APPLICANT'S MAP WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to construct a garage addition, of which, two options were sub- mitted, and a one story kitchen addition and a second story addi- tion, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "lots of record", and a 20 foot front yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the subject property has an undersized lot consisting of 3,964 square feet and the existing dwelling struc- ture has nonconforming side yard setbacks of 5.8 feet to the west and 1.9 feet east, and; WHEREA~, staff recommended an alternative plan for the garage addition which would allow the structure to be setback 14 feet from the front property line and 3 feet from the east side property line, and; WHEREAS, staff recommended a minimum garage size of 24.3' x 22' which totals 534.6 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the garage size is limited to 10 percent of the lot area per City Code Section 23.407 (3) which would limit the garage area for this property to 396.4 square feet, and; WHEREAS, a garage size variance of 138.2 square feet is also being requested, and; WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful, non- conforming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and; WHEREAS, the Planning ~ommission has reviewed the request and recommended approval by a 7 to 2 vote to afford the owners reasonable use of their property. 247 September 24, 1991 ~ON, THEREFORe, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby: a) b) approve a 6 foot front yard setback variance, a 3 foot side yard setback variance to the east property line, and a garage size variance of 138.2 square feet, and recognize a lot size variance of 2,036 square feet, a .2 foot side yard setback variance to the west and a 1.9 foot side yard setback variance to the east to allow construction of a 24.3' x 22' garage addition, a conforming one story addition to the kitchen and a second story addition as shown on attached Exhibit A. The hard cover around the home must be removed and replaced with grass. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the fol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. A one story garage addition not exceeding 534.6 square feet in area and located not closer than 3 feet from the east side property line and 14 feet from the front property line. A one story addition to the kitchen at the west side of the dwelling with conforming setbacks, being ap- proximately 15' x 6.5' x 16.5' in size as shown on Ex- hibit A. c. A second story addition as shown on Exhibit A. This variance is granted for the following legally described property.- Lot 8, Block 13, Devon, PID #25-117-24 11 0033. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 2 248 September 24, 1991 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Jensen and Jessen.~~ 'Mayor Attest: City Clerk CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET LOT OF RECORD7 ~ NO YARD I DIRECTION !!OU$£ ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ILL ~0,000/6~_ ~1 ?,SO0/0 B2 20,000/80 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 Sgg ORD. I! 30,000/i00 REQUIRED N S E W N lw 50' N S EXLWilNG/PROI~)SED LOT DEPTH: YARIANCE GARAGE, SI1ED ..... BUILDINGS FRONT '7_C) FRONT SIDE SIDE OR OTIIER DETACHED ( _,~S E W NS E W N 8~W 4' OR 6' "i E(~ .'OR~' w - REAR 4' LAKE 50' I ~ This Zoning Information Sheet o~v summ~izes a portion of the requiremenU outlined in ~e City of Mound Zorn Ord n~ce For ~r~ ·" ' * ~ Planning ~p~ment at 472~. g · h r mformatmn, contact the C~ty of Mound ~, ' ~ ~T~ I';;' ~ I ~;~'1.1~'~. f~'l ~ ~.',~'~ ~~~-~ ~- ............... ~ ...... ~ ~ f o ~ ~ ~o . , , ~ ~ . ol~l~l~'4~l ~~ :~1~'-~ ~,~'1:~ ~ ~ ~ ' ...... ~ ~ ~ $ : , ~ ~ I I ~ ,0.% (~ ~' s ~,."~( ...... (4 ~ ~ ~ . , " - " ~ /.,. ) 40 ~ 40 ~. 40 ~ ,BO ~, RESOLUTION//96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 1765 JONES LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES PID 13-117-24 22 0030, PID P&Z CASE//96-59 WHEREAS, the owners, Steve and Mary Chase, have applied for a variance to allow for the after-the-fact deck reconstruction/expansion in the front yard. The deck was dilapidated and was in need of repair, and when it was replaced the owner expanded the size by two additional feet towards the front. The request results in a 28 foot+- setback and a 2 foot variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I 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, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, this property received a variance in 1975 (Resolution # 75-263) which approved a rear yard setback variance of four feet, and; WHEREAS, this lot has an oddly shaped rear lot line, and coupled with the layout of the house, this limits the reasonable use and function of the rear area for a deck, 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 with following findings of practical difficulty: 1) A deck width of 10 feet is considered a minimal dimension in order to be considered functional and practical in this situation. 2) The area for reasonable deck expansion is limited due to the shape of the rear lot line and the fact that this property received a variance that recognizes that condition in 1975. 3) Due to the orientation of the front of the house towards the lake, and in order to take full advantage of the view of the lake, The additional 2 feet of deck area is reasonable in order for the owner to realize full enjoyment of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 2 foot front yard setback variance and recognizes the existing nonconforming rear yard setback variance of 4 feet. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Chase P. 2 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of an "L" shaped deck 10' x 38'. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 5, Block 1, Replat of Harrison Shores. 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. 57o7 MINUT~ OF A M2EF_,TING OF Tl:rlZ. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI~qsION OCTOBER 14, 1996 CASE 96-59: VARIANCE FOR DECK REPLACEMENT & EXPANSIONt STEVE & MARY CHASEr 1765 JONES LANE~ LOT 5t BLOCK 1~ REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORESt PID 13-117-24 22 0030 The applicant is seeking a variance to allow for the after-the-fact deck reconstruction/expansion in the front yard as shown on the attached survey. The deck was dilapidated and was in need of repair, when it was replaced the owner expanded the size by 2 additional feet towards the front. The request results in a 28 foot+- setback and a 2 foot variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback. This property received a variance in 1975 (Resolution # 75-263) which approved a rear yard setback variance of four feet. This property is located in the R-1 zoning district which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot setback to the rear. This lot has an oddly shaped rear lot line, and coupled with the layout of the house, this limits the reasonable use and function of the rear area for a deck. It is difficult to find hardship in this case and a recommendation of denial could be made on that basis. However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider a finding of practical difficulty if they find the following findings to be reasonable: l) A deck width of 10 feet is considered a minimal dimension in order to be considered functional and practical in this situation. 2) The area for reasonable deck expansion is limited due to the shape of the rear lot line and the fact that this property received a variance that recognizes that condition in 1975. 3) Due to the orientation of the front of the house towards the lake, and in order to take full advantage of the view of the lake, The additional 2 feet of deck area is reasonable in order for the owner to realize full enjoyment of the property. If the Planning Commission is in agreement with the findings of practical difficulty, staff would recommend approval of the variance request, otherwise a recommendation for denial should be made. MOTION made by ¥oss, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance request with the findings of practical difficulty as noted in the staff report. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the city Council on October 22, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYINOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of October 14, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~ Variance Request Steve and Mary Chase 96-59 1765 Jones Lane, Lot 5, Block 1, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID 13-117-2422 0030 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow for the after-the-fact deck reconstruction/expansion in the front yard as shown on the attached survey. The deck was dilapidated and was in need of repair, when it was replaced the owner expanded the size by 2 additional feet towards the front. The request results in a 28 foot + - setback and a 2 foot variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback. This property received a variance in 1975 (Resolution # 75-263) which approved a rear yard setback variance of four feet. This property is located in the R-1 zoning district which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot setback to the rear. COMMENTS: This lot has an oddly shaped rear lot line, and coupled with the layout of the house, this limits the reasonable use and function of the rear area for a deck. It is difficult to find hardship in this case and a recommendation of denial could be made on that basis. However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider a finding of practical difficulty if they find the following findings to be reasonable: 1) A deck width of 10 feet is considered a minimal dimension in order to be considered functional and practical in this situation. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Chase P. 2 2) The area for reasonable deck expansion is limited due to the shape of the rear lot line and the fact that this property received a variance that recognizes that condition in 1975. 3) Due to the orientation of the front of the house towards the lake, and in order to take full advantage of the view of the lake, The additional 2 feet of deck area is reasonable in order for the owner to realize full enjoyment of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission is in agreement with the findings of practical difficulty, staff would recommend approval of the variance request, otherwise a recommendation for denial should be made. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. on October 22, 1956. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 'APplication Fee: $50.00 (FOR OI~lqCE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No..~2_~__d~ DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot ~- Block tO0,.30 Plat # ~9 [q~$ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Subdivision PID# i 5 - ti"7- 2,~--/ ZONING DIST~CT Addr~s Phone ~) Name Address Phone (I-I) (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. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~ ~ E~'X $4< gec n. llr'()c+ d cE + e_ cpond q-c> B" :SD ' 5"711 (Rev. 1218195) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonin.r 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.): fi, JO o SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: ( N(~E W ) (NSEW) (NSEW) (®s ~.w) (NSEW) · (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: lb-- ft. ZR L b,, }~ ft. 7-.. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. It ft. "t ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 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 t~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow (>0 shape ( ) other: specify (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship descr/bed above created by the actm of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)7 Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~f. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes 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 City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~ ~ Applicant's Signature Date C~ / '~ 0/~'.~ Date O)/~ O ./~:~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATI~)NS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = Sa. FT. x,~- (for all lots) .............. I I (for Lots of Record*) ....... I~.~__1 = (for detached buildings only) . . SQ. FT. X 15% '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 TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x 1(3 = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = 00 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~ (~ / (.,~ VER. (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE I ,I Pla'g ".'ct Cla2:-!:~.err Builders Lot Hena..=.pin Co~mty, hicn~.so+a Certificate of Su~,~ey: ..~' I hereby ~ ' ~-- ~ cer,.z,~ tha,~ this is a +,rue and correct represent.:.~.tic, n 0£ a sta-vey of the bo~.'..'.'~dsrie, s of Lot 5, Block i, Re.~iat 6f Harrison Shores. It does not purport to show improvene?.s or er:croac?,,~nts, but does indicate., the .~ro- posed location o£ a proposed building. Scale: i" = ~.C' Bate : 6-!~!-75 c : iron m~r k~ r L~nd S~'~-v.e~er ~nd Planner Long t~ke, Minneso*~ 75 -263 7-1o-75 HESOLUTIC~ NO. 75-263 RESOLUTION GRANTING FRONT AND REAR YARD VARIANCES (Lot 5, Block 1, Replat of Harr{son Shores) WHEREAs, the owner of Lot 5, Block 1, Replst of Harrison Shores has requested front and rear yard variances .in order to build a house on his lot, and WHERFJ1S, the Planning Commission has recommended that a front yard setback of 30 feet be established and rear'yard variance of four'feet be granted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That a street front yard setback of 30 feet be established off the street of Jones Lane and a rear yard variance of four feet be granted provided all other requirements are met. Adopted by Council this 10th day of Jul~ 1975. · I ~ ..... I ~ ~ z ~ ~ ' ~ 0 i ~ I O C~ Z LU I1, HI I -- ADVISORY PLANNING COM.LV OX , - MOUND Ao OCTOBER 14, 1996 RE UEST FOR RELEASE OF T~X FORFEIT pROPERTY that Joe city Planner, Mark Koegler, related to the Commission Zylman has requested the property described as PID 13-117-24 22 ,,Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka" 0247, That part of Lot 25 · ·., ro erty owners. This is a tax be released for sale to adjacent P ~ ........ alned for wetland forfeited piece of property which the Cl=y n=~ ~t ' purposes. The Park Commission recommended the city retain this property for public purposes, as recommended by staff. The Commission decided to discuss item with the Sketch Plan Review for Maple Manors. Koegler informed the Commission that they will need separate actions on the items, but they are very much related and agreed they could be discussed simultaneously- .............. ' . TCH pLaN_ REVIEW - MAPLE MANORS WATERS EDGE C~SE 96-38. SKE 'JOE ZYLM~N~- 5490 THREE POINTS BLVD. TMAT p~RT OF INVESTMENT CO. _ .... DT~4 22 0249 LOT 25 L~FAYETTE · ed the Planning Report for the city Planner, Mark Koeqler, review . . ~ =- ~ ~in home project sketch plan review ~ ~aole Manors, wn%cg.~ ~i'~owin~ issues off of Three Points B~vd-- Koegler hlghllgnteu u~= ~ - {or this that need to be addressed as part of the planning process proposal. Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 revieW_ Concurr j'~ ~ize of th~'~ an area q~,s~d =e~ease o~n_~ the sketch -,,~nce will a~%~..~mpacts the Yt=~y 34,700 ~7~ ~Orfeit ~ on the ~_ number of ,~,~uure feet. -~ue. -,,~us that the Planned Develo Which al~ Pment Are ~r_..~ ~OWs Sin~- - ~ {FDA). ~_ ~ ~¥~Sions t~_ =~= ramil,. ~'~ ~x~ Site is CUrrently Zoned . ~ PrOpOsed tw~ ~tached ~t~m~ltbl,~ Use Per~t?roes are dwellings. Un allowed ~ .... der the p t~uugn the ~ DA ~Strict, th~ ~ne density ~o._~T~e number o · ~SSUance equlvale,~ ~ rerore, the orf~ v~Slons nf ~ f units all .- - tax ~u ~O 10,00n __ ~lnance ~ L ~ne u~ .... Owe~ ~efore POte~y~?~ty, the L~per unit Wflt OVerall lot ~ Var~-- -~zlV al~-.. -'~= is --' ~unout ~_..~ . =rea ~=nces. T~ J~ -~uWlng a ~ uPProxim~.~qu~rln t ~..~roposed 14 ,,~:~ ~ forfeit ~_ ~_~z units w~h2.1~ acres, ~perty is added~u~.any lot ~uZrement. ~cs would be Consistent wi _-~ un~s site, Additionally, ~ th th= ~_~ = wetla,~ --=, une si~ -~ ~ uensitv · ,u areas -= P~an sh - Unlabeled co,~_~rom Upland a.~?ws an Unlabe:~ · ,uour is ~ ~=as. I~ _ ~=u Cont ~_3Oral lot are= ~ ~=iow the 9 o = t~anY of the ]~uz Se~aratin ' 2='° =aeration ~ l~nd be/ow thg u~mer of units. ~ ~or the PUrpose of ca] .... ~.~= ~oes no~ _ e u COunt ~es. - ~uaa=~ng the ~ ~ome of ~u ~ une Variances i = Cases the Plan. calls for a in lieu of the 30 foot required. fromm. The Zoning Code r ' The apPlic~.~ ~ equlres a 50 foot setback elevation of 929.4 does ~"~ nas infOrmed us that the OHW not COme Within 50 feet of any Portion of the subject PrOperty, therefore, this may not be an issue. ~: The sketch Plan does is impossible time. to determine lot not show lot lines so it Size variances at this ~: The sketch Plan identifies a 26 foot Wide Street Which is 2 feet less than the City,s minimum Width of 28 feet. ~?~erhead turn~e Proposed ~ac. It =~- -around in ~:~ ~ contain~ _ diameter, ~P~ears that ~eu of the -.~ _mo~ifie =~; Will . . a r~duce . requlre~ d ~Uld SUDDo~+ - flt Within ~_ d Size cu] ~- cUl-de_ wrOpOsed tur~ iS~=z CUl-de-=~=.avallable -~'~' .... ~u support 2 October 14, 1996 planning commission Minutes proposed street will be Str_~_~eet: It is assumed that the private road, a variance public- Tf the street is to be. policy of will be required- The city has a long standing public rather than private streetS, and variance ~ ' to assemble t.h~e information a l~cant ~s . e erm~ been · ~ the PP ~ .nnd't~onal us P he drawings and information that have The next T e application requirements required for prellm~,=~= = ications. _ not meet ~_A~a 'as reviewed- ap~l~a to-d~te ~q __~ items n~ .... w listing oz he acket which shows elevations of t there is a state e 20 of ~_ P stated the ~ , hand by wa~ .,= referred to ~¥tv at 93u. ~e~to the public k~-t is th= H~nu~_~ forfeit PrU~d that wen~ ~t_~.te talks ~L ~nd it's ~f tax for~ _ -~ling the ~-. :~ can't D= ~ _ -~orellne ~uidelineS ~9~ ~%q clear that ~? .... ~= that t~e ~ and 'te specific = -f those exception= ~-of leSS than 50 feet ~ be a lengt ~,,D So if we find that w~u ~o 4 does run _ ~ficult issu · . '11 need to think the 9~- ~ becomes = another ~ deeded to ~ _~ as Hanus raised land is a~tual~tlv being counu=~ could be this about. This this land ls cur==,' ~dockS, but if it believe that public location map for the dock~ ~ h~ ddressed- will neeU ~ -- a · . roDerty falls to . _~ ehe tax forfelt=F~e$ feet of the . ~ e_he basin u~ ---_:_~ within 2L~ertV- ~ ..~%n~ to rel~-=-~A zone . ~ 4~ t~e ~= - the prop~= -:-~d t~a~ ~e would ne~ family dwel~]'~'ice unitS. _~_~e~ ct slng~ _--~A ~re ver~ ~' is not ho~e units ~- =r _ people present that thfS~o~entS. those . the fssue. Ch~fr Michael announced to if ~nyone present h~d ~ny publf~ he~rfng, but ~sXed interest in spe~X~ng on Nobody present e~pressed an Koegler revfewed that the purpose of the sketch plan fs to offer dfre~tion to the developer' that zyl~an is reguestfng the c frY to gfve up the Bur~a su~rfzed for one addftfon~l twfn ho~e- tax forfeit property ari~nceS involved ..... ,ful lot of .v ---e when people - = ~here are a~ ~..~around Decau~,~nctional' _- co~ented t~. ~'he ha~erheaa ~=~'?e becomes par~ 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 14 .~'".. Weiland as'- - ' , 1996 i Public. ~ ~e~ the appli ro ~Ylman con ' cant if he ' ~._blem addin- a __firmed that th~- .intends on ~- . width, he ~-~ - /o foot cul ~- "~ is his i ~ S~reet · ~ue~ he w~- ~ .-u~-sac ~_ ntent. ~..~ beln~ ~ ~uated that _~xow a car to ~ uunleve enou-~ -.= z6 foot str~ ~ urivewav {_ ~ ueVelopments ~= a 26 foot wi~_ De Parked in ~ - = ~ front expected ~ une~e days .... u= road is ,,.~-~unt or the . , =u~s Width S~o~l~ Considerin~e Standard w jage. nYlman ~_~ _ De adeGua~o = une Volume ~ ~ new that wi~ue~ that due ~- ~- - .... ~ uraffic ~ De needed ~_~u ~ne added . _ -' ~ needs to get c~fj L3he' Sewer -- - · '~pnest den={~._-~ ~=ation --~uy Possible ross feels the City should not that the Commun. . s~°~d be ab ly~ needs ar give up the equitable ~_}e .tu work wi~a~fOr walkin~ la~, and emnh=-~_ ~u3ect with~,.~ F" une anm~- ~' ne fee]~ ~ ~o~ze~ Glist .... --~uu giving up [~?ant to com~ C~ une City ~_ _.=~ reeks th .... ' ....= xand. - up With concern =~._t''~ area is -~- ~==aln the · enti~ _~uu= the lot . ~rea~y OVer- . ~n~ given ~= prOperty is --- ~lZes. Zvlm__ bullt. She ~_the fact that use~ to fi~_~~ COmmented th=~?~Xpressed : = Uensity. "~ W~=n a PDA tbs Michael Stated that he wOuld ll retain the Pro e for new -~ P rty. ~_ . 'ke to -- releas~_~elopments ~ ~s OppOsed t~e a Plan for ~= ~ =his ~r-~ '. anC~Udin~ ~_ _~ xssuing lo~ _. =ne City tn ~ uperty it .... = ~uu 26 f~ u Size v~ ' . ' ~OUld he]~ ~ ~uu Wide r~-= ~z~ances With jte c tt.li a?1feels the 1~-''~' ne does no~ ~ une develoDm~u~ and if by / acant. lth a pro his rather th~- ~ ~an be bet~=~ · ~u square ~ ~".= uommlssion w , ~u ~o= requireme,~ ~OUld nave any ~equirement, because i · ."= versus t lo ~uncerns nave to be Processed ~=~ ~hls idea Was ,~uu square foot lo~ did not happen the Property Wou he PUrsued, the fez ' ~rs~, and if for some reason this ~? Would front 2 %w af_,_versus a appropriabtee z~ed for smaller - eXpect~ jj~s, es ec' ~ right-of ~ approve lot~. ~ ~n~ th^ ~ ? lallv ~,,~ ~ -way wh~-= a 40 f~ · ,= £ac= tha~ ~= -~? uo the ~_.--~=n wOuld b~]~ i~~ Of-ways that work. ~ =ney have ~,,. _~uw amount ~ -i~ une m~,,~ u=ner 40 ~= ~? =raffic ~uu Wide right- Hanus questioned the POSsibilit the tax forfeit ~r~ed that --_ .p~Operty f~ Y of retainin, ~_ ~uated that h~U~thlng like ~h~°nservation-~r~_e~e~ent acro~- .. ~ Open to ~h~ ~ COUld be ~-~ 5rails. K .... AOegler .... ---= ~uea. =~uablished ~=~er ad~a ,,uue~ that t~ . ' ~Y~man 3 cent Propert ne City ma r purchase, and th~_°~nets, the~y ~ease this mr get this --=~e is not =~_~'~= County ~o~=~uy for sa~ ~ ~--~ee ~ - ~ -~=~ co]]~-~ ~= ~o PrOperty if it Were released. ' ~=uu bids for una= Mr ZYlman would actually Weiland questioned, if this PrOperty Were rezoned to R-lA, WOuld it be Considered spot Zoning? Koegler did not feel it would because there is enough critical mass of land involved, be 4 October 14, 1996 planning commission M/nuCeS road may make the because ~_aler commente~d..th~a~t installing the new acCeSS it would the north nonconforming side setback- K--~ ...... ~eruY ~- where it is currently a existing F~v= yard setback he may create a front , . e retain easements for trails etC. VosS stated, if th Y ~ ~voDertY. . to release u~= =- - to change his m~nd ,,60 day time limit" does not apply e let confi~ed ?~ property- ~:gre~est for rel~=~et~ this Gary Landsman stated that he knows somebody who currently thinks they o~ the tax forfeit property, o the city iohael to reoo~ena t Motion seoonaea by that they HanuS- following conditionS: Hanus asked that the motion include the at this lot does the 929.4 It be verified by a registered surVeY that 1. no place within through the property. elevation meander 2. That an easement be retained on the property for public use of the property for passive recreational purpoSeS which would take into paths etc. with details to be account walking ' worked out as the project continues on. in fawor were Miohael, Bu~a, WosS an~ Those oppOSed were: MoTiON ~aile ~u2° 3. Thos- weilan~ an~ Hau Glister interests ~or this · we ~now we and by don't know Glister feels that the public and private denying it it is released we property are too u~n°wn at this time, have control over it, but if . still ~- .... en to it. what will n=~ plan and the park co~isslon'S VosS agrees with the Comprehensive ion. . ' up a lot of space rec°~endat ---n about g~v~ng Bu~a s. -nits to the tax =~- be a challenge, but fee~S the for the project to work wlth 12 to add two ~r the citY- It may is there f .= ~i~re out a way city gives up the land, then its unitS- ~e D e developer from uone. _~4n~ preventing ~fin with a more ' - = there is nou~=~ ~-tin" this =~ Voss st~;~k t~uthe future re~e~ .... ~ .- coming. --~ve plan. ' .... - ' ~,, Bund, =o .......... ~n~ION made b~_~ ~e release~ ~ voss _ , iii council on oct° er1996- This re~e~ -- DRAFT. . · DRAFT. . · DRAFT. . · DRAFT PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 ~ED PROPERTY BY JOE LYLMAN Tom Casey stepped down due to a personal affiliation with Mr. Zylman. Parks Director, Jim Faclder, reviewed Mr. Zylman's request for the City to release for sale the property described as PID 13-117-24 22 0247, That part of Lot 25..., "Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka. ,, This tax forfeited property was retained by the City of Mound for "Wetland" purposes on 2/5/82. Joe Zylman, Waters Edge Investment Co., plans to develop the adjacent Parcel (249) and would like to incorporate this land into the development. The Parks Director recommended the City continue to retain this property, based on two reasons: 1. This parcel contains substantial wetlands which is bordered by accessible dry lands above the DNR OHW of 929.4. In looking at the sketch plan provided by Mr. Zylman for a twin home development, there will be a need to provide open space for residents of the development. The closest park would be Three Points Park which is a considerable distance from this area. 2. The DNR has always recommended the City retain wetland and lakeshore Parcels, no matter the size of the Parcel (which has been as small as 15 lineal feet) so that its use can be controlled. Fackler highlighted the memorandum from Mark Koegler, City Planner, regarding this issue. Koegler supports Fackler's recommendation based on Comprehensive Plan which concluded that additional open the Parks element of the 1990 space and natural areas were needed throughout the City of Mound to balance the overall intensity of development in the community. Koegler further recommended, if the Park Commission and City Council decide to release the property for sale to abutting Owners, the City should at least maintain Ownership of all land below the OHW of 929.5. Since the property is currently one tax parcel, release of part of the property will require a minor subdivision with a delineation of the area to be retained by the City. Meyer agrees with Koegler that Mound has a shortage of larger parks and open spaces. Mr. Zylman referred to page 64 of the packet which shows elevations of the property and emphasized that a bulk of the property is steeply sloped. Mr. Zylman stated that all of this property is above the elevation of 930 and does not drop lower than 930. He stated that he is trying to meet density requirements of the R-1 zone for his proposed development, and in order for this development to be feasible, he needs to keep the density high. With this additional land he could build 14 units, without it he could only build 12. The project may not be worth pursuing at 12 units considering the cost of the lift station, road, etc. Zylman feels it would be a benefit to the City to put this property back on the tax roles. Goode stated that she will be abstaining because she also knows Mr. Zylman, but knows that he is a conservationist. Mr. Zylman stated he will be planting more trees that what would be cut down, and that preservation is on his mind. Pederson, asked what is the future plan for this propertY? Faclder explained that once you let property go, you lose control and the opportunity for input on what happens to it. The portion of property where Mx. Zylman has proposed building a twinhome, he feels could be used for an overlook with benches. Zylman stated that are not a part of the plan at this point. Fackler noted, if the City retains this property they could not dredge through it. Ahrens suggested that criteria should be established for which parcels should or should not be released. Fackler agreed that you need to be careful not to set a precedent. Zylman emphasized that this property does not touch the OHW of 929.4 and is not lakeshore. If they were to propose docks they would need to pursue an easement over the wetland to the north and extend a dock through it. He stated that the only reason this property has cattails in it is because of the storm water discharge from Three Points Blvd. Zylman stated that they could include language in the plat that would allow the City to retain control over this property. MOTION made by Meyer to recommend to the City Council that the City retain this property, as recommended by staff. Botko seconded the motion. Meyer stated that he is sympathetic, but has a hard time releasing property that provides a buffer area like this as a trade off for two more units. Motion carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were: Darling, Meyer, Byrnes, Ahrens, and Botko. Goode and Pederson abstained. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Iul Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission and City Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: October 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Request for Release of Tax Forfeit Property I received a copy of Jim Fackler's memorandum dated October 3, 1996 regarding a request for release of tax forfeit property adjacent to property owned by Mr. Joe Zylman. He recommended that the City retain ownership of this property and that it not be released for sale to abutting property owners. I support Jim's conclusion based on the Parks element of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan concluded that Mound has an adequate supply of neighborhood park land to serve existing and future populations. The plan used a service area of approximately ½ mile for neighborhood parks. The Zylman property is located approximately .6 miles from Three Points Park which is on the edge but generally within the stated service area. Therefore, Three Points Park provides adequate neighborhood park opportunities for the subject property and the land in question is not needed for a new, extensive active neighborhood park. Neighborhood park needs, however, was only one category assessed in the 1990 plan. Other categories included natural and open space areas. The plan concluded that additional open space and natural areas were needed throughout the City of Mound to balance the overall intensity of development in the community. The tax forfeit property with its mix of upland and wetland habitats seems like an ideal open space area to retain for potential future public use. In the future, use of this property may either remain simply as open space or it might contain a mixture of passive uses such as trails, seating areas or a small wetland overlook. If the Park Commission and City Council decide to release the property for sale to abutting owners, the City should at least maintain ownership of all land below the OHW of 929.5. Since the property is currently one tax parcel, release of part of the property will require a minor subdivision with a delineation of the area to be retained by the City. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 {612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: October 3, 1996 Peggy ]ames, Secretary //"'X~ : Jim Fackler, Parks Direct~¥// ~\ SUBJECT: Request for Release of Tax Forfeit Prop y After reviewing your memorandum dated October 2, 1996 requesting input on the request received from ]oe Zylman, Waters Edge Investment Company, I strongly recommend that the City continue to retain this property. My recommendation is based on two reasons: 1. This parcel contains substantial wetlands which is bordered by accessible dry lands above the DNR OI-1W of 929.4. In looking at the sketch plan provided by Mr. Zylman for a twin home development, there will be a need to provide open space for residents of the development. The closest park would be Three Points Park which is a considerable distance from this area. 2. The DNR has always recommended the City retain wetland and lakeshore parcels, no matter the size of the parcel (which has been as small as 15 lineal feet) so that its use can be controlled. IF:pi ~. ~ ~ printed on recycled paper 11, CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-o620 Memorandum DATE: TO: October 2, 1996 John Cameron, City Engineer Mark Koegler, City Planner Jori Suthefland, Building Official Jim Faclder, parks Director Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent FROM: Peggy James, Secretary SUBJECT: Request for Release of Tax Forfeited Property The following tax forfeited propertY was retained by the City of Mound for "Wetland" purposes on 2/5/82. A request has been received from Joe Zylman to release this property for sale to the adjoining property owners. Legal: PID 13-117-24 22 0247, That part of Lot 25. ·., "Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka." Zoning: B-2 and R-1 Joe Zylman, Waters Edge Investment Co., plans to develop the adjacent parcel (249) and would like to incorporate this land into the development. Other adjoining property owners include: (17) PDQ Food Stores Inc., 5550 Three Points Blvd. (265) Godfrey H. Widmer, XXXX Commerce Blvd. (vacant) (246) Louis S. Ptacek, 5510 Three Points Blvd. (residence) Any background information we have on this property is attached for your reference. This request will be forwarded the Park Commission on 10/10/96, planning Commission on 10/14/96 and to the City Council on 10/22/96. Please submit your comments and/or recommendation at your earliest convenience. enclosures CCi Ed Shulde, City Manager printed on recycJed paper 6/24/96 6326 RAMBLER LANE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-5759 RECEIVED MOUND PLANNING & INSR Dear Members of the City Council, My name' is Joe Zylman, I am interested in developing a parcel of property just west of the Seahorse Apts. on Three Points Blvd. The City owns a Piece of property contiguous with this parcel that it has obtained due to unpaid property ua×es. I would like to ask 'that you release this property ( P.I.D. # 13-117-24-22-0247) so that I alight Pursue acquiring it from the County. - Thank You Very Much. President _ Waters Edge Investment Co. · REAL ESTATE BROKER · GENERAL CONTRACTOR (265) '4 , (~7) (246) (550) (z) · RAR'f 0¢ (~s) (zz) 5 !LA oO APT OWN NO 8 SEAHORSE COND -'"~ II2. T~ ~1 I-Jl\l 111.41 ~ (z?) I DOC 275 DOC ~0 7 PI OF LOT 27 C~ A I 111, Ii, . 'l (Z49') I ~ I '!!-1~--i I I I (eso) ~ , I PA~T 0~' LOT 28 (~) APT OWN NO 8 SEAHORSE COND PART 0¢ LOT (27) ,5. TO McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Engineers, Planners, Surveyors 15050 23rd Ave. N., Plymouth, MN 55447-4739 612/476-6010 Fax 612/476-8532 WE ARE SENDING YOU /~') Attached [] Messenger Leller E)f Trala#lnitinl [] Under separate cover via [] FedEx the following items: [] Shop Drawings [] Prints [] Change Order [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Plans [] Samples [] [] Mail [] UPS COPY TO If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at onc~ 470.5211 SD Form 966 IRev. 9179) 4 RV.02672'0'i STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CONVEYANCE OF FORFEITED LANDS (issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.01, Subdivision 1) The commis$ State of MinnesO~ artment of Revenue ~P , 55145 ~ vvvVVvvV~VW'Nvvv'vvvv~ $2 between the state of is 5th day of February, 19 , ._, ~ubdiVision, as -'HIS iNDENTURE; ,mr~rds~ toilet, and City of Mound, a Governmem~u ~ ..... arty of tl~e__~..%~:~,it. Minnesota, ~_~.dnart,~ll'i'~r-'~'"' * -- forfeited to the state of party of the sw .... described was amy WHEREAS, the land hereinafter lViinnesota for the nonpayment of taxes, and, . ubdiVision 1, the party ....... Section ~$~.01. S,_. *~e conveyance of ..... · to ~innesota Sta~.~.,er of Revenue. whEREAS, pursue,,- .:-'~ ~o the Comun~°'X- ... tot wetlands, . "lZ. -a ~art haS appn~_' .... a by it exclus~ve~ ' of the s~e.o--;,~, described to o~ ,~ -~ State of lands heremaI~ WItEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Hennepin, Nlinnesota, haS recommended to the Commissioner of Revenue by resolution adopted on such conveyance be made, . the l~th day o[ November, 1981, that ..... ~ the State o[ ~n~ bar-sin, se~ and co~v y_ in the County W THE~rv"~ ~ hereby ~an~, . ~, ~-nd lying and oem~ . NO .~ -~ *ho nvem~S~, do .... ts or parcem u. -~ ..." of the seconu_?.? ~f ~innesota, of Hennepin, 5%a~e ~ - - line o[ sec line of Lot th N par.wi}~. 069 ft S from N line th 26thNt°aV~' ~E, togethar with ~ the hereditam~tS and · · to the s~d pa~t~ of the ...~ ~a ~O~D TRE ~A ..~.~ aoge~tmntng~ -- ~t~r aid~ and u~n TO HAVE .A~u_:~ baon~ng or m anK~'~;,~ for the purpos~ ' urtenances ~reun~sh~l continue to_~e ]~.;~ revert to the P~Y u~ apP__~ ~ rt so lu,,g ~ it _..~m -e~e s~d lano ~-~ eonvey~ee' seeo-~ wa ~ '~ -,,eh ~e s-m, ~ this condition tha% ~ =~ will be payable on provided by law. No deed tax ,~ ~_S MONY WHER _ . :_ i name in the Y . Paul, Ramsey County, L,- --~.. ~ execUteo m .ts caused this deco ~o .... above written. ~inn~ota, the day and year first STA~ OF MINN~OTA YDE E. ALLEN, aR. In pr.enee of: ~mm.ion~ of Revenu~ )~. DENNIS 3. ERNO, Assistant comuu executed the foregoing Minn~ota, to me known to be the person who conveyance in beh~f of the State of Minn~ot~ and acknowledged that he executed the same ~ the free act and deed of s~d state pursuant to the statut~ in such c~e made and provided- June 16, 1DS1 Mr. Gordon Ramm · Hennepin County Land Department A-603 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Gordy: · The Council acted on the tax forfeit list on June 9th (Classifi- cation List #660-NC). The City is requesting that (1) PID 22-117-24 43 0029, (2) PID 13-117-24 22 0247 and (3) PID 13-117-24 32 0132 be withheld from sale. The first PID is landlocked and has no public access, and the second we will be requesting for wetlands; the third the City may possibly need for drainage purposes. As soon as the paperwork is completed, we will transmit the applications for the wetlands and drainage purposes. Sincerely, Acting City Manager MS:dc CITY of MOUND June 5, 1981 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: Marjorle Stutsman, Acting City Manager RE: Tax Forfeit Lots - 3 Parcels Parcel 1 - 61609/7500'- Lot ~, Block 2, Ha]stead View is abutting a public right-of-way which goes nowhere. Until which time that this right-of-way can be extended so as to connect with the proper right-of-ways for the invest and egress to and from this lot or building site, it shou]d be held off the tax sale. Parcel 2 - 61730/0780 - Lot 31 and part of 32 lying South of North 10', Block 2, Abraham Lincoln La · ~12.5'. It contain ke S~de Park. This site ' , fo _ _ s 10,125 square feet ~-~ ,- ~s 90 x r that zoneo area. However, that ar ~?~ ,s an ~cceptable site road way levels and in the ' _ .... ~a. ms approximately 5' below right of Way 'mmprovement for the new streets. The City Engineer made the provision for drainage of that partlcuIar area. sale at which time the City Engineer can make provision to acquire needed lands for drainage way easement a~ a new construction very probably will interrupt the drainage way area of tbt northern part of Block 2. This site is known to have subterraneal problems. It may be in the best interest of the City to take Lots 31 and that part of 32 for drainage area purposes. As per enclosure, on th shaded part of Lot ~ Swanson, visit the :_1 wou]~.reqyest that the City °'~ pOSS~Dly w~th me and make as to this probability. Earcel 3 - 61690/3765 ' As the enclosure,shows, the topo elevation of the major part of this property is in the wet]ands area and serves no purpose for anyone other than the City of Mound. i re- quest that the City of Mound add this parcel to the wetlands and be retained by the City as wetlands. City inspector cc: Ly]e Swanson 6-9-81 CITY OF MOUND - Mound, Minnesota June- 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-206 SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Land Attached is the classification list of tax forfeit land. The County is asking that the City certify this list. . The Engineer has requested that PID #13-117-24 22 0247 be ~aken for wetlands and has recommended that Lot l, Block 2, Halstead View, PID #22-117-24 43 0029, be withheld from sale (See c0pies of letters attached.)- The City Inspector has made a report (attached). He concurs with the Engineer's recommendation on two of the lots and on the third (Parcel in Block 2, Abraham Lincoln's Addition to Lake- side Park) is recommending it be held for drainage purposes also · Marjorie Stutsman McCOMBs .I Ik -KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Reply To: 12800 Industria! Park Boulevard PlYmouth, Minnesota 55441 (6~2) 559-3700 Hay 21, 1981 LS:sj Hrs. Harjorie Stutsman ACting City Hanager City off HOUnd 5341Haywood Road Hound, HN 55364 Subject: City off Hound Tax For~it Land File #2113 - General Dear Hrs. Stutsman: It has come to our attention that a parcel oF land abutting Three Points Boulevard became tax ~rf~it on April 1, 1981. We have attached a sketch oF the property° Most oP the Property is wetland and this serves as the discharge area ~r storm sewer on Three Points BOulevard. We recommend that the City Pick up this Property as wetlands. Very truly yours, HcCO~S-KN~SON ASSOCIATES, INC. Y e Swanson, P.E. Minneapolis. Hutchinson. Alexandria. Eagan printed on recycled paper DIST 85 PLAT PARCEL 61690 3765 llENNEPIN COUNTy ~A~ FORF~.ITED LAND CLASSIFICATION LIST NO.. 660-NC CERT. NO. PROPERTy ADDREss 44651 13-I17-24 22 0247 .03 O4 u9 10 10 38 46 5O 63 ~5 ~5 Addition to Classification List '660NC from Cancellation List 46 -canc ~la~ ~arcel 07100 2260 10240 3300 19610 3665 22220 2010 23610 4190 42420 0655 50345 9600 53470 9100 57110 5950 61609 7500 61730 0780 325 '24th Ay. N. 509 Logan N. 4520 1/2 36th Ay. S. 5967 2nd Ay. S. 4110 3rd Ay. S. no address shown - 0rono 3459 Utica Ay. S. - St. L.Pk no address shown - Champlin 427 State Hwy 7 - Excelsior Lot 1, Block 2, Ha]sted V;ew Block 2, Abr~ha~ t~nco]n Addn. PIO NO 15 029 24 22 0016 21 029 24 32 0059 07 028 23 34 0076 22~028 24 42'0009 10 028 24 13 0036 17 117 23 44 0008 06 028 24 32 0013 33 120 21 44 0034 34 117 23 14 0034 22 117 24 43 0029 13 117 24 32 0132 .5755 Plat of Survey for Mrs. Louis G. Pt~cek in Lots 25 and 26, Lafayette Park Hennepin County, Minnesota Certificate of Survey: I hereof certiz~- ~hat this is a true and correct reoresentatdon of ;_A~urvey of the bmmdaries of that Imrt o? Lot 25, :'Lafayette Park L~ke Minnetonka,, described ...... as beginning at the Southwest' corner of said Lot 25; thence ri ..... East a].on~ the South line of said Lot 25 a distance of l~qO feet; thence North o ~,' ~ ~ :ar.,~le~ with the West line of said Lot 25 a dis- tance of 250 feet; thence West parallel with said South line a distanae o~ 100 feet to the West _ ~ z west. line a di.~+~,~ ~'~ ..... ~,./~.-~ !' ~zn~, EXCEPT that oa~t ~h~~'' ~ ~%~T / .- j:~-_e -c~nts Bou!ev~rd as sari-' / (~) that cart ~r'r~- ~ ,.- ~ , ~ ~ ~~ as ~-~ · ' ............ a', aeseribed / ~ / . thence ~.~est ~. ~u .... .. : --L.:~ ~ 5w ..... . feet, ubenee t¥ortn n~.~l~. ~~'~./ said Lot 26; thence South along said East l~ne a diStance of 250 feet to the point of he~.nning, EXCEPT that part thereof lying Southerly of the eenterline of Thee Points ~evard, as said boulevard is sho~ on the plat of ~iftwood Shores. It does not p~oort to show improvements or encroae~nts other than an existing house. FOr ~poses of this su~ev the dis~nee of 55~ feet, the South line of said Lot 26, ts ass~ed to ~meas~ed fro~ the W~st line of GOVernment Lot ~, Section 13, To,ship ~7 [~rth, ~nge 2~ West cf the 5th P.M. Scale: 1" = 50' Date : 1-31-75 · : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set Long Lake, ~[nnesota t.h~a 3:00 2){ ~on~Y ]~zior to meeting ' ON FOR SUBDiVISION:O~:IEA"ND ppLICATI A . _ .... · ' Sec. 22.03, .a,.., ,,:;,:. · ..: , , . ~-, D~..~ ...... - ~.. ', ', . '"VILLAGE OFIMO.,U~N . ' ' ' t ~',~ 't~ ;-' .,..?~.'~ · ... . . ~,> ~ ~ ~?~'~'?~ PARCEL . OWNER Location and complete legal' description of property to be divided: ZONING Commercial & Res. A-1 . To be divided as followS: {attach survey or scale drawing shewing 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: From New Lot No. SquaFe feet TO Square feet Applicant's interest in the property: This application must be ~signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION= · DATE Helen O. Maas, a widow, Henn~]~ in _' .......... a,'n.~ $~ o(...:;...:z.~.iz..M....i~n""n"~z"~'~¥~'~."~'"'"~'~{~'bPa~'lr~'"'Y' .... ~, of ~A~ C~ of .......... ~ ................................... ~'""~ands~.D... D.D.~....~.~.~.....~.~..-..~ ..................................................................... __~.~.~...~.~.~ ............................................ ~ ..................................................... '~' .................................................... , of ~ Co~¢~ of of ~ $rs~ ~, ~ ......... .~r~b.9.~ .................................... . Minneso .................................. ~s o ~A~ s~co~& ~, Henne ~n ..... =~ S~¢~ of ................: .................................. ~ f . ~[~8~z~, TI~¢¢ ¢~ s~' _~;. ...... -= --= --=~,, ble considerat~9.D.,,DOL~,~,- _ _ d other oou ~ ..z.~.~.m.~ ................................................... 1 O~ an ................ g. ........................... _un¢....~l!ar..... L$.....~.Q .................. ¢~¢b~, ~o..es.. A¢r¢b~ G~¢~, B¢v~=~, S~Z, ~ Co~wF ~o ~ s~¢& ~.~Z~s of ~ s¢co~& ~ ~s jo[~ ~t of that part of ~t 25, Lafayette Park, Lake Minne- ~e Weste~l~ ~90 ~ __==__~.. ~ the County Road running tonka, whlch lles ~orun~zx ~ .~ ,_2 exce~tin~ therefrom the and Westerly direction ~rougn sa~a xu~, ~ . . ncin at the point of intersection of the Northerly described tract. ~o~e._ .g___~ _~ ~e West line of said Lot 25; thence. line of the above =~s~ea=r~T~=~5 to a point distant 250 fe~ ~rtn ~orth along the W~t lln~_o~ ~~ East ~rallel with the South line of the Southwest corner =nereo=; =~= ~ . of said Lot 25 a d~tance of 100 feet~~thence South parallel w~th the West . ~ line of sai~County Road; thence southwesterly line thereof to the ~r ........ ~-- ~=d to the point of beg~nn~ngf alon the ~ortherl~ l~n ..... ~-~ ~ ~ rd in the office of the according to the p~t the~eo~ on_I~X~l~_~~ecO Register of Deeds, Hennep~n coun=y, ~B~CT to restri~ons, rese~ations and easements of record if any S~CT to one ce~in mortgage of record in favor of the Minneapolis an A~sociation, being a mortgage dated April 5, 1960 in Savings and Lo ~ ,~ :nn nn which m~age pDrties of the second ~e original amount o~ ~x,~-~, -" /' ~- ~ · part hereby ass~e ~d a~ee to pay.///.~ City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, Mn 55364 To Mr. Mayor and Mound City Council members, Oct. 12, 1996 I am seeking permission to sell beer, ~ .... --,,,.,,,..,., from my business, By The Way Snack Shop, located at 4801 Shoreline Drive. In the two years that I have been open I have learned that my customers want the ability to purchase these three items at my location. I have conducted my business without incident these past two summers and feel that I have a good rapport with my customers, neighbors, and local law enforcement officials. Sincerely, Steve Bedell January25, 1996 Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 To Mound City Council Members, I'd like to thank those who supported me last year in opening my business. It was a sucessfull summer and an encouraging first year. I am looking forward to spring and can't wait to open the doors to the snack shop and greet the boaters. Last summer there was nothing but positive response to the business, except for many boaters stating that ! had stole their idea. There were no incidents reported as a result of me opening the snack shop and I counted the Water Patrol as some of my most loyal customers. Last year there were many conditions I was required to follow to open the snack shop. t followed them all, even though some were questionable, I wanted to get open. I would ask that one condition of my license be removed. The condition requires that I must have a handicapped accessible portable bathroom. The bathroom was never used by a handicapped person. My customers are generally fishermen or smaller water craft and, from my experience of living on the lake all my life, handicapped boaters will usually be on a boat equipped with the necessary facilities for them. None of the Mound beaches have handicapped accessible bathrooms, nor did I see any at Winterfest or Mound City Days. Financially, this requirement was an anchor which cost nearly four times as much as a regular portable bathroom. Thank you! I look forward to seeing you and discussing this matter. Sincerely, Steve Bedell Owner- By The Way Snack Shop 472-2706 RESOLUTION//96-33 RESOLUTION TO A/~ RESOLUTION g95-44 APPROVING A TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE WITH CONDITIONs FOR A SEASONAL SNACK SHOP TRAILER AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE SKARP'S EAST LAWN, LOTS 1, 2, & 3, PID//13-117-24 44 0052 WHEREAS, Resolution//95-44 approved a Transient Merchant License for a seasonal snack shop trailer known as "By the Way Snack Shop," and; WHEREAS, a Transient Merchant License was obtained for the 1995 season by Steven Bedell, and; WHEREAS, no complaints have been received Over the past year with regards to the operation of the snack shop, and; WHEREAS, condition//9 within Resolution g95-44 states, "The toilet facilities wi// be handicapped accessible and will be screened from the lake. These facilities shall not be within 50 feet of the lake, and wi~~ be removed from the parcel during the off-season.- and; WHEREAS, Mr. Bede//has no employees other than himself, and the portable toilet on the property is provided as a Convenience on/y, therefore, it is not required to be handicap accessible by the building Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve an amendment to Resolution//95-44, condition//9, as follows: "9. The toilet facilities will be the lake. These facilities ~ screened from sha/l not be within 50 feet of the lake, and wi//be removed from the Parcel during the off-season., The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember .l'ensen. The fo/lowing Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: A~rens, Hanus and Jensen. Polston and J'essen were absent and excused. The following Councflmembers voted in the negative: None Attest: City M~ager ~ Resolution adopted: March 26, 1996 47 RESOL~ION ~5-44 RF_~OLUTION TO APPROVE A TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE WITH CONDITIONS FOR A SEASONAL SNACK SHOP TRAILER AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE SKARP'S EAST LAWN, LOTS 1, 2 & 3, PID #13-117-24 44 0052 wItEREAS, Steven Matthew Bedell, d/b/a By the Way Snack Shop, has applied for a Transient Merchant License to allow a seasonal snack shop trailer at 4801 Shoreline Drive, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 485, Sub.d. 1 person selling any merchandise, either as principal or g ' from she occupies as tenant at will, or under a lease for a shorter term than six (6) months, or a railroad car, or a vehicle (if he or she does not travel about from house to house or from purchaser to purchaser) is a transient merchant." WHEREAS, this business is proposed to be water-oriented and will eater to boaters utilizing the adjacent Seton Channel and will offer service via a tie-up arrangement parallel to the channel, the two existing docks are proposed to be removed, and; the applicant proposes to sell: ice, cigarettes, ice cream, chewing tobacco, and candy, WHEREAS, pre-packaged sandwiches, bottles and canned beverages (non-intoxicating), chips, sunglasses, suntan lotion, and; WHEREAS, the applicant also proposes to provide a public pay phone, portable bathrooms, and aesthetically pleasing garbage and recycling cans, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the B-2 General Business Zoning District, and; WHEREAS, the City Council, at their meeting on April 11, 1995, directed City staff to prepare a Transient Merchant License with conditions to address issues and concerns relating to traffic problems or other types of problems that may occur. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RF~OLV~, by the City Council of the City of Mound, · for Steven Matthew Bedell, d/b/a Minnesota, does hereby approve a Transient Merchant License By the Way Snack Shop, to operate a seasonal snack shop at 4801 Shoreline Drive, subject to the following conditions: The snack shop shall be setback 19 feet from the water. April 25, 1995 The snack shop trailer to be currently licensed year-round. The snack shop shall maintain a minimum 50 foot setback from the water during the off-season (October 16 through April 14). The season will be April 15 through October 15. If there are congestion problems in the channel, precipitating complaints, that this would be consideration for license revocation or denial of a license for the following year. No picnic tables will be allowed on the site. There must be garbage and recycling receptacles in an enclosure. The toilet facilities will be handicapped accessible and will be screened from the lake. These facilities shall not be within 50 feet of the lake, and will be removed from the parcel during the off- season. 10. 11. There shall be no signage for this business on the street side of the parcel and it will conform to all other applicable signage requirements in the code. There will be a hold harmless provision, signed by the applicant and the applicant will provide proof of liability insurance with the City of Mound named as additional insured. 12. Hours of operation shall be restricted to, from sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset, daily. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Jensen and Jessen. Mayor CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM October 18, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY cOUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBURBAN ALLIANCE I understand that you continued this item to the October 22, 1996 meeting because there was more information that you needed in order to decide whether or not you were in favor of the proposed resolution to dissolve the West Hermepin Human Services Planning Board or what is now called Suburban Alliance. Let me give you some additional information that may help you in your decision making process. Years ago the City of Mound was a member of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. It chose to discontinue its membershiP, as I understand it, because it did not feel that the organization was really doing anything that made a difference in the area of providing assistance to those in need of social services in the city. In 1993, the City was approached by the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board about rejoining the organization. Attached are the minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of May 18, 1993 where it states that representatives of the organization were at the meeting to ask the City to consider to become a member again. The minutes state: "Both VandeVegte and Larson indicated that the City of Mound had been a member in the past and never officially withdrew from the joint . e Cit has not participated for several years. Both individuals -^w.~ ~o ement. However. th Y ........... :-~ *-,-o~d and consider becoming Fu ,.,o ..?r_e ..... c x n .... A take another loOK at me pmmtm~ requested that the city m ,vium involved and active in it." The Council indicated to the representatives that they would take the matter under advisement and it would be discussed at the next regular City Council meeting. At the May 25, 1993 regular meeting, the City Council adopted the attached resolution. Please note that the Council agreed to Memorandum to Mayor and City Council Suburban Alliance October 18, 1996 Page 2 be a participant on the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board through the end of 1994 at a fee of $50, and that its participation would be evaluated prior to the end of 1994 to determine whether it would continue to be a member of the organization. According to Suburban Alliance records, the City of Mound did pay its $50 in 1993, was billed for $50 and did not pay in 1994, was billed $2,183 in 1995 and paid $100, and was billed $2,183 in 1996 and paid $500. Our reason for not paying the full mount was the uncertainty of the organization as to its ability to accomplish its mission--coordinating the delivery of human services to the West Hennepin area. Other cities acted similarly and when you have the attitude that members can pay whatever they desire to pay, you cannot operate an organization very long and you are going to have the financial problems that they have experienced. I am attaching a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement for your information. Please note that the City of Mound was one of the original members of the organization. Without researching minutes and resolutions, back into the 70's and early 1980's, I do not know for certain if the City Council ever passed a resolution formally withdrawing from the Joint Powers Agreement. My guess is that a resolution was never adopted but the City discontinued paying dues which sent a message that the City was no longer interested in being a participant in the organization. Assuming we are still part of the Joint Powers A re~ent, we do have a financial obligation to participate in closing out the debt as~part ~f~he dissolution of the organization. To what extent we are obligated will be dependent on the advice of the City Attorney. It is my understanding that the committee of cities that put the estimated obligation together for review did that merely as a way to give each city an idea of how the estimated $130,000 debt could be satisfied. What is important at this stage is to recognize that the organization is no longer viable and that dissolving it with the intent of cleaning up the loose ends pursuant to the proposed action steps attached is what has to be done at this point in time. I hope I have answered some of the questions that were raised at the October 8, 1996 meeting. If you have further questions, please contact me. RECEIVED SEP 2 4 West Hennepin Human Services Joint Powers Cities September 23, 1996 Mayor and City Council of Mound c/o Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr., City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle, Jr.' During the past weeks you have heard about the status of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, also known as Suburban Alliance. Since July several of the city members of the joint powers agreement have worked to try to resolve the financial and functional difficulties of Suburban Alliance. Unfortunately, it does not seem that Suburban Alliance can continue as an organization. At a September 5 meeting of the joint powers cities, a majority of the member cities (12 of 21 cities) reached consensus to recommend to the city councils to dissolve Suburban Alliance. Attached is a report on Suburban Alliance for Your city council. The report spells out the legal and financial obligations of the joint powers cities. This report was reviewed with the Suburban Alliance Board of Directors on September 17, and they concur with the proposed plan. The report requests that your city council pass a resolution declaring intent to dissolve Suburban Alliance on January 31, 1997. We hope that you can schedule action by your city council during October. Please forward a copy of the adopted resolution to: Kathy Lueckert, City of Plymouth, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, 55447. The financial obligations of the joint powers cities to pay the Suburban Alliance debt and close out costs are not insignificant. We are working diligently to identify the bottom line and determine the actual obligation of each city. We will forward the number to you as soon as practicable. Thank you for your cooperation. Please give us a call if you have questions. Steve Mielke Geralyn Barone Kathy Lueckert Wally Wysopal Hopkins Minnetc:'.ka Plymouth St. Louis Park 939-1326 939-8200 509-5052 924-2519 DATE: TO: FROM: SUB& MEMORANDUM West Hennepin Human Serv/ces Joint Powers Cities September 23, 1996 Mayors and City Councils of West Hennepin Area On behalf of West Hennepin Human Services Joint Powers Cities: Steve Mielke (Hopkins City Manager), Geralyn Barone 0Vlinnetonka Assistant City wM~/~r~'soK;tlh~tLu/~ckert (Plymouth Assistant City Manager) and P ( · ouis Park Assistant City Manager) Report on the Status of West Hennepin Human Services Board (also known as Suburban Alliance) and Request to Declare Intent to Dissolve Suburban Alliance as of January 31, 1997 ACTION REQUESTED: The West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board (also known as Suburban Alliance) is no longer a viable organization because of significant debt and inability to perform its core functions of human services planning and coordination. During the summer, staff'from several &the Suburban Alliance joint powers cities and from Hennepin County have met with Suburban Alliance. Attempts to resolve the outstanding debt issues, keep the agency financially solvent, and provide core services have proven fruitless. The best option is to dissolve the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. We request that you receive the following report on the status of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, review the action plan and approve a motion declaring intent to dissolve West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board as of January 31, 1997. BACKGROUND: The West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board was formed by a joint powers agreement in 1973. In recent years, the organization has employed the name Suburban Alliance. Its purpose was to "...provide an organization through which the parties may jointly and cooperatively coordinate the providing &human services, both publicly and privately, in the territory of the parties." In addition to planning and coordinating human services, the board also provided a forum for citizen participation in human services. One impetus for forming not only the West Hennepin Board but also the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Planning B~ard and the South Hennepin Human Services Board is that some of the state and federal human services funding received by Hennepin County requires citizen input and Participation. At the time the three boards were created, Hennepin County and the cities agreed that such planning and participation is best done at the local level. Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 2 Eight cities were the original members of the Suburban Alliance'board. Over time, the number of member cities has grown to twenty one, but an additional four cities receive services but provide no funding. Each member city can appoint two individuals to the Suburban Alliance Board. At their discretion, the board also can appoint various "at large" representatives. Because the size of the board (currently well over forty individuals) makes for unwieldy decision making, the board appoints an executive committee. This group effectively manages the organization. In its twenty three years of existence, Suburban Alliance has expanded its scope from the original functions of human services planning and coordination. Suburban Alliance has managed the Energy Assistance Program (state funding), managed Emergency Services contracts for Hennepin County, and provided home energy audits for NSP. Its planning and coordination funding has been provided by the joint powers cities and by Hennepin County. It also spawned two other organizations. Community Builders works to provide housing options for low income residents of western Hennepin County. The Suburban Hennepin Anti-Racism Coalition (SHARC) seeks to combat racism and encourage tolerance. Suburban Alliance has a tradition of human services advocacy and grass-roots citizen participation. Through the years Suburban Alliance and the joint powers cities have not had an active working relationshiP. DISCUSSION: Unbeknownst to the joint powers cities, Suburban Alliance ended 1995 with expenditures exceeding revenues. Nearly all of the debt was owed to emergency services providers: Interfaith Outreach, Interchurch (ICA), WECAN, and STEP. Money also is owed to Twin Cities Voice Mail. These organizations had provided services during 1995, but had not been reimbursed for these services by Suburban Alliance. Under the Hennepin County emergency services contract, Suburban Alliance was to approve the emergency services vouchers and to pay them with funding from the County. It appears that some of the emergency service dollars earmarked for the providers was used to pay other obligations of Suburban Alliance. The problem was compounded by increased overhead expenses, due to an office relocation and rental market conditions at the time. During the spring, Hennepin County held discussions with Suburban Alliance about repaying the debt. In May, the Suburban Alliance Executive Director resigned. Suburban Alliance was unable to devise a repayment plan and to provide planning and coordination services which met the requirements of Hennepin County. In July, Hennepin County staff decided to recommend to the Hennepin County Board the termination of all contracts with Suburban Alliance, effectively shutting down the agency. Hennepin County staffthen contacted the joint powers cities and informed them of this recommendation. In general, the call from Hennepin County was the first time the member cities were made aware of Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 3 the scope of the Suburban Alliance problem. The cities requested a one month delay in this recommendation, to see ifa solution could be devised. City stafffrom Hopkins, Minnetonka, Plymouth and St. Louis Park have sought a solution during the last weeks. A workable solution to keep the agency open does not seem possible. With great reluctance, a recommendation to close Suburban Alliance was made to all twenty one joint powers cities in early September. There seems to be consensus among the cities to close the agency's doors by September 30, 1996 and to dissolve the joint powers agreement by January 31, 1997. The focus now has shifted to two issues: the opening of discussions with Hennepin the orderly shut-down of Suburban Alliance, and County about a new human services planning and coordination structure. The city attorneys of Minnetonka and Plymouth/St. Louis Park have stated that legally the joint powers cities are responsible---jointly and severally--for the payment of the debt and costs associated with the agency shut down. The extent of the financial obligation will be discussed in the next section. The cities have devised an action plan to deal with all of the issues surrounding the shut down. This plan is attached. No deadlines are assigned to any of the action steps because the details are still under development. All member cities of the joint powers agreement must adopt a resolution dissolving the agency.. The joint powers agreement specifies that member cities have until August 1 of each year to declare their intent to leave the joint powers agreement at the end of the calendar year. If even one city does not take action to dissolve the agency, then Suburban Alliance will continue to exist until January 31,1998. This would not be a desirable situation. FENANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 1995 audit of Suburban Alliance, completed in 1996, pointed to some of the agency's fiscal problems. While in 1996 Suburban Alliance appears to be operating within its budget, it is doing so without repaying 1995 debt and without having staffto perform core services. The primary reasons for the 1995 debt seem to be: Suburban Alliance did not react promptly to cutbacks in federal and state funds, keeping staff employed without adequate funds for their salaries. Funding sources, such as emergency service dollars, were commingled in order to pay salaries. Suburban Alliance, in 1994, was compelled to relocate from free space in St. Louis Park to leased space in Hopkins. The lease is for five years. Monthly rent is $3,000, and leasehold improvements were made which involve an additional $2,000 each quarter. Suburban Alliance has other o:~*standing obligations in addition to the debt owed to the emergency services providers. Listed below are estimates of these obligations: Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 4 1995 Obligations_ Emergency Services Providers Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency Hennepin County Planning Contract TwinCities Voice Mail ' Subtotal Deferred Revenues $ 66,400 4,274 '9,603 $ 88,277 $14,500 ' Twin Cities Voice Mail provides a service to individuals who may not be able to afford telephone service but need a means to receive messages for job searches, etc. Attached is a spreadsheet summarizing Suburban Alliance's projected revenue and expenditures for 1996. In addition, there are unknown 1996 obligations. Estimates of the total amount for which the ioint powers cities are liable range from $100,000 to $177,000. A spreadsheet is attached which shows the potential obligation of each city, based on population. It assumes that the cost of debt repayment and close-out costs will be around $130,000. This number does not include any obligations for the remainder of the office space lease, which could be as much as an additional $130,000. We do not yet know how or when the city obligations will be paid, but our intent is to finalize the obligation number before December 31, 1996. The first priority will be debt repayment to the emergency service providers. Hennepin County has indicated its willingness to assist the cities with close out costs by continuing its planning and coordination funding for Suburban Alliance through the end of 1996. This funding will help reduce the overall obligation of each city. The current Suburban Alliance office manager will assist with the agency close-out through the end of the year. This individual will administer the emergency services contract for Hennepin County until the end of 1996. Hennepin County is exploring options available for emergency services for the first six months of 1997. It is likely that either the north or south human services planning boards will manage the emergency services contracts through June 1997. The joint powers cities feel strongly that an independent audit of the agency's books is in order, both now and at the agency's dissolution on December 31, 1996. The audit will determine the final financial obligation of each joint powers city. A CPA familiar with human services planning boards and non-profit organizations may be used to conduct these audits. Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 5 FUTURE OF ]lTl'MAN SERVICES PLANNING: The staff of the joint powers cities and county staff feel strongly that there is a need for human services planning and coordination in western Hennepin County. During the fail, the cities will begin discussions with Hennepin County about creating a new entity to do human services planning and coordination. The goal is to h?e this new structure in place by July 1997. We have learned valuable lessons from this experience. It is likely that the new structure will have the active involvement of staff and/or elected officials from the member cities. Suburban Alliance provided a valuable service for over twenty years. However, the joint powers cities welcome this opportunity to look at what human service needs exist in the 1990s, and examine the best way to meet. these needs well into the next century. RECOMMENDED ACTION: We recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which states the intent of the joint powers cities to dissolve the West Hennepin Human Services Board effective December 31, 1996. Another resolution, formally dissolving the organization, will be presented in December. Should you have questions, please give any of us a call: Steve Mielke Hopkins 939-1326 Geralyn Barone Minnetonka 939-8200 Kathy Lueckert Plymouth 509-5052 Wally Wysopal St. Louis Park 924-2519 Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 6 City of Res. 96 - DECLARING INTENT TO DISSOLVE RELATIONSItIP WITIt WEST ItENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD, A.K.A. SUBURBAN ALLIANCE, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 31, 1997 AND PROVIDING FOR ITS ORDERLY DISSOLUTION WItEREAS, the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, also known as Suburban Alliance, was established by joint powers agreement in 1973 to provide human services planning and coordination in western Hennepin County; and WltEREAS, Suburban Alliance has provided valuable service to western Hennepin County, but due to financial difficulties is no longer able to perform its core functions of human service planning and coordination; and WHEREAS, county and city staffs recommend the dissolution of Suburban Alliance effective January 31; 1997; and WItEREAS, county and city staffs recommend exploring new options for providing human services planning and coordination which can address current needs in western Hennepin County; and ,~the WHEREAS, the joint powers cities recognize and accept their obligation to: debts and closing costs of Suburban Alliance; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the that it declares its intent to dissolve its relationship with the West City of Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, also known as Suburban Alliance, effective January 31, 1997; and BE IT FURTItER RESOLVED that City Staff are directed to discuss with Hennepin County and the other joint powers cities possible alternatives for human services planning and coordination in western Hennepin County. Adopted by the City COuncil on Suburban Alliance~Proposed Action Steps · Suburban Alliance Board of Directors continues to act as legal entity authorized to take actions necessary to close agency · City Councils dissolve joint powers agreement and therefore the organization Financial · Conduct independent preliminary review and audit of agency to determine exact financial status · Close out existing contracts; finalize emergency service arrangements with Hennepin County for remainder of 1996 and first six months of 1997. · Settle lease issues · Collect debts owed organization · Sell assets · Finalize outstanding obligations (debt and close-out costs) and submit payment obligations to joint powers cities by December 31, 1996. · Conduct independent final audit of Suburban Alliance · Collect outstanding financial obligations from joint powers cities · Establish agency close date of December 31, 1996. Office closes September 30, 1996. · Inventory physical assets/sell physical assets · Provide information/assistance to employees · Retain current office manager to assist in coordination for agency close · Begin discussions with Hennepin County about new human services planning and coordination structure for western Hennepin County ?ublic Relations · Western Hennepin Human Services Planning Board (a.k.a. Suburban Alliance) created in 1973 by cities in western Hennepin County to provide human services planning and coordination · Suburban Alliance has provided valuable service to the citizens of western Hennepin County, but is no longer a viable organization · Recommendation to close Suburban Alliance difficult for cities to make · Cities and Hennepin County remain committed to human services planning and coordination; this is still an important need · Exciting opportunity to work with Hennepin County to develop human services planning and coordination which meets today's needs in western Hennepin County West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board Summary of Projected Revenues 8, Expenditures (4196) 12 Month Period Ending December 1996 Dept of Economic Security Hennepin County Member Municipalities NSP Audit Program RentJFiscal Agency Total Revenues Energy Citizen Assistance participation Emergency $1,022,500 _. ~_0:..-_.~ 116,60~? 35,000 $1,022,500 $117,900 $116,600 Home Energy 76,300 $76,300 39,900 $39,900 $1,022,500 199,500 35,000 76,300 39,900 $1,373,200_ Direct Assistance Personnel Related Non Personnel Related Total Expenditures Revenues Less Expenditures $775,600 $104,800 $14,000 130,200 57,700 10,200 21,200 116,700 60,200 1,600 17,100 $1,022,500 $117,900 $116,600 $52,300 $0 $o $0 $24,000 18,600 21,300 $39,9OO $0 $894,400 237,90 216,90b $1,349,200~__ $24,000 Board Meeting July 16, 1996 Sheet1 ;ndence Lake .oretto ~etonka Ound Jo owers and ~se-out 802.z Page 10 1'1 lr ................. r ..... .,, ........... $777 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHO~;E ' MAY 18v 1993 · s called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen, The mee_t.lng_W=a_"_on councilmembers Andr~e.a Arlo vandeVegte, West Mayor S~ip co_nifo ~'-ith. AlsO presenu.. Bruce Larson, Assistant Lie Jensen, ~e~n~°~,~'ces Planning Board an~ Ed shukle, Hennepin Human o=~-~ Services Planning Board; Director, west Hennepin Human city Manager- _ _ _~ uennepin Human - the wesu n · --~ u~uce Larson from ...... the council on ~o vandeVegue u,~_~ ~__~2 ..... e nresent to aa=~=?~ . ..... n Services ~ · nih ~oaru ?~t = Hennepln nu~,,= . Servlc?s ~la~ g 'n cluing the W%~ · icated that the Clty ~ .... r1 _ _= noth Vanu=~=~- a and never officially Planning Boaru. ~ -- = ~A been a member in th~_~%st However, the city has of Mounu ~=~ ._ =-~-~ ~owers agreem=uu- withdrew from_t%e individuals requested . the planning board and not partlc~pat~u,,t~,~ take another look a= city council that the City cz nu~,.~ consider becoming involved and active in it. The thanked VandeVegte and Larson for attending and indicated that this isement and reviewed at a future ~atter wo~ld be taken u~de~.~v,_~nci1 then discussed,~he matter city council meeting. The cl~ ?u ---~-- ~eeting agenaa- and agreed to have it on the next regux=~ .,, mber Jensen indicated that ~: .... =Bed. councilme .... ~ ~t' 1) Mission Goal setting was. u~=~i~ that should be loo~eu = - ch to setting goals and 3) Establishing she identified three x~= .... statement, 2) ~r~2tement was briefly reviewed and after some goals. The miss . Ph llis would review the . :~ ,.,as agreed that S~ip a~ ~ean up some .~f _~ discussion, xu - ~,,rther to try uu . ~. ~ch co~ncll~emu=~ mission .statement d~ - Jensen suggestea u~=.- ~_~A 'n the city ~?~a~T~g~n~h~Uthe~'would like to see accompl~o~ 1 und to make Mound better. Liz will take these items listed of _Mo ~ =~-- to~ether for future discussion- a er Ed Shukle presented_ so~ i~n~;~%~jj~n~s~eC city Mgn ~ .... nd sewer general .u_~. in the water and.s~5 of Pthe Evergreen Road wet . ' ft stations- . _ __~ u~rad~ng of 11 ..... =al is to issue . e~tS ~ ~ e ~ · m valve lmpro~ = ~ ~ ~1-300,000' Th ~J- --~eer reading syste estimated amoun~ ~= '~ ~u~er with the ~a~===~~ the remaining 00. 000 sometime t~i~ ..... v several monun~ =~'~ $1,3 · ~ =__ ~ itnln ~n= ~t to be ou~ iu~ .... w e roposal deals with rate - :- -~94. Part of th ~ ~ city Manager and items to be oone %~ ~ er and sewer f · ~ ~ increases in bot~_..~ ~n~ ded that ~cr~2~es for each of the 'Finance Director n~= ~ ........ en next four years be implemented in order to provide the resources to nci al and interest on the bonds and create a more ' 't funds. The city council ay the ?ri_ P cee to the utll~ Y _ irected the city P. ,-~- ~]~w of resour ~ =.. consensUS d =- ~ -o discusse~ Ln~__~ 4n Dreparing the n~ce~o~t]~ms including the ~na~er to prou==~ -_, ~ .... e for the above ~=-~ ~to effect by ~L...~a with the Dona x~=~ ..... ~ ~ate increases 9~ ~" ~ ~u~-~-. ~ ~=ve water aha ~=-~ -- .. proposal ~u ..~ '._~ 5% increase for each of the next four years. May 25, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93-70 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HAYORARD CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A JOINT POWERs AGREEMENT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board (WHHSPB) Conducts activities that relate to planning, research COordinating and advocating for the municipalities of western Hennepin County; and , WREREAS, the WHHSPB provides the following services to member municipalities: - a method . for citizens, providers, and representatives to be lnvo m ~ervices decisi ........ lved in H ...... unicipal leadershin in th~.~u~lng. =~nepln County human ~ '~ community for the effective mobilization of ommupity resources to me~ human service nee staffing assistance t Involvement i ~ ..... o th? munlcipalitie~ :_ d a referral s~s~% services as they ma]~ ~_n_ ar~a~, of their and/or ~rob~!_ .~ ~or citizens wi~h =~ ~=ques= it staffin~ _ ~z~ (I.e. elderly, me,~,_ n?~n services nee ~ uSsls=ance to commun~.. ~=~aY 111, youth, et~ ds ~ ~roups who want t~ o organize uma~ services plannin- ~ oblems = =~ur= =o meet specif' e capability t~ =_ lc needs needs = ~ uo research on human s -- plan~ing staff to partic' . . ervice issues and ~r~es planning activit~t~_lp /~glonal and count,, ~¥enue to br~ ....... un behalf o~ ~_ . .~ human ~"~ uoUn=y-wlde services :~ municipalities ~,~u programs into our local communities in order to provide better acc citizens ess to our assurance that efforts a · ~nnlng of human serv~ ~elng made to co~-~ . ~ec~s~ary duplicatio- t~=~ uelivery systems ~Ltu~a=e_ the ~ne ability to ~,-- _,, u~ services ~u uo deter about huma~ se~']~e presentations on an · . the mea ~ ~- _.~¥zces needs and deliver._d provide information c~___n~. =~ uevelop lead~_ Y systems i- ~u~ens to ~ :-- ~ --~,~u an~ ~-~-- · .. une area ~= anvolved in ~,,-J- - ~u~rest on the D ~ '.~-.~n services ~a__ of a way to communicate the Concern of the municipalities regarding human service issues to the providers and involved citizens in the area energy conservation Check-ups) (Project AIR/House Doctor & Home Energy energy assistance emergency food, shelter, clothing fund 149 May 25, 1993 Mazebusters - a program to aid low income, single parent families to move towards self sufficiency food stamp outreach WHEREAS, the city of Mound is interested in reactivating its participation on the WHHSPB. WHEREAS, the City of Mound was previously a member of the WHHSPB; and · . ereb authorizes the Mayor and City NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council of the City of Moun~, M~p~%L%~ AaTeement reactivating the City of Manager Mound's participation on the WHHSPB. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city of Mound be a participant on the WHHSPB through the end of 1994 at a fee of $50, to the end of and that its particIpation will be evaluated prior 1994 to determine whether it will continue to be a member of the WHHSPB. The foregoing resolution was moved by Jensen and seconded by councilmember Jessen. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and smith. The following voted in the negative: none. councilmember 150 o JOINT AND C00PEP~TIVE AGRE~2qT WES..T HENNEPIN HIR~N SERVICES PLANNING BOARD The parties to this agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. I. GEneRAL PURPOSE Section 1. The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization through which the parties may jointly and cooperatively coordinate the providing of human services, both publicly and privately, in the territory of the parties. Section 1. section shall'have the meanings given them. Section 2. "Board" means the organization created pursuant to this agreement, which will be formally known as the 'West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board". · II. DEFINITION OF TERI,~ For the purposes of this agreement the terms defined in this Section 3. Section 4. this agreement. "Council" means the governing body of a party. '~ember" means a governmental unit which enters into Section 5. "Governmental Unit" means a city or village. Section 6. '~uman Services" means services and facilities to deal with and serve human needs, including services relating to mental health and retardation, shelter, nursing and home health assistance, health education, nutrition, preventive medicine, drug and alcohol abuse, family connselling, primary health care, day care and other related matters. Section 1. The ~nicipalities eligible to become parties to this agree~e~.t are: ~ City of Hopkius City of I!innetonka City of St. Louis Park City of Wayzata Village of Excelsior Village of Orono Village of Mound Village of Plymouth Section 2. A governmental unit desiring to enter into this agreement shall execute a copy by its proper officers and file it with the city manager of the City of St. Louis Park, together with a copy of the resolution authorizing such action. IV. GOVERNING BODY Section 1. The governing body of the board shall be its board of directors. Each member shall appoint two directors. Each member is entitled to two votes, which must be exercised in p~so~ by each director at board meetings. Such appointments shall be for terms of two years and until such directors' successors are selected and qualified, except that the first directors shall be appointed by each member so that the term of one director expires on January 31, 1975 and the term of the other one director expires on January 31, 1976. In January of 1975 and each January thereafter, each member shall make one regular appointment of one director whose terms shall be for two years commencing on February first of the year appointed. Directors may be reappointed and shall serve without compensation from the board but this shall not prevent a member from providing compensation to its directors for serving on the board if such compensation is authorized by such member and by law. -2- Section 2. The sixteen directors elected by the councils shall elect another eight directors at the first meeting of the board, and in February of each year thereafter. These additional directors need not be residents of the communities that are members of this agreement. In selecting the eight additional directors, the sixteen directors shall give consideration to the factors set forth in Section 5 of Article IV, and shall seek to secure appropriate expertise for the board. The additional directors shall serve for one year. The board may remove at any time a director selected by the board. Section 3. A quorum of the board shall consist of a majority of the board. Section 4. A vacancy on the board from among those directors selected by the members shall be filled by the member which had made the appointment to the vacant position on the board. A vacancy on the board from among the additional directors selected by the original board of directors shall be appointed by the board itself. Section 5. In appointing members of the board, the councils shall give consideration to members of their councils, health officers, administrative officials, health Professionals, senior citizens, young adults of voting age, members of the clergy, citizen groups and others with special concerns related to board activities so that the 5oard may be a representative sampling of the population of the parties. The councils shall give particular regard to a balance between representatives of consumer groups and provider groups. The COuncils shall avoid having more than one of th~ directors from any one group, profession or interest. The board shall advise the members of the names and oCCupations of each of its directors. Any council, however, shall have complete authority to appoint and to remove, at any time, -3- any director appointed by such council. Such appointmeuzs may be made by a council pursuant to such restriz~ions and requirements as the council may require. If the council does impose restrictions or requirements o~ its directors, it shall be the duty of such directors to ~nfor= the officers of the board of such restrictions or require=ants. V. ~!~_.~TINGS - ELECTION OF OFFiCEP~ Section 1. At the first meeting of the board and in February of year thereafter, the board shall elect from its members a chairumn, v~-ce-chairman, a secretary-treasurer, and the other members of the executive committee. Section 2. At the orEauizati°nal meeting, or as soon thereafter as it may reasonably be done, the board shall adopt rules and regulations ~overnin~ its procedures, includinE the time, place and frequency of its regular meetings and' the manner of callins special meetinSs- Such rules and resulations shall provide for an annual meetinS of the board in February of each year, Such rules and regulations may be amended from time to time, subject to the provisions of this asree=ent. Section 1. VI. ~ERS AND Db~LES OF THE BOARD The powers and dutiesof the board shall include the powers set for=h in this section. Section 2. It may employ a person to act as executive director of the ~oard. Section 3. It ~ay make such contracts as the board deems necessary and advisable to make effective any power to be exercised by the board pursuant to the provisions of this a~reement. Sectiom 4. It may employ such other persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its powers and responsibilities. Any such persons may be employed on a full-time, part-time or consuttin~ basis, as the board may determine. Section 5. It may conduct research and investigation regardin~ existing and possible future human services facilities and programs and may develop a proposed plan for the rendering of human services. Section 6. It may prepare an inventory of human services facilities, services and agencies, both public and private, available to persons being or residins in the territory of the parties. It m~y make a cost analysis of any existins or proposed human services prosrams' may cai1 attention to human services needs and human services programs and may undertake to coordinate human services prosrams' public and private, within the territory of the parties. . Section 7. It may apply for and receive financial support from Hennepin County and other organizations or agencies in order to accomplish its purposes and may enter into the agreements necessary to obtain such financial support. Section 5. It may prepare a hummn services plan and shall report any such plan back to the parties for further action and direction. Section 9. It may invest and reinvest funds not needed for current operating expenses, if any, in the manner applicable by law to villages. It shall not at any time incur obligations in excess of funds then available to it. Section 10. It may cohtract for space, material and supplies with a member or elsewhere. -5- Section 11. It shall make a finamcial accounting and report to the pa=ties at least once each year amd its books and records shall be available for an~ open to examination by the parties at all reasonable times. Section 12. It may provide, within its resources, for the indemnification of directors, officers and employees against reasonable costs amd expenses incurred by any of such persons in connection with any action, suit or proceeding in which he may be involved by reason of ~is having been a director, officer or employee, except amounts paid or payable to the board itself, and except in relation to matters as to which he shall be finally adjudged in any action, suit or proceeding to have been derelict in the performance of his duties as such director, officer or euzployee. Such indemnification need not be exclusive of other rights to which any such person would otha~;ise be entitled as a matter of law. Section 13. It nay exercise any other power necessary and incidental to the implementation of its powers and duties under the provisions of this agreement. VII. EMECUT!VE COM/~iTTEE Section 1. The executive com=~ittee of the board shall consist of the chairman, vice-chairman, secretary-treasurer and'four members of the board elected by the board. At least four members of the executive committee shall be directors selected by the CounciL~ Section 2. The three officers shat~ serve for a term of one year and until their successors are elected and qualified, and the four director members shall serve for a term of two years and un~il their -6- successors are elected and qualified and provided, that, ~;o of the director members elected at the first meetin~ of the board of directors for a one year term shall serve until the annual meeting in February 1974 and two director members elected at the first meeting cf the board of directors shall serve until the annual meeting in February 1975. Each member of the executive committee has one vote. A majority of the committee constitutes a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time. The board in its bylaws may provide for compeltin~ the attendance of members of the executive committee a: meetings thereof and for the disqualification of members of the committee for non-attendance. Section 3. The executive committee shall meet at the call of its chairman or upon the call of any three other members of the executive committee. The date and place of the meeting shall be fixed by the person or persons calling the meeting. At least 48 hours advance written notice of such meeting shall be given to all members of the executive co~ittee by the person or persons callins the meeting. ~'faiver of such notice must be by all members. Section 4. The executive committee shall exercise the powers and perform the duties delegated to it by the board of directors, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be imposed by the board. VIII. F_INANCIAL~.~TTERS Section 1. Board funds may be expended by the board of directors in accordance with the procedures established by law for the expenditure of funds by villages. Orders, checks and drafts shall be signed by the chairma~ or vice-chairman and countersigned by the secretary-~reasurer. Other legal instruments shall be executed on behalf of the board by authority of the board ~f directors by the chairman and secretary. -7- with the legal requirements aP9licable to contracts and purchases of optional ?lan B ~Ilages an~ for such purposes the executive director, if any, shall be deemed to occupy a position equivalent to that of a village manager. Section 3. The members shall not be required to provide funds for the board, but any and all of the parties may ao so voluntarily- The board shall be strictly accountable for all ~nds received and for all funds expended by it, shall have an annual audit of its books, and shall make an annual report of all of its receipts and disbursements to each of the me=bets. Section 4. The board may establish irs own procedures for budge=lng Section 1. The board shall continue until its annual meeting in February of 1974, and thereafter from year to year unless the number of members shall become less than three. None of the members shall withdra~ from the agreement prior to February of 197&. Thereafter, withdrawal of a member at the end of January of any year nay be acco=plished by =ha= me~er'~ filing a %~itten notice thereof wi=h. =he secretary of the board by August of that year, gi~ng notice of ~ithdrawal an the end of January, and such member shall continue to be a party =o ~his a~reamen= until the effective aa=e of such notice of wi:harawal. ~e board ~Y also be =e~=e~ by mutual agree~n= of all of the me, ers a= any rime. Section 2. If a member w~thdraws from the board before the =erm~nation of the board, such member shall have mo cla/m to the assets of the board. I~ =he board is ~erm/nated by mutual agreement of ail of the govermmentai units which are thee members of the agreement, any surplus monies of the board shall be returned to such members in proportion to contributions of such members. If there have been no such contributions by &uch members, any surplus monies of the board shall, upon termination of the board, be returned to the governmental units which are then members, in equal shares. X. E~FFECTIVE DATE Section 1. This agreement shall be effective on the date that it is executed by the last of the first four members to execute it. Such date shall be placed on the final sheet of this agreement at the time of such execution. EX~Cb~ED as of IN T~E PRESENCE OF: _, 1973. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By_ Its By. Its (SEAL) VILLAGE OF F~fCELSIOR Its By -9- AMENDMENT NL~MBER ONE JOINT AND COOPERAIIVE AGREEMENT WEST HENNEPIN 5U~D2q SERVICES PLANNING BOARD 1. Article III, Section 1, is amended to read: Section 1. The municipalit'ies eligib?e to become parties to tkis agreement are City of Excelsior City of Orono City of Mound .City of Plymouth City of Hopkins City of Minnetonka City .of.St- Louis Park · City of Wayzata City of Deephaven 2. 'ArticleliV', Sections 1 and 2, are amended to read: Section 1. The governing body of the board shall' be its board .of directors. Each membe'r shall appoint two directors. Each member is entitled to two votes, 'which must be exercised in person by ·each director 'at board meetings. Such appointments shall 7be for terms of two years and until such directors' successors are selected and qualified, except .tHat the first directors shall be appointed by each member so tha.t the term of one director expires on January 31, 1975 and the term of the other One .director expires on January 3'l, 1976. January of 1975 and each January thereafter, each member Shall make one regular appointment of one director whose terms shall be for two years commencing on February. first of 'the .year appointed. Any municipality becoming a member.'after January, 1975, shall initially appoint two directors, one to serve until Janua.=y 31 of the following year, and. ~"~ ~hn other to serve an additional ~ear from that date. Directors may date shall be placed upon the last amendment filed, as of the of its filing. be reappointed and.. shall serve withou~ compensation from the board but ~his shall not prevent a member from providing COmpensation to its directors for serving on the board if such compensation is authorized by such member.and by law section 2. The directors elected by the councils shall'elect · another, eight directors at the firs~ meeting of the board., and in · - February of each year thereafter. These additional directors need not be residents 'of the communities that are members .of this agree- ment In selecting the eight additional directors, the directors elected by the c'ouncils shall give consideration to the factors set for. th in Section 5 of Article IV,' and shall seek to secure appropriate expertise for the board. The additional directors shall Serve for one year. The. board may remove at any time a director selected by the board. 3. This amendment shall become effective as of the date on ·which' the last of the present members.files an executed Copy of this amendment with the City Manager of the 'City of St. Louis Park, together wfth a .copy of the resolution authorizing such action. Such date EXECUTED as,of IN .THE P.REsENCE OF: _, 1975. (Governmental Unit) By By Filed in the office of the City Manager of S~. Louis Park 1975. _: d. ay of " -3- that the A RESOLUTION. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE T0 THE · JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WEST HENNEPiN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD BE IT.RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF and are'authorized to execute on behalf of the City, . Amendment Number One to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, West Hennepin Humaa Services Pla. nning Board, permitting the City of Deephaven to be- come a member. Adopted by the City Council , 1975 Mayor CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM October 18, 1996 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~, ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: LIVABLE cOMMUNITIES ACT Attached is a resolution indicating that the City of Mound elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for 1997. As you may recall, you passed a similar resolution for 1996 but it was not passed until January, 1996 which made the City ineligible for 1996. Therefore, no housing goals were identified and approved nor was there an action plan approved and submitted to the Metropolitan Council which is required before any grant or loan programs under the Livable Communities Act can be accessed. The City Council must approve the attached resolution before November 15, 1996 to be eligible for and take advantage of any of these grant or loan programs during 1997. I would recommend that you pass the attached resolution for participation in the program for 1997. I RESOL~ION g96- RESOLUTION ELECTING TO BEGIN PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNIT~ ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1997 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 473.121; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and, WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and, WHEREAS, ~.: j,,.. au, mun;c~pali-fies elecfino to "arfic~¢a~- ~, v p e m me Local Housing Incentive Account Program must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions they plan to take to meet the established housing goals; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council must adopt, by resolution after a public heating, the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each municipality; and, WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and, WHEREAS, for calendar year 1997, a metropolitan area municipality that did not participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1996, can participate under Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254 only if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1996; (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality; and (c) the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. Proposed Resolution October 22, 1996 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RF~OLVED THAT the City of Mound hereby elects to participate in the local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 1997. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affu-mative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk 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 TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Sept. 1996 Sept. 1996 B_UDGE~T REVENUE 75.00% 1,280,640 0 5,800 60 77,100 14,351 890,740 67,120 48,250 709 60,000 7,636 35,200 152 43,500 0 YTD PERCENT REV____~EN U~EE VARIANCE RECEIVED 654,743 (625,897) 51.13% 3,385 (2,415) 58.36% 103,061 25,961 133.67% 542,028 (348,712) 60.85% 7,697 (40,553) 15.95% 52,1e9 (7,811) a6.98% 13,122 (22,078) 37.28% 0 (43,500) 307,570 15,543 252,431 (55,139) 108,320 20,525 93,174 (15,146) 1,430,000 116,415 1,122,449 (307,551) 410,000 36,428 305,161 (104,839) 766,500 64,448 591,245 (175,255) 5,100 0 2,290 (2,810) 70,800 348 68,998 (1,802) 0.00% 96.90% 82.07% 86.02% 78.49% 74.43% 77.14% 44.90% 97.45% I 0/1 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Sept. 1996 Sept. 1996 BUDGE~T EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 68,730 6,257 4,000 0 Promotions 600 0 Cable TV City Manager/Clerk 185,030 13,797 11,300 3,109 Elections 54,450 56,721 Assessing 163,600 11,948 Finance 22,000 0 Computer 106,440 8,572 Legal 804,640 66,435 Police 3,780 403 Civil Defense 167,320 12,482 Planning/Inspections 398,840 4,269 Streets 92,790 4,157 City Property 135,300 13,954 Parks 0 Sum met Recreation 29,700 4O,0OO 22O Contingencies Transfers 1~55,31 q _11,783-- 75.00% GENERAL FUND TOTAL YTD PERCENT EXPENSE V_ARIANCE_ EXPENDED 50,147 1 8,583 72.96% 4,000 0 100.00% 544 56 90.67% 112,41 8 72,612 60.76% 5,694 5,606 50.39% 57,193 (2,743) 105.04% 120,173 43,427 73.46% 12,246 9,754 55.66% 53,251 53,1 89 50.03% 602,928 201,71 2 74.93% 2,858 922 75.61% 116,007 51,313 69.33% 296,21 0 1 02,630 74.27% 63,933 28,857 68.90% 102,188 33,112 75.53% 0 29,700 0.00% 3,809 36,191 9.52% 106,044_ 49,266 68.28% ~ ~ 734..~.~.~ 87 69.96% Area Fire Service Fund Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund 307,570 4,669 200,768 1 06,802 65.28% 122,420 9,073 109,367 13,053 89.34% 205,930 13,322 161,893 44,037 78.62% 413,410 56,323 271,305 1 42,105 65.63% 963,180 85,668 795,106 1 68,074 82.55% 5,570 318 3,333 2,237 59.84% 37,470 3,653 31,260 6,21 0 83.43% exp95 lO/11/96 G.B. League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence 11, 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, lain 55103-2044 Phone: (612) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 Fax: (612) 281-1299 · TDD (612) 281-1290 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 4, 1996 Mayors of Direct Member Cities James F. Miller ~,~ ~~ Executive Direct(ei- NLC Board of Directors Minnetonka Mayor Karen Anderson will complete her term as a member of the National League of Cities Board of Directors in December. To ensure continued representation for Minnesota on the NLC Board, we need your help to identify another Minnesota city official from an NLC direct member city to take her place. NLC Board members serve a two-year term. They are expected to attend three board meetings annually. Two of the meetings are held in conjunction with the Congress of Cities Conference in December and the Congressional City Conference in March. The third meeting is held during the summer in the city of the NLC Board president. The League of Minnesota Cities reimburses members of the NLC Board for attending any board meeting not held in conjunction with an NLC conference. Elected officials interested in running for an NLC Board seat can obtain candidate data forms directly from NLC by calling (202) 626-3000, or by contacting Elma Ann Lyon at the LMC at (612) 281-1202. Candidates for the NLC Board are asked to send copies of their candidate data forms to the nominating committee members and to Don Borut, NLC Executive Director, before the NLC Congress of Cities convenes in San Antonio on December 7. NLC strongly encourages candidates to seek the endorsement of their state league. The LMC Board will consider the endorsement of a candidate at its November 21 meeting. If more than one Minnesota city official expresses interest in being a candidate, the LMC Board will make its decision based on such things as the candidate's participation on LMC and NLC committees, attendance at LMC and NLC conferences, and the availability of time to serve on the NLC Board. Please contact Sharon Klumpp at 612-281-1203 or me at 612-281-1205 if you or a member of your city council is interested in seeking a seat on the NLC Board of Directors. cc: City Manager AN EQUAL OPPORTUrNiTY/AFi:iRMATi,vT. ACT/ON EMPLOYER CS 145 Univer-~ity Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (612) 281-1200 ° (800) 925-1122 Fax: (612) 281-1299 ° TDD (612) 281-1290 October $, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Managers and Administrators of NLC Direct Member Cities Jim Miller, Executive Director~ ]QT~, Sharon Klumpp, Associate Ex~/cutive Direct~-~''j ~~") Appointment of 1997 NLC Policy and Steering Committees The League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors would like to increase Minnesota involvement in the National League of Cities (NLC) policy process. NLC is now accepting applications for appointment to its policy and steering committees. The policy and steering committees and the NLC policy process is briefly described below. ~ i_nterest in servin~ A description of each committee is attached. ENERALPOLI Y T ~ TEE TION The NLC policy development process is somewhat different from our Minnesota process. The NLC process includes policy committees and steering committees. The policy committees meet twice a year at the March Congressional City Conference in Washington, DC and at the Congress of Cities that will be held in Philadelphia, PA, December 4-7, 1997. The policy committees initially meet in March to set priorities and establish the work program for the associated steering committees. At the November meeting, the policy committee reviews and votes on recommendations that are developed by the steering committee. Each NLC steering committee meets o~.Q.gr times during the year. These meetings occur at the Congressional City Conference, the Congress of Cities, and at one-and-a-half day sessions held in May or June and again in September or October. Steering committees work on the priority topics established in March by their corresponding policy committee. At the spring and fall meetings, the steering committee members consider and prepare policy proposals for presentation back to their policy committee at the Congress of Cities. The League of Minnesota Cities will reimburse all direct expenses for NLC steering committee members, except for expenses associated with the meetings held at the Congress of Cities and the Congressional City conferences. Expenses for policy committee members are not reimbursed. HOW TO APPLY The League of Minnesota Cities is eligible to appoint up to five members to each of the sixpolicy committees. No application form is necessary. Elected and appointed city officials may apply (or reapply, if currently serving) to serve on policy committees. If officials from your city are interested in serving on policy committees, please contact us as soon as possible. On December 13, the League will notify NLC of the names of Minnesota city officials who will serve on policy committees. /xzN F, QUAI, OPP[)I~'P" rN ITY/AI''!'~ RM kT1 ':'2 .'~: 'TION EMPLOYER Elected city officials from NLC direct member cities may apply for the steering committees. Steering committee 'ppointments are made by NLC committee chairs. Application forms for steering committee appointment (or reappointment, if currently serving) may be obtained from Elma Ann Lyon at the LMC office (612) 281-1202. Applications must be received by December 13, 1996. It is important that a copy of completed applications be sent or faxed to our attention as well as to the National League of Cities. While LMC does not appoint steering committee members, we are sometimes contacted by NLC for additional information on applicants. Elected city officials from NLC direct member cities may apply for a steering committee leadership position. While it is not necessary to have served on a steering committee, in recent years most of the leadership positions have been filled by those with steering committee experience. Applications for steering committee leadership positions can also be obtained from Elma Ann Lyon at the LMC office. The application deadline is December 13, 1996. Please send or fax a copy of the leadership application form to us at the LMC office. 1996 NLC Policy/Steering.Committee Members Community & Economic Development Chuck Canfield, Mayor, Rochester Romeo Cyr, Mayor, Red Wing Gary L. Humphrey, Councilmember, Apple Valley Terry Schneider, Councilmember, Minnetonka Mark Voxland, Councilmember, Moorhead Steering Committee Member.. Fvonne Prettner Solon, Council President, Duluth 'inanee, Administration & Intergovernmental -{elations Leo W. Eldred, Councilmember, Moorhead Mark Hanus, Councilmember, Mound Andrea Hart Kajer, Governmental Relations Dir., Minneapolis David Wheeler, Councihnember, Duluth Steering Committee Member: Virginia J. Sterling, Councilmember, Apple Valley Transportation & Commnnieations Dewey Baringer, Councilmember, Red Wing Kathleen Gaylord, Mayor, South St. Paul Dale Gustafson, Councilmember, Brooklyn Park Larry Jorgensen, Councilmember, Coon Rapids Sandra Krebsbach, Councilmember, Mendota Heights Steering Committee Members.. Robert Ben/ce, Mayor, New Brighton $onja Berg, Councilmember, St. Cloud Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Janis A. Callison, Councilmember, Minnetonka Delvin Haag, Counciknember, Buffalo Randy Kolb, Councihnember, Blaine Nancy Mikitta, Councilmember, Red Wing Jerry Newton, Councilmember, Coon Rapids Steering Committee Member: Sue Hess, Councilmember, St. Cloud Human Development Lynn Fena Hardesty, Vice President, Duluth Frances Hesch, Councihnember, Hopkins Larry Nicholson, Councilmember, Moorhead LeAnn Sargent, Councilmember, Maple Grove Steering Committee Members: Joan Campbell, Councilmember, Minneapolis Sharon Feess, Councilmember, Brooklyn Park Public SafeR, & Crime Prevention Robert Burlingame, Mayor, Maple Grove Mike Hall, Council President, Red Wing Thomas Q. Seaberg, Councilrnember, South St. Paul Steering Committee Member: Joe Biernat, Councilmember, Minneapolis ~ STEERING COMMITTEES: The Finance, Administration and Intergovernmental Relations (FAIR) Committee deals with national economic policy, general financial assistance programs, liability insurance, intergovernmental relations, municipal bonds and capital finance, municipal management, antitrust issues, citizen participation and civil rights, and labor relations. The Energy, Environment and Natural Resources (EENR) Committee is responsible for policy on air quality, water resources, wastewater treatment, energy, waste management, infrastructure, urban esthetics, and noise control. The Community and Economic Development (CED) Committee is responsible for national urban policy in local economic development, community development and community development block grants, housing and neighborhood development, land use, recreation and parks, and historic preservation. The Human Development (ltD) Committee analyzes and develops policy on such issues as employment and job training, social security and unemployment insurance, income support programs, immigration and refugees, health and education, equal opportunity and social services. The Transportation and Communications (T&C) Committee is responsible for policy on public transit, streets and highways, air transportation, railroads and waterways, and cable television and telecommunications. The Public Safety and Crime Prevention (PSCP) Committee is responsible for policy in the areas of crime prevention, corrections, substance abuse, municipal fire policy, Juvenile Justice, and disaster relief and preparedness. GENERAL iNFORMATION~ Steering Committee members must be from Direct Member Cities. In early February 1997, the NLC Steering Committees will be appointed. Appointments are made by the chairs of each of the Committees. Steering Committees meet four times during the year: at the Congressional City Conference in March, at the Congress of Cities in late November, and at one-and-a-half day sessions held in the spring (May or June) and fall (September or October). A Steering Committee works on the priority topics established in March by their corresponding Policy Committee. At the spring and fall meetings, the Steering Committee members consider and prepare policy proposals for presentation back to their Policy Committee at the Congress of Cities. The cost of meeting attendance must be borne by the Steering Committee member or by their city. An expectation of service on a Steering Committee is that the member will attend alt four meetings. Active participation on the committee is a crucial element of involvement. If you would like to serve, or know of another elected official who you would like to nominate to serve on a Steering Committee, please complete and return the application form by December 13, 1996. Forms should be returned to Steering Committee Chairs; c/o Sharon Anderson; Center for Policy and Federal Relations; 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20004 or faxed to (202) 626-3043. DRAFr BOARD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF DIRECTORS MF.,E~G SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MM~)ml~_rs present: Gene Partvka ~;,,,~.a. ~ .. uno; Doug Babcock To~ ' _-:~.~,~,,-~u~; ~retcnen ~o~;ch --: Deenh~s~,~ ~._~ .. , uzu~a t~ay; Herb Suerth u,n...a,~_.,-:?~_' ,.,-*umeaomm; Tom ,..--~- ....... ; ~utnrn ~ .qh,~ ..... .~ ,-. .... , :' _"Z-nature; Joe Z;wak. Groo~,,,,~.a. ~,~ .... ,.m. - ~ --~,,.-~cg ~orefforv Nvbeck ..... '" -o -.~ .~o~,.a, ~ammlstrafive Members absent: Craig Mollet, Victoria; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach. Orono has no appointed member. ~ ANNOUNCEMEn~ Babcock stated the Performance review of the Executive Director is completed and has been d/scussed with Willcutt. READING OF MIN[YrF, S _ 8/28/96 Regular Board Meeting Zwak moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 8/28/96 Regular Board meeting amend.ed. Babc~_ k recommended two amendments, were- 1 .. . am d d-; and :) no oay _to Board also directed Willcutt'. Motion carried unanimously, e ~.,, p, wagrapn on page 3 that *The PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Zwa~. moved, Partyka seconded to rove th tmammousl app e consent en Y. (Approved enda ite · ag da as presented · · recommendin ag m_s /nclude: Item 1 .__ .. Motion camed · g approval of 1996 renewal - ' · A, Dancing Waters north, nins . w/o change - multi 1 · . .DOA, staff Si~nifio~Pe~, A;..,U~.. :,_c.h,,annel, .and south rotes; and Item 3A pe :d_oc~k_ license a.pp.__lications for the o ..... , ,-,~uvsty aeport.) , Hennepm County ShenWs Water Patrol 1. WATER STRUCTURF3 Excelsior Park Tavern, Consideration of Fin ' of New Multiple Dock S~ r~__. .... dings of Fact and Order for ~-~.,. amtcu ~-~roer 3 on ,, : m~lce A ,acations · page should read No PP · m~a~;,,,.~t~°~.~.d._ol?.hin .poi.es to stabilize the c d~,~,s~r~_,c~e, ~s or facil/ties other .... ~,,~u m me semac~area', haner ~ ~tu oe constructed or MOTION: Partyka moved, Zwak seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and L~ke Mi~etoaka conservation District Board og Directors Meeting Page 2 September 25, 1996 Order for a~prov~ of new multiglc dock, ~cc4~ densky ~censc, and variance app~cation$ for ~e Excel~or P~k Tavern as amended. vOTE,: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business Tha'e was no additional business. r,-om A. ~ Re~ on t~ ~v, ~0~ ~ums. ~ ~j~t ~ p~d~ a ~ ~n on ~c 1~6 - su ~ we~ p~d~ ~ ~e ~d ' ~n. Hen~ ~ _ · ~e~n~°~ ~~g ~ ~ v we~ ova, 2) ~~~: 1) ~e ~w by w~ d~ ~ w~= mn&fions; 3) ~s ~clu~ 582 ~ ~~, 270 v · ~d ~e ~pm~t ~o~ v~ we~. ~ ~n,,, ~e effom ~ e, ~ · · ' t ~ ~n~non. of ~ ~ for ~~g ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~gs for ~ ~ ~w ~~ Mve ~n ~v~ ~d ~ ~ fo~ ~ ~ ~fi~ for Ms f~ He ~d~ a R~u~t for ~~ ~ ~k su~ ~ ~ ~ c~fly fo~ ~cfio~g ~~, ~em ~y ~t~a~mP~~w' He~d~ff°ne~m~P~~'he em~ ~g ~e ~'s ~ p~ p~ly. S~ s~ M ~ev~ ~e ~ ~d e~dency of a new ~r wo~d mom ~ ~y for ~e ~st of ~~g a new ~r. ~ ~ S~ ~ ~em were ~y p~lems ~ ~r~a~g ~~g effo~ ~s ~ effo~ w~ ~e by ~ ~w ~ ~ on ~ond R~f; howler, no ~~g ~ ~ ~ ~ w~s w~ ~ ~ do~ ~m ~e s~ ~d F~ ~v~ at ~ time. ~ mem~ ~ ~ for ~ ~d work ~d devotion ~ ~e ~~g B. Ad~tio~ ~ ~ ~ no ~fio~ bus~s. Lake Hinnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors Neeting September 25, ~996 3. LAKE USE AND ~TiON Co Page 3 · -..~.tr.r hoars to uperate on Lake NFmneto~. Babcock stated staff has provided a summary retx)rt outlining this request. He noted staff has recommended adopting a fiat fee structure of $150 for the 1997 charter boat season. Partyka stated he wants to make sure all administrative costs are factored in if a fee change is done. Rascop noted he would like. to see Water Patrol time factored in charter boat fees. Babcock stated the Sheriff's Water Patrol does not expect a reimbursement for inspections on charter boats. Nybeck stated' some contingency time has been factored in the recommended fee change. He noted staff feels it would be difficult to rationalize a fee over $150. Foster stated the existing charter boat fees were established when the philosophy of the Board was to generate additional revenue to the LMCD through excessive fees. He noted the multiple dock owners challenged a similar request and had fees reduced because they were excessive. He reminded the Board they cannot charge an application fee beyond what it takes to administer and ~ the activity. Rascop asked if any legal fees are budgeted in the proposed fee change? Babcock noted there are legal fees set aside in the overall budget but not in the recommended change. He noted he is comfortable changing the application fee to $150. Bo Partyka stated he is comfortable with change in fee as long as staff continues to track staff time spent on the administration of charax boats. MOTION: Foster moved, Suerth seconded to change the charter boat application fees to a flat fee of $150 for 1997, mending paragraph two of the Resolution, and maintain the existing late fee structure. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Schoeil and Madson, Update on 1996 Lake 1Wnmetonka Boat Density and User Attitude Surveys. Mar~. hal Braman, Schoell and Madson, stated most of the data collection has taken place with second and third follow-ups being done on the mailings. He expressed a concern with not attaining the required information from the marinas for a variety of L&ke ~nne~onk~ conservation D£st~ct Bo~ra of D~rec~OrS l~eeting Page 4 data input information with 320 surveys completed at u,~ ~,~,-.- --' and analysis will be the main :focus until the report is completed. He noted boat counts are outlined in table formal and he encouraged f___ec~0ack from the Board. Reese stated in the final report, it would be helpful to indicate the day of the week when the flights were done. Bmman noted the 4th of luly was the most populated day with 2,100 boats, and Memorial Da), was the least with 136 boats, lie offered some suggestions to control cost since a limited number of ma.4nas would allow a Schoell and Madson employee on site to get counts. One suggestion was to assemble a mailing list from the registration numbers of thc boats in the marinas. Babcock asked B~nan if reasons were provided from the marinas for the lack of cooperation? Braman noted some expressed concerns with the LMCD while others maintained privacy for their customers. owners, lie suggested exploring making this a conditton of penm Babcock noted the current permit allows LMCD offio'a~ to enter their premises for inspection purposes at tm.sable times. He added another condition could require them to cooperate with LMCD surveys. Suerth propose~_ a letter be drafted to marina owners which they could send out and be reimbum~ for postage. Braman concluded a draft report will be ready for Board review sometime in November. D. Additional Business Zwak stated he has received numerous calls from residents on St. Alban's Bay expressing concern with boat density on weekends in St. Albans and how this has forced water skiers to ski too close to docks and the shoreline. He added the Water Pat~l has expressed concern with extensive patxolling in the bay because of limited personnel. He suggested one possible solution may be to ~trict waterslding or towing of tubers between a set period of time on weekends, lie concluded ff something is not done, an accident is waiting to happen. Babcock stated similar restrictions were placed on Grays Bay yeats ago. o Lake Hinnetonka Conservation 8ep2e~ber 25, X996 District Page $ Foster noted he felt this was a mistake because it showed preferential treatment. Babcock stated this is an enforcement issue which probably needs more attention by the Water Patrol next summer. He added a Board member may want to physically observe this next year. Zwak concluded he would bring this before the Greenwood City Council for their feedback. CHARTER BOAT T.~NGTTT Reese asked if the Code has limitations on charter boat length and the reasons why. .Ba~k noted there is a size limitation on charter boat~ of 20' x 70'. He added a mare concern is clearance of the beam in channel bridges and trouble of two boats meeting in the channels. He suggested reviewing the minutes when this Code Foster suggested the Board should at least consider charte~ boats ~ exceed the 70' length allowance. Noise and other charter boat relat~ issues we~ discussed by the Board. SAVE THE LAKE Ao Co Minutes of the 9/12/96 Meeting 9/12/96 Meeting Report Willcutt reported on the following: * Len Kopp has died and Stuart Frick has resigned from the committee. * The second 'Save the Lake' solicitation has been recently sent out with * Bridge markings and painting was discussed. * 'Broadcast' was discussed with regards to accessing the local media. The Board discussed the marking and painting of the bridges. The consensus of the Board was the marking of bridge heights, not the painting, was a project to potentially consider. Additional Business There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION Lake Minneton~a Con~er~.~tion District Boar4 of Directors ~eezxng September 25, 1996 Ae page Staff Update on Office Lease Renewal Willcutt reviewed the two staff memos prepared regarding LMCD office relocation. He noted the two office spaces outlined on this memo were the Norwest Bank Building and the F~h~ Institute. He mentioned a meeting had been scheduled for 9125196 at the old Burner building in Spring Park. He highlighted the memo, noting: * Estimat~ remodeling costs, excluding heating, ventilating, and air condition, at the Freshwater Institute is $15,110. . Proposed space at Freshwater Institute is 1,008 square feet, plus 205 square feet for storage, for a total of 1,213 square feet. With a three year lease at $15 per square foot, including remodeling costs and moving, he estimated an expenditure of $74,585 over 3 years. Proposed space at lqorwest Bank is 1,127 square feet, plus 206 square feet, for a total of 1,333 square feet. With a three year lease starting at $18.50 per square foot and increasing $.50 per square foot per year, he estimated an expenditure of $75,980. Foster suggested it should be checked out with the Freshwater Institute to see if they would be willing to negotiate an optional year three lease adjusted at CPI. Babcock noted if a commitment is made to move to the Freshwater, a second optional lease needs to be negotiated to rationalize remodeling expenses, lie added meeting rooms are available on a cost basis. Foster suggested additional .facB need to be researched in order to make a correct decision. Suerth suggested a committee be appointed to review issues that need to be resolved and to allow them to enter into negotiations for new office space lease. MOTION: Rascop moved, Maglich seconded to appoint a committee consisting of Chair Babcock, Partyka, Dal,.len and Rascop and to authorize them to negotiate a new office lease. ¥OTF.~ Ayes (8); Nays (1, Foster); Motion carried. B. Appointment of Board Members to Nominating Committee to Make Recommendations on Board Officers Babcock stated Foster and Rascop have volunteered to be on the nominating committee, lie added one more Board member will be found to assist them. C. Approval of Executive Directors Recommendations on Compensation Adjustments for Lisa Francis and lan Briner Lake Hinnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors Heeting September 25, 2996 Page 7 Willcutt stated Performance appraisals for Lisa Francis and San Briner were recently .conducted with average and above ay e ployees 0~ outm~ In me 9/2n/cu: ~-~ ded 4% '-~,/~o ~ial-f merflO. MOTION: Zwak moved, Reese seconded to approve 4% compensation adjustments for Lisa Francis and Jan Briner as outlined in the 9/20/96 staff memo. Stark stated he believed a 4 % increase is too high. He recommended future budgets not identify the maximum percentage of compensation adjustments. Foster concurred with Stark. D® Suerth and Babcock both expressed support of the 4 % compensation adjustments. VOTE: Ayes (7); Nays (2, Stark and Foster); Motion carried. There was no additional business. FIN~~ A® Bo Audit of Vouchers for Payment: 1) 9/1196 - 9/13/96 2) 9/~6/~. 9/3O/96 August Financial Summary and Balance Sheet VOTE: Rasc~. reviewed the financial su and questioned the discrepancy of def~mmary~ .... balat'l? ~ for August. He · ~vuluc aria mumcipal levies received. Willcutt was directed to investigate and report back on this. He also reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: BalxToek moved, Zwak seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment and the August financial su~ and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion cam'ed unanimously. · Willcutt reviewed the 9/18/96 staff memo which outlined investment fund status. ?The memo outlined a portfolio of investment rates considered and how the funds were invested. MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded to accept the investment report prepared by the Executive Director. Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Boar4 of Directors Meeting September 25, 1996 Page 8 ® C. Additional Business There was no additional business. I~XECU'ITVE DIRECTOR IIEPORT Willcut~ reoorted on thc foll0win~ ~omputer ;l'raining: He review~ a memo prepared by Lisa Francis regarding training on ~temet, Basics 0f Windows '95, and Web Site. Total costs for the training totaled $369.99. MOTION: RascoP moved, Reese seconded to approve the computer training courses VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Sheriff's Wa_t~'r Patrol Contract: He noted a meeting needs to be scheduled in the near -futu~ regarding reviewing U~ cooperative agreement. Board members discussed the need to confider duplicating special event permitting with the Water Patrol. Concerns were expressed with regard to special events being permitted that did not provide a zebra mussel prevention plan. A committee consisting of R, _e~_~,_S_,...ue~h~.,~_,,~J for discussion at the 10/9/96 meeting. work with LeFevere ~ He noted Captain Larry Peterson of the Water Patrol will be retiring. OLD BUSINF-SS There was no old business. ® NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJO~ There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Cha~ Joe Zwak, Secreuu'y PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMiVIISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Vice Chair Bill Darling, Commissioners Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Rita Pederson, and Mary Goode, City Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Janis Geffre was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: Tim Piepkorn, Gordon Anderson, Sarah Anderson, and Joe Zylman. Ahrens referred to page 21 of the minutes and requested a change in the second to the last paragraph to change "we" to 'T'. The secretary stated that she listened to this portion of the tape three times and heard "we." Motion made by Byrnes, seconded by Pederson, to approved the minutes of the September 12, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGE~ Bill Darling requested that the informational item 17.D. relating to the City Manager's letter to him be discussed. Chair Casey moved this to item 16.A. Ahrens recommend those items which people are here to speak for be moved up ahead of items 4. "Dock Location Map Changes," and 5. "Dock License Ordinance Amendments. S~R PARKS _AND BEACH REPORT FROM CO~Ty ED Tim Piepkorn, Recreation Coordinator for Westonka Community Education and Services reviewed the "Perspective of the 1996 Summer," and highlighted the following: Attendance at Belmont and Philbrook is much lower than at Highland, Swenson and Three Points. There was a jump in attendance at Centerview Beach in mid-summer due to Kids Core day care utilizing the beach. Piepkom explained that it is difficult for the lifeguards when they get an influx of kids like this, and they have recruited lifeguards from other beaches during these times. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Piepkorn reviewed a list of suggested improvement items for the future: 1. Installation of drinking fountains at Highland and Belmont Parks. 2. Provide enough picnic table space for ail the children to participate. Recommendation: Three Points - 3 tables, Belmont 2 tables, philbrook - 3 tables, Swenson - 3 tables, Highland - 3 tables. 3. Implement a demographic study of the Philbrook and Belmont parks service area. What is the potentiai there? 4. Improve parks to include smail shelters from rain and the elements. 5. Additionai funding for equipment/games. Examples: World Games box, large parachute, and box hockey games at each park site. Piepkorn stated that they went to 4 days per week this last year instead of 5, and they used ail the budgeted money. Meyer stated that the lifeguards did have megaphones in 'the past which helps when there are large groups. Piepkorn reviewed that the lifeguards did get umbrellas this year and they got cellular phones. Byrnes asked about the double string of buoys at Mound Bay Park. Piepkorn stated that people thought they could go out to the second set of buoys, they somehow need to get a better message aCrOSS. The cost of a megaphone was discussed. Byrnes stated that Belmont Park is a tot lot, it is tiny, and they have had trouble over the years with attendance. Piepkorn feels the park serves a group of residents that could get overlooked. Meyer expressed a concern that the beach at Mound Bay Park has shrunk and asked if they can increase the size of the swimming area, not necessarily wider, but deeper. Fackler stated that there is a quick drop-off at the deep end that they need to avoid, and the width has not changed in 8 years. Meyer asked if the Commission should address 1997 park improvement recommendations. He asked if there is interest in having a fixed number of dollars available each year for different needs such as megaphones, storage lockers, etc. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Motion made by Meyer to recommend to the City Council that they consider purchasing two megaphones out of the 1997 budget. Darling seconded the motion. Ahrens stated that she would be voting against the motion simply because it is not in-line with the normal budget process, and stated that she may consider it a purchase for the 1998 budget. Casey questioned if this is a substantial safety issue that they need to t-md money to purchase the megaphones. Ahrens stated she did not realize the motion was for a specific item, and if it is a safety issue, she would reconsider. MOTION carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Meyer, Goode, Casey, Byrnes, Botko and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. Piepkorn encouraged the Park Commission to utilize his list of future improvement items when reviewing next year's budget. Jim Fackler, Parks Director reviewed the letter from Mr. Anderson who has requested the right to share a dock within the dedicated Dreamwood Addition. Fackler recalled, to the best of his knowledge, the only time that the dedication was not adhered to was during the drought years in the 1980's when some permit holders were temporarily allowed a dock in this area. Mr. Anderson stated that he is only asking to share a dock with an owner who has agreed to share with him. He feels the City should allow more residents to share so more people can benefit from the program. Ahrens stated that she does not think it is a matter of City policy, and explained about the dedicated areas and how only those living in that subdivision are allowed the use of that shoreline. There was further discussion about the dock program and how dedicated areas have been established. Darling suggested they request information from the City Attorney on whether dedications can be changed or how they go about it? Ahrens stated that the Commons Task Force has worked on the concept of implementing multiple docks into the commons dock program, and that maybe this is something that could work for him. 3 October 10, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes Faclder suggested the Commission may want to ask the City Attorney what could happen if the City does not adhere to the original dedication, and if this would change the dedication through common law dedication, if there were no objections from those in the original dedicated area. Casey does not feel it is appropriate to ask the City Attorney for advice on this issue as it would put him in the middle of residents. No decision was made. Mr. Anderson stated that he will call the City Manager to discuss the issue of gaining advice from the City Attorney. Tom Casey stepped down due to a personal affiliation with Mr. Zylman. Parks Director, Jim Faclder, reviewed Mr. Zylman's request for the City to release for sale the property described as PID 13-117-24 22 0247, That part of Lot 25. ·., "Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka." This tax forfeited property was retained by the City of Mound for "Wetland" purposes on 2/5/82. Joe Zylman, Waters Edge Investment Co., plans to develop the adjacent parcel (249) and would like to incorporate this land into the development. The Parks Director recommended the City continue to retain this property, based on two reasons: 1. This parcel contains substantial wetlands which is bordered by accessible dry lands above the DNR OI-IW of 929.4. In looking at the sketch plan provided by Mr. Zylman for a twin home development, there will be a need to provide open space for residents of the development. The closest park would be Three Points Park which is a considerable distance from this area. 2. The DNR has always recommended the City retain wetland and lakeshore parcels, no matter the size of the parcel (which has been as small as 15 lineal fee0 so that its use can be controlled. Faclder highlighted the memorandum from Mark Koegler, City planner, regarding this issue. Koegler supports Faclder's recommendation based on the Parks element of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan which concluded that additional open space and natural areas were needed throughout the City of Mound to balance the overall intensity of development in the community. Koegler further recommended, if the Park Commission and City Council decide to release the property for sale to abutting owners, the City should at least maintain ownership of all land below the OHW of 929.5. Since the property is currently one tax parcel, release of part of the property would require a minor subdivision with a delineation of the area to be retained by the city. Meyer agrees with Koegler that Mound has a shortage of larger parks and open spaces. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October I0, 1996 Mr. Zylman referred to page 64 of the packet which shows elevations of the property and emphasized that a bulk of the property is steeply sloped. Mr. Zylman stated that all of this property is above the elevation of 930 and does not drop lower than 930. He stated that he is trying to meet density requirements of the R-1 zone for his proposed development, and in order for this development to be feasible, he needs to keep the density high. With this additional land he could build 14 units, without it he could only build 12. The project may not be worth pursuing at 12 units considering the cost of the lift station, road, etc. Zylman feels it would be a benefit to the City to put this property back on the tax roles. Goode stated that she will be abstaining because she also knows Mr. Zylman, but knows that he is a conservationist. Mr. Zylman stated he will be planting more trees that what would be cut down, and that preservation is on his mind. Pederson, asked what is the future plan for this property? Fackler explained that once you let property go, you lose control and the opportunity for input on what happens to it. The portion of property where Mr. Zylman has proposed building a twin home, he feels could be used for an overlook with benches. Zylman stated that docks are not a part of the plan at this point. Faclder noted, if the City retains this property they could not dredge through it. Ahrens suggested that criteria should be established for which parcels should or should not be released. Faclder agreed that you need to be careful not to set a precedent. Zylman emphasized that this property does not touch the OHW of 929.4 and is not lakeshore. If they were to propose docks they would need to pursue and easement over the wetland to the north and extend a dock through it. He stated that the only reason this property has cattails in it is because of the storm water discharge from Three Po' could include language in the nlat th ,-,..~.4 ~,, ...... 1.nts Blvd. Zylman stated that the at w,.~,~u ,mow the C~,, to re`n: ..... .. · Y ~. control over tins property. MOTION made by Meyer to recommend to the City Council that the City retain this property as recommended by staff. Botko seconded the motion. Meyer stated that he is sympathetic, but has a hard time releasing property that provides a buffer area like this and is a trade-off for two more units. Motion carried $ to 2. Those in favor were: Darling, Meyer, Byrnes, Ahrens, and Botko. Goode and Pederson abstained. LOST LAKE "CANAL REHABILITATION,, PRO ECT Commissioner Tom Casey requested this item to be on the agenda. Casey recognized Bruce Chamberlain, EDC Coordinator who was present to hear the Commission's discussion. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Casey directed the Commission' s attention to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) minutes of their September 12, 1996 meeting. Casey noted that he underlined some of the comments and stated that some of the managers made strong comments. Casey suggested two motions be made by the Park Commission: 1) That they ask the City to invite the Park Commission to the October 17th workshop scheduled with the MCWD, and; 2) That the City not take anymore tax time or dollars until the MCWD issues are worked out. He is concerned that condemnation proceedings may all be for not. Casey moved that they be formally invited, as a Park Commission, to the MCWD Workshop on October 17. Darling seconded the motion. Darling stated that he has already had two council members call him recommending that the park commission attend the workshop. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Meyer, Byrnes, Goode, Casey, Botko, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. Byrnes stated that they have a Commons Task Force meeting on October 17. MOTION made by Casey that the City undertake no more staff time or dollars until the MCWD issue relating to the Lost Lake Canal Dredge has been resolved. Seconded by Darling Pederson asked for clari£~cation on what part of the project should they stop working on? The dredge only? Casey questioned if they should halt the whole thing. Bruce Chamberlain, of Hoisington Koegler Group, introduced himself to the Commission. He clarified that the City is currently working on property acquisitions relating to the Auditor's Road improvement project. He explained that the City has hired Peterson Environmental Consultants to look at permit issues and they feel strongly that they are on good solid ground as far as the permit application with the Watershed. He emphasized that the permit application has not been submitted to the Watershed yet, and that some comments made by the Watershed Board may be premature until they do see the permit, and some of their concerns may be resolved through the permit process which is one reason why they are having this workshop to see how they can resolve the grey areas. Darling stated that after reading the Board's comments about the dredge, he has deep concerns, however feels the development of downtown is important. Darling requested that Casey clarify his motion. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Casey expressed a concern, if the downtown improvement is linked to the success of the canal project, then maybe spending upland money is for not too. Goode stated that she is not sure that the success of the dredge has anything to do with the Auditor's Road improvement project or the rest of the downtown redevelopment. She does not feel they should hold work on upland development. Chamberlain stated that the dredge has a/ways been part of the Mound Visions plan, they have always seen the dredge as a key component of downtown. The City has been awarded two federal grants to complete the greenway along the north end of Lost Lake and to dredge the canal based on the transportation component of the dredge. If the dredge does not happen, it wo.uld be difficult to do the balance of the downtown redevelopment. He clarified that the project may need to be modified in some ways based on Watershed review, but he is confident the project will go forward. Darling stated that he cannot believe this is an all or nothing type proposition and that they can't have a downtown revitalization without a canal. He also has a concern about Mr. Chamberlain's confidence that the project will go through, especially after reading the minutes of the Watershed meeting, he feels they are worlds apart. He got the impression from reading the Watershed minutes that they made it quite obvious that there is a "snowball's chance in hell" that this is going to happen. How can they be so far apart in opinion from state and local organizations. Chamberlain clarified that the grant money will go away if they do not do the canal. They have been working with the DNR on the feasibility of this dredge project and restoration of the canal since 1991. there are components of the proposal that may need to be shifted and changed in order to meet requirements of the Watershed, but they are confident they will have a project that will include re-dredging of the canal and some type of docking in the downtown area. This based on d~scuss~ons with the DNR and consultations from their environmental consultants, is Casey stated that there are four Managers with the Watershed that have serious concerns about the project. Chamberlain noted that they are drawing conclusions without seeing the permit .application, and that's why they have planned the workshop meeting so they can identify the issues the Watershed has with the project. Ahrens stated that she will not be able to attend the October 17th meeting. She feels it is unfair for the MCWD to make such judgmental statements with no facts or figures. Chamberlain stated that they do have facts from the EAW, but he permit request will not request ail the items outlined in the EAW. Ahrens questioned Chamberlain on the importance of the Canal to the Mound Visions project. Chamberlain stated that it is their opinion it would be difficult to attract developers without the dredge. He stated that without the dredge they would not get federal dollars for the dredge or the greenway, and without that, the Mound Visions plan will probably not happen. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Darling feels the City has been judgmental in selling the project to the community before it is a done deal. He feels there are all kinds of solutions that would allow the redevelopment of the downtown to continue without the dredging of the canal, and if there are concerns on the dredge, we should figure out what the alternatives are. pederson suggested they delay their motion until after the October 17th meeting. Casey stated that Chamberlain is optimistic, but meanwhile money is being invested elsewhere on items that may not occur without approval of the dredge, so he would suggested that they hold off on the City spending any more money until they know if the dredge will be approved. Goode feels it is important to keep working on resolving the issues involving the redevelopment of the downtown, re- The verbiage of the motion was discussed at length. The previous motion was clarified and orded. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Darling to recommend to the City e Cit tak~ no actions directly associated with the dredging or Council that th Y ..... ,~.~ T^~ · .~,ke Canal dredging until project related preparatory acuon, on m~ ~,~ ~ · ~.. · all the issues associated w~th it_hav, e b~n reso, i_v.e__d.~ M~o~t~n ~uch tune that ....... ,--..~:.,- ~ e. ~v~e er, ~,yrno, ,~,~--:, Botko ann rcu~: DOCK LOCATION MAP CHAN ES FOR 1997 Parks Director, Jim Fackier, reviewed a list of changes proposed to the Dock Location Map for 1997. City Code requires that the Dock Location Map be reviewed annually by the Park Commission so recommended changes can be referred to, and considered by the City Council by January 15. 1. Delete nonabutting dock sites 51000 and 51525 located within dedicated Brighton Common (Shoreline Type C, abutting property owners only). There have been no docks at these locations for several years. 2. Denote addition of two new dock sites on Longford Road as approved by the City Council on Inly 9, 1996. Shoreline Type needs to be assigned. Ahrens stated, based on the fact that they use lineal footage numbers for the dock sites, should they not do something about those dock sites that were moved to the multiple dock so it truly denotes where they are? Casey stated that he thought the multiple dock was experimental, and questioned if this would make the dock permanent if the map is changed? Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October JO, 1996 Fackler recommend that the multiple dock remain for 1997 as positive responses were received from the users of the dock and the adjacent property owners. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Byrnes, to recommend approval of the changes to the 1997 Dock Location Map, as reconamended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. LETTER FROM CITY MANAGER AGENDA I~TEM 17.D. Due to the late hour, darling requested this item be discussed at this time. The chair determined they would discuss the Dock License Ordinance Amendments, then they will discuss agenda item 17. D. DOCK LICENSE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS SECTION 437 Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector, reviewed the following suggested ordinance amendments. 1. Add a provision allowing the City to impound a boat, after notices have been sent (i.e. 1st notice, 2nd notice, and 3rd notice would advise that in 48 hours boat will be impounded). McCaffrey emphasized that there are no teeth in the current ordinances that will help them in extreme instances. 2. Add a provision allowing new residents who move to Mound no earlier than March 1 to apply for a dock license after the February 28/29 due date and not be charged a late fee. McCaffrey stated that this change has already been implemented and should be removed from the report. 3. Add a provision restricting the addition of a shared person to a dock site no later than September 1. This provision is to control dock assignments. McCaffrey stated that when people know they will be moving in the fall of a year, they can add a shared person to their dock site, then that person has first rights for that dock next year, which in turn, gives the property owner control of who gets their dock site for the next year. Fackler emphasized that this will ensure equal opportunity for dock assignments. Ahrens requested clarification on when they may need to impound a boat. McCaffrey stated that they sometimes get boats parked on docks that are registered to an owner who lives outside the City. Pederson suggested that they should make the dock holder responsible by taking away their dock rights if they allow this to happen. Fackler stated that impounding a boat is something that can be done without involving the Park Commission or Council. 9 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Goode suggested that they include the verbiage "illegally parked boats will be towed after the third notice." Fackler stated that staff will work with the City Attorney for correct language and placement within the City Code. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Botko, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendments, as recommended by staff, and that the proposed ordinance amendment, as drafted by the City Attorney, be reviewed by the Park Commission before it is forwarded to the Council for f'mal approval. Motion carried unanimously. EXTENSION OF wORK RULE~S MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Meyer, that item 17.D. be discussed next, and that the Commission extend the meeting to no later than 10:30 p.m. MOTION carried 6 to 1 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Goode, Meyer, Casey, Botko and Pederson. Byrnes opposed, and Ahrens abstained. IJETTER FROM CITY MANAGER Darling recalled that at the last Park Commission meeting they talked about their Resolution of August 8th and they chose not to rescind it. Darling referred to page 153 of the packet and informed the Commission that he sent this letter and a copy of the recommendation to the other members of the council who were not present at the last Park Commission meeting, and noted that Hanus and Ahrens were at that meeting so he did not send them a letter. The reason he requested this agenda item be moved up is because he wanted to make sure this will not affect future meetings they and he thinks the Council went the effort that they were looking for to try and resolve the issues. Granted, there are still concerns out there, but thinks the Commission would be remiss if they continue to sit on the resolution at this time considering the movement the Council made and thinks it would be in good faith if the Commission would rescind the resolution at this time. Casey requested Darling clarify what he thinks the Council has done. Darling referred to the letter from the City Manager on packet pages 149 to 151, and feels the letter clarifies that there was an agreement with the City Council members of what the role of the Task Force is, and that any recommendations that come from the Task Force will go to the Park Commission and it will be our recommendation that is going forth with the information of the Commons Task Force. From his own feelings, this was his primary concern. This shows a good attempt on the Council's part, even though we may still have some concerns that he hopes can be worked out. MOTION made by Darling that the Park Commission rescind their August 8th resolution. Meyer seconded the motion. 10 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Ahrens pointed out that the letter from Darling on page 153 says, "Dear City Council and Staff," and stated that herself, Hanus, and the City Manager did not receive a copy of this letter, and the City Manager was unaware of the letter until the Mayor called him about it. Ahrens stated she did not get this letter until she got to the Council meeting. Ahrens confirmed that the Council did agree with the City Manager's letter. Motion carried unanimously. Ahrens stated that she is glad that the resolution was rescinded and feels it is unfortunate it was not done two months ago because she feels there was nothing new in the City Manager's letter that was not reiterated in Committee of the Whole or City Council Minutes. COMMUNITY SKATING RINK Commissioner Peter Meyer requested this item to be on the agenda. Meyer updated the Commission on the last City Council meeting which he requested $3,200 to to grading for the skating rink. The Council passed a motion to form a joint powers agreement with the School District and Hockey Boosters delegating responsibilities. He was disappointed they did not get the $3,200. Ahrens recalled that she believes the money would be made available contingent upon the Joint Powers Agreement. Meyer reviewed a discussion with Fackler regarding budgeted monies for maintenance of the skating rink for 1997 which should include: $ 100 $ 400 $5,000 Liability Insurance Rider Utilities: electric and water City staff for flooding, snow plowing, and five day/week resurfacing of the skating rink Meyer wants to make sure they are asking for the $5,000 in the 1997 budget. Fackler stated that an additional $2,520 was budgeted for late night flooding by seasonal employees and that during regular hours the additional time will be taken out of the existing budget allocated for full time employees. Fackler noted that the cost of utilities and insurance is dependant upon the joint powers agreement. Meyer emphasized that in other communities the City funds the skating rinks with no involvement from the schools. Ahrens questioned what other services will not be getting attention when staff is spending time on the skating rink? Meyer agreed with this concern. Ahrens asked who will pay for the water for the flooding? Fackler stated that it will come from the fu'e hydrant which is not metered. Ahrens stated that it will still cost the City money. 11 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 MOTION made by Meyer that staff verify that the City has in its 1997 budget staff time for the 8 week skating season of 4 man hours a day, 5 days a week to resurface the ice. Seconded by Botko. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Goode, Meyer, Casey, Botko, Byrnes, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. Ahrens questioned why they are making a motion to verify? She feels it is a moot point pending the Joint Powers Agreement. PARI~ LAND_ / BIRCH LAN~ TAX FORFEIT PR PERTY Commissioner Peter Meyer requested this item to be on the agenda. Meyer informed the Commission that at the last Council meeting he asked them to reconsider their motion releasing the Birch Lane property for sale and he reviewed the Park Commission's reasons for recommending that parcel to be retained. COUNCIL MEETINGS Commissioner Peter Meyer requested this item to be on the agenda. Meyer informed the Commission that he learned that the Minnetrista Park Commissioner's take turns attending the Minnetrista Council meetings, and asked if the Commission would be interested in doing this. Darling asked how involved in discussion items they could be. Meyer stated it was his intent that they would sit in the audience and observe. Ahrens stated that if someone in the audience wishes to speak, the Mayor will usually recognize that person. A schedule for meeting attendance was discussed. MOTION made by Goode that the Park Commission members take turns attending City Council meetings to help improve communication between the two bodies on a voluntary basis. Motion seconded by Darling. Motion carried 6 to 1 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Goode, Meyer, Casey, Botko and Pederson. Byrnes opposed. Ahrens abstained. Byrnes is not in favor of attending more evening meetings. PORTABLE TOILET SERVICE - CENTERVIEW BEACH Commissioner Peter Meyer requested this item to be on the agenda and stated that it is for informational purposes only to inform the Commission that the toilets were removed from the beach on August 15th, two weeks prior to the lifeguards being done. He would like to see more money budgeted for this item in the future so this does not happen again. 12 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 _NCA EXPENSES FOR 1995- 1994 Commissioner Peter Meyer requested this item to be on the agenda and requested it be tabled and discussed at the November meeting. MOUND BAY PARK DOCK BUMYER$~' Commissioner Peter Meyer requested this item to be on the agenda. It is his opinion that bumper's are an unnecessary expense and stressed that most boaters carry their own bumpers. MOTION made by Meyer to recommend that the monies budgeted for dock bumpers be cut from the 1997 budget. Casey seconded the motion. It was suggested that the money from the bumpers could be used towards the portable toilets or towards the skating facility. Fackler stated that the bumpers are needed to protect the dock and prevent damage to dock from large boats, such as Al & Alma's who have docked there during special events. He stressed that they have invested money in the dock and need to protect it. Darling moved to call the question. Ahrens seconded. Carried unanimously. MOTION failed 7 to 1. Those in opposed were: Darling, Goode, Byrnes, Casey, Botko, Pederson, and Ahrens. Meyer was in favor. HAZARDOUS TREE DE~FINITION. CITY CODE SECTION 1010:00 Commissioner Peter Meyer requested this item to be on the agenda, and suggested it be tabled for discussion at the November meeting. ~FISHING DOCKS Commissioner Peter Meyer requested this item to be on the agenda, and suggested it be tabled for discussion at the November meeting. Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Botko, to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:33 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 13 VITNUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1996 Those present were: chair Geoff Michael, commissioners Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orr Burma; city Planner Mark Koegler, Building official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Michael Mueller. The following people were also in attendance: Gary C. Landsman, B.W. & Lois Landsman, Bob Floeder, Ron Emmons, Lorraine Dunkley, Lori Marek, Joe Zylman, Mark Reschke, James Koch, Harlan pygman, Steve Chase, and J. Ned Dow. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of September 23, 1996 were presented for approval. ade b Woss, seoonde4 by Weilan~, to approve the MOTION m Y . . 23 1996 as Planning commission ~lnutes of S~ptember , written. Motion cart=e4 unanimously. RE UEST FOR RELEASE OF TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY city Planner, Mark Koegler, related to the commission that Joe Zylman has requested the property described as PID 13-117-24 22 ,,Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka" 0247, That part of Lot 25 . · ., be released for sale to adjacent property owners. This is a tax forfeited piece of property which the city has retained for wetland purposes. The Park Commission recommended the city retain this property for public purposes, as recommended by staff. The Commission decided to discuss item with the Sketch Plan Review for Maple Manors. Koegler informed the Commission that they will need separate actions on the items, but they are very much related and agreed they could be discussed simultaneously. C~SE 96-38- SK ......... ~aq0 THR~OINTS BLVD. TkiA'£ ~-~ u. INVESTMENT CO. JOE Z¥~ .... LOT 25 L~F~YETTE P]tRK PID 13-117-24 22 0249 city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report for the sketch plan review of Maple Manors, which is a twin home project off of Three Points Blvd. Koegler highlighted the following issues that need to be addressed as part of the planning process for this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 Property Size. Concurrent to the submission of the sketch plan ~eview, the applicant has requested release of adjacent tax forfeit property which has an area of approximately 34,700 square feet. The size of the property impacts the number of units that the city,s ordinance will allow on the site. Planned Development Area (PDA): This site is currently zoned R-1 which allows single family detached dwellings. Under the PDA provisions the proposed twin homes are allowed through the issuance of a conditional use permit. The number of units allowed is determined by the density provisions of the underlying zoning district, therefore, the ordinance re ui equivalent to nnn ......... q res an overall lot tax ~A_=_:~ 10,wv. ~qu~r~ ~ee~ per unit T,,~ ...... area ~ ~~u property, the s~-~ :- · -~unuuu acquiring the =nerefore potentia~,, -~ .... ~ .a~ approximately 2.8 ac~o= size variances. If the tax forfeit property is added to this site · ~ =xxuw~ng a =o=al of 12 units without any-~ the proposed 14 units would be consistent with the R-1 density requirement. ' Additionally, the site plan shows an unlabeled contour separating wetland areas from upland areas. If any of the land below the unlabeled contour is below the 929.5 elevation, it does not count as total lot area for the purpose of calculating the allowable number of units. Variances. Some of the variances involved include: Front Yard Setbacks: In some cases the plan calls for a 12 foot setback in lieu of the 30 foot required. OHW Setback: The Zoning Code requires a 50 foot setback from the OHW. The applicant has informed us that the OHW elevation of 929.4 does not come within 50 feet of any portion of the subject property, therefore this may not be an issue. , Lot Size: The sketch plan does not show lot lines so it is impossible to determine lot size variances at this time. Street Width: The sketch plan identifies a 26 foot wide street whic~ is 2 feet less than the City's minimum width of 28 feet. Cul-de-sac: The proposed plan Contains a modified hammerhead turn-around in lieu of the required cul-de- sac. It appears that a reduced size cul-de-sac (70' diameter) will fit within the space available. Staff would support a smaller cul-de-sac but will not support the proposed turn-around. Planning commission Minutes October 14, 1996 Street: It is assumed that the proposed street will be public. If the street is to be private road, a variance will be required. The city has a long standing policy of public rather than private streets. The next step for the applicant is to assemble the information required for preliminary plat, conditional use permit and variance applications. The drawings and information that have been submitted to-date do not meet the application requirements. A listing of the additional items needed was reviewed. Hanus referred to page 20 of the packet which shows elevations of 't ro erty at 930. He stated that there is a State the tax forfel p P .... ¥~ ~ ~ ic's hand by way verns land that went ~ ....... e =ubl . Statute that go - .=-~ ~ =~e,~e talks about is the of tax forfeiture, an~ w~ ~_~L%~- ~,~te hands and it's .- ~--- ~- sellin~ the lan~ u~u~ ~,~ ~ .... . guloelln~ lu~ . F ==-~ ~ can't be done, wl=n quite specific an~ clear unuu ~. . - exceptions, and one of those exceptions ~s that the shoreline which would be lost would have to be a length of less than 50 feet and would also have to get approval from the DNR. So if we find that the 929.4 does run through the property that's being asked for vacation, it becomes a difficult issue. Hanus raised another issue that the council will need to think about. This land is actually deeded to the City, and he does not believe that this land is currently being counted as public land on the dock location map for public docks, but if it could be this will need to be addressed. Zylman stated that the basin of the tax forfeit property falls to 930 and does not go past that point within fifty feet of the property. Zylman stated, if the city is not willing to release the property, he would need to ask to rezone the property to an R-iA zone and construct single family dwellings. He emphasized that the twin home units as proposed are very nice units. Chair Michael announced to those people present that this is not a public hearing, but asked if anyone present had any comments. Nobody present expressed an interest in speaking on the issue. Koegler reviewed that the purpose of the sketch plan is to offer direction to the developer. Burma summarized that Zylman is requesting the city to give up the tax forfeit property for one additional twin home. Hanus commented that there are an awful lot of variances involved and he is bothered by the hammerhead turnaround because when people park their vehicles in the turnaround, it becomes nonfunctional. 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 Weiland asked the applicant if he intends on the street being public. Zylman confirmed that this is his intent. Zylman has no problem adding a 70 foot cul-de-sac. Regarding the 26 foot street width, he stated he was trying to achieve enough driveway in front of the houses to allow a car to be parked in front of the garage. He stated that a 26 foot wide road is quite standard with new developments these days, and considering the volume of traffic expected, this width should be adequate. Zylman stated that due to the added cost of the sewer lift station that w/ll be needed, he needs to get the highest density possible. Voss feels the City should not give up the land, and emphasized that the community needs areas for walking. He feels the City should be able to work with the applicant to come up with an equitable project without giving up the land. Glister feels the City should retain the land given the fact that the Three Points area is already over-built. She also expressed a concern about the lot sizes. Zylman commented that with a PDA the entire property is used to figure density. Michael stated that he would like to see a plan for the City to retain the property. He is opposed to issuing lot size variances for new developments, including the 26 foot wide road, and if by releasing this property it would help the development, he does not have a problem with that. Michael feels the land can be better utilized with a project like this rather than just leaving it vacant. Koegler asked if the Commission would have any concerns about a 6,000 square foot lot requirement versus the 10,000 square foot lot requirement, because if this idea was pursued, the rezoning would have to be processed first, and if for some reason this development did not happen, the property would still be zoned for smaller lots. Koegler also feels it may be appro riate right-of-way versus a 5 . P_ t~ .approve a 40 foot front setbac ..... ~o~ rl~ht-of-way which would hal expected and ~ f~=~Y, au? to the low amount of t~f~~e of-ways that work. ~ un~u =ney nave many other 40 foot wide righ~ Hanus questioned the possibility of retaining an easement across the tax forfeit property for conservation or trails. Koegler agreed that something like this could be established Zylman stated that he is open to the idea. ' Koegler noted that the City may release this property for sale to adjacent property owners, then the county will collect bids for purchase, and there is not guarantee that Mr. Zylman would actually get this property if it were released. Weiland questioned, if this property were rezoned to R-iA, would it be considered spot zoning? Koegler did not feel it would be because there is enough critical mass of land involved. 4 Planning commission Minutes October 14, 1996 Koegler commented that installing the new access road may make the existing property to the north nonconforming because it would create a front yard setback where it is currently a side setback. Voss stated, if they retain easements for trails, etc. he may change his mind to release the property. Koegler confirmed that the "60 day time limit" does not apply to the request for release of this property. Gary Landsman stated that he knows somebody who currently thinks they own the tax forfeit property. MOTION made by Michael to recommend to the city council that they release the land for sale. Motion seconded by Hanus. Hanus asked that the motion include the following conditions: 1. It be verified by a registered survey that at no place within this lot does the 929.4 elevation meander through the property. 2. That an easement be retained on the property for public use of the property for passive recreational purposes which would take into account walking paths, etc. with details to be worked out as the project continues on. MOTION failed 3 to 3. Those in favor were Michael, Weiland and Hanus. Those opposed were: Burma, Voss and Glister. Glister feels that the public and private interests for this property are too unknown at this time, and by denying it we know we still have control over it, but if it is released we don't know what will happen to it. Voss agrees with the comprehensive Plan and the Park Commission's recommendation- Burma stated that he has a concern about giving up a lot of space to add two units to the tax roles and does not feel the trade-off is there for the city. It may be a challenge, but feels the developer could figure out a way for the project to work with 12 units. He believes that once the City gives up the land, then its gone. Voss stated that there is nothing preventing the developer from coming back in the future requesting this again with a more comprehensive plan. 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Burma, to recommend that the property not be released for sale to abutting owners. Motion carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were: Burma, Voss, Glister, Hanus, and Weiland. Michael was opposed. This request will be heard by the City Council on October 22, 1996. ~ASE 96-52: VOIDED (NOT NEEDED[ CASE 96-54: VARI ~u,: FOR DECK WILLIAM DUNKLEY 3016 WESTEDGE 53 0012 AUDITION PID 23-117-24 The applicant is seeking a variance to allow reconstruction of the existing nonconforming deck on the lakeside. The required setback to the lake is 50 feet, the existing/proposed setback as shown on the applicant,s site plan is 47 feet resulting in a variance request of 3 feet. Also noted on the applicants site plan is the shed in the front yard that is nonconforming to the front yard where a 30 foot setback is required. Impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming. The buildable footprint on this property is limited by its unique shape. The deck replacement is minimal in size and it enhances the use and function of the home with minimal impact. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal encroachment. The encroachment is slight and reasonable due to the shape of the lot and limited buildable footprint. MOTION made by Burma, seconded by ross to recommend approval as recommended by staff Motion carried unanimously. · This case will be reviewed by the City council on October 22, 1996. CASE 96-55: MINOR SUBDIVISION LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT ROBERT ~3,, %kU..F3-S_ LANE LOT 2 BLOCK 2- THE BLUFFS ~03 AND~ ~,, ............. PID 22-117- BLUFFS PID ~~"~ ~'.ur~'S LANE LOT I BLOCK 2 THE City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request· They are proposing a minor subdivision to relocate an existing lot line to remov~ a problem, with a drivewa encro .. . . ~an~g~ Wll} not significantly imDactYt ~ =~Z~e~=~ T~e .lot line o~. ~u. an~ 10,048 sq ft ~ ~C~ ~ ~= ~ ~ner lot (13,273 · .~ ouun une lo=s remain above the minimum s~ze requirement. The shift in the lot line does not create any structural setback variances. 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 14, I996 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the proposal complies with all zoning ordinance and Subdivision ordinance requirements. MOTION made by weiland, seconded by Glister to recommend approval of the subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the city council on October 22, 1996. WILSHIRE BLVD. DIVISIONt PID 19-117-23 24 0022. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming second story addition on the front of the dwelling that follows the existing footprint. The proposal also includes a conforming two story addition onto the rear or lakeside of the home. The existing front yard setback is 11 feet+-, a 20 foot setback is required and this results in the recognition of a variance of 9 feet +-. Ail other issues are conforming with this property. The existing dwelling is in good condition and it is unlikely the nonconforming portion can be eliminated at this time. The proposed addition in the front does not encroach any further than the existing situation and both the front and rear additions are logical expansions of the home. The proposal will enhance the use and function of the home with no additional encroachment- Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with no additional encroachment and is a reasonable use of the property. MOTION made by weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the city council on October 22, 1996. CASE 9 RESCHKE 4737 ABERDEEEN RO]LD LOT~ au e ~ ------ 117-23 22 0036 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming house and garage in order to allow construction of a 10' x 20' addition onto the garage that isslightly nonconforming- The proposed addition follows the existing side yard setback of the garage. The following variances are being requested/recognized: 7%%0 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 House Existing Required Variance S Front Hanover 17.3 ft 20 ft 2.7 ft W Side Oxford 5.3 ft 10 ft 4.7 ft E Side 5.6 ft 6 ft 0.4 ft Garage E Side 5.7 ft 6 ft 0.3 ft This is a through lot and a corner lot that has a difficult buildable footprint. The Proposed garage addition is a reasonable expansion and has a minimal encroachment into the side yard. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as proposed, as the request is a reasonable use and enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal encroachment. The Building official confirmed that the front deck has been removed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City council on October 22, 1996. EASE 96-58~ ~~__ RECONSTRUCT DWELLING , MAREK 4829 IS~---~ D Tv~ ? -- LORI & JERRY 24 11 0033 R__. ~OT 8 BLOCK 13 DEVON PID 25-117- City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking a number of variances in order to reconstruct an existing home. In 1991, the City of Mound approved a variance for the property allowing construction of a new garage. The owners are now proposing to leave the garage intact and remove and reconstruct the existing home. The following variances are being requested: Existing/ Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 14.0 feet 20 feet 6.0 feet Side Yard 3.3 feet 6 feet 2.7 feet Rear Yd Deck 8.3 feet 10 feet 1.7 feet Lakeshore 40.0 feet 50 feet 10.0 feet Lot Size 3,964 sf 6,000 sf 2,036 feet Hardcover 2,275 sf 1,585 sf 690 sf The proposed home is approximately the same size and footprint as the existing structure. The proposed footprint is, however, shifted slightly toward the lake. It appears that the principal Planning Commission Minutes October 14, I996 structure maintains a 50 foot setback from the OHW. The new home will observe a conforming 6 foot setback on one side and a 3.3 foot setback on the other side. The 3.3 foot setback expands on the former setback which only totaled 1.9 feet. The corner of the proposed deck is 8.3 feet off of the rear lot line which abuts Devon Common. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances listed above in order to allow reconstruction of the existing home subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit a grading plan or spot elevations demonstrating compliance with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound city Code. The requirements of this section pertain to techniques that are required for impervious cover for lots of record. 2. The principal structure shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the OHW. Building official, Jon Sutherland, stated that he worked with the applicants prior to them submitting their variance, and this proposal does represent an improvement from their first couple of plans. Weiland expressed a concern with the amount of hardcover. Koegler emphasized that this property is a lot of record and there was a house there before. Staff would not support intensifying the situation. There is no opportunity to increase the lot size from either side of this property. Sutherland stated that staff did not feel the deck setback was a substantial issue considering other variances that have been approved for decks in similar situations. Sutherland informed the commission that a complaint was received from a neighbor regarding the length of time it took the Marek's to complete construction of their garage and a concern that this will not happen with reconstruction of the house. Sutherland noted that the city now has an ordinance the requires the completion of the exterior within one year of permit issuance, and wanted to make sure that the applicant's are aware of this requirement. Voss expressed a concern about the lot size and deck setback. It was noted that the adjacent dwelling is just as close to the rear lot line than the applicant's proposed deck. Koegler stated, for the record, that the neighbor to the west has submitted a letter stating they are in favor of the request. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael, to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, with the additional condition that the exterior of the dwelling be finished in one year. Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 VOSS asked if the applicant would consider a narrower house. Koegler stated that they are maintaining the setback of the existing garage The other side setback will be conforming. Burma noted that the new house will actually have less of a variance on the one side than what is existing, and feels the improvement will enhance the neighborhood. Glister stated that the Island View Drive area is all over-built and she is not worried about the deck setback. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 22, 1996. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow for the after-the-fact deck reconstruction/expansion in the front yard as shown on the attached survey. The deck was dilapidated and was in need of repair, when it was replaced the owner expanded the size by 2 additional feet towards the front. The request results in a 2 foot+ setback and a 2 foot variance to ~=- _ ' 8 - ~ne required 30 foot front yard setback. This property received a variance in 1975 (Resolution # 75-263) which approved a rear yard setback variance of four feet. This property is located in the R-1 zoning district which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot setback to the rear. This lot has an oddly shaped rear lot line, and coupled with the layout of the house, this limits the reasonable use and function of the rear area for a deck. It is difficult to find hardship in this case and a recommendation of denial could be made on that basis. However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider a finding of practical difficulty if they find the following findings to be reasonable: 1) 2) 3) A deck width of 10 feet is considered a minimal dimension in order to be considered functional and practical in this situation. The area for reasonable deck expansion is limited due to the shape of the rear lot line and the fact that this property received a variance that recognizes that condition in 1975. Due to the orientation of the front of the house towards the lake, and in order to take full advantage of the view of the lake, The additional 2 feet of deck area is reasonable in order for the owner to realize full enjoyment of the property. 10 Planning commission Minutes October 14, 1996 If the Planning Commission is in agreement with the findings of practical difficulty, staff would recommend approval of the variance request, otherwise a recommendation for denial should be made. MOTION made by Woes, seconded by weiland, to recommend approval of the variance request with the findings of practical difficulty as noted in the staff report. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the city Council on October 22, 1996. & DIXIE DOW 4994 MANc~~ ~ - 24-117-24 42 000~ - . Koe ler, reviewed the Planning Report. the City Planner. Mark :__~g .... ~iance in 1987 to expand, an exl~t~ property owne~ rece~_~ ~ance a~proval, the founoati°n ~i ~= single family nome. ~=~ ~ = . n 1989. the garage was expanded 6 feet to tne home was expanded. .I ._ ' = =-=~-e the Planning Commission and S item wen~ m==~ south. In 1990, thl ....... = ~- =~lowed home expansion. ' uncil to clari~y the ex=~u u% ~.~_.~~, ~nansion of the Specifically, Resolution ~u ,= =~ , structure. In the nine years since the initial variance approval the only construction that occurred was the initial foundation expansion which remains uncompleted. The owner is now seeking variance approval to complete the project in three phases running from 1997 to 199. . as initially reviewed in 1987 and again in since this request w ........... ~n the zoning Code which · 'tute~ t~ree cn~ng=~ ~ . · 1990, ~o~gd ht _ln 32 first involves hardsover ~e~tr~ctl?~_s- ~ impact this ca~=. ~'~ ....... ~--..-- of 40% ~ar~cover- ~ · ' lmlte~ ~o a m=~x~u~ subject site is ~o .1 ..... ~ ~oon The second change involves limitation was not in pluu= ~,~ ..... ' cks for the single family home. In order to the applicable setba ........ ~at are 15 feet in width or acknowledge alleys ~n~ zlre .l~ ~,~ ~ode which states, "In e cit added a provision. ~u ~,~ ~_~ ~,, ~he existence of less, th _ .Y .... ~-~ ~ onta~es creau=u w~ ~.- _ ~ = -~-~dential dlstrlct~, =u~ .... r . .~ ...... ~ exceeding 15 zee~, ~leys, such alleys having a total WlO=n ~,uu appropriate and shall be considered side yards or rear yards, as , subject to applicable district setbacks." As a result, Manchester Lane is now considered the front yard subject to a 20 foot setback and Cambridge is considered the side yard subject to a 6 foot setback. The Mound Street and Utility Department does not consider Cambridge to be an improved street and it is not maintained by the city. The third change involves building completion- In 1994, the city amended its cOde to require that "all work to be performed pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations to the exterior of any building or structure in any zoning district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance." 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 In order to expand the existing home consistent with the plan that has been in place since 1990 the following variances will be necessary: , Required Existing/ Proposed Lot Area 6,000 sf 4,700 sf Hardcover 1,880 sf 3,439 sf Front Setback 20 feet Rear Setback 15 feet 10 feet 6.2 feet Variance 1,300 sf 1,559 sf 10 feet 8.8 feet The applicant,s proposed phasing plan identifies the second floor addition over the garage as the first phase. Prior to any new construction occurring, however, completion of the initial first floor improvements that began in 1987 needs to occur. Staff recommended that the g Commission recommend a roy of the requested variances axxow expansion of t~- --:-~.PP . al in three phases from 1997 to 1999. The phases shall be as shown in · ~= =~s~lng Rome the application. The approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Work allowed under the building permit to be issued shall be phased as follows with total exterior completion occurring prior to the initiation of the next phase. Phase A: Completion of all first floor exterior work including but not limited to siding, soffit and fascia work, filling and capping the foundation, exterior siding and completion of the front entry. Phase B: Total completion of the exterior work identified in the applicant,s Phase I as shown on attached Exhibits A and B. Phase C: Total completion of the exterior work identified in the applicant,s Phase II as shown on attached Exhibits A and C. Phase D: Total completion of the exterior work identified in the applicant,s Phase III as shown on attached Exhibits A and D. The applicant shall submit detailed plans for the construction of the transition areas between phases as part of the overall building permit application. The applicant shall prepare and su ' . ~l~atlons demonstrating com, lia~it ~.~radlng plan or spot ~uDd. 6. B. 1. The re~uireI~_~ ~l~n Section 350:1225 techni ues t ~ nu u~ ~nis sec ' · ' q hat are required f~ ~-- · tlon pertain to record. ~ xmpervlous cover for lots of 12 October 14, 1996 Planning commission Minutes Hanus questioned how the time limit works when phases are involved. The Planner indicated that when the building permit is issued for each phase they would have one year from that date, and each phase must be applied for in the year indicated. If the project is not completed in five years, the variance will become null and void. · eels that it is too long to carry out the project and Welland. f .......h nf an imDosition on the neighborhood to have feels it is tou ~L=~.. ~_ ~=Jamount of time. He feels the entire construction carry on ~o£ u~.=~ year project should be completed in one · Burma suggested the applicant's phase I should be to finish the exterior, and phase II could be to finish interior, etc. Dow requested clarification of Phase A. sutherland reviewed that this phase includes new sheathing on the garage, the hole by the front door needs to be filled-in and capped, the soffit and fascia work on the garage needs to be finished, the floor needs to be poured, etc. Dow informed sutherland that his house has a crawl space, it is not a slab. sutherland informed Mr Dow that the floor of the crawl s ace will need to be raised' to an elevation of 933. The f~oodplain elevations were reviewed, sutherland estimated that approximately 6 inches of fill will need to be placed in the crawl space and a surveyor will need to verify the finished lowest floor elevation- MOTION made by weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend denial of the phase plan and to direct staff to work on a solution to get the outside completed so other properties do not have to be subjected to the on-going construction. There was discussion relating to the completion of the exterior. Dow stated that he would rather withdraw or table his request so he has time to rethink the project. The commission discussed the issue of application time limit if the case is tabled. Koegler stated, if the applicant requests the tabling, the clock stops, could continue work on the first sutherland confirmed that Dow approval, however building permits floor items without the variance will need to be issued to complete the siding and fill in the foundation- weiland withdrew his motion. MOTION ma~e by Weilan~ to table the ~arianoe, request of the applioant. Secon~e~ by ross. carrie4 unanimously- at the Motion 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1996 CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE,s REPORT The Moriarty subdivision on D · ~Xpressed a concern ~-~ ..enblgh Road was dis .... ~'~u nanus did not rela cussed. commission recommendatIon str te t~e Weiland Planning stated that Cor~missioner Re~'~~n°ug~ t~ the Council. Weiland to this. ~o~ne~uer also ~ad a concern relating The crosswalk was briefly discussed. MOTION made by Voss, meeting at 9:30 p.m. seconded by ~lister to adjourn the MOtion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 14 Southwest Trail Association P.O. Box 34 Navarre, Minnesota 55392 October 1996 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: The snowmobilers in the Mound/Westonka area would like to say Thank You for your continued support as our Department Of Natural Resources Grant In Aid Trail Sponsor. Your cooperation along with your City Staff is greatly appreciated. Winter recreation is very important to us and we value the ability to snowmobile fight here at home. With 158 miles of trails in at our finger tips, our families enjoy weekend outings locally. Thank you again. Sincerely, Mark Jorlan~', President Dala~sJensen't~esiaent '~iollut~lebs~rTgra'~' Westonka Snoblazers Tonka Trailblazers 5549 Sherwood Drive 2684 Wilshire Blvd 5245 Edsall Road Mound, Mn 55364 Mound, MN 55364 Mound, MN 55364 PLAN NOW TO ATTEND AND VOTE ON POLICIES AFFECTING YOUR CITY! 19 9 6 Policy Ado Friday, November 22, 1996 Ramada Plaza Hotel With the legislative sessionjust around the corner, city officials won't want to miss the 1996 LMC Policy Adoption Conference. Join the League and your city colleagues for an informative discussion of: · What's ahead for the 1997 legislative session · Issues affectingpropertytax reform · Managingpublic rights of way · Electric deregulation ' Devolution · Tax Increment Financing ..... and more Plan now to send a city repre- sentative to cast your city's vote on the League's 1997 Legislative Policies. C Minnetonka 8:45 a.m. 9:45 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 12 noon 1:45 p.m. 2:15 p.m. 2:45 p.m. PreliminaryProgram, Registration Welcome Blaine Hill, LMC President and Clerk. Treasurer, Breckenridge 1997 Legislative Predictions Legislative panelists to be announced Why K-12 Funding Could Affect Your City Budget Gary Carlson, Director of lntergovernmental Relations, League of Minnesota Cities Break Managing the Rights of Way: What's At Stake A discussion between industry representatives and city officials. Speakers to be announced. Electric Deregulation: W ' hat s On the Horizon. and How Close Is It? ' · Jack Kegel, Executive Director, Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association Lunch The Outlook for City Legislative Priorities Senator Steve Novak Temporary Economic Assistance, Jobs and Training: The New Realities for Cities After Welfare Reform Kevin Kelliher, Commissioner, Houston County; President, Association of Minnesota Counties Peter McLaughlin, Chairman, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners But Not For TIF! Creating Local Economies Gene Ranieri, Director °f Governmental Affairs, Publicorp, Inc. Break PolicyAdoption * Speakers invited. P 18 MINNESOTA CITIES / OCTOBER 1996