The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-01-14 C°~c~'' ~ll item- .. lt~less a Ca n~lll be ena~.~_~~'. listed It, ~ . ~Do~ ~. oA ~ ov ov ~~ _ v~c~ ~ q~m~o ~ ov ~oa ~O~o~ , 3. ~LIc ~.._ ,~o LEA~ ~rc~ AS CO ~c ~._ '~ ~ s ~3-~7 Za~ o~ J~A~ c~ 'z4 22 0246 LAF~ ~ r, (JOE -~2aPLE ~ Imf-- ~' ' ' a~, PID ~7~' GE~A At t 246, a~ Voted- a~/or ~ ~is ti~e itam~ & 0250. ~ en aPPrOVed. *A. APPROVE MEETING. THE MI~ OF ~E DECE~DER 10, 1996, ~GULAR APPRov~ T~' ' ' ........ ' ' . ' .... ' ' 80 - 92 C~y COUNCIL ~EETiNG OF ~ DECEMBER 16, 1996, SPECIAL APPOI~ME~ OF ACTING MAYOR FOR 1997 APPoI~ME~ ' . . . ................ OF ACTING CITy MANAGER FOR 1997 93 94 E D~IGNATIoN OF OFFICIAL ~WSPApER ~OR 1997. 95 PPROVAL O~ DO~ FO~ C~y CLE~. 96- 98 Mound ~ty Council Agenda January 14, 1997 Page 2 P.4GE *G. APPROVAL OF BOND FOR CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR. · . 100 *H. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1997 ............ 101 *I. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONS ....................................... 102 *J. CASE//96-70: VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT, THOMAS PAULSON, 2465 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 16, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID//24-117-22 0030. .......... 103-110 *K. CASE//96-72: VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY SIGN, MARQUETI'E BANK/ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, RI_3 739, TRACTS A-G, PID/924-117-24 12 0014. .............................. 111-123 *L. SET BID OPENING FOR 1997 FRONT END LOADER. SUGGESTED DATE; JANUARY 22, 1997, 11:00 A.M. *M. APPROVAL OF DOCK LOCATION MAP FOR 1997 ............. 124-147 *N. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE TO ALLOW S "MAJOR AUTO REPAIR" BUSINESS AS REQUESTED BY RANDY'S AUTOMOTIVE. SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARy 11 1997 ' ..................... 148 *O. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THE UNIMPROVED OXFORD LANE LOCATED NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCKS 5 & 9 IN DEVON. SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARy 11, 1997 ..................... 149 *P. SET 1997 LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 22, 1997, 7:00 P.M ................. 150 *Q. PAYMENT OF BILLS ............................. 150-A - 150-Z REQUEST FROM STEVE BEDELL TO SELL BEER FROM "BY THE WAY SNACK SHOP" LOCATED AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE.~fff.~ ~./,.E:. .... 151 - 156 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. DISCUSSION: PROPOSAL RE: COMMISSION REARRANGEMENT AND CREATION OF COMMONS/DOCK COMMISSION - COUNCILMEMBER MARK HANUS .......................... 157 - 164 January 14, 1997 Page 3 PAGE APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION. .................. 165- 173 _.EXECUTIVE SESSION, SUBURBAN ALLIANCE. y'}../~. INFORMATION/MLqCEI.LANEOUS: B. C. D. E. F. Department Head Monthly Reports for December 1996 ................ 174 - 194 LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for December 1996. ................ 195 LMCD Mailings. ....................................... 196 - 223 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of December 12, 1996 .......... 224 - 235 Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 1996. .................. 236-249 Economic Development Commission Minutes of December 19, 1996 ........ 250 - 251 Letter from Ric Hanson, Triax Cablevision, dated December 10, 1996. ............................. 252 Letter and enclosure from Charles D. Howe, 4730 Cavan Road, RE: Mound Visions. ............................ 253 - 255 Letter from Hennepin County Sheriff, Pat McGowen, RE: Citizen Enforcement Academy ................................ 256 - 259 REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 1997, IN OBSERVANCE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY. REMINDER: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA) BOARD MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6:30 P.M., JANUARY 14, 1997, CITY HALL. PLEASE REFER TO PACKET WHICH IS ENCLOSED WITH THIS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL PACKET. YOU ARE NOW THE HRA BOARD. 3 ORDINANCE # -1997 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS AS DESCRIBED FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL The City of Mound does ordain, The City of Mound Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows: Property described as follows, is hereby rezoned from R-1 Single Family Residential (10,000 square foot minimum lot area), to R-lA Single Family Residential (6,000 square foot minimum lot area: 5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25, "Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot 25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said Lot 25 from a point on said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from the southwest corner of said Lot 25. PID 13-117-24 22 0249. 5510 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the West 100 feet of the South 250 feet of said Lot 25 and of the East 50 feet of the South 250 feet of Lot 26 lying North of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0246. 5470 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 lying South of a line running East at a right angle with the West line of said Lot 25 from a point thereon 318.29 feet North from the Southwest corner of said Lot 25 and lying North of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0250. The Zoning Map of the City of Mound on file with the City Clerk is hereby amended in accordance with these rezoning provisions. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published in The Laker PUBLIC H~AR~G NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINI~SOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE ,t~96.-68 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTIES FROM R-1 & B-2 TO R-lA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, JANUARY 14. 1997 to consider a Modification to the Zoning Map from R-1 Single Family Residential (10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to R-lA Single Family Residential (6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The western portion of 5510 Three Points Blvd. is currently zoned B-2 General Business, and is included in this rezoning proposal. The subject properties are legally described as follows, and shown on the attached plat map. 5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25, "Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot 25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said LOt 25 which lies north of a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said LOt 25 from a point on said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from the southwest comer of said LOt 25. PID 13- 117-24 22 0249. 5510 Three Points Blvd.' That part of the West 100 feet of the South 250 feet of said Lot 25 and of the East 50 feet of the South 250 feet of Lot 26 lying North of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0246, 5470 Three Points Blvd.' That part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 lying South of a line run East at a right angle with the West line of said Lot 25 from a point thereon 318.29 feet North from the SW comer of said Lot 25 and lying N of Three Points Blvd. PIX) 13-117-24 22 0250. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ¥~igy ~e;/Vlanni~(g tary' Published in "The Laker" on January 4, 1997, and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property by January 4, 1997. {~ printed on recycled paper O~ ¥-I N O I Il- ON (]~:~ 03 '- eahorse Condominium Association 5440 Three Points Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Phone 6'12-472-5300 1/8/97 To: Mound City Council Re: Maple Manor Proposed Development and Rezooing of Lots 246 and 250 The following comments are given to the Mound City Council with the intent that this will establiah the position of the Seahorse Condominium Association regarding the proposed Maple Manor development. We are not opposed to the development of the property. We recognize that: 1. The property owner has the right to sell his property for development 2. The developer has the fight to develop the property 3. The City of Mound has the right to increase the city's tax base. However, a year l~om now when the owner and developer have taken their profits and leR the area, we at the Seahorse as well as the City of Mound and the Three Points community will be leR to deal with whatever has been developed. We have been very vocal throughout these proceedings and wish to continue to express our opposition to: 1. Rezoning of?.hi.q property 2. Density in terms of units and traffic 3. Runoffand snow removal 4. Lack of guest parking other than the cul de sac area. Copies of our remarks before the planning commiasion on Nov. 4 and Dec. 9, 1996, are attached. The present zoning R-1. will allow for nine conforming single family units to be developed on t_hi.~ site. Kezoning to K- lA would allow for ten multiple dwelling units, most of which would be non conforming. We fail to see the logic ofrezoning for the sake of one unit. The planning committee has proposed that the two adjoining lots #246 mad #250 also be rezoned as a part of this development, the logic being that it would eliminate spot zoning. Spot zoning would not exist if the proposed development area is not rezoned. ' However, if the entire area is rezoned, lot #250 could accommodate two multiple dwelling units and #246 three multiple dwelling units. This would allow for fourteen multiple dwelling units on the total three lots as opposed to eleven single family ifleR R-1. It is not likely that the single family units on #240 and #250 would be replaced within the next few years, but it will happen at some point in the future. At thig point we are talking about rezonlng for the sake of one unit. We at the Seahorse are not smart enough to figure out if ten non conforming units would be better than nine conforming units. It is a given that it is more profitable for a developer to build multiple units with shared foundations and walls than it is to build single family dwellings. At this 'point it occurs to us that rezoning is in the favor of the developer and not the city or the neighborhood. It is not known at thig point if the developer would even consider building single family units on this property. It also occurs to us that the seller does not care if single units or multiple units are built on this site as long as the property is sold. We realize that there are a great many things to take into consideration when developing any piece of property. However, primary consideration must be given to the area surrounding the development since thi.q is where the greatest impact is made. Given our choice, we would opt for the following: 1. Do not rezone the proposed building site. 2. II'you must rezone the proposed building site, do not rezone the adjoining lots. We also request that consideration be given to a fence between the Seahorse property line and Maple Manor. There is not enough property to make a proper buffer of green space between the two properties. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns over this proposed development. We await your decision. Respectfully, SEAHORSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION H EARING BEFORE THE MOUNB PLANNING COMMISSION My name is Alvin Donahoo. I am president of the Seahorse Condonainium Association. We want to thank you for giving uS the opportunity to express our concerns about this proposed development. The Seahorse is a 108 unit complex- All units are privately owned and 85% of the units are owner occupied. The Seahorse wants to be on record asking the commission not to rezone the area from R.1 to R1-A and not approve the preliminary plot for a planned development to be known as "Maple Manor". The rezoning, if approved, will make it possible to cram more units into an area of 2.8 acres than would otherwise be possible. In our view ten ~_mits are too many for this area giving the project a very congested appearance which is in contrast to conditions found on neighboring property. These ten units will only be possible if variances are granted for lot size, cul de sac, right of way and impervious cover. With such a high percentage of impervious cover and the density of the housing most of the vegetation (grass and trees) will be removed and green space will be replaced with "brick and mortar" and asphalt. Green space and vegetation are needed to reduce runofffrom rain and saow to protect the health of Lake Minnetonka and to give the area a feeling ofopeuness. We are also concerned that if the property is rezoned the new zoning will remain in place even if there is a change in plans for the present development. If the "Maple Manor" site is rezoned from I~1 to R1-A staff appe, ars tO feel that parcels 246 and 250 should also be rezoned from R1 to R1-A. ffthe rezoning is approved future development will add to the density of housing and increase the overcrowded appearance of the area still more. For this small area (Maple Manor, parcels 246 and 250) we are not talking about ten units but potentially perhaps as many as a total of sixteen or twenty units. Don't allow this to happen. The "Maple Manor" project abuts the Seahorse property where some of the Seahorse garages are located. Units 9-10 and the cd de sac in particular are extremely close to the back of the garages. We are concerned about the runofffrom the rain and snow. We can visualize five to six feet of snow pfled up behind units nine and ten when snowfall is heavy as it has been in 1996. Because of the limited space between the two properties there will be no way to remove the snow. As the snow melts in the spring the runoffwill end up on our property causing problems for us. Furthermore the design of the cul de sac appears to pool the nmofffrom the proposed road at the rear of the Seahorse garages. Also as snow is plowed from the cul de sac rea we fear that the snow will be piled up against the rear of the garages creating more water problems for the Seahorse. The project will add a number of vehicles in the area and little or no provision has been made for parking other than personal driveways and garages. There will be at least two cars per unit plus boats, snowmobiles and other recreational equipment requiring parking. No provision has been made for guest parking. Will the street and cul de sac become permanent overflow parking? If it does this will only add to an over crowded appearance. A number of Seahorse units will look directly into or over proposed units nine and ten. Because of the over crowded condition there is no way to erect a landscape buffer to screen out the view as there is not enough land to accommodate a buffer. In summary the Seahorse is opposed to the rezonlng because if approved it would allow too many units on the few acres giving an unsightly congested look not in keeping with the rest of the area. As to the project"Maple Manor" we are still concerned that the runofffrom the rain and snow both t~om buildings nine and ten and the cul de sac will damage Seahorse property and that there is not enough land to provide an effective landscape buffer between "Maple Manor" and the Seahorse. /0 eahorse Condominium Association 5440 Three Points Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Phone 6"12-472-53(X] HearingBefore the Mound Planning Commission November 4, 1996 My name is Alvin Donahoo. I am president of the Seahorse Condominium Association. The Seahorse is a 108 unit complex. All units are privately owned and 85% of the units are owner occupied. These owners live and vote in the City of Mound. The Seahorse wants to be on record asking the Planning Commission not to approve the preliminary plot for a planned development to be known as "Maple Manor" and that the area not be rezoned from R-1 to R-iA. The rezoning, if allowed, will make it possible to cram more houses into an area of 2.8 acres requiring variances on lot size, the proposed street and cul de sac and other services. In our view 12 units are too many for this area giving the project a very congested appearance which is in direct contrast to conditions found on neighboring property,. Also because of the density, most of the vegetation wi!~ be removed and it appears there will be little or no green ~ space because the area will be covered with ,,brick and mortor" and asphalt. Again this lack of green space is a contrast to what is found in neighboring property. Green space is needed to give the feeling of open area as well as to protect the health of Lake Minnetonka, by reducing runoff. We believe that rezoning this plat from R-1 to R-IA will set a dangerous precedent as there are other sites close by that may later be developed. If allowed for future developments is will only add to the density of housing and increase the over crowded appearance of the area. Don't allow this to happen. If this project is approved as planned, most of the beautiful trees on the site will be destroyed. This is in direct contrast with the Mound Zoning Code which states "It is the intent of the City of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the city and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practical substantial existing tree cover. We believe the trees should be preserved as they are needed for wild life, beauty, and air quality. We at the Seahorse continue to plant trees as a part of our landscape program. But if this request is approved, more trees will be destroyed than we have been able to plant. This development is called "Maple Manors,, but there will be no maple trees there. The development project abuts the Seahorse property where some of the garages are located. Units 9-10-11-12 and the cul de sac are near the back of the garages adding greatly to the jammed up appearance. It appears there has been no provision made to handle the run off from rain and snow. Where will the water go? It appears it will end up in the Seahorse garages unless modifications are made. Also ;how will the snow be removed from the site? The project will add a number of automobiles in the area. There will be at least 24 cars - 2 cars per unit - and it appears no provision has been made for guest parking except for street parking, all adding to the crowded appearance in the cul de sac area. A number of Seahorse units will look directly into or over proposed units 12-11-10 and 9. There appears to be no way to erect a buffer to screen out the unwanted view a~ there is not enough land to accommodate a buffer. Having such an unsightly view will detract from the value of Seahorse units. In summary the Seahorse is opposed to the rezoning because it would allow too many units too close together giving an unsightly congested look not in keeping with the rest of the area. We are greatly concerned that the runoff from the rain and snow will damage Seahorse garages and that the ugly view from the various Seahorse units will lower the existing values of Seahorse property. ~. 6326 RAMBLER LANE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-5759 Dear Honorable Members of the City Council, My name is Joe Zylman, I am working on the Maple Manors Development. I have a few requests regarding Park Dedication Requirements. 1. I request you approve the $5,000.00 Park Dedication Fee as submitted by parks board. 2. I request that the city match these funds and we construct a wood chip nature trail which would run just above the wetlands line with access structures on 3 Pts. Blvd. by P.D.Q. as well as that part of the park that fronts on Maple Manors Court. 3. I request the privilege of placing a bronze dedication monument and naming the park "Maple Park" 4. I request approval to plant shrubs and perennial flowers in the road right of way to produce entrance gardens which will add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Joe Zylman RECEIVED JAN 1 3 1997 · REAL ESTATE BROKER · GENERAL CONTRACTQR · I I I I I I:; S 90'00'00~ w RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA WITH VARIANCES FOR MAPLE MANORS TWIN HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK PID 13-117-24 22 0246, CASE g96-69 WHEREAS, the applicant, Joe Zylman of Waters Edge Investment Co., has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to establish "Maple Manors" as a Planned Development Area, with variances, pursuant to Section 330 of the Mound City Code, and; WHEREAS, the ten housing units in the development will consist of one level twin homes that will be owner occupied. In order for twin homes to be built on property zoned R- lA, a Conditional Use Permit needs to be approved to establish a Planned Development Area, and; WHEREAS, the project results in the following variances: Right-of-Way Width Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius) Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius) Lot Size (all Lots except 8) Lot Size - Lot 8 required proposed variance 50' 40' 10' 50' 40' 10' 40' 35' 5' 6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf 6,000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf WHEREAS, the ten (10) units comply with the maximum density allowable under the shoreland restrictions without the density bonuses that are allowed by the Code. The non- shoreland PDA standards would allow this site to have 14 units under R-lA zoning. As proposed, the net density equates to 8,569 square feet of land per unit, and; WHEREAS, the granting of the variances requested will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same zone, and; WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and; WHEREAS, the proposed design as conditioned is consistent with applicable development plans and policies, and; WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated if the conditions imposed herein are met, and; /¥ Proposed Resolution Maple Manors P. 2of4 WHEREAS, according to the plan, 18 of the 34 trees on the site will be preserved, and; WHEREAS, the Mound Wetland Ordinance identifies the wetland contour in the area of the project as 929.5. A wetland delineation was completed for the site. All of the proposed units comply with the Watershed District's 35 foot setback requirements from the edge of the wetland, and; WHEREAS, this development will create nonconforming situations on the adjacent properties that are not part of this development. A new street frontage will be created for the two residential lots that lie along Three Points Blvd. to the south of the site. Parcel 250 has a garage that is located approximately 5 feet from the property line and the home is located approximately 15 feet from the new right-of-way line creating variances of 15 feet and 5 feet respectively. Parcel 246 has a detached garage that is 16 feet from the new right-of-way resulting in a 4 foot variance from the 20 foot setback requirement. Future improvements to these homes may require approval of a variance. The construction of the new street is certainly grounds for approving (recognizing) variances for the existing conditions should such be necessary in the future, and; WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and impose conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations. The proposed twin homes would generate traffic ranging from 59 to 65 trips per day, according to published standards, and; WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are being provided, and; WHEREAS, The twin home use that is proposed is an appropriate land use for the existing site that lies between the condominium complex to the east and the business zoned property to the west, and; WHEREAS, the proposed project as conditioned will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions, subject to the following findings of fact: Now that the property is rezoned, it could possibly have up to 14 units, therefore, the 10 units proposed is not a large impact. The proposed layout of the twin homes has a minimal impact on the overall land area. Proposed Resolution MaRie Manors P. 3of4 the roadway and cul-de-sac are typical of others that have recently been approved by the City and have worked well. The proposed lot sizes, including common areas, overall are beyond what is required in the R-IA zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to hereby: mo Approve the Preliminary Plat according to the attached Exhibit 'A', and approve a Conditional Use Permit to establish Maple Manors as a Planned Development Area, with variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, detailed landscaping plans, for the site showing plantings on the association property to mitigate tree loss due to road and unit construction and containing typical landscaping treatments for twin home units. Landscaping plans shall identify all plant materials by name, size (height or caliper) and root type and shall be compliant with the minimum planting sizes referenced in the City Code. Covenants, as submitted by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. o Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all times, maintain a positive fund balance. The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a 50 foot right-of-way for the land area between the two adjacent single family residential properties. Locate and show on the site plan the existing driveway to the westerly residence (Parcel 246) to determine if it needs to be relocated, and if so, the cost of relocating shall be born by the developer. Ail drainage newly created by the development, either by excavating or building shall be maintained within the property so it does not go to the east and negatively impact any property to the east and that the provision be made that the engineer specifically look at that property abutting the east to determine that water flow stay within that property. Proposed Resolution Maple Manors P. 4of4 B. Approve the following variances as part of the Planned Development Area: Right-of-Way Width Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius) Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius) Lot Size (all Lots except 8) Lot Size - Lot 8 required proposed variance 50' 40' 10' 50' 40' 10' 40' 35' 5' 6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf 6,000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf Co Approve the development of the property legally described as follows: 5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25, "Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot 25; Also that part of the East 50' feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said Lot 25 from a point on said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from the southwest corner of said Lot 25. PID 13- 117-24 22 0249. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION ~97- MAPLE MANORS PRELIMINARY PLAT ..., '.. I I I ! PUBLIC I1EARING NOTICE CITY OP MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE ~96-69 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TIIE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND RELATED VARIANCES FOR TIIE "MAPLE MANORS" RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chalnbers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.~n. on Tuesday, JANUARY 14. 1997, to .consider the approval of a preliminary plat, a planned development area by conditional use permit, and related variances for the residential development called Maple Manors. The proposal is for the construction of five twin homes at the following described property: 5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant lined): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25, "Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 3z15 feet of said Lot 25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said LOt 25 from a point on said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from the southwest corner of said Lot 25. PID 13- 117-24 22 0249. All persons appeariag at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this ~neeting. Published in "The Laker" on January 4, 1997, and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property by January 4, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-O620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 23, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission Peggy James, Secre~.~., Maple Manors Park Dedication On Tuesday, January 14, 1997, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed Maple Manors Planned Development Area. The property involved is a 2.8 acre site bordered by a large wetland on the west side and the Seahorse Condominiums on the east. There are five twin homes proposed. The P&OSC needs to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Park Dedication for this development. The developer, Waters Edge Investment Co. (Joe Zylman), has not reserved land on the proposed plat for dedication. City Code Section 330:120 states, "At the City's option,.., the subdivider shall contribute an equivalent amount of cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the land which the City may require.., cash contribution shall be a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication in cash be less than $500 for each new lot being created." According to the Hennepin County tax records, the market value of the subject property is $15,000, at 10% this would result in a total contribution of $1,500. Therefore, it is recommended that a dedication in cash of $500 per lot be collected in lieu of land dedication. The total dedication would be $5,000. Enclosures printed on recycled paper Mound City Code Section 330:115, Subd. 3 Subd. 3. Transition Lots. When platting is adjacent to incompatible land uses, except parks, depth of lots shall be increased to allow for open space, berming, or other landscaping techniques to buffer each land use. Subd. 4. Side Lot Lines. Side lines of lots shall be substantially at fight angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines. Subd. 5. Water Courses. Lots abutting a water course, drainage ways, channel or stream shall have sufficient depth and width to provide a minimum area of land not subject to flooding and equal to the minimum lot dimensions specified in the Zoning Ordinance for the district in which the lots are located. Subd. 6. Drainage. Lots shall be graded so as to provide drainage away from building locations. All landscaping features such as retaining walls and filling or grading within drainage and utility easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the City Planner. Subd. 7. Natural Features. In the subdividing of land, due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as tree growth, water courses, historic spots or similar conditions and plans adjusted to preserve those which will add attractiveness and stability to the proposed development. Subd. 8. Lot Remnants. All remnants of lots below minimum size left over after subdividing of a larger tract must be added to adjacent lots rather than allowed to remain as unusable parcels. Subd. 9. Minimum Rear Lot Line. Where practical, all lots shall have a minimum of 30 feet in width at the rear lot line. Subd. 10. Double Frontaee Lots. Double frontage (lots with frontage on two parallel streets) or reverse frontage shall no be permitted except where lots back against a collector or arterial street. Such lots shall have additional depth to allow for screening and/or planting along the back lot line. Vehicular access may be restricted as a condition of the plat. Subd. 11 Cul-de-sac Lots. If the front line of any lot shall be a curve or partial curve, the frontage for purposes of minimum requirements will be measured at the building setback line. The front footage of the front lot line shall be as allowed under the provisions outlines in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 330:120. Design Standards, Public Sites and Open Spaces and Park Land Dedication. Subd. 1. Public Sites and Open Spaces. Where a proposed park, playground, or other public site shown on the adopted Comprehensive Plan or official map is embraced, in part or S~[i~lll~[~ll~in whole, by a boundary of a proposed subdivision and such public sites are not dedicated to the City, such public ground shall be shown as reserved 12-30-96 O(ORD Mound City Code Section 330:120, Subd. 1 land on the preliminary plat to allow the City the opportunity to consider and take action toward acquisition of such public ground or park by purchase or other means prior to approval of the final plat. Subd. 2. Park Land Dedication. In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses or combination thereof, or in a planned development area, or where a waiver or variance is granted, a reasonable portion of such land and/or cash shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for park and playground purposes or public ponds except where adjustments to lot lines do not create additional lots. Ten (10) percent of the property may be used for residential, multiple-family residential, commercial business or industrial purposes shall be deemed a reasonable portion. Said land shall be suitable for public use as parks and playgrounds or for one of the aforementioned described purposes, and the City shall not be required to accept land which will not be usable for parks and playgrounds or which would require extensive expenditures on the part of the public to make them usable. Subd. 3. At the City's option, except for minor subdivisions as herein defined, the subdivider shall contribute an equivalent amount of cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the land which the City may require such owner to dedicate pursuant to Subd. 2 hereof, in accordance with the schedule to be set by resolution of the Council which cash ~cgntribution shall be a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total fair, market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication in cash be les~-than $~00 for each new lot being created. A minor subdivision is a case where three residential lots or less are to be subdivided or created by a division and in those minor subdivisions the park land dedication shall be pursuant to a schedule to be set by resolution of the Council. In no case shall the cash dedication fee for minor subdivisions be less than five hundred dollars ($500) for each new lot being created. In cases where one lot is split into lots, it is determined that only one new lot is being created. (ORD. 75-1995 - 8-22-95) Subd. 4. Where the owner provides for public use, neighborhood park amenities such as, but not limited to, tennis courts, ball fields, open space or other recreational facilities, the City may reduce the amount of land to be dedicated or the cash contribution in lieu of the facilities provided. Subd. 5. Cash contributions required by Subd. 3 hereof shall be made prior to filing the final plat. Subd. 6. This section shall not apply to the division of platted lots which are being combined with other existing lots to increase the lot sizes to conform to the larger sized lots required by the Zoning Ordinance. This exception is in recognition of the need to put undersized lots together to bring them into conformance with zoning requirements adopted after the original subdivision of properties, many of which predate any zoning regulations of the City. //30-1989 - 6-26-89) 12-30-96 462.3~8 HOUSING, REDEV~LOPMEN'I', PLANNING, ZONING 8?2 structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and gutters, water supply, storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; the planning and design of sites: access to solar energy; and the protection and conservation of flood plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air quality, and geologic and ecologic features. The regulations shall require that subdivisions be consistent with the municipality's official map if one exists and i~s zoning ordinance, and may require con- sistency with other official controls and the comprehensive plan. The regulations may prohibit certain classes or kinds of subdivisions in areas where prohibition is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purposes of this section, particularly the preserva- tion of agricultural lands. The regulations may prohibit, restrict or control development for the purpose of protecting and assuring access to direct sunlight for solar energy sys- tems. The regulations may prohibit, restrict, or control surface, above surface, or sub- surface development for the purpose of.protecting subsurface areas for existing or potential mined underground space development pursuant to sections 469.135 to 469.141, and access thereto. The regulations may prohibit the issuance of building per- mits for an.v tracts, lots, or parcels for which required subdivision approval has not been obtained. The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the con- struction and installation of sewers, streets, electric, gas, drainage, and water facilities, and similar milities and improvements or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the munici- pality of a cash deposit, certified check, irrevocable letter of credit, or bond in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure the municipality that the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to the specifica- tions of the municipality. Sections 471.345 and 574.26 do not apply to improvements made by a subdivider or a subdivider's contractor. The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on compli- ance with other requirements reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to execute developmen! contracts embodying the terms and conditions of approval. The municipality may enforce such agreements and conditions by appropri- ate legal and equitable remedies. Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improvements. In addition, the regulations ma}' require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided thai (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than al the time of final approval, (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes slated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision. Subd. 3. [Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35] Subd. 3a. Platting. The regulations may require that any subdivision creating par- cels, tracts, or lots, shall be platted. The regulations shall require that all subdivisions which create five or more lots or parcels which are 2-1/2 acres or less in size shall be platted. The regulations shall not conflict with the provisions of chapter 505 but may address subjects similar and additional to those in that chapter. Subd. 3b. Review procedures. The regulations shall include provisions regarding the content of applications for proposed subdivisions, the preliminary and final review and approval or disapproval of applications, and the coordination of such reviews with I1,, , iii c> H I-- 0 0 o ~ u% cc; (,~ Z Ltl o~o o o o I- 0 ~H ~0 0 1VIINUFES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 1996 CASE 96-641 PUBLIC HE~RING= PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA/Vi~RIJLNCES FOR "SETON BLUFF"t FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.t LOTS 15 - 32, BLOCK ~1~ SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54 This hearing was cancelled. CASE 95-681 PUBLIC HEARING= REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-lA, W~TERS EDGE INVESTMENT CO. (JOE ZYLMAN), 5470, 5490t 5510 THREE POINTS BLVD.~ TILliT P/~RT OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARKt 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250 Chair Michael explained the public hearing procedures. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. This rezoning request was first heard by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1996. At that time, the rezoning was requested in order to seek approval of a 12 unit housing development on the site. The rezoning request was denied by the Planning Commission. Mr. Zylman withdrew his original request prior to the time that it went to the City Council and he is now seeking a rezoning in order to construct a 10 unit housing project. The Planning Commission may permit a new rezoning application if, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, new evidence or a change in circumstances warrant it. In staff's view the change in the development plan represents a change in circumstances and therefore, the rezoning can once again be considered. If the Planning Commission does not feel that a change in circumstances exists, the item could be reconsidered on a motion by any of the Commission members who originally supported the motion for denial. Planning Commission ~inu=es December 9, I996 The applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning of the subject property (2.798 acres) from R-1 to R-iA, both of which are single family zones. The R-1 zone has a minimum lot size requirement of 10,0000 square feet and the R-iA zone has a lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The site lies within the shoreland area and is therefore, subject to the additional shoreland restrictions that are contained in the Zoning Code. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow consideration of a twin- home development on the site that will be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The smaller lot size is required to meet an acceptable overall density for the project. The subject site and two adjacent parcels constitute an existing strip of R-1 zoning that lies north of Three Points Blvd. The property to the west is zoned B-2, General Business and the site to the east is zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Parcels 246 and 250 are not included in the applicant,s request for rezoning and would remain two remnant pieces of R-1 zoning unless consideration is given to incorporating them into the rezoning action. If incorporated into the rezoning, Parcel 250 has about 18,650 square feet which could possibly be redeveloped into two or three lots, and Parcel 246 has about 17,500 square feet which could potentially be redeveloped into two lots. The public hearing notice included parcels 246 and 250 as part of the overall consideration of a zoning amendment in this area, in case the Planning Commission determines their rezoning is appropriate after hearing comments from the owners of each parcel. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission defer action on the rezoning request until testimony has been taken from the owners of Parcels 246 and 250 and after the proposed development plan has been reviewed. After that has occurred, the action on the rezoning should be handled as a separate motion from any other approvals for the project. According to the City Code, zoning amendments "shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City." Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning of the subject property from R-1 to R-IA. Unless there are objections from the abutting property owners immediately east and west of the site, it is also suggested that these properties be included in the rezoning action. The subject site lies between commercially zoned property and land zoned R-3 which is Mound's highest density residential zoning category. Rezoning the property to R-lA is consistent with the land use pattern in the area. Mr. Zylman intends to build the Maple Manors project after all approvals have been received. The Planning Commission should be aware, however, that once the property is rezoned, the new zoning will remain in place even if, for some reason, the Maple Manors project does not proceed. In the case of the Maple Manors site, Planning Commission M/nutes December 9, 1996 however, wetlands, shoreland regulations and the shape of the site make it extremely difficult if not impossible to construct a development that approaches the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size allowed in the R-IA zone. Mueller questioned if they are tying this rezoning to this development plan? Koegler reiterated that once this property is rezoned, it cannot be tied to a specific development. The City Planner continued with review of the Preliminary Plat/PDA. C~SE 96-69: PUBLIC HE~RING: PRELIM. PLAT/PDt/VARIANCES, FOR "MAPLE MANORS", W~TERS EDGE INVESTMENT CO. (JOE ZYLMAN), THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE P~RK, 13-117-24 22 0249 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. Waters Edge Investment Company is seeking approvals for a Planned Development Area (PDA) on a 2.8 acre site off of Three Points Blvd. Approval of the plan will require formal action by the city to issue a conditional use permit for the PDA, grant a number of variances as part of the PDA and approve the proposed preliminary plat. The property is proposed for a rezoning action which also impacts the development review of this request. The Maple Manors site lies on the north side of Three Points Blvd. A large wetland borders the site on the west side, single family homes abut the property on the south side and the Seahorse Condominiums are located on the east. The bulk of the property is connected to Three Points Blvd. by a 50 foot wide tract of land that passes between two existing single family homes immediately east and west of the site. Topography on the site varies from an elevation of approximately 960 at Three Points Blvd. to a low area in the northwest corner of the site with an elevation of approximately 930 feet. According to Mound's wetland map, the large wetland in the area is delineated by a 929.5 contour. A note on the survey states that all property on the site lies above the wetland elevation. A substantial number of mature oaks, ash and maples are scattered throughout the property. The site is located within Mound's shoreland area, however, it does not contain any land classified as a bluff. The development plan calls for the installation of a cul-d-sac that originates off of Three Points Blvd. and extends approximately 420 feet into the site. The proposed street right-of-way is 40 feet wide with a 28 foot wide street and the proposed cul-de-sac has a paved diameter of 70 feet. All units will take driveway access off of the new street which has been labeled Maple Manors Court. The 10 housing units in the development will consist of one level twin homes that will be owner occupied. One of the features of the development will be minimal owner maintenance since most of the property will be owned and maintained by a common homeowner's association. 3 Planning Commission ~inu=es December 9, 1996 Approval of the project will require approval of a conditional use permit, variances and a preliminary plat, as follows: Planned Development Area (PDA). The Mound Zoning Code allows the establishment of a PDA by conditional use permit (CUP). In order for twin homes to be built on the site, a CUP needs to be approved to establish the PDA. Va__riances. If the underlying land is rezoned to R-iA , the site plan results in the following variances: Right-of-Way Width Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius) Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius) Lot Size (all Lots except 8) Lot Size - Lot 8 Impervious Cover required proposed variance 50' 40' 10' 50' 40' 10' 40' 35' 5' 6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf 6,000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf 30% max 32% est 2% ~reliminar¥ Plat. The Maple Manors plan presents a number of issues that need to be considered: DENSITY. Density in a PDA is established by the underlying lot size for the applicable residential district. The PDA provisions specifically delete land used for streets and utilities from the gross density calculation. Since this is in the Shoreland District, shoreland PDA standards also apply. It has been determined that ten (10) units comply with the maximum density allowable under the shoreland restrictions without the density bonuses that area allowed by the Code. The non-shoreland PDA standards would allow this site to have nine (9) units under R-1 zoning and 14 units under R-iA zoning. As proposed, the net density equates to 8,569 square feet of land per unit. The current plan removes two units from the previous plan and rearranges the balance of the units which satisfied staff's concerns pertaining to buffering between the project and adjacent land uses. TREE PRESERVATION. According to the developer's plans, 18 of the 34 trees on the site will be preserved. Of the 16 trees that will be removed, approximately one-half of the tree loss is due to road construction. WETLANDS. The Mound Wetlands Ordinance identifies the wetland contour in the area of the project as 929.5.- Since this case was reviewed by the Planning Commission in November, a wetland Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 delineation was completed for the site. Ail of the proposed units comply with the Watershed District's 35 foot setback requirements from the edge of the wetland. CREATION OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS. This development will create nonconforming situations on the adjacent properties that are not part of this development. A new street frontage will be created for the two residential lots that lie along Three Points Blvd. to the south of the site. Parcel 250 has a garage that is located approximately 5 feet from the property line and the home is located approximately 15 feet from the new right-of-way line creating variances of 15 feet and 5 feet respectively. Parcel 246 has a detached garage that is 16 feet from the new right-of-way resulting in a 4 foot variance from the 20 foot setback requirement. Future improvements to these homes may require approval of a variance. The construction of the new street is certainly grounds for approving (recognizing) variances for the existing conditions should such be necessary in the future. TRAFFIC. Any development of this property will result in increased traffic. The proposed twin home development will actually generate less traffic than a comparable single family residential development. Theoretically, a single family development on the site would generate from 86 to 91 trips per day. The proposed twin homes would generate traffic ranging from 59 to 65 trips per day, according to published standards. Recommendation. The twin home use that is proposed is an appropriate land use for the existing site that lies between the condominium complex to the east and the business zoned property to the west. The revisions to the plan which include a reduction in size from 12 to 10 units satisfied staff concerns pertaining to overall project density and unit placement. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit, variances and preliminary plat, with the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, detailed landscaping plans for the site showing plantings on the association property to mitigate tree loss due to road and unit construction and containing typical landscaping treatments for twin home units. Landscaping plans shall identify all plant materials by name, size (height or caliper) and root type and shall be compliant with the minimum planting sizes referenced in the City Code. 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 4. Covenants, as submitted by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 5. Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all times, maintain a positive fund balance. 6. The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a 50 foot right- of-way for the land area between the two adjacent single family residential properties. In addition to the conditions contained herein, incorporation of suggested conditions by the City Engineer is also recommended. Discussion Mueller suggested that the Commission retract their motion denying the rezoning before they discuss the issue and re-open, it. MOTION made by Mueller to reconsider the rezoning request, Case ~96-68, since a change in circumstances exist. Motion seconded by Burma. Motion carried unanimously. Mueller asked for clarification relating to the number of units which would be allowed in the R-1 versus R-IA. Koegler summarized that with the R-1 zone, this property could be developed with 9 single family lots, and the R-iA zoning could have up to 14 single family lots, however, 14 units could never happen if the PDA shoreland regulations are applied. Mueller questioned if it is normal to have an R-1 zone located between an R-3 and B-2 zone. Koegler commented, typically not. Mueller further questioned if an R-3 zone would be appropriate for this parcel. Koegler stated that rezoning to an R-3 would probably get a positive recommendation from staff since the property is adjacent to that same zoning. Mueller suggested that all of parcel 246 should be included in the rezoning and noted that a portion of this property is currently zoned B-2. It was questioned, if the five foot wide strip at the edges of the new road were maintained, if this would eliminate the need for variances on the adjacent lots. Koegler stated that staff would prefer not to have the five foot strip and feels that the variances would ultimately be warranted. Mueller stated that he has a problem with creating two nonconforming parcels which are currently conforming. Clapsaddle questioned why parcels 246 and 250 were included in the rezoning. Koegler stated that it made sense to include the whole area so two parcels of a different zone were not left out. Staff took the conservative approach and included them in the public hearing notices so the option of including them was available. It was noted that they will need to find out how the owners of the 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 property feel about the rezoning. Mueller questioned how the variances for these property will get filed. Koegler noted that variances will not actually be issued until improvements are made to those lots. Mueller suggested that the city records for these properties reflect that this project created the nonconformities. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Alvin Donahoo, President of the Seahorse Condominium Association requested to be on record as asking the Commission not to rezone the subject property from R-1 to R-lA and to not approve the preliminary plat. They feel the rezoning will make it possible to cram more homes into 2.8 acres. They are concerned about the loss of green space and that the rezoning will stay in place even though this project may not take place. Also, if parcels 246 and 250 are included, the development may include many more units. He expressed a concern about snow removal from the new cul-de-sac and how the snow melting and drainage will affect their property and their garages which are adjacent to the property. They are concerned about vehicles being parked in the street due to lack of on-site parking. Michael confirmed that the Seahorse garage unit has a nonconforming side yard setback. Mueller asked Donahoo if they have considered purchasing the property. He replied that they have tried but had not been successful. Richard Spellman, resident at 5400 Three Points stated he is opposed to the rezoning. He indicated that there is R-1 zoned property just to the south of this property, andquestioned why the City would consider lowering the zoning standards and allowing for smaller lot sizes, especially for the two existing properties. He also is not in favor of allowing more hard surface than what is standard. He expressed a concern that the elevations were incorrect. Gary Landsman, owner of parcel 250, stated that he is a long time resident of this' area, and remembers the Seahorse property before it was developed. Landsman emphasized that the Seahorse property exceeds the allowable amount of hardcover, that they have only 600 square feet of land per unit, and they do not have a stormwater plan for their property. He feels the rezoning makes sense and is in favor of the rezoning. He would rather look at well-kept homes than at the back of garages. Tony Shelffo, resident at Seahorse suggested that Mr. Landsman's property be included with this development so they can meet the density requirements. 7 Planning Commission M/nutes December 9, 1996 Jack Montgomery stated that the storm water at Seahorse goes into a large pond and the dirt gets cleaned out and does not go directly into the lake. Louis Ptacek, owner of parcel 246 stated that they have owned this property since 1956 and they are in favor of the rezoning, and he would like his whole parcel rezoned to R-IA. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Reifschneider confirmed with staff that 10 units is the maximum allowed if this were rezoned to R-lA. Koegler confirmed that 10 units is the maximum allowed if the application involves a PDA, and if the application did not involve a PDA variances would be necessary and the likelihood of more than 10 units is practically nil. Mueller asked if they can attach a condition that restricts this property to no more than ten units. Koegler stated no. Burma commented that Seahorse has 108 units on 13 acres which calculates to 5,243 square feet per unit, so he is not concerned with 5,600 square feet per unit. Clapsaddle stated that he sees the R-lA zone as an excellent buffer between a business zone and a multiple family zone, and feels that the proposed twin homes is an excellent use for this area. Clapsaddle questioned if they can put stipulations on the types of trees they plant. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to ecommend approval of the rezonln~ of the uro~e~v ~Q escribed in the public hearin- not~ ~ .... f; -=---~ U- 246 and 250 from R-1 to R-lA with the follow=rig findin s of fact: g The R-lA zone is not as intense as the adjacent B-2 or R-3 zones, therefore, the R-lA zone will be a good buffer between the two existing zones. The owners of parcels 246 and 250 are in favor of the rezoning of their properties and the propert2 to the north of theirs. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Mueller, Clapsaddle, Burma, Michael, Voss, and Glister. Reifschneider and Weiland were opposed. Reifschneider commented that he does not agree that parcels 246 and 250 should be included in the rezoning and feels there is a good buffer as is. Weiland feels the density is too much. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a PDA, Preliminary Plat, and variances for the proposed Maple Manors, as recommended by staff, subject to the following conditions: Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent with Section 330~120 Of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, detailed landscaping plans for the site showing plantings on the association property to mitigate tree loss due to road and unit construction and containing typical landscaping treatments for twin home units. Landscaping plans shall identify all plant materials by name, size (height or caliper) and root type and shall be compliant with the minimum planting sizes referenced in the city Code, and there shall be no variance from the City Code requirements. Covenants, as submitted by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the City ~ttorney. Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all times, maintain a positive fund balance. The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a 50 foot right-of-way for the land area between the two adjacent single family residential properties. Locate and show on the site plan the existing driveway to the westerly residence (Parcel 246) to determine if it needs to be relocated, and if so, the cost of relocating shall be born by the developer. All drainage newly created by the development, either by excavating or building shall be maintained within the property so it does not go to the east and negatively impact any property to the east and that the provision be made that the engineer specifically look at that property abutting the east to determine that water flow stay within that property. 9 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 Findings of fact are: NOw that the propert~ is rezoned, it possibly have up to 14unit, therefore, units proposed is not a large ~mpact. could the 10 The proposed layout of the twin homes has a minimal impact on the overall land area that this owner has. the roadway and cul-de-sac are t~pical of others that have recentl~ been approved by the city and have worked well. The proposed lot sizes, including common areas overall are beyond what is required in the R- lA ~one. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 14, 1996. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mn TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: December 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit (PDA), Variances and Preliminary Plat - Maple Manors APPLICANT: Waters Edge Investment Co. - Mr. Joe Zylman CASE NUMBER: 96-69 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5z LOCATION: 5490 Three Points Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-i) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: Waters Edge Investment Company is seeking approvals for a Planned Development Area (PDA) on a 2.8 acre site off of Three Points Boulevard. Approval of the plan will require formal action by the City to issue a conditional use permit for the PDA, grant a number of variances as part of the PDA and approve the proposed preliminary plat. The property is proposed for a rezoning action which also impacts the development review of this request. The Maple Manors site lies on the north side of Three Points Boulevard. A large wetland borders the site on the west side, single family homes abut the property on the south side and the Seahorse Condominiums are located on the east. The bulk of the property is connected to Three Points Boulevard by a 50 foot wide tract of land that passes between two existing single family homes immediately east and west of the site. Topography on the site varies from an elevation of approximately 960 at Three Points Boulevard to a low area in the northwest comer of the site with an elevation of approximately 930 feet. According to Mound's wetland map, the large wetland in the area is delineated by a 929.5 contour. A note on the survey states that all property on the site lies above the wetland elevation. A substantial number of mature oaks, ash and maples are scattered throughout the property. The site is located within Mound's shoreland area, however, it does not contain any land classified as a bluff. The development plan calls for the installation of a cul-de-sac that originates off of Three Points Boulevard and extends approximately 420 feet into the site. The proposed street right-of-way is 40 feet wide with a 28 foot wide street and the proposed cul-de-sac has a paved diameter of 70 feet. All units will take driveway access off of the new street which has been labeled Maple Manors Court. The 10 housing units in the development will consist of one level twin homes that will be owner occupied. One of the features of the development will be minimal owner maintenance since most 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Maple Manors Planning Report December 4, 1996 Page 2 of the property will be owned and maintained by a common homeowner's association. COMMENTS: Approval of the project will require approval of a conditional use permit, variances and a prelim/nary plat. Each of these approvals is addressed separately as follows: Planned Development Area (PDA) - The Mound Zoning Code allows the establishment of a Planned Development Area by conditional use permit as "a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires more unique and controlled platting techniques to protect and promote the quality of life in the City." In order for twin homes to be built on the site, a conditional use permit needs to be approved to establish the PDA. Variances - The provisions of the Mound Zoning Code require that variances associated with the PDA be listed and approved as part of the plan. If the underlying land is rezoned to R-lA which is what the applicant has requested, the site plan results in the following variances: Required Proposed Variance Right-of-Way Width Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius) Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius) Lot Size (All lots except 8) Lot Size - Lot 8 Impervious Cover 50' 40' 10' 50' 40' 10' 40' 35' 5' 6,000 sq ft 3,440 sq ft 2,560 sq ft 6,000 sq ft 3,314 sq ft 2,686 sq ft 30% max. 32% est. 2% Three variances pertain to the public street that will serve the property. Although the proposed street paved area is in compliance with City standards, the right-of-way for both the street and cul-de-sac are not in compliance. However, in similar situations in the past, the City has approved 40 foot wide right-of-ways and cul-de-sacs with the same dimensional characteristics. Because of the low volume of traffic that will be carded by Maple Manors Court, staff feels that the proposed right-of-way and cul-de-sac configuration will be adequate. The lot size variances that are required relate to the type of development proposed. Because most of the site will be platted as an outlot to be maintained by a homeowner's association, actual platted lot sizes are under the minimum standard for traditional single-family detached development. Lot size variances of similar magnitude have been approved in other Planned Development Areas. Staff's analysis of Maple Manors resulted in a determination that the impervious coverage is approximately 32% of the total site excluding land occupied by the street and land lying below the flood plain elevation. The Mound Zoning Code allows a maximum of 30% of impervious coverage for new developments. The 2% of additional impervious cover results largely from the unique shape of the property and the fact that it borders a large wetland and floodplain area which is not counted Maple Manors Planning Report December 4, 1996 Page 3 in the total land area of the project. Before the City Council reviews this request, the developer will need to submit impervious cover calculations completed by the project's land surveyor. Preliminary_ Plat - The preliminary plat shows a 40 foot right-of-way for Maple Manors Court that originates at Three Points Boulevard and terminates in a cul-de-sac. Where the proposed right-of- way abuts the two existing single family residential properties, the 40 foot right-of-way establishes a five foot strip on each side that will be owned by the homeowner's association. This private strip of land would preclude possible future access by either of the existing single family homes. Expansion of the right-of-way to 50 feet within this area would alleviate this situation. The platted lot area around each of the twin home units is adequate to accommodate decks, stairs, fireplaces, etc. The Maple Manors plan presents a number of issues that need to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in reviewing and acting on this request. They include the following: Density - Density in a PDA is established by the underlying lot size for the applicable residential district. The PDA provisions specifically delete land used for streets and utilities from the gross density calculation. In the case of Maple Manors, since the site is in the Shoreland District, shoreland PDA standards also apply. Shoreland standards establish a series of tiers within which units are allowed based on a lot size standard of 10,000 square feet. The tiers are established based on the location of the 929.4 contour. The elevation of the subject property does not drop below 930.0 feet. Based on discussions with the applicant, staff prepared an analysis of the application of the shoreland PDA density standards. The result of the analysis is that the 10 units that are proposed comply with maximum the density allowable under the shoreland restrictions without the density bonuses that are allowed by the Code. Shoreland area PDA projects in Mound also need to comply with the non-shoreland PDA standards. The PDA standards are identified in Section 350:460 of the Mound Code or Ordinances. Those standards limit the density of a project to the density maximums prescribed by the lot size provisions of the underlying zoning classification. When the land occupied by flood plain, street right-of-way and stormwater ponding is removed from the total site area, the Maple Manors site can support 9 units under R-1 zoning and 14 units under R-lA zoning. Since the proposed project involves 10 units, Mr. Zylman is requesting that the property be rezoned from R-1 to R-lA. As proposed, the gross density of the project (all land) equates to 12,180 square feet of land per unit and the net density (omits flood plain, streets and ponding) equates to 8,569 square feet of land per unit. There are two aspects to the consideration of density that need to be examined. The first is the simple calculation of maximum allowable density as per the Code standards. The second is the capacity of the site to handle the proposed density. The previous plans for Maple Manors that contained 12 units created concerns about unit placement and buffering between the project and adjacent land uses. The current plan which removes two units and rearranges the balance of the units satisfies staff concerns pertaining to these matters. Troe Preservation, - Section 350:725 of the Mound Zoning Code contains standards regarding tree preservation. The code states, "It is the intent of the City of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the City and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, Maple Manors Planning Report December 4, 1996 Page 4 substantial existing tree cover." In 1978, a tree inventory was completed for the Maple Manors site. That inventory identified individual trees throughout most of the property and an area labeled as "edge of woods and brush." The inventory, which is now 18 years old identified 34 trees with calipers ranging from 5" to 36", most of which were maples with some ash, oak and elm. Many of the trees that were identified had calipers which ranged from 20" to 30". Based on the developer's plans, 18 of the 34 trees on the site will be preserved. Of the 16 trees that will be removed, approximately one-half of the tree loss is due to road construction. Staff feels that the amount of tree loss would not be substantially different if single-family homes were built on the property instead of the proposed double units. Wetlands - The Mound Wetlands Ordinance identifies the wetland contour in the area of the project as 929.5. A survey done by MFRA of the area in 1981 as well as the applicants submitted site plan and grading plan identify wetland vegetation on the site. Since this case was reviewed by the Planning Commission in November, a wetland delineation was completed for the site. All of the proposed units comply with the Watershed District's 35 foot setback requirement from the edge of the wetland. Creation of Non-conforming Lots - The proposed construction of Maple Manors Court will create two non-conforming situations on adjacent properties that are not part of the subject development. The construction of Maple Manors Court will create a new street frontage for the two residential lots that lie along Three Points Boulevard to the south of the site. The lot on the east is defined as Parcel 250 and the lot on the west is defined as Parcel 246. Parcel 250 has a garage that is located approximately 5 feet from the property line and the home is located approximately 15 feet from the new right-of-way line. This creates variances of 15 feet and 5 feet respectively. Parcel 246 has a detached garage that is 16 feet from the new right-of-way. This situation results in a 4 foot variance from the 20 foot setback requirement. In the case of both of these homes, future improvements may require approval of a variance. The construction of the new street is certainly grounds for approving (recognizing) variances for the existing conditions should such be necessary in the future. Traffic - At the November meeting, a number of comments were made about increased traffic resulting from the project. Any development of the property will result in increased traffic. In all likelihood, the proposed twin home development will actually generate less traffic than a comparable single family development. If the site were to be developed with 9 single family homes which is consistent with the existing R-1 zoning, units could be expected to generate from 9.5 to 10.1 trips per day according to published standards from the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute. Theoretically, a single family development on the site would generate from 86 to 91 trips per day. The proposed twin homes generate from 5.9 to 6.5 trips per day according to the same standards. Therefore, theoretically, Maple Manors will generate traffic ranging from 59 to 65 trips per day. Maple Manors Planning Report December 4, 1996 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: The twin home use that is proposed is an appropriate land use for the existing site that lies between the condominium complex to the east and the business zoned property to the west. The revisions to the plan which include a reduction in size from 12 to 10 units satisfies staff concerns pertaining to overall project density and unit placement. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit, variances and preliminary plat, with conditions. In addition to the conditions contained herein, incorporation of suggested conditions by the City Engineer is also recommended. Conditions are as follows: 1. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, detailed landscaping plans for the site showing plantings on the association property to mitigate tree loss due to road and unit construction and containing typical landscaping treatments for twin home units. Landscaping plans shall identify all plant materials by name, size (height or caliper) and root type and shall be compliant with the minimum planting sizes referenced in the City Code. 4. Covenants, as submitted by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 5. Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all times, maintain a positive fund balance. 6. The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a 50 foot right-of-way for the land area between the two adjacent single family residential properties. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors ENGINEERING MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer December 5, 1996 City of Mound Maple Manors, Preliminary Plat Case #96-69 MFRA #11417 Addendum to Engineering Report Dated October 29, 1996 Preliminary. Plat The proposed right-of-way adjacent to the two existing single-family parcels is still shown as 40 feet wide with a 5 foot strip on each side as common area to the proposed plat. This right-of-way needs to be the full 50 feet wide giving the two existing parcels and the City lot direct frontage on the new street. Grading and Drainage The existing power pole at the intersection of Three Points Boulevard and the proposed street will'need to be relocated. The proposed retaining wall at this same location needs to be moved back from the curb line or better yet, eliminated. The proposed retaining wall shown along the City parcel, behind the proposed lift station could also be eliminated and this area graded if no significant trees are affected. It appears the culvert under the proposed street will be necessary with the existing conditions on the adjacent property. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) will also scrutinize this proposed solution as part of their review and approval process. 1 An Equal Opportunity Employer Jon Sutherland December 5, 1996 Streets The revised plan will still require 10 foot variances to the street right-of-way and cul-de-sac diameter. The location of the easterly end of the circle drive for the existing home west of the proposed street still needs to be located. Utilities Most of our previous concerns have been addressed. As previously mentioned under grading and drainage, the proposed retaining wall behind the proposed lift station should be eliminated. The exact location of the lift station and control panel can be determined when the final plans are prepared. Conclusions and Recommendations We recommend approval of the preliminary plat and accompanying plans as revised December 4, 1996 subject to the following conditions: Preliminary. Plat 1. Dedicate the 50 foot strip between the two existing single-family parcels and adjacent to the City lot entirely as right-of-way; and 2. 10 foot variances for remainder of right-of-way and cul-de-sac diameter. Grading. Drainage. Streets and Utilitie~ 1. 10 foot variance for diameter of improved cul-de-sac; 2. Locate existing driveway to westerly residence (Parcel 246) to determine if it needs to be relocated; and 3. Plans to be reviewed and approved by the MCWD. e :'u-nain:\ 11417\suth 12-5 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors October 29, 1996 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning & Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Maple Manors Preliminary Plat Case//96-38 MFRA//11417 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the subject preliminary plat and have the following comments and recommendations: Preliminary Plat Wetlands - There is a statement on the drawing that says "All property is above 929.5 flood plain elevation;" however the lowest elevation shown is the 931 contour. We would recommend that additional elevations be provided for the low area in the northwest comer of the property. Also for clarification purposes, elevation 929.5 is the ordinary high water (OHW) level, whereas the 100 yr. flood plain elevation for Lake Minr~tonka which this area is contiguous to, is 931.0. I also question whether the actual wetland boundary has been delineated. This line can be different than either the OHW or 100 year flood elevation. The proposed street right-of-way and cul-de-sac radius are shown as 40 feet, whereas the City's ~ubdivision code requires 50' for both. A 10 foot variance will be required which the City has granted on the last few subdivisions, such as Teal Pointe and Pelican Point. We would suggest however, that the 50 foot strip of property from Three Points Boulevard to the point where the property lines angle east and west, be dedicated as right-of-way and not leave a 5 foot strip on each side platted as a common area. This would give the two existing homes future access to the new street. An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Jon Sutherland October 29, 1996 Page 2 Grading and Drainage Additional topography will be needed on the adjacent property along the east side of the proposed plat, in order to fully evaluate the drainage in this area. We would also like to see more information regarding drainage in the area southeasterly of Lot 12 to determine if the low area and proposed culvert are actually necessary. The existing topography appears to be a number of years old, since City records indicate the elevation at the centerline of Three Points Boulevard, is approximately 3 feet lower than shown on the preliminary grading plan. This area should also be field verified when the other areas previously mentioned are done. Streets In addition to the right-of-way variance for the cul-de-sac, a variance will also be required for the diameter of the improved CDS. The City Subdivision Code requires 80 feet; whereas 70 feet has been proposed. Again, 70 feet cul-de-sacs have been approved in the past when there is a hardship. 2. The proposed street will intersect Three Points Boulevard at a high point which should give a good sight line from all directions. It appears that the easterly end of the circle drive to the existing property on the west side of the proposed street may be a problem. This driveway will need to be field located to make sure it does not interfere with the new intersection and if it is too close, it may need to be relocated to the new street. Utilities 1. Existing watermain and sanitary sewer mains in Three Points Boulevard are not shown. These need to be added to the preliminary utility plan. The proposed watermain will need to be a minimum of 6" with a gate valve at the connection to the existing 8" main in Three Points Boulevard. The proposed sanitary sewer must be 8". The proposed sanitary sewer lift station must conform to all City requirements for a submersible station. We are concerned about the proposed location and its proximity to private property, which would require both temporary and permanent easements. Since the City already owns the 95'x100' parcel across the proposed street, it may be prudent to investigate moving the lift station to the west side of the street in the vicinity of the property line between the City property and Lot 1. Mr. Jon Sutherland October 29, 1996 Page 3 Storm Sewer - more detailed plans and stormwater calculations will be required at the time of final plat submission. These plans will need to meet the approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Conclusions and Recommendations We would recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: Preliminary Plat 1. Revise preliminary plat to show 50' right-of-way past the two adjacent properties. 2. 10 foot variances needed for remainder of right-of-way and cul-de-sac radius. Grading and Drainage 1. Wetlands be delineated. 2. Additional topography be provided along east side, northwesterly comer and where proposed street intersects Three Points Boulevard. Streets 1. 10 foot variance needed for diameter of improved cul-de-sac. 2. Locate existing driveway to determine if it will need to be relocated. Utilities 1. Revise preliminary utility plan to show existing watermain and sanitary sewer in Three Points Boulevard. 2. Watermain shall be 6" diameter and sanitary sewer 8" diameter. 3. Investigate relocating sanitary sewer lift station or provide sufficient temporary and permanent easements. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FR2MNK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:jb e:main: 11417:jcl 0-28 S31il]li~ '3gYNlYa0 'ONI0¥ag S~ION¥1nl ':r'tdV~l .LO3PO~I d ,] November 4, 1996 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 F~x: (612) 772-7977 Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Prelimina~ Plat and Variance Requests, 5490 ~ Points Boulevard, Maple Manors, Case No. 96-69, Lake Minnetonka - Jennings Bay (27-133-16), City of Mound Dear Mr. Sutherland: I have reviewed the background information that was distributed for Case No. 96-69 on October 25, 1996. Thc proposed Maple Manors involves a replatting for six twin homes (12 units total). This proposal must meet the City's Planned Development Areas (PDA) - Shoreland Management regulations (Section 350:1235). Based on a quick and dirty estimate of the "suitable area," per the ordinance, this site would allow 6 units rather than the 12 proposed. Given that the suitable area calculation included some very steep areas, with slopes greater than 20 percent, the proposal to place twice as many units is that much more extreme. We recommend that the city deny_ the variance request. Hardship has not been demonstrated. The only apparent reason for the request is to gain greater economic benefit f~om the parcel of land by being able to sell 12 lots versus 6. The state statute addressing variances (Chapter 462.357, Subd. 6, (2)) clearly states that "(e)conomic considerations alone shall not constitute undue hardship..." In addition, the city is advised that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires a buffer of 35 feet adjacent to wetlands greater than 5 acres. It does not appear that units 3, 4, 5 or 6 would meet the District's buffer requirement. As required by the city's ordinance, a copy of the city's decision on this variance request shall be sent to me within 10 days of the final decision. If the city does not deny the request, a copy of the record the decision was based on shall also be forwarded. Please contact me at 772-7914 if you have any questions regarding these Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist C: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Wayne Barstad City of Mound Shoreland File DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 · TTY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ~1~i Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity ~ll~l~ Minimum of 10c~ Post-Consumer Waste MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; City Council Representative Mark Hanus; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were: Commissioners Michael Muller and Frank Weiland. The following people were also in attendance: Nancy Gramenz, Ron Gramenz, Shirley Lund, Lila Friedrichs, Arthur Freidrichs, Anita Watson, Jeff Skelton, George Fougeron, Larry Overstreet, Thomas K. Price, Lee & Sharon Descher, Susan Johnson, Gary Johnson, Gary C. Landsman, Bert Landsman, Tim Becker, R.G. Andersen, Jay Gerling, Gordy Farmer, Tony Shelffo, John Keller, Alvin W. Donahoo, J. Hessburg, Jr., Roger C. Henderson, Mary McCurdy, Ralph McCurdy, John W. Montgomery, Selena Montgomery, Richard Spellman, Carl E. Johnson, Mitch Knutson, Dave Mueller, Joe Zylman, Edythe Koenig, and Maryan Monteith. CASE 96-68: PUBLIC N~aRING: REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-lA, WATERS EDGE INVESTmeNT CO. (JOE ZYLNa_N), 5470, 5490, 5510 THREE POINTS BLVD., TI~AT PART OF LOT 25, LafAYETTE PARK, 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250 Chair Michael reviewed the public hearing procedures. City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning of the subject property from R-1 to R-iA, both of which are single family zones. The R-1 zone has a minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet and the R-iA zone has a lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The site lies with in the shoreland area and is therefore, subject to the additional shoreland restrictions that are contained in the Zoning Code. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow consideration of a twin home development on the site that will be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The smaller lot size is being requested to meet an acceptable overall density and setback requirements for the project. The subject site and two adjacent parcels constitute an existing strip of R-1 zoning that lies north of Three Points Blvd. The property to the west is zoned B-I, General Business and the site to the east is zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Parcels 246 and 250 are not included in the applicant's request for rezoning. The public hearing notice for this case was expanded to include these two properties in case the Planning Commission determines that their rezoning is appropriate. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission defer action on the rezoning request until testimony has been taken from the owners of Parcels 246 and 250 and after the proposed development plan has been reviewed. After that has occurred, the action on the rezoning should be handled as a separate motion from any other approvals for the project. A separate action will need to be made for the Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 rezoning from the PDA. The Commission decided to proceed with the staff presentation for the PDA and discuss them simultaneously. CASE 96-69: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIM. PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES, FOR MAPLE MANORS, WATERS EDGE INVESTMENT CO. (JOE ZYLMAN), TI~AT PkRT OF LOT 25t LAFAYETTE PARKt 13-117-24 22 0249 City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the Planning Report. This case involves a request for approval of a .conditional use permit to establish the Planned Development Area (PDA), a number of variances as part of the PDA and a preliminary plat by Waters Edge Investment Area on a 2.8 acre site off of Three Points Blvd. Koegler reviewed the location of the site and its topographical characteristics. The development plan calls for a cul-de-sac that originates off of Three Points Blvd. and extends approximately 500 feet into the site. The proposed street right-of-way is 40 feet wide with a 28 foot wide street which is consistent with Mound's historic street standards. The proposed cul-de-sac has a paved diameter of 70 feet. The plan calls for 12 housing units that are twin homes. One of the features of the development will be minimal owner maintenance since most of the property will be owned and maintained by a common homeowner's association. Approval of the project will require approval of the following: Planned Development Area (PDA): In order for twin homes to be built on the site which is currently zoned R-i, a conditional use permit needs to be approved to establish the PDA. Variances: The provisions of the Mound Zoning Code require that variances associated with the PDA be listed and approved as part of the plan. If the underlying land is rezoned to R-IA the site plan results in the following variances: front yard setback, unit 4 20' 18' 2' front yard setback, unit 6 20' 19' 1' front yard setback, unit 9 10' 16' 4' front yard setback, unit 10 10' 18' 2' right-of-way width 50' 40' 10' cul-de-sac right-of-way (radius) 50' 40' 10' cul-de-sac paved street (radius) 40' 35' 5' lot size (all lots except 7) 6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf lot size, lot 7 6,000 sf 3,380 sf 2,620 sf It appears that with minor shifts in the existing site plan, setback variances for Lots 4, 6 and 10 can be eliminated. Unless the location of the cul-de-sac is modified, the setback variance for Lot 9 is unavoidable. Three variances pertain to the public street that will serve the Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 property. Because of the low volume of traffic that will be carried by Maple Manors Court, staff feels that the proposed right- of-way and cul-de-sac configuration will be adequate. The lot size variances that are required relate to the type of development proposed. Lot size variances of similar magnitude have been approved in other Planned Development Areas. Preliminary Pla~: The preliminary plat shows a 40 foot right-of- way for Maple Manors Court that originates at Three Points Blvd. and terminates in a cul-de-sac. Where the proposed right-of-way abuts the two existing single family residential properties, the 40 foot right-of-way establishes a five foot strip on each side that will be owned by the homeowner's association. This private strip of land would preclude possible future access by either of the existing single family homes. Expansion of the right-of-way to 50 feet within this area would alleviate this situation. The Maple Manors plan presents a number of issues that need to be considered by the Planning Commission and city Council in reviewing and acting on this request. Koegler highlighted some of these briefly: DENSITY. Density in a PDA is established by the underlying lot size for the applicable residential district. The PDA provisions specifically delete land used for streets and utilities from the gross density calculation. In the case of Maple Manors, since the site is in the Shoreland District, shoreland PDA standards also apply. Shoreland standards establish a series of tier within which units are allowed based on a lot size standard of 10,000 square feet. The tiers are established based on the location of the 929.4 contour. The site plan information submitted does not locate any contours below the 930 elevation, therefore it is impossible to accurately determine the tier locations. Depending on the location of the 929.4 contour and the characteristics of the project, allowable density and bonuses may accommodate the proposed 12 units, but will need to be verified. If the PDA standards found in Section 350:460 of the code are applied, the site zoned as R-1 may support a total of 10 units and the site zoned as R-iA may allow up to 16 units. There are two aspects to the consideration of density that need to be examined. The first is the simple calculation of maximum allowable density as per the Code standards and the second is the capacity of the site to handle the proposed density. In the case of the proposed plan, staff has a concern that the site plan identifies too many units on the property. This concern is based on the location of units 1 through 8 which are so close together that the front of unit 7 looks into the side of unit 6. This type of view arrangement is generally avoided in the design of townhouse developments. Ideally, more land should be available on the Maple Manors site between unit 12 and the adjacent single family lot to 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 provide an effective landscape buffer between the two uses. The identified 10 foot side yard setback is not enough land to accommodate such a buffer. Another potential indicator of excessive density on the site in the fact that the grading plan calls for disturbance of most of the property including the removal of significant amounts of vegetation. One off-site factor will also impact the "feel of the project. The Seahorse Condominiums on the east side of the site have a garage building that is 234 feet long, located six feet from the property line. The existing garage will be readily visible from the development. The garage building defines a hard edge along almost 50% of the eastern property line contributing to a tighter, more congested appearance in the cul-de-sac area. It should be pointed out that the existing garage building is nonconforming since the Code requires a 20 foot setback and it maintains only a 6 foot setback. TREE PRESERVATION. The Mound Zoning Code contains standards regarding tree preservation. In 1978, a tree inventory was completed for the Maple Manors site. That inventory identified individual trees throughout most of the property and an area labeled as "edge of woods and brush." The inventory which is now a 18 years old identified 34 trees with calipers ranging from 5" to 36", most of which were maples with some ash, oak and elm Many of the trees that were identified had calipers which ranged from 20" to 30". Based on the developer's grading plan, most of the individual trees that were identified (approx. 80%) will be removed from the site. Those that remain are predominately around the periphery of the property. Modification of the current grading plan may retain more of the existing tree cover and be more consistent with the tree preservation policy. As this report was being prepared, Mr. Zylman called to inform me that they were taking another look at their grading plan and with modifications, he felt that approximately 50% of the existing trees could be retained. He will provide additional information regarding grading modifications at this Planning Commission meeting. WETLANDS. The Mound Wetlands Ordinance identifies the wetland contour in the area of the project as 929.5. A survey done by McCombs Frank Roos Assoc. of the area in 1981 as well as the applicants submitted site plan and grading plan identify wetland vegetation on the site. Because of changes in the wetland laws over the past 5 years, a wetland delineation should be done on the site in order to ensure that the project does not have any wetland conflicts. Such a survey would need to be done by an individual qualified in wetland delineation. CREATION OF NONCONFORMING LOTS. The proposed construction of Maple Manors Court will create two non-conforming situations on adjacent properties that are not part of the subject development. The construction of Maple Manors Court will create a new street frontage for the two residential lots that lie along Three Points 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Blvd. to the south of the site. The lot on the east is defined as Parcel 250 and the lot on the west is defined as Parcel 246. Parcel 250 haw a garage that is located approximately 5 feet from the property line and the home is located approximately 15 feet from the new right-of-way line. This creates variances of 15 feet and 5 feet respectively. Parcel 246 has a detached garage that is 16 feet from the new right-of-way. This situation results in a 4 foot variance from the 20 foot setback requirement. In the case of both of these homes, future improvements may require approval of a variance. The construction of the new street is certainly grounds for approving (recognizing) variances for the existing conditions should such be necessary in the future. RECOMMENDATION. The twin home use that is proposed is an appropriate land use for the existing site that lies between the condominium complex to the east and the business zoned property to the west. As was mentioned earlier in this report, staff has some reservations about the density of the project after reviewing the spatial arrangement of the units. It is suggested that the Planning Commission conduct a discussion on the appropriate density of the project. If it is felt that the proposed density is appropriate (12 units), the Planning Commission should formulate a motion of approval with appropriate conditions. If the proposed density is viewed as being too high, the case should be either denied or tabled pending a modification of the plan by the applicant. If the Planning Commission supports the project in its present form and moves to approve the conditional use permit, variances and preliminary plat, there are 14 conditions that are a compilation of conditions from both the Planner and Engineer. In the interest of time, Koegler did not review the conditions, but stated he could do so if action appears to be immanent on this request. Koegler reviewed the comments received by the DNR. They did a "quick and dirty" estimate of the of suitable area, and found the property could accommodate 6 units rather than 12 based on shoreland standards. Koegler stated he is not sure if the DNR was using State standards or the City's standards when reviewing this. Koegler feels that 6 units is too low under the existing City shoreland ordinance, in fact the City's ordinance would allow higher than that, but they need to definitively know where the 929.5 contour is in order to answer that conclusively. Also, the City has been advised by the DNR that the MCWD requires a buffer of 35 feet adjacent to wetlands greater than 5 acres in size, and they indicated it does not appear that units 3, 4, 5, or 6 would meet the District's buffer requirement. From a staff perspective, we need a wetland delineation to find out where that line is, and as the survey shows staff would concur with the DNR's comments. If the wetland line is out in the marsh somewhere as the applicant attests, then this perhaps may not be an issue, so this 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 would need to be clarified. Hanus clarified that the DNR states in their letter that they did reference the City's SMO. Koegler stated that he is still leery of that because Mound has a different lot size standard than most communities, 10,000 vs. 15,000, and that may attribute to the difference. Koegler added that the code does allow a 50 percent bonus in density within the first tier, if certain setback provisions are adhered to, and we need to review it more closely to see if that applies. Voss confirmed with the planner that no development is proposed here, due to the nonconforming situations. matter what type of street, will create Reifschneider asked if the lot area on the hardcover calculations includes the low land area. Koegler stated that the survey indicates the low land area is above the 929.5, and yes it has been included in the calculations. Koegler confirmed that the street was not included in the total land area. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Alvin Donahoo, President of the Seahorse Condominium Assoc., indicated that a petition has been signed by members of the Seahorse Condominium expressing reservations or objections to the development. Seahorse has 108 units, all are privately owned and 85% are owner occupied. They want to go on record as asking the Planning Commission not to approve the PDA for Maple Manors and that the property not be rezoned. Twelve units are too many for this area which would give this area a congested appearance which is in direct contract of neighboring properties. They are concerned about the loss of green space which is also in contract with neighboring property. Green space is needed. They are concerned about the loss of trees and feel this is in conflict with the Mound Code which states that it is the intent of the City of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the City, and with respect to future site developments to retain as far as practical, substantial existing tree cover. They believe the trees should be preserved. The development abuts some of the Seahorse garages which will create a jammed-up appearance, and are concerned about drainage between the garages and the proposed twin homes. They project that 24 automobiles will be added to the area with this development, and no provisions have been made for owner or guest parking. They are concerned about their view which would detract from the value of Seahorse. Clapsaddle asked the applicant the value of the proposed units. Zylman stated he projects the units to sell for $150,000 per unit. Richard Spellman, 5400 Three Points Blvd., is a retired Licensed Engineer, stated he submitted a petition with signatures from owners on Jones Lane and Lafayette Lane who are opposed to the rezoning and the development. He feels the number of lots should be reduced and single family dwellings should be constructed. 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Spellman emphasized that the Mound Code states, "It is the intent of the City of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the City and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existing tree cover." He noted that the Planner's report indicates that 80% of the trees will be removed and feels this conflicts with the ordinance. It is his opinion that the whole northwest corner of the property is in the floodplain. He suggested the development be made the same as that to the south of Three Points, and that more trees should be saved. He feels the property should remain in the R-1 zone. koegler stated that it is customary to have developer speak, and he had indicated in his report that they intend to do some fine tuning of the grading plan which may help save more trees. Joe Zylman stated that they are going to try to save as many trees as possible, there are now 34 trees of size, and they plan to keep 17 of them. They will work hard to do fine tuning to the plan to remove as many variances as they can. Zylman emphasized that another of his development is called Sugar Bush in Watertown, and stated it was once a corn field, and it is now on it's way to become a wooded area. Zylman explained the types of units proposed to be constructed. They will be one level living with association maintained grounds, drives and walks, and no maintenance exteriors. Zylman explained the landscaping. There will be a swale between the garage and the units and there will be a holding pond to the north so drainage will not affect Seahorse. He plans to keep the big maples between Seahorse and the development. He stated that the buildings will be of quality from bottom to top, and feels they will be an improvement to area, not a detraction. Each unit will have a double garage and a driveway that will accommodate parking of two additional vehicles. Zylman stated that trees, wildlife and conservation are important to him. He also feels that additional taxes will help everyone. Zylman commented that the density is barely higher than the R-1 zoning, he is asking for only two more units than what is allows. Carl Johnson, resident at Seahorse, believes that in process of grading the property they will have to lose too many trees. Zylman commented that they will try not to change the elevations, they will work with the existing grade as much as possible. Tony Shelffo, resident at Seahorse, questioned the square footage of the units. Zylman stated that each unit will have 1500 square feet. Mary McCurdy of 5420 Three Points Blvd. stated she is opposed to changing the zoning to R-IA, and questioned if an Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been done. Koegler stated that this property does not meet the mandatory threshold for an EAW, however 14 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 and EAW can be requested by petition. Tony Shelffo asked how many units could be constructed if you stuck to the 10,000 square foot lot size. Zylman stated that ten units could be constructed. R. Anderson, resident at Seahorse, stated he is concerned about runoff, and asked how a holding pond can be constructed in a swamp. Koegler stated that the Engineer as preliminarily reviewed the drainage plan, but more a detailed review will be needed and the Watershed District will also be reviewing the plan. Jeff Skelton stated that everyone on Three Points should be notified of this request as they all driveway past this property everyday; Three Points is its own little community, and this development is at the entrance of it. Richard Spellman stated that no one on Jones Lane received a notice. Gordy Farmer, resident at Seahorse stated that he will lose his view as his unit overlooks this property. Gary Landsman, owner of parcel 250, 5470 Three Points Blvd., stated that this property is beautiful, however, someday it will eventually get developed, trees will go, but trees will be planted too. It is his opinion that Seahorse is already too dense and does not feel the development would be an eye sore. He has no objection to the rezoning. Susan Johnson, resident of Minnetrista, she lives to the north, stated she would hate to see the trees go. She is opposed to rezoning. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Voss asked if the owners of parcel 246 were present. not. They were Burma commented that he is concerned about density, but considering the adjacent use does not feel the concern carries much weight. He likes trees and green space. Burma lived in unit #6 at Seahorse for a while, and he would rather look at this development than the back side of a Seahorse garage. Reifschneider commented that Three Points is already crowded, and thinks the difference in lot size is significant. Traffic is already horrendous on Three Points, and he thinks to bring in more cars is a mistake. Voss confirmed that Seahorse was built in the early 1960's and commented that the City had different goals and policies at that time. He does not feel the Zoning Codes should be used lightly and that the concerns today are reflective of the changes in goals and policies so he does not feel they should compound it by adding so 15 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, I996 many units. He is opposed to the rezoning and foresees the other two adjacent parcels being redeveloped in a similar fashion. Staff confirmed if the property remained in the R-1 zone, a PDA could still be applied for, or a proposal for ten detached single family dwellings could be applied for. Clapsaddle commented that the nature of the neighborhood does not warrant down zoning and he is not prepared to accept a rezoning at this time. He feels it is important to know the elevations of the adjacent wetland. Hanus agreed that they need the elevations delineated. Glister commented that she likes open spaces and that there are not that many developable areas left in Mound so this property is eventually going to get developed. She is in favor of leaving the property zoned R-1 as there is not reason to reduce it at this point. Hanus stated that he is not opposed to developing the property and understands that it is private property and people have a right to develop their property, but he would like to see it remain R-1 and see the project downsized. Chair Michael opened the public hearing as it relates to the zoning code amendment. There being no comments from the public, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Clapsaddle to recommend denial of the request to rezone the property from R-1 to R-lA. ross seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Reifschneider, Michael, Voss, Hanus, and Glister. Burma was opposed. Burma commented that he does not see that twenty cars will make an impact on what is there now. Burma further commented that during the sketch plan review by the Planning Commission they denied the sale of the adjacent tax forfeited property which would have allowed him to meet the minimum lot size requirements for the R-1 zone, so the Commission should have known what was coming. Mr. Zylman emphasized to the Commission that there is 8,400 square feet of area per unit which exceeds the 6,000 square foot minimum. He explained the reason he asked for the property to be rezoned is mainly because of the front yard setback requirement of 20 feet versus 30 feet. Due to the shape of this parcel, no matter what is proposed to be constructed, if a road is installed there will be a problem with the front yard setbacks. If the property is to remain in the R-1 zone he will need setback Variances. Zylman stressed the fact that he needs 12 units in order to make this development work so the residents can afford the maintenance costs that will be part of the association. 16 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, I996 Michael announced that if the vote on rezoning were to be retaken he would vote in favor as it makes sense when you look at the north side of Three Points Blvd., you move from a light business area, to a medium density, to a high density. What is located across the street is a separate area. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to table the PDA request because the Commission recommended denial of' the rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. The rezoning request will be heard by the City Council on November 26, 1996. This tabling action will need to be discussed by the Council when they review the rezoning. Hanus confirmed that the applicant to redesign his project and come back to the Planning Commission. Koegler also noted that Mr. Zylman could pull the rezoning request from the Council agenda if he decides to rework his proposal and bring it back to the Planning Commission. RECEIVED N 0 V - ~ 1996 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA MOUND PLANNING & INSP The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of the property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our ..objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from R1 single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. precedent that community. OWNER We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a / ~ should not be followed in the Mound ADDRESS /7°~ PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lOt size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. OWNER ADDRESS SIGNATURE x-a, " " " ;13 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10',000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. OWNER ADDRESS. S I GNATURE OWNER PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from R1 single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. PTs PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RIA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of the property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in the Mound community. OWNER ADDRESS II jl ADDRESS PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. OWNER ADDRESS S I GNATURE PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ prOperty described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from RI single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. Application for M3tIOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND: PRELISflNARY PLAT, FINAL pLAT,, or PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (Pi)~%){~,f l i eit7 o~ Mound -' $34L Haywood Road, Hound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600~ Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: ////! City Council Date: /~/0 Distribution: City Planner Public Works City Engineer Other Case No. Sketch Plan Review: S15/1-D0 7Preliminary Plat: ~ Final Plat: Escrow Deposit: 6' $1,000.0D Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? iNFORMATiON ~ Name of Proposed Plat t~/'~,- ~ {~ ~ ~(,%~r~ LEGAL .~ DESCRIPTION Subdivision ~~,~K ,-& P,D~ /5 '11 7-,~V ~ n ~ ZONING OlSTSICT Circle: 8-1 ~ ~-2 8-8 B-1 B-2 8-3 APPMCANT The spplicsnt is: __owner ~ other: Phone (H) ~'V~l- D--7~ '/ (W) (M) l" other than Address ' ,~/f~,.~ ~ , l/IlO, , TO.~ ~ D applicant} Phone (H)/--%..~D--'~-,~ (W) (M) P.o.. (H) q73- Y/7/ (w) (M) rev, 12/8/94 Major Subdivision Application Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ /~¥/~OO.DD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: ~" Number of Dwelling Units Per Structure: ~ Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: /~, ~ [, sq. ft. Total Lot Area: sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, U no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Date Property owner's Signature Date Rev. 3-6-96 Application for ~: i OgT 2 4 ig;;.~ i ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT : L~../~3~ i ~ 5~4~ ~a~ood Road, ~o~d, ~ Phone: 47Z-0600, Y~: 47Z-06Z0 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: /I /I ! case No. Conditional Use Permit Fee: Distribution: City Planner: /O-Z4R~, City Engineer: /O-Z/-lf-~/l~ Public Works: Other: Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address ~)~y Z:~ ~..}.j ~ I'UJ- iNFORMATiON Name of Business LEGAL Lot ~_.,~'~", t~Cz C~ ~ Block -- DESCRIPTION Phone (H) ~'?J -.~- 7 J" 9 (W) (M) (if other than Address ~e~~~i~ , ~-~, ~¢~ a~licantl Phone (H)I -~-~D- ~ ¢08 (W) (M) ARCHITECT, SURV~OR. OR Address ~:~ ~¢~'~ /OJ r Z~S~ ~GiNEER / Phone (H) ~7:3 '-- ~'/ ~/ (W) (M) tirol.: R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 ~1 8-2 '-3 ZONING DISTRICT USE TO: Condi:ional Use Permit Appiica:ion Description of Proposed Use.' EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ /~.3~.,~ ~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~ no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Ap~llCant '~ ~i~ature Property Owner's Signature Date Date 6326 RAMBLER LANE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-5759 MAPLE MANORS: Leisure Living Amongst the Lakes, Golf Courses, and Beauty of the Lake Minnetonka Area! ONE LEVEL LIVING WITH ALL THE AMENITIES: Landscaped Grounds - Association Maintained Drives and Walks - Association Maintained No Maintenance Exterior Windows Washed - Association Service Custom Manor Homes with Soaring Vaults and Stunning Views of Wetlands and Woods! 2 Large B.R.s, Two Baths, Gourmet Kitchen, Family Room, Deck, Look Out or Walk Out Lower Level, Main Floor Laundry, Beautiful Design Details, Gorgeous Woodwork! Handicap Accessible Option Available. Model Starts in the $140's - Many Custom Options Available! VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 I, , iii Application Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT Address ~ ,7~g -~ ,~a~-~ ~ ProPErTY Lot.~Y ( f~O.,---b od~) -- Block LEGAL Subdivision L,'~a~,.;,~-~' ?,~,. D~C. PtD# / ~--//7 -- .;'-/ .~.~ o.; ~,'y Plat # ~,/ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROP£RT¥ Name .ba,~4 ) Phone eI) /' 60-~ - 7 ~'-: '- 3?a~'ov) THAN Phone (H) ~/'72- .~"'?'.3-,~ 0V) q'~;-3-'73-~' (M). OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (0.no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 10/21/96) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE q /i0 O t~ ],~ (or existing) ! Front Yard: ( N S E W ) c).o ft. /{,, ft. z/ ft. Side Yard: ~S E W ) ,~ o ' ft. / 6 ft. ,./ ft. Side Yard: ('~S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft 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? too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage (~) existing situation too shallow (~ shape (50 other: specify Please describe: ~cr'Oi' 7t (a~. lo/~1/96) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No 130... 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? 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 ~-~'~, ~ (Rev. 10/21/96) Date >7, 0 0 LL ?? ' t ' ~'. "'"' '~" '"" ' II "~" '~' ~ / ~ -~. -,!ii, ) ,!' . ~,, , I,,I IIl$111111~l ~ ~ ':: o o ::F ~ WESI'WOOD AVE ~ ,/ i // (~4) / / c6) .~ ~',! , (17) (250) .APT OWN NO 8 1 SEAHORSE OONDOI4II P~R7 ~: LOT Z5 &OT 28 (lb-) IUM ( ~UTLOT ?? -DOC NO 4643161 OL OUTLOT 2 1 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 10, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, December 10, 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: City Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Attorney John Dean Councilmember-Elect Leah Weycker and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Amy Cicchese and Vincent Forystek. The Mayor opened the meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 APPROVE AGENDA - At this time items can be added to the agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. Nothing was added or removed from the agenda. * CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Consent Agenda. call vote was called. The Motion carried unanimously 4-0. A roll *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 11/26/96 REGULAR MEETING. Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. · 1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 12/4/96 TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING. Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. '1.3 RESOLUTION//96-122 Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. APPROVING THE FINAL 1997 GENERAL FUND BUDGET; SETTING THE FINAL TAX LEVY; CERTIFYING THE FINAL LEVY AND APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1997. · 1.4 RESOLUTION #96-123 APPROVING CEMETERY FEES FOR 1997. This resolution raises the charge for cemetery lots at Union Cemetery from $300 to $350 per lot for residents and from $600 to $650 for non-residents. Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. 2 '1.5 APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS RE: VARIOUS FEF~q AND LICENSES. (To be handed out Tuesday evening) Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. The changes to the City Code will be revised in the Code Book and published in The Laker as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 80-1996 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 510:00, SUBD. 3; SECTION 510:10, SUBD. 2; SECTION 510:15, SUBD. 3; SECTION 510:20, SUBDS. 1, 3, 4, 6, AND 8; SECTION 510:25, SUBDS. 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8; AND SECTION 510:40, SUBDS. 6 AND 8; OF THE CITY CODE AND ADDING SECTION 510:31, SUBDS. 1 AND 2A TO THE CITY CODE, ALL RELATING TO FEES The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 510:00, Subd. 3 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. No. Subd. No. Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount 405:00 Arcades Annual !99.99 Per Machine 100.00 Section 510:10, Subd. 2 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount Cigarette Sales Cigarette Sales - 440:10 Annual !2.00 Monthly ~ nn Vending Annual 50.00 24.00 2.00 ~Subd. No. Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 Section 510:15, Subd. 3 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount 488:05 Tree Surgeon Annual 25.00 30.00 3 Subd. No. Section 510:20, Subd. 1 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Section Conditions Type of License and Terms Amount Amusement Annual, Devices per machine 25.09 35.00 410:10 Subd. No. O3 Section 510:20, Subds. 3 and 4 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: Related Code Section Type of License Conditions and Terms Amount 455:05 Dog Two year, neutered or spayed, with proof $.09 15.00 Two year, unneutered or unspayed !~..00 25.00 455:05 Duplicate tag .S0 1.00 Subd. No. 6 Subd. No. Section 510:20, Subd. 6 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount 455:05 Late applications On or before May 10 add .50 1.00 Section 510:20, Subd. 8 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms 8 480:00 Restaurants, Cafes Annual Amount < nn 10.00 Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 4 Subd. No. Section 510:25, Subds. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: Related CodeConditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount 4 800:15 5 800:15 6 800:15 7 800:15 On-Sale Liquor (Class A) Annual Initial Application per applicant Additional Investigation nnn nn 4,500.00 500.00 500.00 On-Sale Wine Annual 200.00 Club Annual 199.99 500.00 150.00 300.00 300.00 50.00 15.00 3.00 Special Sunday (Class B) Annual 200.00 8 810:15 Beer Annual On-Sale 299.99 Annual Off-Sale 25.99 Temporary Daily Permit !9.90 plus per day after 3rd day2.99 Section 510:31, Subds. 1 and 2 are added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 510:31. Miscellaneous Fees and Charges. Subd. Related Code No. Section TYpe of Fee 1 Return Check 2 Search/Special Assessments Conditions and Terms Amount Per Check $20.00 Per Search $20.00 Section 510:40, Subd. 6 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. Related CodeConditions No. Section Type of License and Terms Amount 6 350:475 Fencing/getai-ai~ Per Application !5.99 25.00 Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 Section 510:40, Subds. 7 and 8 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: OSubd. Related CodeConditions No. Section Type of License and Terms Amount 7 350:530 Zoning Variance Per AppliCation 50.00 100.00 8 350:525 Conditional Use Permit 200.00 250.00 350:755 Vacations Per Application 200.00 250.00 Subd. No. 10 Section 510:40, Subd. 10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section and Terms Amount 350:520 Per Application 200.00 Type of License Zoning Amendment 250.00 O The City of Mound Does Ordain: ORDINANCE NO. 81-1996 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 520:00, SURDS. la(3), 1.b, lh, 3 AND 10 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO FEES AND DELETING SECTION 520:00, SURDS. 7 AND 8 DUE TO DUPLICATION Section 520:00, Subd. la(3) of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. No. Related Code Section Type of License Conditions and Terms Amount 1 a(3) 300:20 Building Permit, Fire Suppression Permit & Inspection Fees. Permit fees for all building permits and fire suppression permits, and other inspection fees, shall be charged according to the t-988 1994 Uniform Building Code, Section o ~nar~x +~ ..... ~. <m,~m ,,~.~.. Nc. ~ A n..:~.~:..., r,..~:+ r:~ ,, 107 "TABLE 1-A - BUILDING PERMIT FEES." Subd. No. i.b. Section 500:20, Subd. lb of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount 311:00 Heating, Air Conditioning & Ventilation Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 6 Definition: All terms used in this Subdivision b shall be interpreted as defined in the Minnesota Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Code. Fees Required: The Building Code Department, before issuing any permit for the construction, installation, alteration, or repair of any furnace, boiler, heating or power plant or system, or any device or equipment connected therewith, or for any other device connected to, or to be connected with, any chimney or stack, or for the construction, installation, alteration, addition or repair of any cooling piping and equipment, or of any air conditioning system or ventilation system, or sheet metal duct work or equipment therewith, or of any refrigeration plant or equipment, shall require the payment by the applicant for such permit, fee or fees in the amount herein required. Contract Prices (including labor and materials) Fee $!5.99. 20.00 minimum or 1% of contract price, whichever is greater ~;NN NN1 Ntt +^ ql NNN NNN NN q,,A ..... The cost of installations, alterations, additions, or repairs as used in this Subdivision b shall include all labor and material supplied by the contractor. In addition, it shall include all materials supplied by other sources when these materials are normally supplied by the contractor. Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 Subd. No. Section 520:00, Subd. Ih of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount 1.h. MS 473.121, Subd. 24 Sewer Availabili_ty (SAC) Charge. In accordance with regulations of the Metropolitan ...................... Council Environmental Services and the City of Mound, the Building Code Department shaft collect a Sewer Availability (SAC) Charge on Building Permits issued for each building or structure to be constructed or connected to the Metropolitan Disposal System. Subd. No. 3 Section 520:00, Subd. 3 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount 310:00 Plumbing Permit Fees Definition: A plumbing fixture shall be taken to mean and include any sink, laundry tub, bathtub, wash basin, drinking fountain, water closet, floor drain, or any other plumbing device arranged to be connected with the sewer or portable water system, either directly or indirectly. 1. Permit fee shall be $!5.00 20.00, plus $8.00 per fixture and $8.00 per rough in only, setting fixture only, and fixture without waste connection (sill cock). 2. $5.00 per 100 feet of pipe or fraction thereof. 3. $3.00 per 100 feet of repair or fraction thereof. 4. $!5.00 20.00 for outside sewer and/or water inspections. 5. $15.00 20.00 for private water well inspection. The permit fee for the installation of gas piping for use in connection with a plumbing system shall be as set out in the fee table contained in Subdivision c, Gas Piping, above. Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 8 Section 520:00, Subds. 7 and 8 of the City Code are deleted due to duplication. Subd. No. Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount --1 ...... 1,..,4..,, ,,.,',., C.NN Subd. No. 10 Section 520:00, Subd. 10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Section Type of License Conditions and Terms Amount 330:75 Plats & Subdivision* *Preliminary Plat 159.99 200.00 *Final Plat !99.99 150.00 Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) 59.99 75.00 NOTE: Plus $7.00 10.00 per lot over 2 lots Escrow Deposit 1,000.00 Escrow fees will be assessed for all extra expenses to City. ORDINANCE NO. 82-1996 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 540:00, SUBD. 3 AND SUBD. 13, SUBSECTIONS a AND b OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO FEES The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 540:00, Subd. 3 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount Treatment Rates Sewer Rates 600:45 Subd. No. Residential Quarterly Charge ~,1, ,,~, Ill I # ,J J ,il J ,L, Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 9 Quarterly sewer charge For 10,000 gallons or less $30.$5 All over 10,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons t495 Minimum Quarterly Bill 39.$5 NOTE: The above minimum applies to each single family dwelling or apartment which is in accord- ance with existing sewer department policy. 37.25 Minimum 2.35 37.25 Commercial, Including Large Apartments Monthly Charges Monthly Sewer Charges (Large Users) For 3,000 gallons or less All over 3,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons NOTE: Minimum Monthly Bill per apartment $!9.30 12.50 Minimum ~ r~ 2.35 ~ n ~n 12.50 Single Family Dwelling - The sewer rate shall be based on the actual usage or the first quarter actual water usage, whichever is less. Two-Family Usage and Multiple Dwelling Usage - Is computed on the same basis as a single dwelling, except that the total quarterly charges on all such properties shall not be less than the number of units multiplied by the $10.30 12.50 per month, minimum charge per unit. Water used but not placed into the sanitary sewer may be deducted providing it is metered. Dwellings Connected to Sewer but not Connected to Municipal Water - Shall pay a quarterly rate of $35.70 44.30. If such users wish to pay sewer rates based on gallons of water used, they can purchase a water meter from the City and have their own plumber install the meter on their well. Commercial and Industrial - The quarterly sewer rate is based on the actual amount of water used each month on the same cost scale as residential (see above). Water used but not placed into the sanitary sewer may be deducted providing it is metered. Availability Charge - All dwellings not connected to the sanitary sewer must pay an availability charge of $30.85 37.25 per quarter whether occupied or vacant. Late Fee Penalty - For all bills not paid on or before the due date specified on the bill, a 10% late fee will be added. Subd. No. Minutes - Mound City Council - December I0, 1996 10 Section 540:00, Subd. 13, subsections a and b of the City Code are amended to read as follows: Related Code Conditions Section Type of License and Terms Amount Water Gallonage Rates a. Service charge of $1.20 b. For all water consumed; 13 610:45 1.35 per month, per account 1.20 per 1,000 gallons Attest: City Clerk Adopted by City Council Published in Official Newspaper Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. Mayor '1.6 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTIES FROM R-1 TO R-lA. SUGGESTED DATE: JANUARY 14, 1997. Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. '1.7 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND RELATED VARIANCES FOR THE "MAPLE MANORS" RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SUGGESTED DATE: Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. '1.8 RESOLUTION #96-124 JANUARY 14, 1997. Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. APPROVING THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) RE: INFLOW/INFILTRATION CONTROL PROGRAM. Minutes - Mound City Council - December I0, 1996 11 '1.9APPROVAL OF HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT. OJensen, Ahrens, unanimous. *1.10 RESOLUTION #96-125 ESTABLISHING MEETING DATE AND TIME OF THE MOUND HRA BOARD. The resolution states the meeting date will be the second Tuesday of the month at 6:30 pm, at Mound City Hall, prior to the regular City Council Meeting. Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. *1.11 PAYMENT OF BILLS. Jensen, Ahrens, unanimous. 1.12 EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7:35 pm the Mayor continued the council meeting and excused the council into an Executive Session. At 7:55 pm the Council returned into regular session. City Attorney John Dean summarized the Executive Session stating it was to discuss the proposed purchase agreement for property in the Auditor's Road realignment. He reviewed the provisions and changes. The attorney recommended the Council approve the purchase agreement subject to the changes and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to take the necessary steps to finalize the purchase by the end of 1996. MOTION by Ahrens and seconded by Jensen to approve the proposed purchase agreement for the Carlock property for the realignment of Auditor's Road in conjunction with the Lost Lake Canal project and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to proceed as necessary to finalize the purchase by the end of 1996. The motion carried unanimously. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 1.13 REQUEST FROM STEVE BEDELL TO SELL BEER FROM "BY THE WAY SNACK SHOP" LOCATED AT 4801 SHORELINE. At the request of the applicant, the item was removed from the agenda. 1.14 EXECUTIVE SESSION #2 City Manager Ed Shulde stated the Council was going into Executive Session to discuss possible litigation regarding a criminal case with a local property owner. He stated Mr. Craig Mertz, Prosecuting Attorney for the City, was present and this item would be discussed in a client/attorney conference. The Council excused themselves at 7:59 PM. They returned at 8:45 pm. City Attorney John Dean summarized stating they discussed pending and threatening litigation against the City and how to proceed in this matter. Minutes - Mound City Council - December 10, 1996 12 1.15 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Road. He asked why the Council was meeting in secret. He did state th~ he was not in attendance before the Council left the chambers. previous summarization for Mr. Forystek. 1.16 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: to Attorney John Dean reiterated his DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR NOVEMBER 1996. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 1996. REMINDER: COMMYITEE OF THE WHOLE AND SECOND COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER ARE CANCELLED. REMINDER: ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SUNDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1996 AT AL & ALMA'S. ADD ON ITEMS: 1.17 PHYLLIS JESSEN APPRECIATION DAY - DEC. 31ST. Mayor Polston stated he would like to designate December 31, 1996 as Phyllis Jessen Appreciation Da. in the City of Mound. He stated she has been on the Council for 13 years and before that on the Parks and Open Space Commission. She had worked very hard and deserves recognition. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Ahrens and carried 3-0, Jessen abstained, to designate Tue?day, December 31, 1996 as Phyllis Jessen Appreciation Day in the City of Mound. 1.18 KEVIN SORBO RECOGNITION Mayor Polston stated he had been in conversation with Kevin Sorbo's agent. Kevin is the actor who plays in the television series "Hercules". He was raised in Mound and graduated from Mound Westonka High School. He informed the Council that if we were to name the street he lived on an honorary name of "Sorbo Lane" or something similar; and to rename Langdon Park to Kevin Sorbo Park, he would be in Mound next year for a dedication. He would gladly sign autographs for a fee and then turn those monies over to the City for future development of the newly acquired Veteran's Park. The Council also discussed Mr. Sorbo participating in the City Days Parade in June of 1997. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to add to the current street name of "Forest Lane" the name "Kevin Sorbo Lane" in honor of Kevin Sorbo. This would be an honorary street name, mailing addresses of the residents living on Forest Lane would not have to be changed. Mayor Polston stated letters would have to be written soon and arrangements would have to be preparer, for the dedication in 1997. ql Minutes - Mound City Council - December I0, 1996 13 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 pm. The vote was unanimously in favor. Meeting was adjourned. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1996, 4:30 PM The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, December 16, 1996 at 4:30 PM, in the Conference Room at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Phyllis Jessen. Absent and excused: Liz Jensen. Also in attendance: Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. None The following interested citizens were also present: The Mayor opened the meeting. 1.0 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DISSOLUTION OF TItE SUBURBAN ALLIANCE He stated the only item to discuss was the resolution before them to approve the dissolution of West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, A.K.A. Suburban Alliance. It was noted the resolution had to be approved by the end of 1996 by all of the cities that had participated. By approving the dissolution, the City of Mound is not agreeing to assume any obligation incurred or to assume any cost occasioned by its dissolution. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the approval of the following resolution as proposed: RESOLUTION//96-126 The vote was unanimously in favor. ADJOURNMENT RESOLUTION APPROVING DISSOLUTION OF WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD, A.K.A. SUBURBAN ALLIANCE. Motion carried. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus do adjourn at 4:32 pm. The vote was unanimously in favor. Meeting adjourned. does hereby appoint January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION APPOINTING ACTING MAYOR FOR 1997 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, Acting Mayor for the year 1997. January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION APPOINTING FINANCE DIRECTOR GINO BUSINARO, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1997 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Gino Businaro, Finance Director, as the Acting City Manager for the year 1997, if the City Manager is disabled, incapacitated, away on city business or away on vacation. If both the City Manager and the Finance Director are disabled, incapacitated, away on city business or away on vacation then Len Harrell, Police Chief, is hereby appointed as Acting City Manager. January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1997 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby designate The Laker the official newspaper for the City of Mound for 1997. 1-06-1997 12:lSPM FROM THE LAKER 6124720S16 P. 1 The The Laker ~5 ~o~ ~.. ~o.~. ~ ~ 472-1140 Pioneer Janua~ 1,1997 To: Mound City Council Re: Appointment of Official Newspaper Dear Councilmembers: As you make your appointments for 1997, we ask that you consider re-appointing The Laker as your city's official newspaper. 'The Laker is published each Saturday. The deadline for legal notices is 4:30 p.m. the preceding Tuesday. Our rate for publication of legal notices is $7.00 per column inch for the initial insertion, and $5.05 per column inch for each additional insertion. The column width is 2 inches (12 picas). We have enjoyed working with you in the past and we look forward to continuing to do so. Thank you for your'consideration. ,. ¢? Sincerely, Bill Holm Associate Publisher The Laker Cakeshore lk I^, January 2, 1997 18178 Minnetonka Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 612-473-0890 Fax: 6 ! 2-473-0895 City Coundl City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear City Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to bid 1997 legal notices for the City of Mound. Legal rates for 1997: $1.25 per line, first insertion .70 per line on ads that require more than one insertion We will automatically deduct 10% from your lineage cost if you mail us a computer disk of the "legal" notices you wish to have published. (Almost any format, your disk will be returned.) Invoices can be sent weekly, or as some communities choose, on a monthly basis. Two notarized affidavits of each notice of publication will accompany your statement. Lakeshore Weekly News will publish your legal notices on Thursday the same week as executed by the City Council ff we receive your notice by Tuesday at 5PM (up to three pages). I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our bid. Sincerely, Publisher January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Clerk, Francene C. Clark-Leisinger. January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Treasurer/Finance Director, Gino Businaro. /o0 January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIF$ FOR 1997 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby designate the following banks and financial institutions as official depositories for the City of Mound in 1997: Marquette Bank - Mound First Bank - Minneapolis American National Bank Norwest Banks Dain Bosworth, Inc. Smith Barney Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City's deposits shall be protected by Federal Deposit Insurance and/or collateral in accordance with MSA Chapter 118. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized to open or continue an account or accounts with said institutions on such terms as required by said institutions in the names of the City, and to deposit, or cause to be deposited in such account or accounts, any monies, checks, drafts, orders, notes or other instruments for the payment of money, upon compliance by said depository with this resolution and the law in such case provided. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the designation shall continue in force until December 31, 1997 or until written notice of its revision or modification has been received by said institution. to/ January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION APPOINTING TO THE PARK COMMISSION; TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC) AS COUNCIL REPRESF_aNTATIVES FOR 1997 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint the following Councilmembers as Council Representatives to the following City Commissions for 1997. to the Park Commission to the Planning Commission to the Economic Development Commission RESOLUTION #96. RESOL~ON TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 2465 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 16, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID 24-117-24 22 0030 P&Z CASE//96-70 WHEREAS, the owner, Thomas Paulson, has applied for variance to allow a 42 inch high chain link fence that exceeds the maximum allowable of three feet high when the fence will be located within 50 feet of the ordinary high water elevation, and; WItEREAS, the fence provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to reduce the visual impact of fences within the 50 foot setback of the lake. This site is located adjacent to Lost Lake that is part of Lake Minnetonka, however Lost Lake is substantially a wetland and from a visual perspective there is a minimal impact from the lake, and; WltEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, and; WHEREAS, the proposed fence will be located within a drainage and utility easement. The fence cannot interfere with the natural drainage, and there are no utilities located in this portion of the easement, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a six inch fence height variance as the fence enhances the use and function of the property with minimal encroachment. MINIYrES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COM rISSION December 9, 1996 CASE 96-70: V'AR! ~-__ ~HT_ _THOMAS PAULSON 2465 LOST uau nOT 16 BLOCK I LOST LAKE 24-117-24 22 0030 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a 42 inch high chain link fence that exceeds the maximum allowable fence height of three feet when within 50 feet of the lake. The fence provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to reduce the visual impact of fences within the 50 foot setback of the lake. This site is located adjacent to lost lake that is part of Lake Minnetonka, however Lost Lake is substantially a wetland and from a visual perspective there is a minimal impact from the lake. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the six inch fence height variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with minimal encroachment. Concern was expressed that the fence is within the drainage and utility easement. Staff noted that the fence cannot interfere with the natural drainage, and there are no utilities located in this portion of the easement. Mueller commented that he would rather see a wood fence. Glister stated that she prefers the black chain link as it minimizes the visual impact. MOTION made by Weiland,. seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the fence height variance, as.recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those .~n favor were: Weiland, Voss, Clapsaddle, Glister, Re~fschneider and Burma. Michael and Mueller were opposed. Mueller commented that he does not wan fence height variances on ~- ~-, ..... ~ ~ s~t a precedent for does not believe ~ ..... ~t~=A= ~e. Michael commented that ~ mu~= xncnes o= fence makes a difference, he This case will be heard by the City Council on January 14, 1997. 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 December 9, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ · Variance Request Thomas Paulson 96-70 2465 Lost Lake Road, Lot 16, Block 1, Lost Lake, PID 24-117-24 22 0O30 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a ~ high chain link fence that exceeds the maximum allowable fence height of three feet when within 50 feet of the lake. The fence provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to reduce the visual impact of fences within the 50 foot setback of the lake. This site is located adjacent to lost lake that is part of Lake Minnetonka, however Lost Lake is substantially a wetland and from a visual perspective there is a minimal impact from the lake. STAFF RECOMt~ME~NDATION: Staff. recommends th..e Planning Commission recommend approval of the ~ence height variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with minimal encroachment. Is:pi The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. January 14, 199Z This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on printed on recycled paper ~OR~ICE USE ONLY) YARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY [OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Case No.~'~?--"'7~~') City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works R-3 B-1 B-2 Address ,j~ ~/_., ~ Lot Subdivision ~ PID~ ~' //7 -~V-~' ZONING DIST~CT ~ R-lA R-2 Address ~'~¢~ Z~ X~ ~. Phone ~)_, ~7~. '~ '2~ ~), ~' ~ 7 ~ (M). Block Plat # B-3 Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, 64 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.): (Rev. 10/21/96) Vaxiauce Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): o 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. ft. ft. ft' ft. ft. ft' ft. ft. 4;" .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 ¢0, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please 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 describe:~ topography ( ) soil ((~X} drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify v'ariance Application, p. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (x). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No f,K). If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (,x). 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. Lwner's Signature Applicant's Signature (Rev. 10/21/96) Date //- 5"- ~(., Date RESOLUTION //96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ON ONE PROPERTY FOR MARQUETTE BANK AT ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, RLS 739, TRACTS A-G, 24-117-24 12 0014 P&Z CASE//96-72 WHEREAS, the Marquette Bank has applied for variance to allow one additional temporary identification sign to be located on the St. John's Church site during the period of construction of the new addition to the church, and; WHEREAS, the Mound Sign Ordinance, Section 365:15, Subd. 9. (d) allows for one temporary identification sign during the construction phase of the project, and the sign must be removed when the project is 75% occupied. The variance request is a result of a citizen complaint regarding the excess signage, and; WHEREAS, the remaining time duration for the additional temporary sign is minimal and has a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with a 7 to 1 vote. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant a variance to allow two temporary identification signs to be located on the St. ~Iohn's property during the construction phase of the project, subject to the condition that both signs be relocated further west down Maywood Road (across from the commercial business), and that the Marquette sign be removed by March 31, 1997. January 14, 1997 Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: 1/8/97 "Proposal for ... Commission Rearrangement . ,, by Mark Hanus .- Dear Mound City Council, The above-stated agenda item should be tabled without discussion for the following reasons: 1. This item was not included in the published agenda of Th__ge ~aker and, therefore, the public has no opportunity to present comments or questions to the Mound City Council this evening. 2. The Park and Open Space Commission should be allowed the opportunity to review the proposal prior to its presentation to the city council. 3. Because the proposal, if adopted, would conflict with the current Mound City Code, the proposal should include code sections that would need to be amended. In this way, the public could more fully understand the implications of the proposal. 4. There is no imminent need to review the proposal this evening. There are no pending public land permits applications and two recommendations of the Commons Task Force have already been approved by the Park and Open Space Commission. I trust that expediency will not override sound democratic process. Very truly yours, Tom Casey~ Chair, Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission 2854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 MINIYrF.~ OF A MEETING OF ~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COM/VIISSION December 9, 1996 ~ TO O Y S - T B ST. JOHN'S CHURCH 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE RLS 739 TRACTS A-G Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow two temporary free standing identification signs to be placed on the property during the period of construction of the new addition to the church. The City's Sign Ordinance, Section 365:15, Subd. 9. (d) allows for one temporary identification sign during the construction phase of the project, and the sign must be removed when the project is ?$% occupied. The variance request is a result of a citizen complaint regarding the excess signage. The Sign Ordinance is clear with respect to advertising signs in that only one sign is allowed, however, although there is minimal justification for an additional sign, the Planning Commission may wish to consider that the construction project is substantially underway and the remaining time duration for the additional signage is minimal. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission can make a finding that the remaining time duration for the additional temporary sign is minimal and has a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood, a recommendation for approval could be made. A condition with a specific time limit to allow the sign should be included. If a finding in favor of the additional signage cannot be determined, a recommendation of denial is in order that should include appropriate findings of fact. Clapsaddle commented, in as much as the sign is already installed and due to the nature of the project and schedule, he would recommend approval of the variance. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance to allow the two advertising signs, as requested. Mueller feels the signs are obtrusive, especially to the people who live directly across the street who see the signs when they look out their picture window. He does not feel the signs need to be placed in that location and suggested they be moved further east down Maywood so they are across the street from another business versus a residence. The time which these signs may be erected was discussed. It was noted that the signs are required to be taken down when the project is 75% occupied, or complete. The Building Official stated that he is not sure when this will happen. Voss suggested the signs be removed before the Spring thaw. Reifschneider feels that since the sign was put up illegally, it has no business being there and should be removed. Clapsaddle and Voss accepted an amendment to their motion to require that both advertising signs be relocated further west down Ma~wood Road across from the commercial business, and that the Marquette sign be removed by March 31# 1997. It was noted that a sign permit was paid for by Lutheran Aid and that no permit fee should have been collected and that it should be refunded. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Voss, Burma, Michael, Glister, and Mueller. Re~fschneider was opposed. Reifschneider stated that he would like the sign removed. This case Will be heard by the City Council on January 14, 1997. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Planning Commission Agenda of December 9, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ' ~' / J Variance Request Marquette Bank Mound (2220 Commerce Blvd.) 96-72 2451 Fairview Lane (St. John's Church), RLS 739, PID 24-117-24 12 0014 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow two temporary free standing identification signs to be placed on the property during the period of construction of the new addition to the church. The City's Sign Ordinance, Section 365:15, Subd. 9. (d) allows for one temporary identification sign during the construction phase of the project, and the sign must be removed when the project is 75% occupied. The variance request is a result of a citizen complaint regarding the excess signage. COMMENTS' The Sign Ordinance is clear with respect to advertising signs in that only one sign is allowed, however, although there is minimal justification for an additional sign, the Planning Commission may wish to consider that the construction project is substantially underway and the remaining time duration for the additional signage is minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that if the Planning Commission can make a finding that the remaining time duration for the additional temporary sign is minimal and has a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood, a recommendation for approval could be made. A condition with a specific time limit to allow the sign should be included. If a finding in favor of the additional signage cannot be determined, a recommendation of denial is in order that should include appropriate findings of fact. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 14, 199Z //3 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 .... ApPlicatiOn_ Fee!:- '$50.00 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution- City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No.(~b ~"~& DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) ZONING DISTRICT Name Address Address ~/)/5- ] ~-O Cv t),' fac~_3 Lot -~.~'~c7~5~ t~ ~ ~ Subdivision q Zq PID~ ~q -llT~ ~q i~ oo~4 ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 '47~-IqlG ~). U?.~-IqlO Phone (H) Block '"- Plat # (~ Iq (,, I B -2 B -3 (M). Address Phone (H). (W) q"7~- ~ ~'J~.,~ (M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? K 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.): (Rev. 10/21/96) //q Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) o Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 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 .~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please 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 describe: ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify Yariance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: o Wa~ the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Date Date SIGN PERMYF APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION ~$-I ~C~(VU~;e~_C kan~ ZONE (if other than owner) ~ PLEASE INDICATE N~BERc~OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: (if more than one wall sign is being requested, see back): TYPE OF SIGN: wall mount free standing/~temporary permanent SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ft high X ~ ft wide = ' _ SEASONAL SIGN: DATES TO BE ERECTED: FROM__/__/__ TO__/ F~E ST~D~G: HOW H~GH W~LL S~GN BE FROM GROUND LEVEL TO THE TOP? ~'~ ~L SIGN: WALL ~: ft high x ft wide = N~BER OF EXISTING WALL SIGNS: LIST SQU~E FOOTAGE OF EACH EXISTING SIGN: TOTAL SQ. FT. OF ALL EXISTING WALL SIGNS: sq ft sq ft percent PERCENTAGE OF WALL AREA COVERED BY SIGNS: DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): · . Date Comments/Conditions: IRECEIVED BY & DAT~APPROVED BY PLANNER: IAPPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL: 0 / / / / /- / p.01 11~ ?--~ THU 9:02 Mound City Code Section 365:15, Subd. 9, (c) (c) Temporary banners and pennants employed for grand openings or business establishments, special events and holidays shall be removed within thirty (30) days after erection. ~~.~-~d)/ / One temporary identification sign setting forth the name of the project, architect, engineers, contractors, planners and financing agencies may be installed at a construction site in any district. The sign area of said construction sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Such signs shall be removed when the building is 75 percent occupied and shall be exempt from all permits and fees. (e) Garage sale signs will be permitted in conjunction with the sale of household goods and materials from the private residences. Such signs shall be exempt from permits and fees but shall be subject to the following: Signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area. (2) The name and telephone number of the party responsible for the sale shall be clearly marked on the sign. (3) No signs shall be placed within the public way nor shall they be attached to any telephone poles or light standards. (4) Directional off premise garage sale signs can be placed on private property providing that the property owners consent is obtained prior to the placement of such signs. (5) The use of garage sale signs shall be limited to five (5) occasions per calendar year per residence. (6) Boutiques, craft sales, and other sales events of hand-crafted merchandise shall be subject to all garage sale signage provisions. (7) Garage sale signs shall be limited to five (5) days per occurrence. O 2-25-91 BUILDING PERMIT CITY OF MOUND /~tJ~ ~_ 0 '~5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 · Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 owner contractor tenant The applicant is: Address Phone (H) & ,,oc L~alLot ~ CONDmONS ESTIMATED VALUE ............... $ ZONING DISTRICT: (~R.~R1A R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 RES. # & DATE DATE FILED NOTICE: Separate permits are required for electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation or ear con(J~)nJng. This [~}~l'llit ~omos null and void ff work or oo~JthJc~on authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or ff construc- tion o~ work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time effM work is commenced. All extMior work mu~t be completed wtthln one (1) year from the date of permit I~uIIlCe, icr. ordlllg to CRy Code Section 300:10, Subd. 5. I hm'eby ceCdty that I have reed and examined this applicatton and know the same to be ~ and comact. AJI provisions of laws and city ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whethe~ specified o~ not. The granting of a permit does not ixesume to give authority to vi~e or cancel the provlaionl~ot~anY othM state or local law regulating ~ons'~caon orthe pe~om~a o¥o.sm~on..~' PE"MIT APPROVED B ~ _~..-'~ ,(':: APPUCANT'S SIGNATURE P ~ PERMIT FEE (BASE) ................................... $ PLAN CHECK FEE ...................................... $ SURCHARGE .............................................. $ DRAINTILE ................................................... $ S.~C. (99%) ................................................ $ s.~c. (1%) .................................................. $, CITY SEWER CONNECTION ..................... $ CITY WATER CONNECTION ...................... $ WATER METER ........................................... $ STATIONARY ROD ...................................... $ 01-3251 01-3253 01-2222 01-3254 78-2304 78-3774 78-3158 73-3155 73-3744 73-3842 OTHER ........................... ~. .......................... $ TOTAL ............................... '-- 1151 ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION ,~'[ 5'/ ~--O~ ~,~.~; /ar, ._~ NAME OF APPLICANT ~/Yu ,1 )--Dr e ~' ~ ~ (if other than owner) PLEASE INDICATE N~BER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: being requested, see back): ~YP~ O~ SIQN: wall mount / free standing/~temporary SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~ ft high x ~ ft wide = , SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 ZONE PHONE ~/~2 · /~/~ PHONE ~7/ ~.2. ~ (if more than one wall sign is permanent ' sq ft SEASONAL SIGN: DATES TO BE ERECTED: FROM (~ / ~- / 9 ~ TO /& /~/? (' FREE STANDING: ~ow ~IGH WILL SIGN ~E FROM GROUND LEVEL TO T~E TOP? g~- LL SIGN: WALL AREA: ft high x ft wide = NUMBER OF EXISTING WALL SIGNS: LIST SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH EXISTING SIGN: TOTAL SQ. FT. OF ALL EXISTING WALL SIGNS: sq ft sq ft PERCENTAGE OF WALL AREA COVERED BY SIGNS: DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc. percent '/~o~ ~,~ a~pli~ant's 8iCnature Date ' · IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII//I/11111/1111111/i////i/i//i/11111/111111/i/I//11111111/11 Comments/Conditions: IRECEIVED BY & DATE: APPROVED BY PLANNER: AP?RI)VED BY/BU!LDING/OFFi2AL:I . I U H PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION M]NWFES OF A MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1996 PUBLIC HE~G: DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES FOR 1997 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the changes proposed to the Dock Location Map for 1997 and noted that the "Attachment" has been amended accordingly: Nonabutting dock sites 51000 and 51525 will be deleted. These docks were located within dedicated Brighton Common (Shoreline Type C, abutting property owners on/y). There have been no docks at these locations for several years. The two new dock sites on Longford Road as approved by the City Council on July 9, 1996 will be added and classified as Type C. 3. The new multiple-slip dock sites will be added. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 Chair Casey opened the public hearing. Bonnie Menken of 1720 Dove Lane expressed a concern regarding the dock spacing on Wiota Common. She stated that because the docks are too close together there is a safety issue and the shoreline appears cluttered. The Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey stated that the dock spacing on Wiota is 30 feet which is consistent with the balance of the program. Menken asked if the number of docks in that area could be reduced and the sites spread out. The Parks Director noted that the docks can be placed anywhere within the 30 foot site, and sometimes the location of the dock within the site can be adjusted. Menken asked that staff enforce the 30 foot spacing. The Parks Director stated that staff will work with her in the Spring when marking the dock sites in this area. Mike Gardner, resident at 1599 Bluebird Lane, asked if there are going to be any nonabutting dock licenses issued next year in Woodland Point along Jennings Bay. The Parks Director noted that one joint use dock at the end of Woodland Road will be issued a license and there is another nonabutting site just north of there that will also get a license. Gardner stated, according to the court decision, the extension of Woodland Road down to the lake is not city owned property. Fackler stated that he would rather not get into a discussion on this. Faclder commented that the description he saw was that its only "as the property lines extend to the lake," and only the commons abutting the six litigants property are at issue. Gardner stated, based on the attorney's comments, Woodland Road ends 90 feet from the lake and there is no extension there to the City, and as litigants, last year we were willing to authorize a person having a dock at the end of Woodland Road with two boats as long as it was a City owned dock and the City was going to pull the dock back in, and the City Council agreed to this. He added that the City never put a dock out, it was private parties that put the dock out, and the dock was not removed. He does not feel the City has the right to allow a dock to be put out in that location. Faclder suggested that Mr. Gardner put his specific questions in writing so he can refer them to the City Attorney. Fackler commented that he has not seen any documentation which states where Woodland Road ends. Gardner asked if the City is going to issue a dock license for a dock at the end of Woodland Road. Fackler stated that they plan to issue a licenses the same as last year. Gardner asked Fackler if he has read the letter he is referring to. Fackler stated that he is not aware of what letter Gardner is referring to. Gardner summarized what was agreed upon last year with the City Council which was that they would allow a dock to be located at the end of Woodland Road as long as the City put it in and out. Instead what was installed was a private dock that was a large 'L' shaped dock, and there was never a boat stored on the dock. He stated he had written a letter to Ed Shukle regarding the dock and never got a response, and the agreement was for 1996, not 1997. Ahrens recalled that the Council agreed to allow a dock at the end of Woodland Road for the 1996 boating season. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 Casey confirmed that the Dock Location Map Attachment includes the dock site at the end of Woodland Road. Faclder noted that all dock sites in Woodland Point are listed on the Dock Location Map Attachment, including Mr. Gardner's site and the other litigants. Faclder summarized, the question remains whether the six litigant's sites should be included with the City's LMCD multiple dock license, and if this area is not included in the City's multiple license, the LMCD would require dock spacing at every 50 feet. Fackler stated it is his understanding that there is more litigation going on with the residents in Woodland Point and there is no exact answer at this time. Gardner stated that he is not concerned about the LMCD because the commons adjacent to his property has been deeded to his parcel. Fackler commented that if these sites were removed from the dock program, other parties would be affected. Casey suggested that they could approve the map subject to further review by the City because the Park Commission cannot answer Mr. Gardner's questions. Fackler stated that he would like Mr. Gardner to submit copies of the letters he has mentioned so the City can review the information. Ahrens recalled, that the court judgement said that the commons abutting the properties of the six litigants was privately held and the City did not have the authority to run the program on that commons. She feels they need a legal opinion from the attorney, based on the decision on the outcome of the six litigants, what is recommended that they do in front of the remaining parcels. Ahrens does not feel the Park Commission has enough information at this point to make a recommendation on the locations on this particular commons. Fackler stated that before the Commission decides to remove the Woodland Point dock sites from the map, we need to understand how this will affect the rest of the dock program as it relates to the LMCD license and the amount of lineal footage in the program. Fackler reiterated that he would like the information from Mr. Gardner which he has mentioned relating to the dock at the end of Woodland Road and relating to the commons being deeded to his property. Mr. Gardner stated that he will provide the City with a copy of this information. Meyer expressed a concern about dock spacing and suggested they try to spread out the docks. Fackler commented that the Commons Task for is looking at adding additional multiple-slip dock systems which will hopefully help relieve congestion. Fackler stated that the Commons Task Force will be reviewing their recommendation with the Park Commission in December. Gardner stated that last year they recommended a multiple-slip dock be installed at Canary Beach. Fackler stated that the people in that area were not interested in having a multiple dock. Ahrens stated that there is nothing precluding the City from modifying or making adjustments to the Dock Location Map at any other time during the year. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November ]4, ]996 Leah Weyker, 1586 Bluebird Lane, stated that she recalls different things than Mr. Gardner. She stated that they did not agree to a multiple dock during their ten weeks of mediation. She feels that the Dock Location Map should be approved as presented. Weyker stated that the use of the Commons is still in question, and it was determined that the Commons is dedicated to the neighborhood. Weyker commented that the Map states the dock sites are still in question, and read out loud the verbiage written .on the map: Referring to the dock sites located in front of the six litigant's properties, the map states, "Dock Sites... are subject to a court order that precludes from using for dock purposes." and, Referring to all the dock sites on Wawonaissa Common, the map states, "Dock Sites//00490 - g01560: a court decision may have a bearing on these dock sites, which the City Council will continue to review into the future." Ahrens agrees that the verbiage on the map suffices for now and still applies. Weyker commented that the court decision opened more questions than answers, and there is still litigation pending. Chair Casey closed the public hearing. Fackler agreed that the comments as written on the map are adequate. Ahrens requested that the verbiage on the map be included in the Council packet. MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Darling to recommend approval of the Dock Location Map for 1997 as presented, with the changes noted by staff. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND DOCK LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT Rev. 11/5/96 REt# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 1 00010 D 2 00030 O 3 00050 D 4 00070 D 5 00115 D 6 00125 0 7 00145 D 8 00155 D 9 00195 D 10 00215 D 11 OO235 0 12 00255 D 13 00275 O 14 00295 D 15 00315 D 16 00335 D 17 00355 D 18 00385 D 19 00490 D 20 00550 D 21 00580 D 22 00610 D 23 00640 D 24 00670 0 25 00700 D 26 007'50 D 27 00760 D 28 00790 O 29 00820 O 30 00850 O 31 00880 D 32 00910 O 33 00940 D 34 00970 D 35 01000 D 36 O1O3O O 37 O1060 C 38 O1O9O C 39 01120 C 4O O115O C 41 O117O C 42 01200 C 43 01530 C 44 01560 C 45 O1600 C 46 O165O C 47 01880 O 48 01900 D 49 01920 D 50 01940 D 51 01960 O 52 01980 O 53 02000 D 54 02020 O 55 0204O 0 56 02060 D 57 02080 O 58 02100 O Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Bluebird Lane Bluebird Lane Canary Lane Canary Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Wawonaissa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Corfmon ~awonalssa Common Wawonalssa Co~non Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonaissa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawonaissa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Waurika Common ~aurfka Common Waurika Con,on ~aurfka Common ~aurika Con,non Waurika Common Waurika Common ~aurika Corr~m~n Waurika Common Waurfka Common Waurika Common ~aurika Common ~aurika Common Waurika Common ~aurika Common Waurfka Common Waurfka Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common REt# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 59 02180 D Waurika Common 60 02200 0 Waurika Common 61 02220 D ~aurika Con,non 62 02250 D Waurika Co~mon 63 02280 D ~aurika Con.on 64 02310 D Waurika Common 65 02340 D Waur{ka Common 66 02370 D ~aurfka Common 67 02400 O Waurika Common ~ 02430 D ~aurika Common 69 02460 0 Waurika Common 70 02490 D Waurika Common 71 02520 0 Waurika Common 72 02550 D ~aurika Common 7'5 02605 D Pebble Beach Comm 74 02635 D Pebble Beach Comm 75 02665 D Pebble Beach Comm 76 02695 D Pebble Beach Comm 77 02720 D Pebble Beach Comm 78 02750 D Pebble Beach Comm 79 02780 D Pebble Beach Comm 80 02810 D Three Pts. BLvd. 81 02840 D Three Pts. Blvd. 82 02870 D Three Pts. Blvd. 83 02900 D Three Pts. Blvd. 84 02930 D Three Pts. Blvd. 85 04070 D Beachside (North) 86 04110 0 Beachside (North) 87 10020 D Shorewood Lane 88 10050 D Beachsfde (South) 89 10070 D Beachside (South) 90 10090 D Beachside (South) 91 10220 0 Crescent Park 92 10250 D Crescent Park 93 10280 O Crescent Park 94 10310 D Crescent Park 95 10340 D Crescent Park 96 10370 D Crescent Park 97 10400 O Crescent Park 98 10430 D Crescent Park 99 10460 D Crescent Park 100 10490 D Crescent Park 101 10520 D Crescent Park 102 10550 D Crescent Park 103 10580 D Crescent Park 104 10610 0 Crescent Park 105 10640 D Crescent Park 106 10670 D Crescent Park 107 10700 O Crescent Park 108 12430 D Wren Road 109 12460 D Wfota Common 110 12490 D Wiota Common 111 12520 D Wiota Common 112 12550 D Wiota Cone~on 113 12580 O Wiota Common 114 12610 D Wiota Common 115 12640 O WJota Common 116 12670 D Wiota Common Dock Location Map Attachment p. 2of4 REC# $ite_f Shore_Type Land_Name 117 12700 D Wiota Con,non 118 127~0 D Wiota Common 119 12760 D Wiota Common 120 12790 D Wiota Common 121 12820 D Wiota Common 122 12850 D Wiota 123 12880 D Wiota Co~n 124 12910 O Wiota Co~n 125 12940 D WJota Co~n 126 12970 0 WJota C~n 127 1~000 O Wiota Co~n 128 1~0~0 D Wiota C~n 129 13060 D NJota C~n 130 1~090 O ~Jota Co~n 1~1 1~120 O WJota C~n 112 13150 O Niota Co~n 13~ 13180 O Wiota C~n 1~4 13210 D ~iota C~n 1~5 1~240 O Wiota Co~n 1~6 13270 D Wiota C~n 1~7 13300 O Wiota Co~n 1~8 133~0 O WJota C~n 1~ 13360 D Wiota Co~n 140 13390 O Wfota C~n 141 1~4~0 D Wiota C~n 142 13450 D WJota C~n 14~ 13480 D WJota Co~n 144 13510 D WJota C~n 145 11540 O ~iota C~n 146 13570 0 Wiota C~n 147 1~600 O Wiota C~n 148 13630 D Wiota Co~n 14~ 13660 D Wiota Co~n 150 13690 O Wiota 151 13~0 D Wiota Co~n 152 1~0 O Wiota C~n 15~ 1~780 0 Wiota C~n 154 13810 D Wiota Co~n 155 19950 D Peab~ St. 156 201~0 O Water Bank C~n 157 20160 O ~ater Bank C~n 158 20190 D Water Bank C~n 159 ~0220 O Water Bank C~n 160 ~0250 D Water Bank C~n 161 ZOZ80 O Water Bank 162 20~10 D Water Bank C~n 16~ ZOO40 O Water Bank C~n 1~ 20370 O Water Bank C~n 165 Z0400 D ~ater Bank C~n 1~ 20430 O Water Bank 167 20~0 O Water Bank C~n 1~ 20490 D ~ater Bank C~n 16~ 20520 D Water Bank C~n 170 20550 D ~ater Bank C~n 171 20580 D Uater Bank C~n 1~ 20610 D ~ater Bank C~n 1~ 20~0 D Water Bank C~n 174 20670 D Water Bank C~n Rev. 11/5/96 REC# Site_~ Shore_Type Land_Name 175 20700 D Water Bank Con,man 176 20730 0 Water Bank Con~on 177 20760 D Waterside Common 178 20790 D Waterside Co.non 179 20810 D Waterside Con~)n 180 20830 D Centerview Lane 181 20860 D Centerview Lane 182 20890 D Centerview Lane 18~ 20920 O Centerview Lane 18~ 20950 D Centerview Lane 185 20980 0 Centerview Lane 186 21110 O Centerview Lane 187 21140 O Centerview Lane 188 21170 D Centerview Lane 189 21200 D Centerview Lane 190 21230 D Centerview Lane 191 22180 0 Waterside Common 192 22200 D Waterside Common 193 22220 O Waterside Common 194 22240 D Waterside Cone~n 195 22260 0 Waterside Common 196 22330 0 Waterside Common 197 22360 D Waterside Common 198 22390 0 Waterside Common 199 22420 D Waterside Common 200 22450 D Waterside Common 201 22~80 0 Waterside Common 202 22510 D Waterside Common 203 22540 O Waterside Common 204 22570 D Waterside Common 205 22600 D Waterside Common 206 22910 D Morton Lane 207 22990 0 North Park 208 23050 0 North Park 209 23070 D North Park 210 23090 0 Lake Blvd. 211 23110 0 Lake Blvd. 212 23130 O Lake Blvd. 213 23150 0 Lake Blvd. 214 23190 D Lake Blvd. 215 23210 0 Lake Blvd. 216 23230 D Lake Blvd. 217 23275 D Chateau Lane 218 23325 0 Arbor Lane 219 30020 D Norwood Lane 220 30030 0 Norwood Lane 221 30070 O Carlson Park 222 30090 0 Carlson Park 223 30110 0 Car[son Park 224 30130 0 Carlson Park 225 30150 D Carlson Park 226 30170 D Carlson Park 227 30190 0 Carlson Park 228 30210 D Carlson Park 229 30230 D Carlson Park 230 30250 D %nwood Road 231 30270 0 Inwood Road 232 30300 D Avon Drive Dock Location Map Attachment P. 3of4 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 233 30330 O EmeraLd Drfve 234 30350 O EmeraLd Orfve 235 30370 0 EmeraLd Orive 236 30450 C Longford Road 237 30510 C Longford Road 238 30590 C Longford Road 239 30670 C Longford Road 240 30710 C.~(~ Longford Road ~ 31210 O Kenmore Common 242 31240 D Kenmore Con.on 243 31270 0 Kenmore Common 244 31300 D Kenmore Common 245 31330 D Kenmore Common 246 31360 D Kenmore Coninon 247 31390 D Ker~ore Common 248 31420 O Kenmore COnlllon 249 31450 D Kenmore Conmlon 250 31480 O Kenmore Common 251 31510 D Kenmore Common 252 31540 D Kenmore Common 253 31570 O Kenmore Common 254 31600 D Kenmore Common 255 31630 D Kenmore Co~non 256 31680 D ExceLsior Lane 257 31710 O ExceLsior Lane 258 31740 O ExceLsior Lane 259 31770 O ExceLsior Lane 260 31800 O £xcetsior Lane 261 31830 D ExceLsior Lane 262 31860 D ExceLsior Lane 263 31890 D ExceLsior Lane 26~ 31920 D ExceLsior Lane 265 31950 D ExceLsior Lane 266 31980 O ExceLsior Lane 267 32010 D ExceLsior Lane 268 32040 O ExceLsior Lane 269 32070 D ExceLsior Lane 270 32100 D ExceLsior Lane 271 32130 D ExceLsior Lane 272 32160 D ExceLsior Lane 273 32190 D ExceLsior Lane 274 32220 D ExceLsior Lane 275 32250 D ExceLsior Lane 276 32280 D ExceLsior Lane 27T 32310 D ExceLsior Lane 278 32340 D ExceLsior Lane 27~ 32600 D KeLLs Road 280 32670 D Stratford Lane 281 32760 D Stratford Lane 282 32?90 O Stratford Lane 283 32820 D Stratford Lane 284 32940 D Stratford Lane 285 33090 D Stratford Lane 286 33150 D Stratford Lane 287 33287 O Stratford Lane 288 33347 O Stratford Lane 289 33407 D Stratford Lane 290 33447 C Stratford Lane Rev. 11/5/96 REC# Site_~ Shore_Type Land_Name 291 33487 C Stratford Lane 292 33525 C Stratford Lane 293 40510 O AvaLon Park 294 40535 O AvaLon Park 295 40560 0 AvaLon Park 296 40585 O AvaLon Park 297 40610 O AvaLon Park 298~407'80 8 Devon Coa~on 299 40820A B MuLtipLe Oevon Common 300 408208 8 MuLtipLe Oevon Common 301 40820C B MuLtipLe Oevon Common 302 408200 B MultipLe Oevon Common 303 40820E B MuLtipLe Oevon Common 304 40820F B MuLt~p[e Oevon Co~non 305 40820G 8 MuLtipLe Oevon Common 306 40820H B Mu(tJpLe Devon Con,non · 307 40820! B MuLtipLe Devon Common ~.8 40820J B MuLtiple Devon Con,non 309 40945 B Oevon Common 310 40995 B Oevon Common 311 41020 B Devon Common 312 41050 S Devon Common 313 41080 B Devon C=~rnon 314 41110 C Devon Con.on 315 41140 C Devon Con~n 316 41170 C Devon Com~3n 317 41227 C Oevon Comnon 318 41272 C Oevon 319 41319 C Devon Coranon 320 41377 0 Oevon 321 41437 O Devon 322 41477 O Devon Common 323 41650 O Oevon 324 41750 D Oevon 3Z5 41824 O Devon Coglllon 326 41866 0 Oevon Coranon 327 41908 O Devon Common 328 41956 O Devon Common 329 42000 O Devon Common 330 42043 0 Oevon Com~n 331 42086 0 Oevon Con,non 332 42129 D Devon Coa~on 333 42172 C Devon Co~m~n 334 42227 C Devon 335 42277 C Oevon Common 336 42314 C Devon Con~on 337 42351 C Devon Coem~on 338 42406 C Devon CmTeon 339 42461 C Devon Common 340 42511 C Devon Co~m~on 341 42556 ¢ Oevon 342 42586 C Devon Common 343 42626 C Oevon 344 42691 B Oevon Co~mon 345 42791 B Devon Co~on 346 42821 B Oevon 347 42856 B Devon Conm~n 348 42871 B Devon Co~on Dock Location Map Attachment p. 4of4 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Hame 349 42901 B Devon Common 350 42931 B Devon Common 351 42961 B Devon 352 42990 B Devon Co~m3n 353 43020 B Devon Conm~n 354 43080 C Oevon Common 355 43120 C Devon 356 43180 C Oevon 357 432~5 C Devon 358 43265 B Devon Conm~on 359 43305 B Devon Comnon 360 43335 B Devon Conmlon 361 43360 B Devon Common 362 43390 8 Devon Comlton 363 43420 B Devon Conmmn 364 43450 C Devon Common 365 43520 C Devon Coamon 366 43575 C Devon Conl~on 367 43647 C Devon Con, non 368 43727 C Devon Conmon 369 43770 C Devon Common 370 43800 C Devon Common 371 43840 C Devon Conmon 372 43882 C Devon Common 373 43942 C Devon Common 374 44002 C Devon Coca, on 375 44097 C Oevon Common 376 44160 C Devon common 377 ~193 C Devon Common 37'8 44243 C Devon common 379 44408 C Devon Common 380 50220 D Waterbury Road 381 50240 D Waterbury Road 382 50260 D Waterbury Road 383 50400 D Brighton Blvd. 384 50430 0 Brighton Blvd. 385 50460 D Brighton Blvd. 386 50490 O Brighton Blvd. 387 50520 D Brighton BLvd. 3~ 50550 0 Brighton Blvd. 389 50580 0 Brighton Blvd. 390 50610 C Brighton BLvd. 391 50640 O Brighton Blvd. 392 50670 0 Brighton Blvd. 393 50700 O Brighton Blvd. ~ 394 507'50 O Brighton Blvd. 395 50760 0 Brighton Blvd. 396 50790 0 Brighton Common 397 50820 0 Brighton Co~non ~ 398 50850 0 Brighton '~ 399 50880 0 Brighton Con~n 400 50910 C Brighton Con,non 401 50940 C Brighton Common 402 50970 C Brighton Common 403 51030 C Brighton Common 404 51105 C Brighton Common 405 51135 C Brighton Common 406 51195 C Brighton Co~maon Rev. 11/5/96 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 407 51315 C Brighton Common 408 51375 C Brighton Con, non 409 51435 C Brighton Con.on 410 51495 C Brighton Common 411 51555 C Brighton Con~on 412 51675 C Brighton 413 51705 C Brighton Common 414 51735 C Brighton Con. on 415 51795 C Brighton Common 416 51850 C Brighton Conmon 417 51885 C Brighton Conm~on 418 54970 O Lost Lake Park 419 55000 0 Lost Lake Park 420 55030 D Lost Lake Park 421 55060 O Lost Lake Park 422 55090 O Lost Lake Park 42~ 55120 D Lost Lake Park 424 55150 O Lost Lake Park 425 55180 D Lost Lake Park 426 60640 0 [delwood Road 427 60685 0 %delwood Road 428 60725 0 Twin Park 429 60745 O Twin Park 430 60765 O Twin Park 431 60785 O Twin Park 432 60805 O Twin Park 433 60825 O Highland Park 434 60845 0 Highland Park 435 60865 O Highland Park 436 60885 0 Highland Park 437 60905 O Highland Park 438 60925 0 Highland Park 439 60945 D Highland Park 440 60965 D Highland Park 441 60985 0 Ridgewood Park 442 61010 O Ridgewood Park 443 61030 D Ridgewood Park 444 61050 D Ridgewood Park 445 61070 0 Ridgewood Park 4~ 61090 0 Ridgewood Park 447 61110 O Ridgewood Park 448 61130 D Ridgewood Park /+/+9 61150 D Ridgewood Park 450 61190 0 Lagoon Park 451 61215 O Lagoon Park 452 61240 0 Lagoon Park 453 61265 D Lagoon Park O06D O0 O00G 001~ 00~; O0~W 00~ 0 OOZg 008~ 0 0 o06g ~ LI~ONARO, STRIrET ANO DE:INARD i~or ~';~lOIq~,.g A,~.,~CIATIO N I I,ING:APOLIS, F41N N~:,,~O TA rACSi),iiL~' (~l~l .'4."~ .~.· I~.~7 ~r. PA~.II., MIIqI,IESOTA ~1OI September 13, 1996 jCrFI~£Y ), G~iG$ WNITEI~'S oflqrCf I~IAL NI~NeE:I~ Dennis Flack 1609 Bluebird Lane Mound, MN 55364 Re: Flack v. City of Mound; Our File No. 0642% 15561 (612) 335-1562 Dear Dennis: You received bum information when snmcone at the (3overnment Center told you that the hair-section map had not been updated and neither had the tax parcel descriptions. My pamlegnl Nancy Weeks also got bum information when she telephoned the ~overt]ment Center, but l.sent her over there to fi~d out in person what became or the six plaintiffs' reques{s For consolidation of tax parcels with adjoining segmeuts of lakeshore. She found that all six lots have been ....... consolidated, both in the legal descriptions in the assessor's office and on tl~e COUllly's o~cial half-section maps. Enclosed are copies or fl~e legal description For your property and both relevant half-section maps. The County did not assign new tax.parcel identification humbert, but simply changed the legal ~sctiptions in its records to include the'"a4joJning par of Wawonaissa Common as described in Document'No. 6568305." ' " Very lruly yours, Chuck Dayton, Esq. I,EONARD, STREET AND DEINARD By lltt~h M. Maynard f GOVT LOT 8 Mound City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 May 31.1996 Dear Mayor Polston and Cotmcil Members, At the May 28th city council meeting, the nonabutting dock holders agreed to the following on a temporary basis for the 1996 boating season: · One dock with two boat slips at the end of Woodland Road. · The renminder of the nonabutting residents docks from Wawonaissa Co,ninon will "group" on both sides of Canary Beach area. · An agreement between neighbors: Marty and Marie Johnson's dock will remain on Wawonaissa Common across from Carol Doyle's property. This is not a solution to the problems caused by the lawsuit. It allows people to use the lakeshore this season but will not be acceptable as a permanent solution. In reference to the proposal submitted by the litigants dated May 18th, 1996, there are several areas of dispute. The litigants site consensus during the recently completed mediation. ~Du~ng the recently completed ~nediation process there was consensus that on Wawonaissa Common there should be one p~Svate dock for each lakeshore home and no other private docks.~ We do not agree with their interpretation of private docks only in front of abutters homes. In fact, the consensus was every dock holder would retain their private docks with the nonabutters private docks clustered at the street ends. The exact number of boats or docks was not agreed upon. Multiple boat docks were never agreed to except by encouraging shared docks. The ~nediation was done in good faith. We had consensus and continued mediation on the understanding that the City of Mound would continue to regulate and license docks on the Wawonaissa Commons. (We did not lmow what the six litigants would do until late in mediation.) In the proposal, the litigants exclude all the abutting property owners from the citfs regulation. This changes the mediation agreement and potentially requires the LMCD to regulate this area. The entire proposal has the tone of one authoritative body proposing what it will accept this year and possibly next. Due to the outcome of the lawsuit, the City of Mound may need that per~nission. In fact, we feel we have equal rights and, therefore, equal say in any proposed dock plan. We urge continued help from the City of Mound in corning to an agreement. We too would like to "get on with life" and try to get along with our neighbors. We look forward to negotiating some closure to this problem. Until legally notified of a change, we will assume our rights and usage of the co~nmons remains the same as it has been in the past and will agree to the previously stated temporary solution for the 1996 boating season. Sincerely, Leah Weycker Cathy Bailey John Eccles Mike Aspelin CC: Ed Shukle Curt Pearson John Dean Mayor Robert Polston City of Mound 534~ Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 May 18, 1996 Re: Dockage On Wawonaissa Common Dear Bob: During the recently completed mediation process there was consensus that on Wawonaissa Common there should be one private dock for each lakeshore home and no other private docks. There should be a new rntjnicipal dock at the West end of Woodland Road with two slips licensed by the City of Mound to inland homeowners in the plat of WOODLAND POINT. Other inland homeowners in WOODLAND POINT who have been docking along Wawonaissa Common should be reassigned to a new municipal dock to be built either at the north end of Bluebird Lane or between Bluebird Lane and Canary Beach. The City of Mound should keep the municipal docks in good repair {hroughout the boating season and then remove the docks to a municipal Storage area outside WOODLAND POINT, rather than leave them near the lakeshore. These multiple docks should be managed by the City of Mound as par~ of its municipal dock program, but licenses to use these multiple docks should be issued only to residents of WOODLAND POINT. Woodland Road should be the only access to the municipal dock at the end of Woodland Road. The City may install stairs leading to this dock, but they mtl~t be similar in size and building materials to other stairs along Wawoniassa Common. There should be no signs indicating that the City oWns or controls any part of Wawonaissa Common or the before mentioned docks. The foregoing dockage plan is acceptable to the undersigned plaintiffs in Dennis Flack. et al. vs. City of Mound. et al. for 1996. Next winter we want to get together with you to discuss how well things went in 1996 and what the plan should be for 1997. We are willing to cooperate with this dockage plan, because we want to re-establish good relationships with our neighbors and with city government; and we want the shoreline to be attractive. We are not granting any permanent rights to the City of Mound; flor are we giving up any rights we have to our respective segments of lakeshore. Respectfully, Dennis Flack Shirley Flack Michael Gardner Judy Gardner Jack Korlath Sandy Korlath Jeff Bishop Marie Bishop Karl Swanson Janet Swanson Ron Motyka Mary Motyka CC: Hugh Maynard, Attorney · Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 June 8,1996 Dear Mr. Shukle, At the last city council meeting, an agreement was proposed and passed by the city council concerning a dockage plan for the 1996 boating season on Wawonaissa lake, shore. This plan stated that as a neighborly gesture for the 1996 boating season we are in agreement to have the city install and maintain one city own dock with two slips between my lakeshore home and Mr. Metz lakeshore home. The purpose of this letter is to prevent a major problem. Mr. John Eccles is preparing to put his own dock in at this location. He has brought dock sections down to the lakeshore and is preparing to put his own dock in. I w~uld like to request that you contact Mr. Eccles immediately and inform him of the agreement that was made at the last council meeting. Hopefully this will prevent an unwanted controversy by all parties involved. Also at the last council meeting I asked the city and the city agreed to contact the homeowners who left their unwanted garbage and dock sections on the lakeshore and have it removed. To date nothing has been removed. Would you please advise me of the status of this request. If you need the names of the homeowner who left this debris, I would be happy to provide there names and addresses. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely_ /~ Mike Gardner 1599 Bluebird Lane Mound, MN 55364 cc: Mr. Robert Polston, Mayor City Council Flack et, al CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: October 21, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Laker Peggy James, Secre~ News Release Please publish the following news release in "The Laker" on November 2, 1996. MOUND PARK COMMISSION REVIEWS 1997 DOCK LOCATION MAP On Thursday, November 14, 1996 the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission will hold a public hearing on the approval of' the 1997 Dock location Map. This map shows approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. City Code requires that the Dock Location Map be reviewed annually by the Park Commission so recommended changes can be referred to, and considered by the City Council by January 15. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN. All interested residents who attend the meeting will be given the opportunity to be heard. If you have any questions regarding the hearing, you may call City Hall at 472-0600. CC: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Park Director printecl on recycled paper PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETI1NG OCTOBER 10, 1996 DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES FOR 1997 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, 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. Denote addition of two new dock sites on Longford Road as approved by the City Council on July 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? Faclder 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 recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 2, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission October 10, 1996 Meeting,..~.~ Jim Fackler, Parks Directo~'~, ,~ Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspeck~ 1997 Dock Location Map Changes Following is 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. Denote addition of two new dock sites on Longford Road as approved by the City Council on July 9, 1996. Shoreline Type needs to be assigned. A copy of the 1996 Dock Location Map and Attachment to Dock Location Map Rev. 2/5/96 is attached for your reference. enclosure printed on recycled paper ¢iL~ of Mound, ~341 M~¥wood Ro~d, ~ou~cl, ~ ~364 ,11 472-0600 ATTACHMENT TO DOCK LOCATION MAP (Revised 3/22/96) REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 1 00010 o 2 00030 D 3 00050 D 4 00070 D 5 00115 D 6 00125 D 7 00145 D 8 00155 D 9 00195 0 10 00215 B 11 00235 D 12 00255 D 13 00275 D 14 00295 D 15 00315 D 16 00335 D 17 00355 0 18 00385 D 19 00490 0 20 00550 D 21 00580 D 22 00610 D 23 00640 D 24 00670 0 25 00700 D 26 00730 D 27 00760 D 28 00790 D 29 00820 D 30 00850 D 31 00880 D 32 OO910 D 33 0094O 0 34 00970 D 35 01000 D 36 01030 D 37 01060 c 38 01090 c 39 01120 C 40 01150 C 41 01170 C 42 01200 C 43 01530 C 44 01560 C 45 01600 C 46 01650 C 47 01880 D 48 01900 D 49 01920 D 50 01940 D 51 01960 0 52 01980 D 53 02000 D 54 02020 D 55 02040 D 56 02060 D 57 02080 D 58 O2100 0 Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Bluebird Lane Bluebird Lane Canary Lane Canary Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Conelon Wawonalssa Col~On Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Cor~non Wawonalssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonatssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawona]ssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Con,non Wawonalssa Coranon Wawonalssa Common Naurika Common ~aurika Coram~n Waurika Conmon ~aurika Common ~aurika Common Waurika Conmon Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Con,non ~aurika Common Naurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common ~aurfka Common Waurika Common Waurika Common gaurika Common 'Waurfka Common REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 59 02180 D Waurika Co~m~on 60 02200 D Waurika Common 61 02220 D Waurika Co~on 62 02250 O gaurika Cohen 63 02280 D Waurika Cormllon 64 02310 D Waurika Common 65 02340 D Waurika Common 66 02370 D Waurika Comnon 67 02400 D Waurika Conm~n 68 02630 o Waurfka Common 69 02660 D Waurika Common 70 02490 D Waurika Common 71 02520 D Waurika Co.non 72 02550 D Waurika 73 02605 D Pebble Beach Comm 74 02635 D Pebble Beach Comm 75 02665 D Pebble Beach Comm 76 02695 0 Pebble Beach Cor~ 77 02720 D Pebble Beach Comm 78 02750 D Pebble Beach Comm 79 02780 D Pebble Beach Comm 80 02810 D Three Pts. Blvd. 81 02840 D Three Pts. Blvd. 82 02870 D Three Pts. Blvd. 83 02900 D Three Pts. Blvd. 84 02930 D Three Pts. Blvd. 85 04070 D Beachside (North) 86 04110 D Beachside (North) 87 10020 0 Shorewood Lane 88 10050 D Beachside (South) 89 10070 D Beachside (South) 90 10090 D Beachside (South) 91 10220 D Crescent Park 92 10250 D Crescent Park 93 10280 D Crescent Park 94 10310 D Crescent Park 95 10340 D Crescent Park 96 10370 D Crescent Park 97 10400 D Crescent Park 98 10430 D Crescent Park 99 10460 D Crescent Park 100 10490 D Crescent Park 101 10520 D Crescent Park 102 10550 D Crescent Park 103 10580 D Crescent Park 104 10610 D Crescent Park 105 10640 D Crescent Park 106 10670 D Crescent Park 107 10700 D Crescent Park 108 12430 D Wren Road 109 12460 D Wiota Common 110 12690 D Wiota Common 111 12520 D Wiota Con,non 112 12550 D Wiota Comon 113 12580 D Wiota Corm,on 114 12610 D Wfota Common 115 12640 D Wiota Common 116 12670 O Wiota Common City of Mound Attachment to Dock Location Map Revised 3/22/96 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 117 127O0 0 118 12730 D 119 12760 O 120 12790 D 121 12820 D 122 12850 D 123 12880 D 124 12910 D 125 12940 D 126 1297O D 127 13000 D 128 13O3O 0 129 13O6O 0 130 13090 D 131 1312O O 132 13150 O 133 1318O D 134 1321O D 135 1324O D 136 1327O D 137 133OO D 138 1333O D 139 13360 D 140 13390 O 141 13420 O 142 13450 D 143 13480 D 144 13510 D 145 13540 D 146 13570 D 147 13600 D 148 13630 D 149 13660 O 150 13690 O 151 13~20 D 152 13750 O 153 13780 0 154 13810 D 155 19950 D 156 20130 D 157 20160 D 158 20190 D 159 20220 O 160 20250 0 161 2O28O 0 162 2O31O D 163 2O34O 0 164 20370 D 165 20400 D 166 20430 D 167 20460 O 1~ 20490 0 169 20520 0 170 20550 D 171 20580 D 172 20610 O 173 20640 0 174 20670 D Wiota Co~nmn Wiota Common Wiota Common Wiota Coa~on Wiota Common Wiota Comnon Wiota Coalman Wiota Common Wiota Co~non Wiota Corramn Wiota Co~n Wiota WJota Coal~on Wiota Common Wiota Common Wiota Con.on Wiota Co~on Wiota Common Wiota Common Wiota Common Wiota Common Wiota Common Wiota Co~non Wiota Co~non Wiota Conmon Wiota Co~on Wiota Con.on Wiota Common Wiota Common Wiota Con,non Wiota Common Wiota Com~n Wiota Common Wiota Con.on Wiota Comnmn Wiota Coamon Wiota Co~mon Wiota Peabody St. Water Bank Con.on Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Conmon Water Bank Co~on Water Bank Common Water Bank Conmmn Water Bank Common Water Bank Water Bank Common Water Bank Co.non Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Co~non Page 2 of 4 REC# Site_# Shore_T~fl3e Land_Name 175 20700 O 176 20730 O 177 20760 0 178 20790 D 179 20810 O 180 20830 O 181 20860 D 182 20890 O 183 20920 D 184 20950 O 185 20980 D 186 21110 O 187 21140 D 188 21170 D 189 21200 O 190 21230 0 191 22180 D 192 22200 D 193 22220 D 194 22240 D 195 22260 D 196 22330 O 197 2236O 0 198 2239O 0 199 22420 O 2O0 22450 D 201 22480 D 2O2 22510 D 203 22540 D 204 2257O D 2O5 2260O D 206 22910 D 207 22990 D 208 2305O D 209 23070 D 210 23090 D 211 23110 D 212 23130 O 213 23150 D 214 23190 D 215 23210 O 216 23230 D 217 23275 D 218 23325 D 219 3OO2O D 22O 30030 0 221 30O70 D 222 3OO9O 0 223 30110 D 224 30130 D 225 30150 D 226 30170 O 227 30190 D 228 30210 D 229 30230 O 230 30250 O 231 30270 O 232 303OO D Water Bank Cormon Water Bank Common Waterside Con,non Waterside Con,non Waterside Co~non Centervlew Lane Centervlew Lane Centervlew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centervlew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centerwew Lane Centerv~ew Lane gaterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Co~non Waterside Co~mmn Waterside Co~on Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Coat,on Morton Lane North Park North Park North Park Lake Blvd. Lake Blvd. Lake Blvd. Lake Blvd. Lake Blvd. Lake Blvd. Lake Blvd. Chateau Lane Arbor Lane Norwood Lane Norwood Lane Carlson Park Carlson Park Carlson Park Carlson Park Carlson Park Carlson Park Carlson Park Carlson Park Carlson Park Inwood Road Inwood Road Avon Drive City of Mound Attachment to Dock Location Map Revised 3/22/96 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 233 30330 D Emerald Drive 234 30350 D Emerald Drive 235 30370 O Emerald Drive ?.36 30450 C Longford Road 237 30510 c Longford Road ?.38 30590 C Longford Road 239 30670 C Longford Road 240 30710 C Longford Road 241 31210 D Kenmore Co~m~on 242 31240 D Kenmore Common 243 31270 D Kermore Common 244 31300 D Kenmore Co~non 245 31330 D Kenmore Common 246 31360 D Ker~nore Co~m~on 247 31390 D Kenmore Common 248 31420 D Ker~re Coflmlon 249 31450 D Kenmore Con,non 250 31480 D Ker~ore Common 251 31510 D Ker~re Con, non 252 31540 D Ker~nore Co~n 253 31570 D Kenmore Con,mort 254 31600 D Kenmore Con~on 255 31630 O Ker~nore Common 256 31680 D Excelsior Lane 257 31710 D Excelsior Lane 258 31740 D Excelsior Lane 259 31~70 D Excelsior Lane 260 31800 D Excelsior Lane 261 31830 D Excelsior Lane 262 31860 D Excelsior Lane 263 31890 D Excelsior Lane 264 31920 D Excelsior Lane 265 31950 D Excelsior Lane 266 31980 D Excelsior Lane 267 32010 D Excelsior Lane 268 32040 D Excelsior Lane 269 32070 D Excelsior Lane 270 32100 D Excelsior Lane 271 32130 D Excelsior Lane 272 32160 O Excelsior Lane 2?3 32190 D Excelsior Lane 274 32220 D Excelsior Lane 275 32250 D Excelsior Lane 276 32280 D Excelsior Lane 277' 32310 O Excelsior Lane 278 32340 O Excelsior Lane 27~ 32600 O Kelts Road 280 32670 D Stratford Lane 281 32760 D Stratford Lane 282 32790 D Stratford Lane 283 32820 D Stratford Lane 284 32940 D Stratford Lane 285 33090 D Stratford Lane 286 33150 O Stratford Lane 287 33287 O Stratford Lane 288 33347 O Stratford Lane 289 33407 D Stratford Lane 290 33447 C Stratford Lane Page 3 of 4 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 291 33487 C Stratford Lane 292 33525 C Stratford Lane 293 40510 D Avalon Park 294 40535 O Avalon Park 295 40560 0 Avalon Park 296 40585 O Avalon Park 297 40610 O Avalon Park 298 40855 B Devon Common 299 40885 B Devon Common 300 40915 B Devon Common 301 40945 B Devon Common 302 40965 B Devon Con.on 303 40995 B Devon Con'mon 304 41020 B Devon Conlllon 305 41050 B Devon Coranon 306 41080 B Devon Common 307 41110 C Devon Common 308 41140 C Devon Common 309 41170 C Devon Common 310 41227 C Devon Common 311 41272 C Devon Common 312 41319 C Devon Comn~n 313 41377' O Devon Common 314 41437 D Devon Con~n 315 41477 D Devon Common 316 41650 O Devon Common 317 41750 D Devon Common 318 41824 D Devon Common 319 41866 D Devon Common 320 41908 D Devon Common 321 41956 O Devon Comalon 322 42000 D Devon Common 323 42043 D Devon Con,non 324 42086 D Devon Com~on 325 42129 D Devon Common 326 42172 C Devon 327 42227 C Devon Common 328 42277 C Devon Common 329 42314 C Devon Col~non 330 42351 C Devon Common 331 42406 C Devon Common 332 42461 C Devon Cormlon 333 42511 C Devon Comelon 334 42556 C Devon Common 335 42586 C Devon Common 336 42626 C Devon Co~non 337 42691 B Devon Conxnon 338 427'01 B Devon Common 339 42821 B Devon Co~non 340 42856 B Devon Con.on 341 42871 B Devon Common 342 42901 B Devon Con,non 343 42931 B Devon Common 344 42961 B Devon Co~mnon 345 42990 B Devon Common 346 43020 8 Devon Common 347 43080 C Devon Common 348 43120 C Devon Co~non City of Mound Attachment to Dock Location Map Revised 3/22/96 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 349 43180 C Devon Co~n 350 43235 ¢ Devon Con~n 351 43265 g Devon Co~n 352 43305 g Devon Common 353 43335 B Devon Common 354 43360 B Devon Common 355 43390 B Devon Con. on 356 43420 B Devon Common 357 43450 C Devon Common 358 43520 C Devon CoaCh 359 43575 C Oevon Common 360 43647 C Oevon Common 361 437'27 ¢ Devon common 362 43770 C Devon Common 363 43800 C Devon Co~on 364 43840 C Devon Common 365 43882 C Devon Common 366 43942 C Devon Common 367 44002 C Devon Col~n 368 44097 C Devon Common 369 44160 C Devon Common 370 44193 C Devon Conlm3n 371 44243 C Devon Common 372 44408 C Devon Common 373 50220 D Waterbury Road 374 50240 O Waterbury Road 375 50260 O Waterbury Road 376 50400 D Brighton BLvd. 377 50430 O Brighton BLvd. 378 50460 D Brighton Blvd. 379 50490 0 Brighton BLvd. 380 50520 D Brighton BLvd. 381 50550 D Brighton Blvd. 382 50580 D Brighton Blvd. 38~ 50610 C Brighton Blvd. 384 50640 D Brighton Blvd. 385 50670 D Brighton Blvd. 386 50700 O Brighton Blvd. 387 50730 O Brighton Blvd. 388 50760 D Brighton Blvd. 389 50790 D Brighton Common 390 50820 0 Brighton Conm~n 391 50850 0 Brighton Coca, on 392 50880 O Brighton Common 393 50910 C Brighton Con,on 394 50940 C Brighton Common 395 S0970 C Brighton Common 396 51000 C Brighton Common 397 51030 C Brighton Common 398 51105 C Brighton Conm~n 399 51135 C Brighton Common 400 51195 C Brighton Co~n 401 51315 C Brighton 402 51375 C Brighton Common 403 S143S C Brighton Coamon 404 51495 C Brighton Con~n 405 51525 C Brighton Common 406 51555 C Brighton Common Page 4 of 4 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 407 51675 C Brighton Common 408 51705 C Brighton Co~on 409 51735 C Brighton Conm~on 410 51795 C Brighton Common 411 51850 C Brighton Conlnon 412 51885 C Brighton Common 413 54970 O Lost Lake Park 414 55000 D Lost Lake Park 415 55030 D Lost Lake Park 416 55060 O Lost Lake Park 417 55090 D Lost Lake Park 418 55120 D Lost Lake Park 419 55150 O Lost Lake Park 420 55180 O Lost Lake Park 421 60640 O Idelwood Road 422 60685 D Idelwood Road 423 60725 D Twin Park 424 60745 D Twin Park 425 60765 D Twin Park 426 60785 D Twin Park 427 60805 D Twin Park 428 60825 O Highland Park 429 60845 D Highland Park 430 60865 O Highland Park 431 60885 O Highland Park 432 60905 O Highland Park 433 60925 O Highland Park 434 60945 D Highland Park 435 60965 O Highland Park 436 60985 O Ridgewood Park 437 61010 D Ridgewood Park 438 61030 D Ridgewood Park 439 61050 D Ridgewood Park 440 61070 D Ridgewood Park 441 61090 O Ridgewood Park 442 61110 D Ridgewood Park 443 61130 D Ridgewood Park 444 61150 D Ridgewood Park 445 61190 0 Lagoon Park 446 61215 D Lagoon Park 447 61240 D Lagoon Park 448 61265 O Lagoon Park CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY3NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC I'-I~ARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-01 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE TO ALLOW A "MAJOR AUTO REPAIR" BUSINESS AS REQUESTED BY RANDY'S AUTOMOTIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 1997 to consider the approval of an amended conditional use permit to allow the operation of a "Major Auto Repair" Business for Randy's Automotive at 4831 Shoreline Drive. The definition of "Major Auto Repair" is: "The general repair, rebuilding, or reconditioning of engines, motor vehicles or trailer, including body work, frame work, and major painting service." City Code Section 350:670 allows Major Auto Repair businesses to be located within the B-2 General Business Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit. The request also includes the discontinuation of the "Open Sales Lot" which is allowed under the existing permit for this property. The subject property is legally described as follows: Lots 1 to 4 inclusive and Lots 20 and 21, and that part of the vacated alley lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from the Northwest comer of Lot 4 to the Southwest comer of Lot 20, all in Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Peggy 1dm~, l~lannin~ Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affec~operty by February 1, 1997, and published in "The Laker" on February I, 1997. ~ printed on recycled paper PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUNO, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE NO. 97-02 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THE UNINIPROVED OXFORD LANE LOCATED NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCKS 5 AND 9 IN DEVON NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February_ 11, 1997 to consider a request to vacate Oxford Lane located north of Hanover Road and South of Aberdeen Road and between Blocks 5 and 9 in Devon. This portion of Oxford Lane is a 30 foot wide unimproved shown below: platted right-of-way:< ..~ '.'.',, <: <-_"': 1,~1 ._~~ - .,~-;6 ,( l~,~ ~ -~, -- I( 69) -~'~, ~ ~6 ~ ~ -- '- - -- "': AIl ~rsons a~]::)e~n~ at said he~-i~ with reference to the above wLll be §i¥~n the o~ortunity to be heard at this meeting Mailed to affected property owners by February 1, 1997. Published in 'The Laker' on February 1, 1997, and posted by lanuary 25, 1997. ] ~ ~ ~1 printed on recycled paper Memo DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 7, 1997 Francene C. Clark-Leisinger, Mound City Clerk Thomas May, Hennepin County Assessor 1997 Local Board of Review Dates Tuesday , April 22, 1997 Day of the Week Date 1Vfinnesota Law requires that I, as County Assessor, set the date for your Local Board of Review Meeting. After reviewing previous meeting days and your suggestions of last year, the above date was selected. I sincerely hope that it is agreeable with your council. As there must be a quorum, I would suggest that an informal review of your members with a request that they mark their calendars would be appropriate. Please confmn the date set out or call Bill Effertz at 348-3046 with your alternative date by January 21, so that our printing order can be completed on time. We suggest starting times of 6:30, 7:00, or 7:30 p.m., but will discuss it with you if you wish a different time. Your early completion and return of the attached tear off strip will be appreciated and we will send your official notice for posting as required by law. Please return to JoDee Nelson, A-2103 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 Municipality: Date: Time: Place: CONFIRMATION Confirmed by For selecting meeting dates in future years, the following information will be helpful January 14, 1997 BATCH 6122 BATCH 6123 BATCIt 6124 Total Bills $166,570.46 597.375.51 120,704.91 $884,650.88 C'. r"; 0 C ? 0 0 0 0 © C C ~' © C C 0 ~ O O 0 0 0 '0 0 ~'!.. ii.;-.:: :?: ..,,, ,. ~ ~::;~,". ~:,;:,' ¢::,,..,. ~';;];~, . -r'-::; ~.~."":, ~.~":" <x ..... r:":~_ 0 C' 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 '3 ~ "~',::~ '~) '3 :~:3 ::3. i~?~;;;.:.: ~' ~-: -,, .'~'....7' '~'Z~LTM 7' ;";7,~?:~ ........... , ;-:Z..~t ~ ~,~ ~ ,..~.. 5'~ ,.~'--. :; '~ ,'- .,7 ~.~ ~ .,,. ,~,.;~.~ ~., ~....., ~:~ ;~.~,?~ ., : ,,.- _:,, .,,. ,.~t ~,:~ ,~,,,.. C 0 C~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 -'© 'D 0 0 © Z ...) ,,~,, I J, I,, © © C, C:, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 © ,,-.4 ~ ~':. ~ ',z, L; 0 0 0 0 ~. .....,, ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ,:.~ .... ,. ,,., ~...,' ~ 0 O '~ '~" :~ .... ~' ~"' :::". '.:... ::.':' ~ :...:~Ct ::.:...~:::. :::,.:;. ::.. ;~ :- ?- ,:~ : . ::: . .:'; .' ', :. . ...:::: . ! 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 'o ,o o o © o o' ~D i;.:;: i' CL."( .. .... ~--, ,~ . :~ ,.. ~ ~ ~.~ .... ~ .:.~ :?. " ' . :~'}..;~.~t.~,.:.:~.,,,: %.'..:'..,:',. .~.: "L ':,:~','M~.':..:'~:~:~'~.~':::.', '~-,,J.~.,' ~;,:'.: :'~,~ ,~1~.~:.;:~'.:~',~%. ".'..~ ~:~'~::-"' . .c.:: ..... '.',,'. ....... C ~'~ 0 C C 0 0 0 0 G © 0 0 "0 ©' 0 0 © C) -0 0'"© © ~ © ? © .J Z uJ Z 0 0 9 ' "-] C. ~ C'~ O C C © C C 0 0 0 ~ 0 ? 'D~. 0 J 0 C) 0 0 ,,0 U "' <3 © 0 0 : '? ~C'. G C © .0 © , Il u.I 0 C, r~, ~ C 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,I 0 O 0 .... i., 9 0 0 © 0 © ,.m., 0 · 0 ',..D 0 0 0 0 C" G C'. "'" 0 © ~ Z ,11 Z City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 December 3,1996 To Mound City Council, My name is Steve Bedeli and I live at 4801 Shoreline Dr. I have lived in Mound my entire life and plan to live here the rest of it. I have a Bachelor of Science in Public Relations and Journalism from Mankato State University. For the past seven years I have worked as a bartender at a couple local establishments. Two years ago I started a seasonal snack shop that has been successful and business has been conducted without any problems. Last year I added cigars to the many items I sell and they were a big draw. In the summer of 97 I will be working informally with the Water Patrol to alert boaters of a new law requiring each boat to have a throw able flotation device on board. In addition I will sell fire extinguishers and life jackets. I also have been asked by about 95% of my customers to sell beer at my location. As we all know it is legal to drink alcoholic beverages while operating a water craft on Lake Minnetonka. While boating myself and observing boater's habits as they pass through the busy channel I live on I have noticed most boaters take full advantage of this. From my experience it is usually not a question of if a group of fdends are going to drink alcoholic beverages while boating, it is usually a question of where to purchase the beverages while they are boating.. There are many business on or close to the lake that answer this question for boaters. The obvious choice would be a liquor store. The Minnetonka Mist in Spring Park has an off sale liquor license and so does Haskeii's in Excelsior. Both of these liquor stores are-located across busy roads from the lake. Many marinas have the ability to sell beer on the lake to their customers Rockvam Boatyard in Spring Park, Howard's Point and a few others have been licensed by their city to sell beer. Al& Alma's Supper Club has six or seven separate licenses to sell beer and wine to their patron~'while aboard their charter boats enjoying Lake Minnetonka. There are also a few full service restaurants on the lake which include alcohol on their menu. I would offer the convenience of not having to cross a busy road or walk through a marina for my customers to purchase beer. I have had a vast amount of alcohol awareness training in my years of bartending. I would appreciate your support and I feel that I meet the requirements for such a license. I believe the council will be making similar decisions granting such a license when Lost Lake is developed as I am sure if the business'are going to cater to boaters, one will probably want to sell beer or other alcoholic beverages. Sincerely, Steve Bedell By The Way Snack Shop CH'Y OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, ~OTA 55364 Moumi Busings: Moumt Addr~: Applicam Name: APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIOUOR Applicant Dat~ of Birth: Citiz~ ~/YES NO 5-1 -7o Bus. I~one: Comt:~uy Addr~: Compaay Officials: Home Phone: ~i b~a Co. Pho~: -- -' Ci~: Zip: ~i~t) (Mi~&o) (~t) (D~t~ of Bi~) ~. (D~t~ of Bi~) (Fi~t) (Mi~) (~t) 3. (Data of Birth) (First) (Middle) (Last) References: (List three - name and address of each) CHOc~ I~_~ ~v~" t ~ b e..O£o~ ~ Indica~ whetl~-r you sold $20,000 or more of nonlntoxic~ing malt liquor or wine in previous year:. Y~s; ..-=--- No: ~ Sigxmur~ of Applicant -,_ artment A_-rO. Val/Denial I I I A~roved D~nii~d RESOLUTION//96-33 RESOLUTION TO AMI~ND RESOLUTION//95-44 APPROVING A TRANSI~_2qT MI;~CHANT LICENSE WITH CONDITIONS FOR A SEASONAL SNACK SHOP TRArr~ER AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE SKARP'S EAST LAWN, LOTS 1, 2, & 3, PID//13-117-24 44 0052 ~S, Resolution//95-44 approved a Transient Merchant License for a seasonal snack shop trailer known as 'By the Way Snack Shop,' and; ~S, a Transient Merchant License was obtained for the 1995 season by Steven Bedeli, and; WHIERF.,AS, no complaints have been received over the past year with regards to the operation of the snack shop, and; WlqF. REAS, condition g9 within Resolution g95-44 states, "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. ~ and; WHEREAS, Mr. Be. dell has no employees other than himself, and the portable toilet on the property is provided as a convenience only, therefore, it is not required to be handicap accessible by the building code. NOW, Tlq~O~, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve an amendment to Resolution g95-44, condition gg, as follows: '9. The toilet facilities will be ~-~--~: ..... -~ ...... :,.,~ ~ ..,m ,... screened from · e l~e. ~e~ fac~fies sh~ not be M~n 50 f~t of ~e ~e, ~d wffi be remov~ ~om ~e p~cel dung ~e off-s~on. ~ The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the aff'u-mative: A,~ens, Hanus and Jensen. Polston and Jessen were absent and excused. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Attest: City Manager Resolution adopted: March 26, 1996 47 RESOLLrTION ~9~-4~ RESOLIYrlON TO APPROVE A TRANSIF2~ ~ERCttANT LICENSE W1TM CONDITIONS FOR A SEASONAL SNACK SHOP TRAIl,ER AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE SKARP'S EAST LAWN, LOTS 1, 2 & 3, PID #13-117-2,4 44 0052 WllY.,REAS, Steven Matthew Bedell, d/bls By the Way Snack Shop, has applied for a Transient Merchant License to allow a seasonal suack shop trailer at 4801 Shoreline Drive, and; WI]]gl~EAS, City Code Section 485, Subd. 1., defines a Transient Merchant as, "Any person selling any merchandise, either as principal or agent, from a building or lot which he or she occupies as tenant at will, or under a lease for a shorter term than six (6) months, or from 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." WitEREAS, this business is proposed to be water-oriented and will cater to boaters utilizing the adjacent Seton Channel and will offer service via a tie-up arrangement parallel tn the channel, the two existing docks are proposed to be removed, and; WltEREAS, the applicant proposes to sell: ice, cigarettes, ice cream, chewing tobacco, pm-packaged sandwiches, bottles and canned beverages (non-intoxicating), chips, and candy, sunglasses, suntan lotion, and; WltEREAS, the applicant also proposes to provide a public pay phone, portable bathrooms, and aesthetically pleasing garbage and recycling cans, and; WltEREAS, the subject property is located in the B-2 General Business Zoning District, and; Wtt]gREAS, 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, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a Transient Merchant License for Steven Matthew Bexlell, d/bls 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. ,11 April 25~ 1995 3. 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). 5. 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. 7. No picnic tables will be allowed on the site. 8. 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. 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. 11. 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. ~- st.' ' C&ager Mayor 151, PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF MOUND RE: COMMISSION REARRANGEMENT AND CREATION OF COMMONS / DOCK COMMISSION BY MARK HANUS - COUNClLMEMBER 8 JANUARY 1997 PURPOSE The purpose of this proposal is to create a more permanent atmosphere of citizen involvement and cooperation relative to the commons and dock program in the city of Mound. The targeted result is three fold. 1. Avoidance of any more loss of shoreline control for Mound such as has happened in Woodland Point. 2.. Reduced frustration and personal conflicts, increased understanding of issues beyond the confines of ones property, and reduction of the we versus them attitude, which is the deep rooted polarization that has been festering for so long in Mound. 3. Where possible, increase the number of inland households that have access to dockage in the city of Mound. This can be achieved through a self-regulated program of dock users involving the people closest to the issues as long as an appropriate set of checks and balances are employed. -1- CONDITIONS The merits and value of the tedious work conducted by the Commons/Dock Task Force is difficult to argue against as long as the type and scope of the work that they have done is understood. There has been definite movement toward a more user friendly system but the movement is inherently a slow process when using care to protect everyone's interest. This trend of improvements must continue. In fact, I believe the Council would be remiss if not encouraging it to continue. The Commons / Dock Task Force was setup as a short term study group to identify problems and concerns and recommend improvements to the system. This has already resulted in a trial multiple dock complex that appears to be a resounding success from all sides. The occupants like it, the abutting property owners like it, and the city likes it. promises to be financially viable within the fund itself. No funds outside of the Dock Fund itself are planned or required. This is success. It There are, no doubt, other areas that could benefit greatly if similar projects were employed. The city has received requests from other areas in the city to have these installed in more neighborhoods. The Council has shown serious interest in expanding this program by passing a 1997 budget that allocates fund assets for additional dockage of this type. -2- This type of continued citizen involvement and tightly focused work is what will lead us away from more dock and commons related litigations on both publicly and privately dedicated commons. Unfortunately, as the Council is aware, that due to past irritations with the Park and Open Space Commission, whether real or perceived, it has become increasingly difficult to solicit opinions from people other than the Park Commission using the Task Force format that has been in place for the last year or two. This could be due to an unwillingness to share influence within the city, or a simple disagreement in philosophy. Regardless of the reason, this is not justification enough to stop our progress. The Park Commission has not concentrated its study as deeply on docks and dock related issues as the Task Force and therefore, is not as knowledgeable at this time. In the past, it has been made up almost exclusively of non-dock users creating recommendations by, in some cases, people that don't understand the concerns. This may illustrate why the Commission could have difficulty making recommendations for improvements or simply not be interested in improvements at all. -3- ARGUMENT I see three primary categories of issues to be dealt with. Virtually all issues addressed in this document can be categorized into one of these three. 1. Docks and the dock program. 2. Traditional parks and open space issues. 3. Commons and other public lands used for dockage and public lands permits. (Non-traditional lands) Docks unto themselves are of limited interest unless you are utilizing the program and the surveys conducted by the Task Force support this by the level of response. If you currently have a dock in the system this is extremely important and the surveys also support this. Traditional parks and open space concerns are of interest to the entire community. They are commonly dealt with by Park Commissions in cities throughout the country. There have been comments in the past by Park Commissioners that they would like to get back to the business of parks rather than docks. Docks are not at all a traditional function of Park Commissions and are truly unique. Commons land issues other than docks such as lights, stairs, decks, and other uses that fall under the umbrella of Public Lands Permits, and non-permit issues such as commons classifications and uses are of interest to both dock users and the public in general. These are the most difficult types of issues to resolve because of diverse interests. It would be beneficial to have recommendations from both the Parks and Dock Commissions on these issues. Unfortunately, this it would put them in direct competition with each other and would likely end up in conflict. This is the last thing we want. Therefore, one has to be chosen over the other to review these issues. Because the Task Force has been deeply studying these issues and working on them proactively rather than reactively, and because they have a deeper interest in pursuing improvements, I would suggest they continue this work. If the Park Commission retained this function, any further work would probably cease for the reasons mentioned earlier. It has been the interest of the current Council to increase public involvement and input and bring the city government closer to its citizens. The Task Force is one of the ways this has been exercised. It is now time to make this a more permanent effort. A sounding board should be provided to hear complaints and ideas that is made up of fellow dock users that are better tuned to the concerns than has previously been provided. Deliberations should be conducted closer to the problems experienced. Public perception should be that of less distance and have a board of peers that it feels is more approachable. This is the best way to calm the litigious atmosphere surrounding the docks and commons in Mound. We should give the dock users a Commission that they can call their own giving them a better sense of ownership and responsibility to the rest of the city. The Council, being the deciding body must continue to maintain its objectivity. -5- It is quite easy to identify those people who joined the Park and Open Space Commission because of their interest in the dock program or their interest in parkland. Even though there is some crossover of interest, most tend to be focused in one field or the other. The city would benefit most from separating these into two categories and having them reviewed by people who's interest lies in the appropriate field. The Park and Open Space Commission has had chronic problems with quorums. There has been difficulty getting people to apply for these positions. In recent months it has become more politically oriented and this has disrupted its function. Citizens have been sent home multiple times after the Park Commission refused to hear their cases. Reduction of the size of the Commission has been discussed on prior occasions by Mound City Councils. Reducing the size should make it easier to function and reestablish its focus by reducing distractions and "pet projects" to a more manageable level. I cannot stress enough, the importance of acting proactively on this. We cannot afford to risk losing more lakeshore to a lawsuit. I assure you that the public is watching and is aware of Woodland point. Once someone files, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to backup and retroactively make corrections and repair the damage. City Councils should be leaders. Sometimes, this means showing courage by utilizing new and innovative methods to solve problems. We should not be afraid of, but rather embrace this opportunity. PROPOSAL It is for the previous reasons that I respectfully suggest that the following occur. 1. The Council should create a Commons / Dock Commission. Representation should reflect a cross section dock users as much as possible. I would suggest the Dock Commission consist of five members plus a Council and Staff Representation. (i.e. three inland and two abutting representatives) 2. The initial Commission seats should first be offered to Task Force members since they have been performing this function for the last two years followed by Park Commissioners keeping in mind that members must be active in the dock program. The Park and Dock Commission membership would then be "filled out" and propagated by standard commission procedure. 3. Move all commons / dock issues that are currently being reviewed by the Park Commission over to the Dock Commission as the recommending body freeing up time for traditional parks issues. 4. The Docks Commission should have the same ability to make budget recommendations as the Parks and Open Space Commission has in the Parks budget. 5. Terms should be staggered just as with all Commissions. If a Commission member ceases to be active in the dock program that seat will be vacated and filled as soon as practical. 6. Dock Commission meeting frequency would need to be determined based upon need. It might be more frequent initially and taper off later. -7- 7. Reduce the size of the Parks and Open Space Commission to five members plus a Council Representative. 8. Traditional park and open space issues would be the primary focus of the Park and Open Space Commission. I urge the Council to show the courage I know it has by adopting this proposal, or some variation, for the reasons stated above. It is my belief that the results indicated at the beginning of this document can be achieved if the steps listed above are taken. In addition, the roles of city volunteers can be identified quickly and lessen any misunderstandings of authority. As with anything new, adjustments can be made if necessary in the future. I do believe that the rigidly applied "one size fits all" mentality coupled with past procedures will continue to lead us into more litigation, more polarization of the community, and less satisfaction by all concerned. I urge the Council to adopt this or some similar variation as soon as practical. Respectfully Submitted, Mark Hanus Mound Councilmember -8- January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: ORVIN BURMA, BECKY GLISTER AND BILL VOSS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; _T-O-TitlE PAP, KS & OPEN SPACE CO~',.'I. gSiON; AND MARK BREWER AND JERRY LONGPRE TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - 3 YEAR TERMS - EXPIRING 12/31/99 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby reappoint the following persons to the following commissions for 3 year terms expiring 12/31/99: Planning Commission - Orin Burma, Becky Glister and Bill Voss ~i~"~I1 Space Commxssxon - ~;~t~-- '~" 0; ~C3 Economic Development Commission - Mark Brewer and Jerry Longpre January 13, 1997 Subject: Rezoning R-1 and R-2 to R-lA See attached Case//96-68 To: Mayor J. Polston Mound City Council As a member of the Board of Directors of the Seahorse Condominium Association I would strongly urge you to consider the objection of the great numbers of people shown on the attached petitions. Many are Seahorse residents; however, many are resident neighbors - but all of whom will have to put up/live with this rezoning if passed by the city council on January 14. I understand that a member of the Seahorse Board of Directors beside myself has also submitted a letter to you, Mr. Mayor, and the members of the council in an effort to kill or stop the rezoning effort. It is also my understanding that a portion of the parcel included in the rezoning plan was not requested or required by the developer but rather by a member of the city planning council who had it tacked onto the original request. It is again, as I understand it, in the Southeast comer of the intersection of Three Points Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. The exact identification I do not have before me. Is this a common practice? A member of the planning council who also works for the City of Mound, getting involved in such a proposal? J. H. Hessburg, Jr. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE' ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY · ' FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~.property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the ,.Construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .'the Mound community. .; OWNER " ADDRESS ~_ S I GNATURE ' ". ~ ..... _. "- ~-,~'~~ .... :'- . .. : ~,~ - ./ 3 PETITION IN OPPOSITION'TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of the property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our .objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to thO"legal.property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that'a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that.,w~l~el~eve should not be followed in the Mound / community. ~~, ~ L~ ~-o~I ~ " OWN ADDRESS rRE '~ I' / r~ 17°3 ADDRESS S I, GN~TU RE PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY :. FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in..the Mound community. OWNER " ADDRESS SIGNATURE .... ' / ~ ~ ' PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE."ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY . FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of t~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from R1 single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. OWNER ~ SIGNATURE OWNER ADDRESS SIGNATURE ,0 - ' .'".-"- .. -~, ... ..,',>,:' ,.:,:: ..... .. _ . / PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY '. FROM R1 TO RIA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. .°o PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY ? FROM R1 TO RIA The undersigned, being all owners of 9roperties located within 350 feet of t~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from R1 single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property,' setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in..the Mound community. OWNER " ADDRESS SIGNATURE DRAFT... PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING January 9, 1996 RECOMMENDATION FOR P&OSC APPOINTMENT The ballots were tabulated. Following are the results: Mike Aspelin Bill Johnsen Ann Kelly The candidate with the least amount of points is the first choice. 2333132=17 3111323=14 1222211=11 The Commission recommends Ann Kelly be appointed to fill the vacancy created by Janis Geffre with the three year term expiring 12/31/99. SHUP PRRTS INC. TEL:612-955-6816 Dec 16'96 15:02 No.O0$ P.01 MR. ~CHUKLE, ! ~AW TH~ AO ~OR THE O~'ENING ON TH~ PARK~ AN~ OPeN COMMISSION IN THE LAKER, AND WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED ~OR THI~ QO~ITION. ~OR YEAR~ I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH ISSUES THAT HAVE PLAGUED OUR ~OMMONS~ AT FIRST SITTING ON THE WOODLAND POINT .MEDIATION COMMITTEE WITH YOURSELF, AND NEXT SITTING ON THE BOARD FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP CALLED "SAVE OUR COMMONS". MY BELIEFS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE UNIQUE CARE FOR ALL OUR CITIES PUBLIC LANDS~ AND KEEP THEM AS SPECIAL OPEN SPACE5 FOR VARIOUS U~ES, TOGETHER WITH MY PERSISTENCE IN ACHIEVING THE BEST FO8 THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE, I AM HOPING, MAKES ME UNIQUELY QUALIFIED CANDIDATE. MIKE A~PELIN 1604 EAGLE LN MOUND, MN 47~-4860 NIGHTS 9~-5510 DAYT1M~ £nvkonmental Engineers December 23, 1996 City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Wenck Wenck ^sso¢iales, Inc. 18[)0 Pinneer (_:reek (_:Ir. Maple Plain, MN 55159 William P. lohnsen, C.P.G. Environmental Geologist ((~12) 479-4225 Fax {6121 479-4242 Dear City Manager, I am writing to apply tbr the vacancy on the Parks and Open Space Conmtission. My wife and I have been homeowners in Mound for four years and in that time I have visited many of the parks throughout the city. I am interested in assisting the commission as well as the city council on parks-related issues. I have a science degree in geology and have worked for the last seven years for the environmental engineering firm of Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck) located in Maple Plain. As part of my responsibilities at Wenck, I manage projects which involve property redevelopment, land use planning, environmental evaluations of property use, contamination issues, envirmunental compliance, etc. I feel my background is an assett which may bring a unique perspective to the group. I'm frequently confronted with objectively evaluating and finding common ground between extreme environmental groups pushing for pristine tracks of land with no development versus over development and exploitation. As a parent starting a family, I would like to contribute in our community to ensure our parks program is maintained and where possible and appropriate, expanded. Having lived in other Minnesota and Midwestern communities, I've seen the positive benefits that park program brings to a city in developing a sense of community. If there if any other information I can provide, don't hesitate to call me. Please inform me of any requirements for the January 7, 1997 meeting. Respectfully, Bill Johnsen 5300 Piper Road Mound, Mn 66364 Home 472-1549 Work 479-4225 December 22, 1996 City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sir: This letter is in response to your recent advertisement in the local newspaper, stating that the City of Mo~n~_ has a vacancy on its park and open space commission and that the position's term is for three years, expiring on Dec. 31, 1999. I am a resident of Mound, residing at 2246 Westedge Boulevard, and I would like to be considered for the vacant position on the commission. Attached you will find my resume. My college major was political science. After college I had the opportunity to work for my member of congress in Washington, D. C. for some time as her congressional liaison. Currently, I am at a place in my life where I am better able to control my schedule providing the opportunity to become active in government. This is a long winded way of saying I would very much appreciate being considered for the vacancy on the park and open space commission. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the interview to be held jointly with the city council on January 9 at 7 PM. ThAnk you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann Kelly ANN KELLY 2246 Westedge Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472 5643 SUMMARY Multi talented business professional with over twenty years experience in national government and the healthcare and computer industries. Recognized for negotiation skills, and ability to manage large, complex account relationships. Able to handle highly detailed information and its dissemination to appropriate teams and individuals. Background in nursing. EMPLOYMENT UNITED HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Golden Valley, MN 1995-1996 Business Liaison 2-96/9-96 Led customer interface between assigned business and the Health and Disability Center. · Discretely handled all client union employees' escalated cases, thereby averting a union strike. · Reduced clients' benefit costs by facilitating their seamless transition from one insurer to another. Maintained ongoing communication of process change with the client, ensuring high client satisfaction and mutually shared information. Initiated the formation of a large case management team of seven. Hired and facilitated staff training to efficiently handle cases, resulting in a minimal savings of $10,000/case. Medical Case Coordinator 5-95/2-96 Managed Pre-Care, Large Case Management and Short Term Disability cases at the General Electric Health and Disability Center. . Handled 160 cases, while actively managing 25 cases per day. Maintained a 98% quality measure in my case work, thereby ensuring a continued quality business relationship with client company. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., Minneapolis, MN 1991-1995 Malaaged Care Consultant Provided managed care expertise to NWNL Regional Sales Offices to support the sale of managed care products by these offices. · Assisted in creation and implementation of managed care products, enhancing responsiveness to a constantly changing marketplace on behalf of existing and future clients. · Worked with state insurance departments to expedite product filings, resulting in new products for the sales force and ultimately more satisfied clients. · Prepared statistical reports for clients providing current and projected cost savings. · Developed proficiency in specific market areas across the country as to legislation, state insurance requirements, competition, and provider networks, in order to create marketable products for those regions. /70 Ann Kelly PAGE 2 BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA, Eagen, MN 1984-1991 Health Services Consultant 1986-1991 Served as a liaison between BCBSM and providers in Southeastern Minnesota, Scott and Dakota Counties · Negotiated 100% of hospital and physician contracts in my territory. · Maintained current network, handling ongoing problems and training staff as necessary. · Recruited additional physicians and specialists as necessary to maintain a quality, viable network. · Provided physicians monthly financial statistics as to their actual vs. targeted costs and their year end bonus status. Utilization Review Coordinator 1984-1986 Ensured that quality medical care was delivered in the most cost effective, efficacious manner. · Implemented utilization review programs throughout the state of Minnesota, involving daily hospital, clinic, and physician communication, plus reporting of outcomes. · Determined medical necessity and appropriateness of medical care, eliminating unnecessary medical treatment and providing the most cost effective programs. OTHER EMPLOYMENT Systems Service Representativ¢ for IBM. Programmed computers in five midwestern states. Congressional Staff Assistant to Marguerite Stitt Church, Member of Congress, 13th District of Illinois. Congressional Liaison, managing her Illinois office and assisting in staff functions in her Washington, D.C. Office when Congress was in session. Registered Nurse with clinical experience in the areas of intensive care nursing for open heart patients plus emergency room nursing and surgery. EDUCATION B.A. Political Science and History Randolph-Macon Woman's College Lynchburg, Virginia A.D. Nursing St. Mary's Junior College Minneapolis, Minnesota PERSONAL INTERESTS Completed 15 marathons since 1988 /7/ Orvin D. Burma 3011 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-3989 December 10, 1996 Mayor Bob Polston City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor: I serve on the Mound Planning Commission and was in attendance at the December 9 meeting at which a motion was passed to recommend approval of rezoning of the district north or Three Points Boulevard from R1 to R1A and recommend approval of the Maple Manor PDA. Because of the length of the discussion on the topic and the general direction that the Commission was taking, I chose not to belabor some points. However, since you and the Council will act on this case on January 17th, I would like to have the following comments included in the packets for the meeting. For sake of brevity I will outline my comments: The Petition ' · Contains 93 signatures · 3 are from outside of Mound · 11 are from Mound, but outside the 350 foot proximity stated in the petition · Remaining 79 live in Seahorse "Crowded and cramped" concerns · The concerns are voiced by people who purport to enjoy a quality lifestyle in an area of 5,243 square feet per unit. Maple Manor will have 8,600 square feet, 64% more space per unit than the residences of the concerned petitioners. "Additional traffic" concern · Approximately 20 more vehicles on a street which now services all of Seahorse and destinations on down the point. Percentage wise, increased traffic would be insignificant · The Maple Manor residents would use the street for approximately 2 blocks · See Staff notes regarding additional traffic "Green space" concern · Less than 50% of mature trees are projected to be removed · It is in the best interest of the developer to preserve the trees as much as practical since this will attract potential buyers "Snow removal and drainage" concern · We have a very capable city engineer who will review the plans for these provisions "R1 residents south of Three Points facing an RIA zone" concern · Already have an R3 and a B2 area across from them · R1A designation for the three pamels will be consistent for that side of the street In final analysis, the three property owners of the pamels in question are in favor of the rezoning and the PDA. They have, by purchasing the land, purchased a right to a reasonable use of the land. The developer, in designing single story, attractive dwellings has proposed a plan for a reasonable use of that land. He has downsized his project from 12 units to 10 in demonstration of good faith. Personal Note: When I moved into my house in 1992 from my living room I viewed a beautiful wooded parcel of about 16 acres. I walked in those woods and enjoyed the view from my deck. The parcel would eventually be known as Pelican Point. I had concerns about additional vehicular traffic on the street and boat traffic on the lake. I was not pleased about losing the view and "my" relaxation woods. I didn't petition against Pelican Point, nor did I appear in opposition to it before the Planning Commission nor the City Council. The reason was that it would not have been fair to the City of Mound, to the people who would be living there and sharing the lifestyle which we enjoy. And most of all, it would have been unfair to the landowner to seek to block a plan for a reasonable use of the land. For those same reasons I write you in favor of the rezoning and the Maple Manor PDA. (Incidentally, we did lose some of the woods, but we gained some good neighbors. And we haven't noticed a significant change of traffic on land or on the lake!) Sincerely, Orv Burma PLANNING REPORT CC: I, I,, CITY COUNCIL 1/14/97 AGENDA ITEM ~/3 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. g-Ill TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: December 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment (Rezoning) APPLICANT: Waters Edge Investment Co. - Joe Zylman CASE NUMBER: 96-68 I'IKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5z LOCATION: 5490 Three Points Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential PREFACE: This rezoning request was first heard by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1996. At that time, the rezoning was being requested in order to seek approval of a 12 unit housing development on the site. After a full review of the proposal, the rezoning request was denied. Mr. Zylman withdrew his original request prior to the time that it went to the City Council and he is now seeking a rezoning in order to construct a 10 unit housing project. According to the Mound Zoning Code, "no application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the Ordinance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commission within the one-year period following denial of such request, except the Planning Commission may permit a new application, if in the opinion of the Planning Commission, new evidence or a change in circumstances warrant it." In staff's view, the change in the development plan represents a change in circumstances and therefore, the rezoning can once again be considered. If the Planning Commission does not feel that a change in circumstances exists, the item could be reconsidered on a motion by any of the Commission members who originally supported the motion for denial. BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning of the subject property (2.798 acres) from R-1 to R-lA, both of which are single family zones. The R-i zone has a minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet and the R-IA zone has a lot size requirement of 6, 000 square feet. The site lies within the shoreland area and is therefore, subject to the additional shoreland restrictions that are contained in the Zoning Code. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow consideration of a twin-home development on the site that will be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The smaller lot size is required to meet an acceptable overall density for the project. Although the rezoning is a separate application from other requested approvals for the property, consideration of the rezoning will undoubtedly involve discussion of the overall plan for the property. Complete details on the overall development plan 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report _ Zoning Ameadmetlt December4, 1996 Page 2 for the site are found in a separate Plann' g report The subject site and t · Three Points Bo,a~- _w.o adjacent arc .... east is zo,-~ ~',~vara. The nro~ els Cuast~tUte . ..... .. aDnli. ....,,~u R-3, Multi.~.~ ~'~c~Y to the w . ~' ~xlSang std -~ ~ant ~.~ ~, · est~s PofR-1 · COnsider~.~_ request for rezo.;~~ly Residen,al ~Oned B-2, General n z~nmg that lies ..... -.on is ei~.-- . '""g ~d w~,.,- · V~cels 9aK ~ _ ~ nuslnass .nd .~ "~.m or b~ .~ o, f~cel 250 h.o ~. "~oratme th.~ · ?.-m two re ~, _.0' ~e not inch,a~ff .~' me · 'cuevelonea :_. --o. ~Otal lot ~.~ ~--~,u Into the v..~_~~''t p~eces ot v , --~u in the Which co,-f ~ toro two or thio-, ~u °tapproxi~ .... '~ning action r~ .- "'~ zonin u OWne~ ~,u potentially be -f~cJ°ts and P~c-~ ~]~teiy 18,650 so.~.~ '~ ~ mCO~oratea ~_. nl?o --'r~cel 9ag ~,- '*ueveloned ;_. ~. z~o cont.;-~ ~-~c ~eet whi.~ _ . ~ tutu the -~- mso OWns ~. ~ ~ tutu two lots ;~ .~ ~.a apProxim..~,_ .~" cOuld possihh, ~" auJacent nro-~ m me tbture ~_ ~c~y 17,500 s ~ -v*-y Whic iq ;~ .~' ~ccording to ~ _, qu~e feet h .... , me B-2 ZOne~ "'c pat map, the COUNTS- It m res in this ~ea no~h n~ m t~s 2 ~e~lng ~otlce waq ~.__of ~ee Points n*.~ea ~nless the ~ ? ~fl 250 as ~ ""~ melt reZOnin- :_ -,~,uue these two .... ~ ~-1 ZOning des Z '~ffem~n the onl ~ ,s appropriate af~, L ~'~P~des i~ Cae~ ,u ~l. gnaUun. The OWners of each of the n~cel , . . ,,c~ neon, t~.. o~ rue Planni- - P~cels, the ~-1 zonea2~oZ s. ~lt ~s ult~mate~ a ' 2 y~Omony includin~ o~ig Com~ssion P~cels alleviatin. ~ v peny ~ying i~a;~.~ ete~n~d that it i~ ~, o ~'~e~ts fr0~ the ~ mc C0ncem of" - ~ateiy south of T ~U?Ppr°priate ~c°~HDA TION: s~otZoning.,. ~ee Points Boule- . to rezone these ~taff reco~ends *v~a conaects to these reZ:h:inind:~equest un ti ltes tim ony has th att hep l arming Co~ission defer ac ti on on the ~a.?velopment pl~ has ~en t~en fro~ the OWners ula be cea revie to the City Coa~ - h~dled ~ a se~at .... Wed. After th~, ~fP~cels 246 and 250 ~d after u% gOfllflg 3m,~r clflO~o~ f~O~ am,~,t uat flaS Occ~ffe~_ .. ~. .... ~.uments 'khMl n .... ~'z uther approv~ ~, the acaon on t ~ a ~e~s to reject ch~ges in the gO~s -~ oe ~SSued indi o~' :_ S for thc project. .~e s~n~nately, but sh~ ~eh~ges in conditions in the City. and policies of the co. unity as reflected in the Pl~ or · uuly De Pl~ng Co~ssion h~ thoroug~y reviewed ~e development ~°~ssi°n approve the rezoning of the subject pt~s, i'['g~;~[l~ff~r~e~[[i~ PYOpe~ OWners i~ . PrOpe~y from :~erci~lv g0n~a _ p 'es be inclufle~ in ,~ "~eaiately ea5[ ~ _ t~ R_iA' - -~uprovean ~_ _ ,u.tue rezonJn ac ' d w~t o~ the site ~ d l~d zoned ~ , . g tlon. Tho ...... , catego~. Rezoning the propeay to R_~'° Which is ~ .... - ~uvdect Site lies is consistent with the land Use pattern · ,,uuna s ~ghest density ' *O ~uild the Maple M~ors project ~ter ~1 approvals have been received. The ould ~ aw~e, hOWever, that Once the propeay is rezoned, the new zoning for SOme reason, the Maple M~ors project does not proceed. ~ the ' h vet, Wetl~ds, Shoreland regulations and the shape of the site : ~ossible to construct a development that -~ in the R-lA ZOne. approaches the 6,000 I,I, I, GOVT LOT 4 ......... 1419. ~:~ R~$ ......... I I4~3T B2 APT OWN NO 8 SEANORSE LOT Z~ 4 ~ ItZ,'~ !! r~l\L.[_ ~ ~ L~T ZT (Z511 (Z) ,B ,-,, ,iii I, ,i, , CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 13, 1997 TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER FROM: LINDA STRONG ,~'~. SUBJECT: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE, LAS VEGAS NITE PERMIT Our Lady of the Lake Church submitted an application for their Las Vegas Nite scheduled for February 1, 1997. They are applying for a Beer Permit for that day. Their insurance is in order. This event needs your approval. Is printed on recycled paper $10.00 for 3 days, plus ~ -a]- ~'7 $2.00 per day after Dates Permit Will Be Used Limi~ t° Ten C0n~UfiVcDaYS"ii: ~: ". LICENSE # ~- O'7 ~ q0- q~, - O0 0Z · ? 'r Pef:ya~?t°an:': 0rganization ~' Onl Fou Y · CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNF.,SOTA 5:$364 TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMIT. Organization: bug.. k~/3,/ 0F '/'ht~- {--Pr~_ orTitle: . - Section"ii0.10, Subd. 2. Liability Insurance. (a) Prior to the issuance of any Beer license, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.$01 to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing i certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the minimum coverages for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is the intent of this section to require the minimum insurance coverages and amounts xmunt of co,,era~e: ~5'b~, DO0. - Section $10:10. SUNI. 1. Appli~tion Form. In the case of any application for a 'rempora~ 'On-Sale' license to allow sale and consumption of beer on public land or public school lands, the applicant shall, prior to issuance of such license, file the written consent of the owner of such lands to such use of its lands. ROD GRAMS M~NNESOTA COMMITTEES: BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES FOREIGN RELATIONS RECEiVE J I 3 t§97 nited tates enate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 JOINT ECONOMIC January 3, 1997 The Honorable Bob Polston Mayor City of Mound -5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 ~~A;HINGTON OFFICE: PH. 202-224-3244 FAX 202-228-09§8 INTERNET: IWAIL--GRAMS~GP..A~S.SENATE.OOV MINNESOTA OFFICE: 2013 SECONO AVENUE NORTH ANOKA. MN 55303 PH. 612-427-5921 FAX 612-427-8872 Dear Mayor Polston: With the opening of the 105th Congress on January 7th, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your insights and provide you with an overview of some of the accomplishments of the 104th Congress. The taxpayers spoke clearly in the last election - they want a more accountable government for less money. And over the past two years, that is what we attempted to do. The 104th Congress_ enacted legislation eliminating "exempt status", making federal lawmakers live under the same laws everyone else does. We lowered the need for states and localities to raise your taxes (i.e. property taxes) by eliminating unfunded federal mandates. Congress stopped the cycle of poverty by replacing welfare with a two-year limited "workfare." And we demonstrated that the government can live within its means (and let you keep a few more of your hard-earned dollars) when Congress passed the first balanced budget in nearly thirty years. But how does this translate home? For Minnesotans, the 104th Congress was a win- win and here is how. Balancing the Federal Budget - Accomplishments aimed at empowering Minnesotans: Since assuming federal office in 1993, I focused my efforts upon balancing the federal budget without a federal tax increase. Z remain committed to this goal, not for myself, but for our children and grandchildren. And it is because of the potential impact on our children, that I worked to ensure that generational accounting be included in all Congressional Budget Office spending estimates. For the first time, we will have a real understanding of the long-term impacts of current spending trends. I believe it is important to recognize just how far the budget debate has progressed over the past two years. Rather than talking about whether or not a balanced budget can be achieved, we are talking about a bi-partisan initiative aimed at identifying our spending priorities to get us to a balanced budget shortly after the turn of the century. And as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I plan to ensure Minnesota's priorities are represented in the upcoming session. P~pa~d, Published & Mailed at Taxpayer ~pen,se PR{NTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 January 3, 1997 During the 104th Congress, we not only adopted a balanced budget blueprint, but we came within one vote of passing a constitutional amendment requiring such a plan. The current outlook is good for passage during the 105th. The 104th Congress also enacted a law to give the President unprecedented "line- item" veto authority. Like a majority of our Nation's governors, the President now has the power, and the responsibility, to eliminate wasteful federal spending. Balancing Environmental Policies - Accomplishments aimed at improving the world we live in for generations of Minnesotans: One of the most critical pieces of environmental policy during the 104th Congress was resolution of the nuclear waste crisis. With the '1998' deadline just around the corner, and the Courts having reaffirmed the Department of Energy's obligation to take the spent fuel from commercial reactors, timely action is essential. As a member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, I was pleased to have had the opportunity to ensure Minnesota's concerns were addressed, particularly since our ratepayers have contributed over $250 million. Working with my colleagues, the Senate passed a bill which ensured Dairyland Power's shut down reactor stopped being a financial burden to Minnesota's rural ratepayers, and we included provisions to lower program costs by using private sector companies whenever technically possible. And while economics appears to be a driving force, this legislation is good news for our environment. Rather than having waste scattered at over 100 sites around the nation, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996 provided an environmentally safe single solution to a nationwide crisis. Although the legislation fell victim to election year politics, I have assurances that floor action will occur early upon our return. Enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments (P.L. 104-182) was equally big news back home, particularly in Greater Minnesota. This legislation provided flexibility for local governments to direct limited resources to the greatest health concerns in their respective areas. Working with Minnesota's rural communities, we were able to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency utilize sound science in their development of sulfate reduction rules. This common-sense approach replaced bureaucratic rules such as requiring communities to provide bottled water, even if sulfates posed no threat. Working with Minnesota chemical manufacturers, I introduced a reform aimed at protecting the health of our citizens. The Antimicrobial Pesticide Reform bill gained wide bipartisan support because of its ability to expedite getting public health- , ,,mi, & ,{,, , Page 3 January 3, 1997 related products to the marketplace. Such an initiative could have saved lives in the 1993 floods which devastated the midwest, but now that it is public law, countless lives will surely be saved in times of natural disaster. Unlike any other initiatives, legislative proposals regarding the Voyageurs National Park and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness embodied the "environmental heart" of our state. Like all Minnesotans, I believe these areas are national treasures and must be preserued for future generations. During the 104th Congress, the debate appeared to have lost sight of the objective: to find a solution that recognizes the original intent of the late Senator Hubert Humphrey, preserves our unique park and wilderness area, and represents a compromise where we are all winners. I will continue to work with members of our Congressional Delegation to ensure that the voices of all Minnesotans are heard in Washington. Balancing Agricultural Policies - Accomplishments aimed at meeting global needs with local resources in the 21st century: Of significant note was the enactment of the so-called "Freedom to Farm' initiative which changes agricultural policy as we know it. It is designed to encourage farmers to plant for the demands of the marketplace, rather than the dictates of a government payment. This is good news for Minnesota's farmers, consumers and taxpayers. ! worked closely with my colleagues over the first session of the 104th Congress to ensure that the voice of our farmers was heard in the process. With U.S. agriculture exports on the rise, and the growing trend of value-added cooperatives, Minnesota's farmers are poised to produce for these new and expanding markets. One area of frustration, however, was the lack of comprehensive dairy reforms. While I worked aggressively to successfully delete the anti-competitive Northeast Dairy Compact during Senate floor action, regional pressures prevailed during the House- Senate conference negotiations. While I'm in the process of forming a bipartisan Dairy Working Group in an effort to develop a strategy to defeat this anti free-market agreement, I also introduced legislation to repeal this initiative. Preparations are already being made for a Congressional review by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 105th. Balancing Social Needs - Accomplishments aimed at improving the lives of Minnesotans: For working families, one of the key driving forces in choosing an employer continues to be health care coverage. This past year, Congress unanimously enacted legislation making those decisions a little easier. The "Kassebaum-Kennedy" bill made Page 4 January 3, 1997 health insurance more accessible, portable and renewable. One of the most significant changes to current law includes the prohibition on exclusions for preexisting conditions. Therefore, individuals will no longer face possible exclusion from health coverage as a result of a medical condition in themselves or their family. And by ensuring increased renewability, workers will find increased flexibility in choosing a career without fear of losing health coverage. As a member of the Senate, one of my key concerns revolved around the inclusion of medical savings accounts -- a central element of the "Consumer Choice" legislation I had coauthored in the previous Congress. My colleagues and I worked hard to ensure this option was contained in the final agreement because it provides access to affordable health care for individuals which may not otherwise have coverage. I believe an expansion of this provision during the 105th Congress should be considered. While these reforms helped those already in the workplace, the Welfare Reform Act aimed at improving the lives of out of work individuals by breaking the cycle of pover%y. Under this bipartisan legislation, Congress strengthened the social safety net, not with a taxpayer hand-out, but with a hand up to a better life for themselves and their families. We replaced this broken down program with a system to get welfare recipients into the workplace, providing access to safe and affordable child care when necessary, and requiring .pay-for-performance" standards for benefit recipients. And we brought the programs back to the states; to local governments who are better able to determine the needs of their citizens. And while the past two years is marked with many impressive accomplishments, the 105th promises to be challenging. As before, I will continue to rely upon Minnesotans for their thoughts on pending legislation. I can be reached by letter, phone, or fax, but you can contact me through the Internet at .mail_grams@grams.senate.gov". And by visiting my website, you can learn about my current public statements and legislative proposals. I look forward to working with you this year. Sincerely, Rod Grams United States Senator CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 6, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER DECEMBER 1996 MONTHLY REPORT It's all over but the shouting. Happy New Year! I was pretty close as to what my estimate was going to be for gross sales for the month. As usual, I errored on the conservative side. I predicted that we would match the sales of December of 1995 which were $158,792. And that would have made me happy because this year we lost a few days of sales in December because of how the holidays fell. Anyway, the bottom line is this. December's sales were $162,293. For the year, that puts us $124,105 ahead of last year. In percentages we were up 7% for the year. It is a good thing we were up because we will have some pretty big repair bills to pay in the near future. First, our beer cooler compressor sprung a leak and we lost our freon coolant. This is the second time this year by the way. And the stuff now days is not cheap. Then, on the night before Christmas Eve, when it was one of the coldest days of the year so far, our furnace bit the dust. We worked most of Christmas Eve without heat. Know how hard it is to get somebody out on Christmas Eve? Almost next to impossible. However, Jim Fackler saved the day. He got a hold of the company that has the contract for city hall. Sure enough, they came to our rescue. It took them nearly four hours as they had to drive to Brooklyn Park for a blower fan. At $70.00 per hour plus the part, it is going to be a big one. I am going to talk to this company in January to see how much it would cost to put us on a maintenance contract with the City for the year. JK:ls printed on recycled paper City of Mound 01 ~09~97 Monthly Report Utilities ~lonth of: December 1996 Utility-96 Residential Commercial Total No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) 1,074 1,276 21,117 124 124 5,163 1,198 1,400 26,280 Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total $32, O72 $49,513 $4,972 $86,557 $6,903 $16,228 $106 $23,237 $38,975 $65,741 $5,078 $109,794 Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total $33,099 $51,469 $4,953 $89,521 $5,307 $13,142 $92 $18,541 $38,406 $64,611 $5,045 $108,062 TO: FROM: RE: Investment Activity Balance: Bought: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSlNARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR DECEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT December 1, 1996 Money Market 4M Plus Money Market 4M Money Market Norwest Money Market Smith Barney Money Market First Bank CP First Bank CP First Bank CP First Bank CP Dain Bosworth CP Norwest CP Dain Bosworth CP Smith Barney Matured: 5.55% 5.648% 5.55% 5.43% 5.48% 5.45% 5.567% Money Market 4M Money Market First Bank CP Dain Bosworth 5.38% CP First Bank 5.55% CP First Bank 5.61% CP Norwest 5.60% CP Dain Bosworth 5.41% CP Dain Bosworth 5.47% CD First Bank 5.30% CD Smith Barney 5.43% Balance: December 31, 1996 $3,581,734 353,173 302,831 195 28O 712,836 254,749 325,816 349,221 549,843 519,807 509,413 571,728 (250,000) (304,221) (231,956) (256,451) (349,572) (510,762) (89,189) (410,573) (490,247) (560,572) $4,578,083 During the month of December we prepared for the closing of the year in the Finance Department. Changes were implemented in the Payroll System to conform to the regulations from the IRS. W-2's were printed and will be distributed in early January. The 1997 city budget was approved by the council on December 10. The levy was certified to the county, the truth in taxation report was filed with the State Department of Revenue, and a summary report will be submitted to the Office of the State Auditor. The same summary will be published in the Laker in January of 1997. It is again that time of the year when we finalize the year's activity, summarize and analyze the numbers and prepare for the audit. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for December 1996 The police department responded to 936 calls for service during the month of December. There were 13 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 criminal sexual conducts, 1 aggravated assault, 8 larcenies, and 2 vehicle thefts. There were 57 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 child abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF check, 5 narcotics, 1 damage to property, 7 liquor law violations, 8 DUI's, 1 simple assault, 7 domestics (2 with assaults), 9 harassment's, 2 juvenile status offenses, and 13 other offenses. The patrol division issued 170 adult citations and 10 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 208 tickets. Warnings were issued to 149 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 2 adults and 2 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 27 adults and 4 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 8 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 14 vehicle accidents, 6 with injuries. There were 27 medical emergencies and 89 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 8 occasions in December and requested assistance 6 times. Property valued at $4,087 was stolen and $2,720 was recovered in December. 177 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - DECEMBER 1996 II. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on two criminal sexual conduct cases and four child protection matters, accounting for 43 hours of investigative time. Other cases investigated include robbery, assault, theft, damage to property, NSF checks, fleeing a police officer, auto theft, harassment, attempted suicide, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for underage consumption, domestic assault, violation of order for protection, harassment and dog at large. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 65 hours of overtime during the month of December. Officers used 39 hours of comp-time, 202 hours of vacation, 61 hours of sick time, and 27 holidays. Officers earned 19 hours of comp- time. All officers received defensive tactics training including use of force and chemical agents. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS Officers Packard and Clark addressed 71 animal complaints, 53 ordinance violations, and 167 miscellaneous calls for services. 2 citations were issued in December. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1996 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARF/) BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEAP. ED ARREST ADULT JUV pART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 13 0 I 3 2 2 PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect 3 0 1 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 1 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 1 1 0 0 0 Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 5 0 0 5 4 Liquor Laws 7 0 0 5 6 DWI 8 0 0 8 8 Simple Assault 1 0 1 0 0 Domestic Assault 2 0 1 1 1 Domestic (No Assault) 5 0 0 0 0 Harassment 9 0 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 2 0 0 2 0 Public Peace 0 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 t%11 Other Offenses 13 0 0 9 7 TOTAL 57 I 3 31 27 4 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations 8 6 0 27 89 8 671 TOTAL 809 HCCP Inspections 4 53 TOTAL 936 34 29 6 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT DECEMBER 1996 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Propety Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS MONTH 96 69 31 107 125 208 8 7 8 6 0 2 34 2 5 13 57 27 89 53 671 YEAR TO DATE 1,053 611 330 832 1,106 738 85 66 76 32 1 36 420 72 199 294 847 361 708 378 8,375 LAST YEAR TO DATE 833 655 216 740 727 342 51 43 95 31 0 24 371 51 150 273 747 344 669 539 7,516 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,618 61 14 4 8 6 16,620 840 372 45 173 98 14,417 877 377 33 193 148 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1996 CITATIONS DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Vi~lations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 8 7 1 0 1 56 1 1 27 1 21 1 7 1 18 0 1 208 2 3 1 4 0 378 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1996 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARP~NT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor Adult 45 31 32 1 4 2 1 0 1 11 128 9 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 ~gl ~un: 2- Jan-97 14:29 PRO03 Primary ISN's only: No Bate Reported range: 11/26/96 - 12/31/96 Activity codes: ALL Property Status: Att Property Types: At[ Property Descs: Brands: ModeLs: ALL Officers/Badges: ALL Prop lnc no tSN Pr Prop Date Rptd Desc SN Stat StoLen HOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED StoLen Date Recov'd Quantity Act VaLue Recov'd VaLue Code Page Brand HodeL Off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Report TotaLs: 2,500 2,500 1.000 1,080 200 5.000 346 0 2.000 95 0 1.000 66 20 3.000 4,087 2,720 12.000 Run: 3-.Jan-9? 8:58 CFS08 Primry lSN's only: No Date ~ted range: 11/26/96 - 12/31/96 T~n~ ~ each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ~d,,,~ Received: ALL Activity Resulted: Dispositions: ALL Officers/Badges: All Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: ALL Days of the week: iiACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION 9000 SPEEDING 9001 J-SPEEDING 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 9004 RESTRICTED D/L 9012 OPEN BOTTLE 9013 J-OPEN BOTTLE 90! ~C'~P SIGN 9016 ,AILURE TO YIELD 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 9030 CROSSI4ALK VIOLATION 90~4 STOP ARM VIOLATION 9036 OBSTRUCTED VISION 9037 J-OBSTRUCTED VISION 9038 ALL OTNER TRAFFIC 9040 NO SEATBELT 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9140 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 9200c !, DAR/DAC 9210 PLATES/NO- IMPROPER-EXPIRED 9211 J-PLATES/NO-EXPIRED-IMPROPER MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 56 2 1 1 1 21 1 5 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 13 195 7 27 4 Page Run: 3-Jan-97 8:58 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 11/26/96 - 12/31/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 NoN Received: ALL Activity ResuLted: ALL Dispositions= AIl Officers/Badges= AIl Grids: ALL Patro[ Areas: Att Days of the week: Atl ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS Page 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 9301 LOST PERSONS 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 9314 FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 9465 SNO~OBILE ACCIDENTS 9520 PUBLIC PROPERTY ACCIDENTS 9562 CAT BITES 9563 DOG AT LARGE 9565 DOG LICENSE 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 9710 MEDICAL/ASU 9720 MEDICAL/DOA 97'50 MEDICALS 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFiED 9801 OOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 18 5 2 1 2 3 3 6 8 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 24 6 5 4 5 Run: 3-Jan-97 8:58 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date P'~orted range: 11/26/96 - 12/31/96 Ti ", each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ~'w Received: ALL Activity Resulted: ALL Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: ALL Grids: ALt Patrol Areas: ALL Days of the week: At[ ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 9931 HANDGUN DENIALS 9980 WARRANTS 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 iA5351 ~ A5352 A5354 iA5451 DA540 DC500 J2501 J2E01 J3301 J3500 J3501 9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 999~,TUAL AID/ ALL OTHER A2243 ~SLT 2'SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-POS FIREARM-UNBRN ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM ASLT 5-MS'INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS'ASLT-AC ASLT 5-MS'INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOO HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK TRAFF-GM-DUl LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH TRAF'ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV ACCIDENT'MS-FAIL STOP-DRVR CAUSED-UNK INJ-MV TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3EO~, '!~'-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK YEN J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV J3T01 UNDERAGE DRINKING AND DRIVING 1 3 1 8 4 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 6 Page Run: 3-Jan-9? 8:58 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 11/26/96 - 12/31/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Now Received: ALL Activity Resulted: ALL Dispositions: AL[ Officers/Badges: ALl Grids: ALl Patrol Areas: ALL Days of the week: Att ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION L16T5 L7041 M4140 M5350 H1310 N3190 P3110 TC159 TF021 TF029 TG021 TG059 U3018 U328~ V0021 VB084 X3250 CSC 1-ACCOMPLIC FRC COER-ACQUAINT-13-15-F CSC 4-UNK ACT-OTH FAM-UNK AGE-F LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY DISTURBING PEACE-FE-STALKING-UNKNOWN DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BUILDING-MONEY THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP THEFT-MS-BY CHECK'200 OR LESS THEFT-MS'SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE VEH THEFT-UNK LVL VAL'AUTO VEH-MORE THAN 2500'FE'THEFT-ATV CR1M AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION **** Report Totats: MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 1 1 2 2 9 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 540 Page III · , J, ,a ,.mi .... Jl J ~ Run: 2-Jan-g7 13:27 OFF01 Priory ISN's ~(y: No Date g~rted range: 11/26/96 - 12/31/96 Ti~-~,~-, each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ~, '~o$itions: Att ,:;~vity codes: Att Officers/Sadges: Grids: MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED A2243 ASLT 2-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-POS FIREARM-UNBRN A5351 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM ~A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC iA5354 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM !A5451 ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOO HRM-NANDS-ADLT-FAM ,DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DCSO0 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPN-POSSESS-UNK-UNK J3301 ACCIDENT-MS-FAIL STOP-DRVR CAUSED-UNK INJ-MV J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV J3TOi UNDERAGE DRINKING AND DRIVING L1673 CSC 1-ACCOMPLIC FRC COER-ACQUAINT-13-15-F L7041 CSC 4-UNK ACT-OTH FAM-UNK AGE-F M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY N1310 DISTURBING PEACE-FE-STALKING-UNKNO~N N319~'~1URB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS P311G ~!OP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT TC159 TNEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTN PROP 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~un: 2-Jan-97 13:27 OFF01 Primary iSN's only: No )ate Reported range: 11/26/96 - 12/31/96 rime range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: At[ Activity codes: AIL Officers/Badges: AIL Grids: Att ~CT ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSiTZONS OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING Page 2 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED ~F021 TF029 TG021 TG059 U3289 V0021 VB084 X3250 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BUiLDiNG-MONEY THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS ZOO-NS-BUiLDiNG-HONEY THEFT-LESS 200-HS-YARDS-OTHR PROP THEFT-NS-SHOPLiFTiNG-35000-OR HORE VEH THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-AUTO VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-ATV CRIH AGNST ADNN dUST-MS-ViOL ORD PROTECTION **** Report TotaLs: 1 0 1 1 0 1 I 0 1 3 0 3 I 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 64 1 63 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 1 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 0 0 0 1 I 100.0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 3 0 0 0 0 0 25 28 6 4 38 60.3 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-06o0 FAX (612) 472-0620 Parks Department Monthly Report December 1996 General With all the snow fall that we received in December, the month was taken up with snow removal. This year with the need for additional help for plowing streets and sidewalks I have been doing a regular route for the Street Department. We have also been maintaining the three ice rinks at Three Points Park, Highland Park, and Philbrook Park. The 1997 budget was approved early in December so I have begun putting together the information for getting quotes and bids for the equipment that was approved. This needs to be done early so that everything can be delivered before Spring when it is needed. Tree Removals The only tree work done was removal of one hazardous tree from City Hall and the trimming of hazardous branches hanging over the building. Cemetery There was only one burial during the month. Docks All renewal applications were sent out the last working day in December for the 1997 season. There is more interest in dock sites this year. JF:pj printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 9, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGER GREG SKINNER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DECEMBER 1996 MONTHLY REPORT STREET DEPARTMENT We had the tree lighting and all of the Christmas decorations were up. There were some problems with the street lights in the parking lot and two across from the Christmas tree. We have been working on repairing them. We put some new controls in the control panel on Lynwood to see if the problem gets fixed. The two lights across from John's Variety may not work after the repair. NSP thinks there may be a broken wire underground. If that is the case, we will have to address that in the spring when the frost goes out. Another big item is the plowing and sanding. There has been a lot of this. We have had quite a bit of snow so far. We have stacked snow at Lost Lake three times in December. At one point we had to be backing in there. The snow is coming from the sidewalk~q and the CBD Business District. We have been cleaning cul-de-sacs and cutting back wind rolls on the streets to make room for more snow. If this keeps up we have a long winter ahead of us. We haven't really got into the snowy season yet of January, February and March. Hopefully, it will settle down and give us a break. The sidewalks are the same issue. We have been trying to keep up with the sidewalks, it has been tough. We have started a new thing, we are changing our work schedules when we do sidewalks. The employee will start at 3 am and the 8 hour shift ends at 11:30 am. I am keeping two people on regular hours to handle the calls during the day, 7-3:30 pm. We will give this a try. The moisture we received towards the end of December was from rain and we were basically plowing water. We do not want to end up with all of the ice on the roads like we had last year. printed on recycled paper /9c Public Works Department December 1996 Report January 9, 1997 Page 2 WATER DEPARTMENT We have been reading meters. The repairs have not been too bad. Everybody in the water department has been helping the street department with the snow removal. They had five water main breaks in December. Nothing major, just basic routine water main breaks. The sewer department has been working on some preventative maintenance on the lift stations. Again, most of their time has been spent moving snow. MISCELLANEOUS We had the budget meeting. I thank the Council for approving the Public Works Budget. We kept the budget down to a number that they like and that we can work with and still give the customers everything that they need. Utilities were disconnected at the house the City purchased on Commerce. When things settle down, we will get it boarded up. We are selling an old truck that we have replaced with a new one. We are taking bids on the old truck which has no motor. A company from Delano has purchased it and should be picking it up soon. GS:ls CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 9, 1997 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official <~ ~. December 1996 MONTttLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 13 building permits issued in December for a construction value of $128,129, this results in a total construction value of $10,551,158 for 1996! and this sets a new record! Please note the attached chart that details construction activity back to 1988. We issued 16 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellanous permits for a total of 29 permits this month, and 804 year-to-date, which is also another record setting number! PLANNING & ZONING This last month the Planning Commission was busy processing three variance cases, one waiver of platting/variance request, and continued the heatings on the preliminary plat/rezoning/variances for the proposed Maple Manors project on Three Points Blvd. Staff is tracking the number of cases that are impacted by, or that do not require a variance since the ordinance for the streamlining of variances has been adopted. There were no cases able to be streamlined in the month of December, the year-to-date total is seven. lS:pj printed on recycled paper City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: DECEHBER Year: 1996 THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 29 3, 253,421 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) 12 3,301,204 TWO FAMILY ! DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL 41 6, 5 5 4 , 625 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 1 110 , 000 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL i 200,000 INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL 2 310,000 ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 3 69,768 32 841,115 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 22 231, 836 DECKS I 3, 240 62 173, 146 SWIMMING POOLS 1 4 0 0 REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 9 32, 721 215 860,923 REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 3 114, 503 SUBTOTAL 13 105,729 335 2,221,923 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 4 33 r 600 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL 7 230 ~ 510 INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC /SCHOOLS 2 1,200,500 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL 13 I, 464,610 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 8 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 6 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 14 //PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION // PERMITS TOTAL 13 0 105,729 *405 10,55!,158 PERMIT COUNT ] THIS MONTH ]YEAR-TO-DATE ' BUILDING 13 40 5 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 0 30 SIGNS 0 11 PLUMmNG 7 151 MECHANICAL 6 133 GRADING 0 2 s&w, STREET EXCAV., F,RE, ETC. 3 7 2 01/09/1997 10:17 $12--4724435 T0M REESE PAGE 01 i,' .. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ~,~:~ ~00 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 · WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 6121473.?033 ~ G. ,&lan wIIIou~. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 80ARD MEMBERS I~uglas E, Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Tom Reese Vice Chair, Mound J~seph Zwak Secreta~. Greenw~d R~en Ras~p Tmasure~, Shorew~ Kent Dahlen Mi~netonka ~ach Be~ Foster D~phaven Gret~en Maglich Ml~tonka Duane Magus Way[ara C~ Moiler Victors Cm~ Neigh Spdng Pa~ Eugene Pa~yka Mlflnet~ta P~I Sla~ TO: MOUND CITY COUNC[L DATE: JANUARY 9. 199'7 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: DECEMBER REPORT- LMCD 1.0 General Items. 1.1 The move to the Freshwater Foundation Building was completed during the month. The new phone number is 4'71-9588. The new fax number is 4'71-0632 2.0 Exotic Species Task Force. 2. i Three bids were received for a potential new harvester. One was at $13OM, one at $103M, and a third that was deemed unresponsive. More discovery work on the potential for the use of transporters remains to be done. 2.2 The draft ordinance amendment providing for the mandatory washing of permit events boats that have been recently in contaminated waters is nearing completion, A meeting was held with event organizers which was very positive in tone. 2.3 The tragic and unexpected death of the milfoil program manager, Norm Paurus is a large setback for the items being investigated in 2.1 and 2.2 above. 3.0 Water Structures 3.1 The Hawks boathouse case is scheduled for trial January 27th. We have been trying to reach an arrangement with him to avoid this. It could still happen. 3.2 The Minnetonka Beach common docks dispute has been resolved. 4.0 Lake Use. 4. I The final draft of the 1996 Boat Activity Report was reviewed with the Board. This was another year of below average activity, due to the cold spring which delayed normal activity. This is a joint study that the LMCD does every other year with the DNR. $.0 Mound SpeeLqe Items 5.1 LMCD staff and ! met with the Lost Lake Improvement Project .~.er_e ennsultants to review the requirements for a permit. No unusual problems countered. It appears that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ~ be.required. / / (,.,// Mound Representative - LMCD fc. Al Willcutt, Doug Babcock LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 6:30 PM, Wednesday January 8, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES- 12/11/96 Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Schoell & Madson, Discussion and Review of Draft 1996 Boat Density Survey Report; *B. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; 2. WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendment, 1st reading of an ordinance relating to adjustment of setbacks and dock use areas; adding new subsection c) to LMCD Code Section 2.01, Subdivision 3; B. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Discussion on dock length and adjusted dock use area variance application at Dock Site #10 on the Cross Point firelane; *C. David and Susan Mellett, Staff recommends full refund of $250 deposit for dock length, side setback, and adjusted dock use variance at 4435 Enchanted Drive, D. Additional Business; EWM/EXOTICS TASKFORCE A. Ordinance Amendment, 2nd reading of an ordinance re'ating to special events and the transportation of exotic species; adding new subd;visions 2 through 9 to LI~CD Code 3.09; B. Update on RFP for new harvester; 8. 9. 10. B. Update on RFP for new harvester; C. Additional Business; SAVE THE LAKE ADMINISTRATION A. Staff Update on Appointments for 1997; * Auditor Selection * Bookkeeper * Bank depository resolution for fiscal year 1997 B. Additional Business; FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; * 1211196 - 12/31/96 * 1/1/97 - 1/15/97 (handout) B. November financial summary and balance sheet; C. Additional Business; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, December 11, 1996 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Gretchen Maglich, Mihnetonka; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: G. Alan Willcutt, Executive Director; Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Paul Stark, Excelsior; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Duane Markus, Wayzata. Orono has no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMF, aNTS Babcock stated the letter to the cities regarding commercial sales on Lake Minnetonka had not been sent out yet but would be in the near future. READING OF THE MINUTFN Maglich noted the minutes on pages 6 and 7 should identify cities in the plural. Babcock directed staff to include comments regarding barging and other alternatives discussed regarding the new harvester on page 11. Nelson moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 11/13/96 Regular Board meeting as amended. Ayes (6), Abstained (1, Zwak); Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Colesworthy, Commodore for the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, stated he would like to address the Board on multiple dock licensing concerns. Babcock moved further discussion on this topic to additional business under Water Structures. CONSENT AGENDA Reese moved, Partyka seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. Motion carded unanimously. (Approved consent agenda item: 4A, Minutes of the 11/7/96 Save the Lake meeting). Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 2 1. WATER STRUCTURES City of Village of Minnetonka Beach, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a dock length variance at dock site #1 on the Lake Road fn'elane on Crystal Bay. Babcock asked if the applicant has provided a site plan to satisfy all the requirments discussed at the 11/13/96 Board meeting? Nybeck stated a survey of the firelane with extended lot lines has been provided by the City of Minnetonka Beach. Suerth and Mollet a~ved at this time. MOTION: Dahlen moved, Partyka seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a dock length variance at dock site #1 on the Lake Road fire lane on Crystal Bay. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Bo City of Village of Mhmetonka Beach, Consideration of Find!ngs of Fact and Order for approval of a dock length variance for dock sites #8 & 9 on the Lafayette Road fire lane on Lower Lake North. LeFevere stated he did not include, the language of the 40' X 88' dock use area starting from the southem most point as described in the 11/13/96 minutes because he was unclear of the intent. Babcock stated this condition was included in the motion because the extended lot lines run parallel to each other; however, the shoreline runs at a slight angle. He clarified the intent was to allow for a 88' long dock use area on the southern most Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11. 1996 point of the dock use area. Page 3 LeFevere stated he would clarify on page 2 in the Order that the 88 feet is "measured from the south lot line and running perpindicular from that point". Foster arrived at this time. MOTION: Dahien moved, Zwak seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order, as amended, of a dock length variance for dock sites 8 and 9 on the Lafayette Road fire lane on Lower Lake North. Ce VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Partyka); Motion carded. City of Minnetonka Beach, Discussion on dock length variance application on dock site #10 on the Cross Point Road fire lane on Lower Lake North. Babcock stated staff prepared a memo outlining related issues and that Minnetonka Beach has provided additional information since the last Board meeting. This included a copy of a memo from Robert Mitchell, City. attorney, and how the vacation resolution affects dockage on this firelane; historical and proposed site plans; and a survey of this firelane. He noted the city has determined both a dock length and an adjusted dock use variance are being applied for. Mayor Palmer stated the neighbors on both sides of this fn-elane, the Gordon's and the Bergerson's, have expressed support for placing the docks on this site as they have been historically. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Babcock asked what the hardships are for this variance request? Page 4 Mayor Palmer stated water, depth is the hardship for the dock length variance and historical use for adjusted dock use area. Partyka asked the City if it has placed the dock where it would encroach on both neighbors abutting the fuelane? He stated it apl:ears the proposed docks overlaps the extended lot lines on both sides of the dock. Mayor Palmer stated the proposed layout is preferred by both neighbors abutting the firelane. He added the City believes it can encroach on the neighbor to the north because of the vacation resolution. Babcock asked LeFevere for interpretation on two questions. They were 1) Can historical use be considered a hardship for a variance request?, and 2) Can side setback Code be waived because the abutting neighbors agree to do so? LeFevere stated typically historical use would not be considered a hardship. He noted granting a variance generally consists of a two step process. First, the question of whether a hardship exists needs to be considered. Second, the question of whether granting the variance is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Code needs to be analyzed. He noted the support of the abutting the neighbors shows some evidence of the second question. He outlined the idea of the abutting neighbors granting an exclusive dockage easement to the City to satisfy side setback requirements. Mitchell stated the City has applied for the variance because of the physical characteristics of the firelane and how it relates to LMCD Code. He added because ..... 1 ..... J J · J, ,11 ill, I ,il I. ,i, , Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 5 of the interrelation between the shoreline and the extended lot lines, it would cause the dock to be placed in front of the Gordon's property to the north without the variance. He noted the proposed dock is the historical configuration at this dock site. Hurr outlined the physical characteristics that Mitchell noted. LeFevere stated the lot lines are not identified on the proposed site plan. Partyka stated he would like clarified with the property owners to the south, the Bergerson's, what their opinion is on the proposed dock that encroaches on their property without the City having control to do so. Bergerson stated he would not have trouble with placing the dock as done historically provided this is clearly defined. Foster asked wily a variance is required when it is the policy of the LMCD to waive setbac -ks and other Code requirements if the neighbors agreed. Babcock stated LMCD Code does not allow that for a residential dock and a multiple dock. LeFevere asked if a proposed site plan has been provided that identifies slip sizes? Hurr noted the proposed dock plan has been drawn to scale. Foster stated because there is neighbor approval for the dock plan, he believed the LMCD could proceed. He believed Mr. Bergerson should have opportunity to have Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 6 final review of the project to verify the project addresses concerns they may have. Maglich asked what property right would a new owner of this property have if they did not approve of the proposed dock plan? Babcock stated he was not convinced the hardship requirement for a variance request is met in this application. He added the granting of a variance would result in the permanent loss of dock use area to the neighbor to the south. Bergerson stated he believed it would be to his, and subsequent owners, best interests that the encroachment should be re-examined periodically to see how it is working out. Babcock asked LeFevere if these conditions could be placed on an approved variance? LeFevere stated it could be done but it is a questionable practice. He believed once a variance has been granted, it would be difficult to revoke a previously approved variance once a hardship has been found and it has been determined that the variance is in the spirit of the Code. Babcock asked LeFevere if there are other avenues Which could be examined other than a variance, such as a special Code amendment, for this particular location? He cited the new multiple dock license for the City of Excelsior last Winter as an example. LeFevere stated in the case of Excelsior, the Code amendment approved was to allow a municipal dock, abutting a multiple dock, to adjust side setback Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 7 requirements by mutual consent. He recalled the Board did not allow this for a residential site because the Board believed a residential owner may not believe they have the bargaining power. Babcock asked if a special licensing permit with the City could be established or if the Code amendment is the best' means?. LeFevere stated he believed a Code amendment is the best means since the Board can establish the conditions in which this can be done. Foster stated if the City and Mr. Bergerson could mutually agree upon side setbacks and dock location, he believed they should be able to combine dock use areas and avoid the need for a variance. He added if Mr. Bergerson or subsequent owners do not agree with this in the future, the issue would need to be readdressed by the City in the future. LeFevere stated a way to allow total control for Mr. Bergerson would be to enter into agreement with the City to allow them dockage rights over his property through a revocable license. The shoreline of Mr. Bergerson would be counted towards the Cities multiple dock license, no variances would be required, and it could be revoked at any time. Babcock asked how this would effect the grandfathered, non-conforming status of the City? LeFevere noted by adding the 210' of shoreline from the Bergerson property, essentially the grandfathered density would not be increasing. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 8 Bergerson stated the shoreline may be 210', but the physical layout of the authorized dock use area is significantly less. He believed the idea of a revocable license makes sense. Mitchell stated if the LMCD does not see fit to grant the variance request, the City will be required to utilize its legal right to place the docks to the north in front of the Gordon's property because of the street vacation resolution. Babcock stated the trouble is not so much the extended lot lines but more likely too many boats are being stored on too small of a dock site. Mayor Palmer stated he had reviewed records back to 1926 at this dock location. He stated he came to conclusion the City has the right to place the docks as they have historically even if it conies to placing them in front of the Gordon's property. Foster stated he believed the attomey should draft a proposal so the docks can be placed where they have been historically and that the Bergerson's have the ability to revoke this proposal. He stated he believed these are technical issues that LeFevere should be able to address. Babcock concurred with Foster but added he believed there should be some foresight that things could change in the future and the docks could go away. Foster stated he believed the docks do not have to go away in the future. Party'ka asked Foster what would happen if the Bergerson property is sold and the new owners does not agree to this dock configuration? Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 9 Foster stated the City would then have to comply with the 5' side setback requirement from the Bergerson property to the south. Babcock expressed concern in placing additional restrictions on residential dock use areas to accommodate public acCess for residents who live off the lake. Foster stated in the time he has served on the Board, a goal of the LMCD has been to enhance the benefits and usefulness of Lake Minnetonka to non-riparian property owners. He added Minnetonka Beach has decided to provide access to the lake for its non-riparian property owners and he believed the LMCD should respect that. MOTION: Foster moved, Suerth seconded to direct LeFevere to prepare a code amendment to allow the City of Minnetonka Beach to place docks as they have been historically at dock site #10 and allow the Bergerson's to revoke the license. Foster noted the City needs to provide site plans with extended lot lines, dimensions, and additional information for the Board to review. Babcock recommended a friendly amendment to allow these adjustments only between a municipal multiple dock and a residential dock. LeFevere stated this code amendment would be subject to.an annual review between the interested parties. Maglich questioned how a new neighbor would become aware of the ability to revoke this agreement if the Bergerson property changes hands. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 10 LeFevere stated a signed consent agreement would be required to allow the dock to continue to exist. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. De Draft Protected Waters General Permit, Board review and consideration to make application for a DNR Protected Waters Permit. Babcock stated LMCD and DNR staff have been outlining a General Permit where the LMCD could issue a General Permit for the DNR under certain conditions. He added if a Protected Waters Permit is issued to the LMCD, this General Permit could be issued by the LMCD if an application meets the basic criteria of the general permit. He added the DNR would still have the ability to require a DNR permit even though the conditions of the General Permit are satisfied. He concluded if the conditions are met, most applicants would only have to apply with the LMCD. Nelson asked who would generally benefit from this General Permit? Babcock cited permanent dock, m. arina, multiple dock, launching ramp, and permanent residential dock projects as examples.. Nybeck explained the most common project received by the LMCD that requires a permit from both the agencies is a residential, permanent dock. He added the intent is to streamline the application process amongst governmental agencies provided certain conditions are met. a o7 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 11 Babcock stated in the case an EAW needs to be done, it is automatic that the LMCD cannot issue a General Permit for the DNR. LeFevere stated he understood the DNR reserves the right to require a separate permit. As part of the applicatiOn process, copies would still be provided to a list of agencies for comments. He added in most cases where the conditions of the General Permit are being met, he felt the DNR would be inclined to allow the LMCD to issue a DNR General Permit. Maglich asked if there is an idea of how many applications are done in a year that could be approved through a General Permit? Nybeck stated he believed there were approximately five to ten the past year. MOTION: Reese moved, Partyka seconded to approve the draft General Permit, to direct staff to make application for a DNR Protected Water Permit, and to approve the $75 fee associated with it. Babcock clarified some key points on the draft General Permit. First, he noted on General Conditions, page 1, item 4, "zebra mussels and other exotics" should be added. Second, he noted Item 9C and D would prohibit boathouses and structures constructed of walls. Third, he recommended a change in the ordinary high water mark referred throughout the conditions from 924.6' to 925.4' lake elevation. Reese and Partyka agreed to these changes. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Page 12 Additional Business RDP Partners/Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Foster stated he read the memo from Scott Coleswonhy to staff and questioned whether a sailboat of less than 20' is considered a restricted watercraft. Babcock clarified this would have to be propelled solely by human power, not wind power. Nybeck summarized that RDP Partners/Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club had met with staff recently to investigate changes to their multiple dock license. He noted they have 32 BSU's on 320' of shoreline, thus the need for a special density license. He added a public amenity approved with this special density license was to provide sailing schools. He noted the applicant would like to store prams on lifts or slides in the water along the shoreline. He stated staff has indicated to them that Code does not distinguish between a restricted and an unrestricted watercraft once it is stored in the water and is associated with a muitiple dock license. He stated staff has indicated these prams would need to be stored in one of the licensed 32 BSU's or stacked outside of the water since they may qualify as an unrestricted watercraft. He concluded the applicant expressed concerns with the Code and staff recommended they draft a letter to the Board outlining their concerns. Babcock recalled in similar requests from other sailing schools, the Code has placed a limit on the number of unrestricted watercraft that could stored on land associated with a multiple dock license. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 13 Foster concurred with Babcock in that the Code does allow for the storage of a limited number of unrestricted watercraft, provided the slide or rack is totally out of the water. Babcock stated if an unrestricted watercraft is totally out of the water, it would no be counted against the license 'number. If it is parked in the water, it would be counted towards their licensed number. Colesworthy asked for the intent of the Code in distinguishing between a boat being stored on the water and a boat being stored 'through a launching system? Babcock the intent is to limit the watercraft stored on the watercraft to 1 boat for each 10' of lakeshore frontage at the 929.4' lake elevation, provided a special density license has been approved. Foster stated he believed the original intent was to allow sailing schools and residential docks to store unrestricted watercraft, provided it could be stored off the water. Babcock stated he believed the yacht club needs to make a decision on what is most important; whether it is for large boat storage or for sailing schools. Foster stated the Code allow for the storage of one unrestricted watercraft for each 25' of shoreline and one for each 15' of shoreline provided they are used for educational purposes. LeFevere added if a restricted watercraft is stored on land, it is counted towards the licensed number of watercraft on the multiple dock license. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 14 ® LAKE USE AND RECREATION There was no discussion. 3. EURASIAN WATER MIl.FOIL/EXOTICS TASK FORCE Ae Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to special events and the transportation of exotic species; adding new subdivisions 2 through 9 to LMCD Code 3.09. Babcock expressed a concern that he felt needed to be addressed by the Board. He believed the draft ordinance is a little more ambitious than what was originally discussed. He recalled the original discussion was to require applicants to come to the LMCD with an approved washdown plan, not to inspect every boat associated with the special event. He added this would be more complex and would require a district employee to personally inspect all boats in a special event. LeFevere stated the intent of the draft ordinance was that participants would have to provide a certificate that they have either not been in infected waters or a certificate indicating their boat has been sprayed down by district personnel. Babcock expressed concerns with staffing and funding this requirement. He encouraged feedback from the Board on this. Reese stated he believed a surcharge could be included in the special event permit fee to pay for boat cleaning fees. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 15 Babcock stated the ordinance as drafted only ailows the cleaning and inspection of boats to be done by LMCD personnel, not by event personnel. Suerth suggested revisiting the ordinance and incorporating Babcock's suggestions. Nelson stated he believed the 30 day requirement outlined in the draft ordinance /'rom where boats coming from infested waters need to be sprayed down is too restrictive. He added the literature he had reviewed states that 5 to 10 days is a sufficient timeframe to kill zebra mussels. He believed the ordinance may be too restrictive and would require that many more boats that need to be inspected by LMCD personnel. Reese explained literature he had reviewed states that viligers can live up to 30 days in a wet bilge. Babcock stated he believed providing sufficiently trained LMCD personnel to inspect watercrafts and how to pay for them needs to be addressed. Nelson stated that should be included the draft ordinance. He stated he strongly wants to see an ordinance that prohibits the introduction of zebra mussel into the lake. LeFevere stated that this could be considered a service and may be worth a try to collect it as part of the permitting process. He added the Water Patrol has indicated they are not interested in collecting fees for the LMCD so the Board may want to consider permitting special events again. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 16 Babcock stated boat t~aulers to Lake Minnetonka are the second largest potential transporter of zebra mussels. He recommended a change to the draft ordinance from "LMCD staff" to "LMCD approved personnel." He stated he would like to see financing options defined before there is a final reading of this ordinance. MOTION: Nelson moved, Zwak seconded to approve the fa'st reading and direct LeFevere to amend the ordinance to identify "LMCD approved personnel" rather than "LMCD Personnel", to discuss whether the 30 day period is the correct number, and to discuss ways of generating revenue to support such efforts. Reese and Suerth stated research on the exact number of days for the waiting period could be resolved quickly and made available at the 1/8/97 Board meeting. Foster recommended sending a letter to permittees to advise them of the new ordinance under consideration regarding boat washing and zebra mussel's. Babcock stated the committee needs to determine the scope of the ordinance (number of boats, events) and to determine how much staff would be needed. Foster recommended a 54ay waiting period, rather than a 30, would seem the most reasonable. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Be Update on RFP for new harvester Suerth stated RFP's for the new harvester are due on 12/15/96 and would be evaluated once received. He added no recommendation is available and there will Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 be a final presentation and recommendation at the 1/8/97 Board ineeting. Ce Additional Business There was no additional business. Page 17 e SAVE THE LAKE B. 11/7/96 meeting report Mollet reported on the following: * A slide show assembled by Laura Smith is available for viewing by City Councils. * Winter roles are being printed and will be distributed to drop boxes at public accesses, marinas, and other locations around the lake. * The spring ice cleanup will take place again prior to the spring thaw. * $25,000 in the Save the Lake fund donations this past year. He added a solicitation letter will be going out in the near future. * The committee is looking for volunteers. Ce Additional Business There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT A. Appointments for 1997: -Auditor selection -Legal Counsel -Prosecuting attorney -Bookkeeper -Official newspaper Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 -Bank depository resolution for fiscal year 1997 Page 18 Willcutt reviewed the 12/5/96 staff memo that made recommendations for administrative appointments for 1997. He noted staff has sent out RFP's regarding an audit and the only one to return a bid was Babcock and Langbein. He reported Specialty Bookkeeping would not be continuing to provide this se:wice in 1997 and that a search for a replacement is underway with a replacement to be recommended at the 1/8/97 Board meeting. Wilcutt recommended the following administrative appointments for 1997: * Kennedy & Graven- Legal Counsel * Prosecuting Attorney- Steven Tallen * Official Newspaper- Lakeshore Weekly News He recommended Norwest Bank be continued as the bank depository while staff reviews other options. Babcock recommended tabling appointment of an auditor to the I/8/97 Board meeting to allow Willcutt to contact cities and MCWD to investigate who they use. MOTION: Reese moved, Nelson seconded to appoint Kennedy and Graven as legal counsel and Steven Tallen as prosecuting attorney for 1997. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Dahlen moved. Suerth seconded to appoint Lakeshore Weekly News as the official newspaper for 1997. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 19 MOTION: Nelson moved, Partyka seconded to continue with Norwest Bank as the banking depository and to direct staff to bring back options for new bank depository at a future meeting. VOTE: Motion carried dnanimously. Babcock stated further discussion conducted at the 1/8/97 Board meeting. on the auditor and bookkeeper would be Be LMCD Office Relocation Update Willcutt stated the move has been resolved. completed and that further details are being Nelson stated signage, both inside and outside, needs to be done to assist people in locating the office. Wilcutt recommended a holiday, open house be scheduled for Mayors, City Council members, and any other interested parties to provide them the opportunity to check the new office out. The Board scheduled the open house for 12/19/96 from 3 to 6 P.M. MOTION: Dahlen moved, Suerth seconded to authorize the open house and authorize the expenditure of up to $200 for refreshments. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Page 20 Ce Additional Business · There was no additional business. FINANCIAL REPORT A. Audit of vouchers for payment I 1/16/96 - 11/30/96 12/1/96- 12/15/96 Willcutt reviewed the audit of vouchers of payment from 11/16/96 through 11/30/96. MOTION: Zwak moved, Nelson seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for the period starting 11/16/96 and ending with 11/30/96. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Willcutt stated the audit of vouchers from 12/i/96 through 12/15/96 would be included at the 1/8/97 Board meeting. Be October f'mancial summary and balance sheet Willcutt reviewed the cun'ent checking account balance and noted a budget transfer has been done. MOTION: Foster moved, Nelson seconded to approve the October financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 21 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Willcutt stated the LMCD is required to be a member of the LMC in order to receive insurance through the LMCIT. He added a rebate of $730 is available through an insurance trust program and more information would be provided at a future meeting. Ce Additional Business Moving Costs Willcutt reviewed moving and remodeling costs associated with moving from Norwest banks to the Freshwater Institute. He reported all expenses, including moving costs, were approximately $23,000. Spring Park Willcutt stated staff received a letter from Spring Park regarding outstanding balance on levy payments. He noted total levies for 1995 and 1996 were $5,019.99, that $4,790.00 was in question, and that a check was received for $229.00. He stated the $4,790 in question revolves around whether it was a gift or a requirement. He stated he returned the check to Spring Park based on recommendation of LeFevere. LeFevere stated he advised Willcutt to return the check from Spring Park because by accepting the check it could be considered that the LMCD is accepting the proposed settlement. Babcock stated he understands Spring Park is willing to resume making their levy payments now that the amount in dispute has been withheld. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 22 e 8, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Willcutt reported on the following: Boat Density Survey - stated the final report from Schoell and Madson will be sent out to Board members in the near furore. He recommended the meeting on the 1/8/97 start at 6:30 p.m. Goal-Setting Meeting - stated he would like to discuss goals and objectives with Board officers and staff in the near future. OLD BUSINESS Nybeck stated Bill Hawks waived his right to appear in court, and another hearing date would be rescheduled. NEW BUSINESS Mollet announced he will not be reapplying for his term on the LMCD. term expires this year and he was unaware if he would be reappointed. Partyka stated his 10. ADJO~ There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Joseph Zwak, Secretary RECEi'.'..-'2 ; 5 i9§7 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXOTICS TASK FORCE MINUTES 8:30 A.M. Friday, November 8, 1996 Norwest Bank Building, Conference Room #160, Wayzata Present: Herb Suerth, LMCD; Tom Reese, LMCD; Craig Nelson, LMCD; Chip Welling, DNR; Marsha Videen, E. Parkers Lake Imp. Asso.; Mike Halverson, DNR.; Al Willcutt LMCD. Introduction and Welcome: The meeting was called to order at 8:30 A.M. by Committee Chairman Herb Suerth. Minutes: A correction was made to the minutes of October 11 on Page 1 regarding milfoil being found in Worth, Whale Tail, Gilcrest, Rice and Twin lakes. On page 2 the spelling of "Crowel" was corrected to "Crowell." Also on page 2 a change was made to read "not transporting milfoil" instead of"transporting mi[foil" in line two. It was mentioned that Ray Newman and John Batten had called stating that they could not attend the meeting. Hennepin Parks Report: There was no report. DNR Report: Chip Welling reported that Rice Lake is currently being drawn down to kill Curly Leaf Pondweed and Milfoil which was recently discovered. $26,000 has been expended to date this year by the DNR on high intensity management lakes. In the maintenance management class in which Lake Minnetonka is concerned, nearly $50,000 has been expended with the LMCD receiving $24,000 earmarked specifically for the Milfoil program. Eight other lakes have received a share of the remaining $25,000. An additional $13,000 has not been claimed for reimbursement as yet. Suerth asked how the amount of the funds available is determined and Welling responded that a license surcharge generates the funds and they are subsequently allocated to the lakes according to size. Reese asked what the total surcharge per year, state wide would be? Welling said the surcharge generates approximately $1,100,000 per year of which we see $90,000. -2- Also $200,000 to $300,000 goes to water crat~ inspection with other dollars targeted for the Youth Conservation Corps and the remainder to other exotics, ie; Purple Loosestrife, Ruffe Gobi, Curly LeafPondweed, etc. A special fund of $63,000 was made available state wide for the use on Milfoil, however, the funds had to be applied for and few applications have been received for projects. Applications are received by the DNR in April and as Reese pointed out it is helpful to coordinate the LMCD budgeting process with these dates. Reese lead a discussion on the purchase of a new milfoil harvester and/or barge for use in 1997 of which certain research and development funds from the DNR could be earmarked for this purpose. Suerth asked if the LMCD could be of help in sharing their harvesters with the DNR in an effort to combat the growth. The possibility of this will be considered in the future. The new LMCD web site was discussed relative to advertising the harvesting efforts. Welling indicated that he would check into the availability o£funds for such purposes. Welling reported on the Minnesota Sea Grant report conducted by Ray Newman on Weevil Introduction into Fresh Water Lakes and that his concern was that the effort not be over sold regarding the probability of it alone controlling the Mllfoil problem. It was announced that the North American Lake Management Society will hold its annual meeting November 13 - 16 in Minneapolis. Videen asked Welling if the DNR had a special budget for the control of other exotic materials besides Milfoil. His response was that they did not. Halverson will provide a book on Minnesota fish Consumption as it pertains to chemical contaminates in state waters. Suerth ask that if the amount of lake aeration and bubbling around the docks if this would have an impact on exotic growth of any kind? This question will need to be researched. University of Minnesota - Dr. Ray Newman There was no report. Hennepin County - Mike Brandt There was no report. Lake Area Associations - E. Parkers Lake - Marsha Videen Videen commented that the City of Plymouth had leased a harvester for the Curly Leaf Pondweed and that it had been very successful, especially in the beach area. She mentioned that Mark Peterson from the city of Plymouth would have a need for the use of a harvester. A concern for the transport of the harvesters was discussed, however, no agreement was made as to their use away from Lake Minnetonka. A general discussion on boat washing and special events followed as informational items only. Reese gave an update on the RFP for a new harvester. If given the go ahead to purchase we would be time head in getting started. Old Business: There was none. New Business: Willcutt stated that an Aerial Boat Count Survey was being conducted by Schoell & Madson Inc. This program is being done in conjunction with the DNR and the final figures will be available in December and will be presented at a future milfoil meeting. Other Business: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 A.M. Respectfully submitted, G. Alan Willcutt Executive Director, LMCD RECEIVED..,,,, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXOTIC/EWM TASK FORCE Meeting Notice & Agenda 8:30 A.M. Friday, January 10, 1996 Gray Freshwater Center, Suite 119, Conference Room, Navarre 1. Introduction and welcome; 2. Review and accept minutes of the November 8, 1996 meeting; 3. Presentation from Clear Water Technologies, Inc.; 4. Boat washing update; 5. Agency reports; 6. Area wide lake association report(s); 9. Old business; 10. New business; 11. Adjournment. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMI~qSION MINUTES OF A MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1996 Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Vice Chair Bill Darling, Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Rita Pederson, Mary Goode, City Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Faclder, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Also in attendance were: Rodney Beystrom, Mark Goldberg, Gordy Tulberg, Frank Ahrens, Jim Funk, Leah Weycker, Mike Garberick, and Mike Aspelin. Meyer referred to page 6, 3rd paragraph, and suggested the following amendment. "Meyer stated that he ak-eadg has yet to set up a meeting set--up with Community Services and the Hockey Association to discuss it." Meyer commented that Mr. Shulde was to set up the meeting. Pederson referred to page four of the minutes where it talks about the verbiage written on the dock map, she requested the following statement be added: "The above verbiage on the dock location map was created in December 1995 in preparation for the forth-coming pending court order of 1996." Motion made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko, to approved the minutes of the November 14, 1996 Park and Open Space Commi~ion meeting, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Meyer requested the following additions to the agenda: 10.a. Update on Community Skating Rink 10.b. Report on amount of staff time budgeted for commons. Ahrens recommended that anytime there are agenda changes they be added after the regular agenda. COMMONS TASK FORCE RECOMMFNDATIONS Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force explained that different members will be presenting different portions of their program. He asked the Commission to hold their questions until the end of each segment. A. TIME LINE OF TASK FORCE EFFORTS Mark Goldberg briefly reviewed the history of the Commons Task Force when they were established and their accomplishments. The Task Force held meetings from May to December of 1995, they did a number of different surveys, toured the commons, got approval of a recommendation to install a multiple boat slip dock at Pembroke Park, followed-up on the success of the multiple dock, and have developed the recommendations to be presented to you this evening. B. SHARED DOCK POLICY RECOMMENDATION Gordy Tulberg stated he has been a Mound resident since 1947 and has been a commons dock user. The intent of the shared dock proposal is to enable commons dock users to combine into a single dock while still applying and paying for their existing dock sites. OBYECTIVF_3: Reduce dock density. Reduce amount of dock in/out labor for dock site holders. Reduce number of docks in front of abutter's property. Enable people to share docks without loss of permit rights. PROGRAM: Two or more dock site holders can share one dock. All parties would maintain their "primary" dock site holder status. The next year they would all maintain their status as dock site holders. Dock sites without a dock due to shared usa:;e would not be given out to others for use. Permit holders will continue to pay the full dock fee in order to maintain their primary permit holder status. A notice is going to be sent out with the dock application forms to help promote this concept. C. MULTIPLE BOAT-SLIP DOCK PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Jim Funk announced he has been a Mound resident for about eight years. He is a nonabutting dock holder on Waterside. Some of the objectives for the multiple-slip dock program came out of the initial survey done by the task force. One of the primary objectives was to satisfy the users of the program. They had found that a large percentage of dissatisfaction of the program was with the abutting owners and dock congestion in front of their houses. This multiple-slip dock seemed to be the best solution to reduce congestion by concentrating the users in one area that is not so interfering .... 1 ......L II · , I, ,I ,,l Il, i ,i, Park and Open Space Cotnmission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 with the abutters. At the same time this program reduces overall cost for participation by eliminating the need for nonabutters to have to purchase and maintain a dock by allowing the City to maintain and act as trustee of the dock. In addition, this concept would improve the shoreline appearance for the abutting owners by reducing the congestion traffic in front of the homes. To determine selection of the sites, it was also found from the survey that some areas had a higher level of dissatisfaction that others. Devon was more of a problem area so they chose the Pembroke area for the pilot program, and it proved to be successful. Feedback from the users was received and their comments will be considered when developing future multiple sites. Casey questioned, specifically, what problems were expressed by the users of the multiple-slip dock. Funk noted the following: Low water levels towards end of year made navigation somewhat difficult. This could be corrected by looking at reconfiguring the dock. Dock holders had security concerns; non-dock holders used the dock for fishing. It was suggested a gate be installed at the entrance of the dock to keep out random visitors. To help reduce risk of vandalism, a light was installed about a month after the dock was installed. D. LAKESHORE COMMONS ENCROACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION Mark Goldberg reviewed the Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal. Major key factors in developing this proposal were that encroaching structures existed before rules restricting them existed, and the City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good. Key portions of the Commons Task Force Recommendation are that the onus is on the City to show that there are sufficient use hindrances or safety problems to justify taking actions beyond those that would involve structures on private lakeshore. They thought it was appropriate that the City, given that they have a trustee role, that they should continue to monitor structures, issue permits; they kind of stepped back from the "life of the structure" recommendation they made back in January. They recommend that rules governing maintenance of encroaching structures should be consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance and no more restrictive than all other shoreline within the City unless use hindrance or safety issues exist. One of the most precise listings of the City's mandate is that the Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions that they deem advisable to protect Mound resident use of the commons shoreline, and this has to do with use and safety, basically. Goldberg reviewed changes to the Flow Chart which they proposed in order to be consistent with this recommendation. He noted that the original flow chart considers all public lands, and their changes reflect uses on lakeshore commons only. 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 There is a "note" on the flow chart which states, "Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all nonconforming uses. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits granted are for a limited time, are non-transferable, and the structure must meet State Building Code." Goldberg commented that this statement is inconsistent with their conclusion that the onus is on the City to show that there are safety or use problems with that structure and the onus is on the City to demonstrate that there are safety or use problems to justify harming the encroachment owner. So they changed this wording to: "All permits granted are for a limited time, are transferable, and the structure must meet City guidelines for renewal of Public Land Permits (Exhibit J in the Procedure Manual)." With regard to existing encroachments, after the question, "Will the request (to continue the use) result in a negative impact on the Use Plan?" They added, if the answer is 'yes': "Is the negative impact on the Use Plan substantial enough to override the negative impact on the owner of removing the structure?" if no, "Grant permit up to $ 5 years and renewable, contingent upon use an .................. ., ...... ~,~, ........... perm:,.' Permit is transferable." If this answer is yes, then "Grant permit up to $ 5 years, not renewable. To be checked annually." The way it is worded now, if it is a 'yes,' then the permit is granted up to a certain number of years, but it is not renewable. They propose that this be changed. With regard to new encroachments, they added, "Will to request result in a negative impact on ~" If yes, "Deny request." If no, "Grant permit up to five years and renewable." Goldberg noted that they recommended changes to Exhibit $ of the Procedure Manual, "Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports for Public Land Permits," to make it consistent with the other changes. Goldberg spoke to the Commission regarding encroachments and the problems people see with the encroachments and what the issues are with regards to them. The most commonly heard rationale used for why existing encroachments should be removed are: They're on public land. They restrict public use of the shoreline, either by making the commons appear to be private, and/or by physically restricting access. They take away from the natural state of the shoreline. Goldberg added, these are the three main reasons we hear why encroachments should be removed. With regard to the statement, "They're on public land," the City is the trustee, not the owner of lakeshore commons, and the encroachment owner is a member of the group the City is a trustee for, this needs to be remembered. Up until the 1970's, City Code gave approval for construction of boat houses, boat ramps and slips on lakeshore commons. It seems safe to assume that lesser encroachments were acceptable as well. "Because we have the power to do so," is not a justification of policy. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 The public hears from the City that encroachments restrict public use of the shoreline when they make commons appear to be private, or physically restrict use. The City tends to use this as a blanket rule, with the exception of landscaping like timber walls and stairways, everything else should be removed. The problem with this is that there is a wide variety of commons, and to make a blanket statement like this is not fair. This is what frustrates a lot of abutters, and that is why we have some of the political problems that we've got. Rationale used to remove all encroachments is that they take away from the natural state of the shoreline. This rationale needs to be balanced with the fact that Minnetonka is an urban lake, there are a lot of houses on the lake, it is okay to have boat canopies, large boats, multiple boats per dock, etc., this needs to be balanced with: does the negative impact on the lakeshore overwhelm the harm done to the encroachment owner of removing the encroachment? Goldberg summarized, these are the primary reasons the Task Force has heard that encroachments should be removed, and over the course of many discussions they have tried to address this. Goldberg asked if there were any questions. Meyer stated that he knows the Village of Island Park had permitted some of the encroachments, but did not know that Mound had. Goldberg noted, in May 1960, the Mound Council adopted those resolutions granting permits for boat houses, boat ramps and boat slips. The next resolution is in 1973 relating to this. The Commission requested a copy of these resolutions. Casey asked if there will need to be two separate flow charts, one for public lands and one for lakeshore commons? Goldberg stated that still needs to be resolved, they recommended the changes to the flow chart as they affect lakeshore commons. Casey referred to Exhibit J, and asked the policy reason why the Task Force recommended the City "Use a means of enforcement other than withholding dock permits. Instead, use fines, license, special assessments, etc." Goldberg stated that they did not feel the abutting homeowners should be treated differently, and not be able to lose their dock. Casey asked why they shifted the burden onto the City to justify its reasons for taking action as opposed to the property owner justifying its reasons to continue the existence of the encroachments? Goldberg stated that the encroaching structures existed before the rules restricting them existed. In fact, you can fred City Code that approves those structures. That coupled with the fact that the City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good. The City is a trustee of this lakeshore and therefore need to justify their actions, they can't just do something because they have the legal right to do it, they have to do it because if they are going to harm an individual citizen, the onus is on them to show that the rest of the citizens are better off to the point that it overwhelms the harm done to the individual, particularly in the light of these structures being approved previously. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 Casey referred to the flow chart and asked, according to the recommended changes, if an individual wanted to construct a new structure on public lands, then these factors and recommendations still apply? Goldberg replied, yes, however, they are not saying that people should be allowed to build boat houses or decks, they are saying, if it is allowed by the Shoreland Management Ordinance and it is not a safety issue or a use issue, then it should be approved. Goldberg stated, the City's primary responsibilities are to ensure that the commons are accessible and that there are no safety problems, beyond that they are not sure what the City should be doing over and above what the Shoreland Management Ordinance dictates. Casey asked if the Task Force feels individuals should be allowed to have lock boxes on the shoreland and vegetative cutting should be allowed according to the parameters of the Ordinance? Goldberg agreed, yes. Casey asked if they feel that nonabutters should also have the right to have lock boxes or be allowed to trim vegetation so they can see the lake from their homes? Goldberg commented that this is something that they have got to hash out. Meyer commented, one of the problems the Commission has had to wrestle with over the last several years is the problem of encroachments such as stairways, concrete, clothesline bars, etc. that were installed by a previous abutting land owner, and now that stairway or whatever is hazardous so it needs to be upgraded or removed. Meyer asked the Task Force's feeling towards this. Goldberg stated that the abutter should be legally responsible for the encroaching structures through the use of legal encumbrances or other means. This is a loop-hole that should not be there, abutters should not be able to walk away from their encroachments when they are not interested in them and say it is the City's problem. Goldberg noted that the City Attorney wrote a letter saying that there are various levels of responsibility that can be put on an abutter for an encroachment. The letter implied, if there is a major encroachment, such as a boat house, a deck, or a large retaining wall, you can attach it to the property. Meyer noted that the Park Commission has been trying to get the City be more active in removing a structure that an abutting owner refuses to take responsibility for. Goldberg asked if Meyer thinks the City has to justify removing those encroachments, or simply because they have the power to do it, they can? Meyer feels the City has a responsibility to ensure safety and use. Goldberg believes that most abutters will gladly take responsibility for their encroachments, in which case there is a tool to make them responsible. Ahrens interprets the Task Force recommendation as that the City has to make a decision and determine if everybody is going to own up to their encroachment, or perhaps have a one time situation where the we will remove the encroachments. If everybody who has an encroachment to owns up to it, and the encroachments either go on the title or something so there is no way for a future land owner to try and shun their responsibility towards whatever that encroachment is, whether it is a clothes line poles or steps or a retaining wall. There comes a point when the City either has to decide that they agree with the policy that the people either own up to their responsibility or the City will remove it and take care of the problem. The recommendation from the City Attorney implies that there are ways to make people own up to their responsibilities, if they want to. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 Darling questioned Goldberg if their recommendation would allow a nonabutting land owner who lives in Mound to put up the same encroaching structure as an abutter could? Goldberg stated yes, as long as it complies with the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Goldberg commented that they focused more on existing encroachments. Goode questioned if there is a way to get encroachments on commons included on deeds? Goldberg stated the City attorney said it could be done but it is a costly procedure, so it would have to be a big item. The smaller items you could do bonds on and there are some other devices that can be used to attach responsibility. Goode agreed that it has been a problem to figure out who is responsible. Goldberg feels that most abutters would like to get as much control of the lakeshore in front of their house as possible, and if the City were to say that you can have a stairway, but you have to be responsible for them, he thinks abutters would be in favor of that. Ahrens commented that she does not feel a nonabutting property owner should have the fight to construct something on commons in front of another property owner's home that may diminish the abutter's view which they are paying for. Casey asked if there was anybody else present that had anything they wanted to add. Mike Aspelin who lives in the Three Points area questioned, if his house was valued at $300,000, his taxes were $6,000, and he is inland, does he have more fights than an abutter with a $250,000 house? Fackler stated that currently when they address these issues, it is not in the ordinance, they look at impact. When they look at canopies they look at the abutting person and what will this canopy do to their view. They do not want to impede the abutting homeowner's view of the lake, so staff will have the person requesting the canopy go to the homeowner and get approval from them. Leah Weycker asked if there was going to be a public hearing on this issue before any changes are made. Casey stated that technically this is not a public hearing, and the Commission has yet to decide what they are going to do with this. Goldberg summarized, the underlying basis of their recommendations came from the question, who does this affect and can they live with it? Their objective was to make everybody happy and comfortable. Goode feels the legal responsibility issue needs to be clarified. Casey asked staff to supply the Commission with a copy of the resolutions referred to by Goldberg and with a copy of the attorney's letter. Casey thanked the Task Force for their time. The Commission determined that they would further discuss the task force recommendation at their January 9, 1997 meeting at 7:00 p.m. HAZARDOUS TREE DEFINITION - CODE SECTION 1010:00 Commissioner Meyer expressed a concern that trees are being removed when they are not "hazardous." Meyer referenced a tree that was removed from Three Points Park and discussion 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 followed about how staff determines if a tree is hazardous and if there is a means to do more preventative meaintenance to potentially hazardous trees. There was no action on this item. NCA EXPENSES FROM 1995 Commissioner Meyer explained why he requested staff to look up the amount of money spent in 1995 and 1996 on the NCA's. He wanted to express that the amount of money spent has been very low. No action was taken on this item. (Botko was temporarily excused from the meeting at this point.) DOCKS FOR FISHING Commissioner Meyer suggested that commons docks be made available for resident fishing, and if an individual dock site holder is willing to let other Mound residents use their dock for fishing that it be advertised as such. Meyer suggested that they add to the dock application for a place for people to check if they are willing to let people use their docks for fishing, then a list can be created and people will know where they can go fish. Pederson expressed a concern about liability to the dock site holder if an individual were injured while using their dock. Meyer stated that the kids on the Island cannot safely get to the Centerview fishing pier, and feels they need a fishing pier in their area. Darling suggested they continue discussion on this topic when they further discuss the commons issue at their January meeting. Goode feels it is more logical to have the DNR provide another fishing pier on the island, than to have dock site holders volunteer their sites and assume any risks involved. Ahrens expressed a concern about kids congregating at the dock sites. (Botko returned.) WORK RULES: A.~ ASSIGN TIME KEEPER & TIME ALLOTMENT TO EACH ITEM, B_B.I P&OSC MEETING START TIME Fackier stated that this is on the agenda due to a motion made at the previous meeting. Darling handed out copies of proposed changes to the work rules and read them to the Commission, as follows: 231 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 Meetings will be normally scheduled from 7:30pm to 10:00 on the second Thursday of each month. If items still remain at lO:O0, then the Chair has discretionary authority to extend the meeting thirty additional minutes until 10:30 without a motion. If at 10:30, items still remain, then the item and/or motion currently on the floor will be immediately tabled by the chair, without a motion to table, and the chair will put forth a continuance motion to extend the meeting for an additional thirty minutes. If passed, the item tabled immediately prior will be brought back up. This cycles until all items are completed or the continuance motion fails. Any items left at adjournment will be automatically added to the next meeting's agenda prior to any new items. If all items listed on the agenda prior to the start of the meeting are not completed and the continuance fails, then the chair has discretionary authority to schedule a second meeting for that month without a motion. That meeting, will take place on the fourth Thursday of the month, from 7:30pm to lO:OO pm. If any items, not listed on the agenda prior to the start of the meeting are not completed, and the continuance fails, then the chair will motion the commission for a second monthly meeting, on the fourth Thursday of the month from 7:30pm to lO:OO pm. All items on the agenda will be given a 15 minute time limit, at the end of fifteen minutes the item will be: Ifa motion is on the floor, then the chair will immediately call for the question. If the call is passed, the motion will be voted on. If the call fails, then the item will be tabled as is (including any motion on the floor), to the bottom of the agenda. If there is no motion on the floor, then the chair will immediately table the item to the bottom of the agenda. Z The chair will be responsible for keeping time, but may delegate this as they see fit. At the end of fifteen minutes, the timekeeper will call out "Time." Darling suggested the Commission members review the proposed changes, give their input, and he can bring it back to the next meeting for further discussion. Pederson commented that by limiting each item to 15 minutes, it limits the agenda to nine topics. Geffre expressed a concern about the 15 minute time limit if there is a public hearing and a lot of people who wish to speak on the issue. Byrnes thinks it is better that somebody other than the chair be the time keeper because the chair has enough to do. 9 Park and Open Space Coi~d. ssion Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 Meyer does not like the idea of limiting agenda items to 15 minutes. Motion made by Goode to discuss this topic further at the Commission meeting. Geffre seconded the motion. Motion unanimously. January carried RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL MOTION PASSED AT 10-22-96 MEETING Casey stated he had no comments on this item. Geffre suggested that the City Council look at their motion again, because the word "should," as defined in the dictionary means, "an expression of obligation or duty or an expectation of probability." She thinks the concern was that the council is telling us this is the way they wanted us to vote. Geffre asked how we go about getting the Council to look at the motion again? Casey stated that he sent a letter out concerned about what he thought was a directive, or slightly short of a command, when all the facts are not there. Casey feels the Council has the fight to give an opinion as to what they think we should do, but thinks it is erroneous when all the facts are not in. Goode expressed a concern that their motion to them about spending money on the lost lake project was misunderstood, the same as their motion was not intended to sound as it did. Ahrens commented that she was not at that meeting, but with conversations she has had with the rest of the council and the Mayor, she thinks there was consensus that perhaps the word "should" should have been "would" because that was the intention. She does not feel it was their intent to tell the Commission how to think. Darling suggested that the Council reconsider this motion because fight now it is a matter of public record the way that it stands. Ahrens commented that since she was not part of that motion, perhaps maybe the Commission should convey that directly to the City Council. Casey asked if perhaps, as our representative, Ahrens could convey to the Council that they are requesting they amend the motion. Byrnes asked Casey that in the future he not publish a letter from the Park Commission when not all members may have been in favor. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING 1997 REPRF~ENTATIVE Geffre commented that this may not be for 1997, but maybe it could be discussed at a workshop. She does not know the process for selecting representatives to the different Commissions, but feels that the Park Commission should be able to have input and give a recommendation. Ahrens said the decision is at the discretion of the Mayor and noted that any Commissioner can call the Mayor and give their input just like any citizen. Motion made by Casey that the Park Commission recommend to the City Council before they appoint a Commission Representative to the Park Commission that they be allowed the opportunity to give a recommendation. Geffre seconded the motion. Motion failed with 3 in favor, 4 opposed, and 1 abstention. Those in favor were: Casey, Geffre, and Darling. Those opposed were: Meyer, Goode, Pederson, and Byrnes. Ahrens abstained. 10 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 P&OSC MEMBER OPENINGS; ADVERTISING VACANCY The Parks Director announced that one vacancy on the Park and Open Space Commission has been advertised in "The Laker." Meyer informed the Commission that he was suppose to meet with the Minnetrista Park Commission on Tuesday, but the meeting was cancelled, so he will meet with them in January. The hockey people are getting ready to flood the outdoor rink and plan to maintain a public skating area about 90 feet in diameter adjacent to the hockey rink, and he will be helping with ice maintenance. Meyer noted, at the October 8th City Council meeting, they recommended that a joint powers agreement be drawn up between the City, the School District, the Hockey Association, and the Pond, which describes the responsibilities, and he has not been contacted regarding this. He talked with Mr. Shukle about two weeks ago and he said he hadn't arranged a meeting yet. Meyer is concerned it is taking too long and the groups are not getting together. Ahrens commented that she read in the paper that the School District may have a buyer for the site and asked if it would include the area where the rink is proposed. Meyer noted that the area that is for sale is basically the footprint of the building and the parking lot up to the Pond Arena, the fields will still belong to the School District. They are recommending to the School Board that the field area remain designated for skating area. Ahrens commented that they hope to get this wrapped-up for next year, so there are about eleven months to work on the joint powers agreement. Fackler noted that the City Manager has contacted the different groups two weeks ago, so them has been an effort to get them together. Meyer stated that he talked to the Hockey Association and they had not been contacted yet, and neither has he. STAFF TIME REGARDING COMMONS Meyer stated that he had gotten a copy of the budget last summer and noted there was a comment in it regarding where staff time was put, Jim Faclder's in particular. Meyer asked that Faclder verify that his time is put only in the Parks budget, not in the commons budget. Faclder confirmed that this is correct. Meyer asked how much of the Dock Inspector's time, Secretary's time, or attorney's time is charged against the commons budget. Fackler noted that they do have expenses for the attorney and engineer, but different departments utilize each other. For instance, when he plows, it does not come out of the street department budget, or when he has the street department help with a park project it does not come out of the park budget. The only staff time charged against the dock fund is the dock inspector and one maintenance person. We do not have the accounting of who did what when and the cost. 11 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, 1996 Meyer commented, he understands it all comes out of the same pot, but when we cannot afford an extra $100 to pay for a satellite for an extra couple of weeks, he thinks it is silly. CITY COUNCIL REPRF~SENTATIVE'S REPORT Ahrens stated she had nothing to report, and asked if anyone had any questions. Meyer asked if the proposal has been presented regarding the plan modifications of the Lost Lake dredge yet. Ahrens commented that as far as she knows the permit has not been applied for yet, and the changes to the plan which were presented to the Council were informational only. Meyer asked if the Visions group will be reviewing the plan before it is submitted for approval? Ahrens did not know. Meyer asked if there is an updated plan available for the public to view or get a copy of because the plan has changed quite a bit. ,,,PARK DIRECTOR'S REPORT Fackler reported that they got a good start on the skating rinks, but then the weather changed. Hopefully they will get to work on them soon. There has been some planning for the Lions for Winterfest on ~Ianuary 11 and 12, and the City will be working with them on hopefully providing a skating rink in the bay and providing an open area in the park so they can put up their tents. The Lions have installed an electrical connection in the park now which will help them with their program. The budget has gone through basically as recommended, the only change was that the $15,000 for Bluffs Beach Park improvements will initially come out of the park dedication fund and then will be paid back during a five year period through the liquor fund. DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT Tom McCaffrey noted that they are getting ready to send out the 1997 dock application forms. Motion by Byrnes, seconded by Geffre to adjourn the Park at.:d Open space Commi~ion Meeting at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried un~nlmously. 12 ........... J .......... L, [] J , III, ,I Il, , ,Ill i MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. City Council Representative Mark Hanus was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: John & Nancy Mayer, Anita Lee Watson, Janie Skinner, Jerry Petrowski, Louis Ptacek, Gary Landsman, Gordy Farmer, Joy Hessburg, Jr., Susan Johnson, Gary Johnson, Alvin Donahoo, Anthony Shelffo, Richard Spellman, Dick McCurdy, R. Anderson, Mary McCurdy, Maryan Monteith, Sheryl Cicchese, John Montgomery, and Joe Zylman. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of November 25, 1996 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of November 25, 1996 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-64: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES FOR "SETON BLUFF", FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC., LOTS 15 - 32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54 This hearing was cancelled. CASE 96-68: PUBLIC WEkRING: REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-lA, WATERS EDGE INVESTMENT CO. (JOE ZYL14~N), 5470, 5490, 5510 THREE POINTS BLVD. t THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250 Chair Michael explained the public hearing procedures. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. This rezoning request was first heard by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1996. At that time, the rezoning was requested in order to seek approval of a 12 unit housing development on the site. The rezoning request was denied by the Planning Commission. Mr. Zylman withdrew his original request prior to the time that it went to the City Council and he is now seeking a rezoning in order to construct a 10 unit housing project. The Planning Commission may permit a new rezoning application if, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, new evidence or a change in circumstances warrant it. In staff's view the change in the development plan represents a change in circumstances and therefore, the rezoning can once again be considered. If the Planning Commission does not feel that a change in circumstances exists, the item could be reconsidered on a motion by any of the Commission members who originally supported the motion for denial. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 The applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning of the subject property (2.798 acres) from R-1 to R-iA, both of which are single family zones. The R-1 zone has a minimum lot size requirement of 10,0000 square feet and the R-iA zone has a lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The site lies within the shoreland area and is therefore, subject to the additional shoreland restrictions that are contained in the Zoning Code. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow consideration of a twin- home development on the site that will be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The smaller lot size is required to meet an acceptable overall density for the project. The subject site and two adjacent parcels constitute an existing strip of R-1 zoning that lies north of Three Points Blvd. The property to the west is zoned B-2, General Business and the site to the east is zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Parcels 246 and 250 are not included in the applicant's request for rezoning and would remain two remnant pieces of R-1 zoning unless consideration is given to incorporating them into the rezoning action. If incorporated into the rezoning, Parcel 250 has about 18,650 square feet which could possibly be redeveloped into two or three lots, and Parcel 246 has about 17,500 square feet which could potentially be redeveloped into two lots. The public hearing notice included parcels 246 and 250 as part of the overall consideration of a zoning amendment in this area, in case the Planning Commission determines their rezoning is appropriate after hearing comments from the owners of each parcel. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission defer action on the rezoning request until testimony has been taken from the owners of Parcels 246 and 250 and after the proposed development plan has been reviewed. After that has occurred, the action on the rezoning should be handled as a separate motion from any other approvals for the project. According to the City Code, zoning amendments "shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City." Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning of the subject property from R-1 to R-iA. Unless there are objections from the abutting property owners immediately east and west of the site, it is also suggested that these properties be included in the rezoning action. The subject site lies between commercially zoned property and land zoned R-3 which is Mound's highest density residential zoning category. Rezoning the property to R-iA is consistent with the land use pattern in the area. Mr. Zylman intends to build the Maple Manors project after all approvals have been received. The Planning Commission should be aware, however, that once the property is rezoned, the new zoning will remain in place even if, for some reason, the Maple Manors project does not proceed. In the case of the Maple Manors site, Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 however, wetlands, shoreland regulations and the shape of the site make it extremely difficult if not impossible to construct a development that approaches the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size allowed in the R-iA zone. Mueller questioned if they are tying this rezoning to this development plan? Koegler reiterated that once this property is rezoned, it cannot be tied to a specific development. The City Planner continued with review of the Preliminary Plat/PDA. CASE 96-69: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIM. PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES, FOR "MAPLE MANORS", WATERS EDGE INVESTMENT CO. (JOE ZYLMAN) t THAT PART OF LOT 25t LAFAYETTE PARK, 13-117-24 22 0249 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. Waters Edge Investment Company is seeking approvals for a Planned Development Area (PDA) on a 2.8 acre site off of Three Points Blvd. Approval of the plan will require formal action by the City to issue a conditional use permit for the PDA, grant a number of variances as part of the PDA and approve the proposed preliminary plat. The property is proposed for a rezoning action which also impacts the development review of this request. The Maple Manors site lies on the north side of Three Points Blvd. A large wetland borders the site on the west side, single family homes abut the property on the south side and the Seahorse Condominiums are located on the east. The bulk of the property is connected to Three Points Blvd. by a 50 foot wide tract of land that passes between two existing single family homes immediately east and west of the site. Topography on the site varies from an elevation of approximately 960 at Three Points Blvd. to a low area in the northwest corner of the site with an elevation of approximately 930 feet. According to Mound's wetland map, the large wetland in the area is delineated by a 929.5 contour. A note on the survey states that all property on the site lies above the wetland elevation. A substantial number of mature oaks, ash and maples are scattered throughout the property. The site is located within Mound's shoreland area, however, it does not contain any land classified as a bluff. The development plan calls for the installation of a cul-d-sac that originates off of Three Points Blvd. and extends approximately 420 feet into the site. The proposed street right-of-way is 40 feet wide with a 28 foot wide street and the proposed cul-de-sac has a paved diameter of 70 feet. All units will take driveway access off of the new street which has been labeled Maple Manors Court. The 10 housing units in the development will consist of one level twin homes that will be owner occupied. One of the features of the development will be minimal owner maintenance since most of the property will be owned and maintained by a common homeowner's association. 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 Approval of the project will require approval of a conditional use permit, variances and a preliminary plat, as follows: Planned Development Area (PDA). The Mound Zoning Code allows the establishment of a PDA by conditional use permit (CUP). In order for twin homes to be built on the site, a CUP needs to be approved to establish the PDA. Variances. If the underlying land is rezoned to R-iA , the site plan results in the following variances: Right-of-Way Width Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius) Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius) Lot Size (all Lots except 8) Lot Size - Lot 8 Impervious Cover required proposed variance 50' 40' 10' 50' 40' 10' 40' 35' 5' 6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf 6,000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf 30% max 32% est 2% Preliminary Plat. The Maple Manors plan presents a number of issues that need to be considered: DENSITY. Density in a PDA is established by the underlying lot size for the applicable residential district. The PDA provisions specifically delete land used for streets and utilities from the gross density calculation. Since this is in the Shoreland District, shoreland PDA standards also apply. It has been determined that ten (10) units comply with the maximum density allowable under the shoreland restrictions without the density bonuses that area allowed by the Code. The non-shoreland PDA standards would allow this site to have nine (9) units under R-1 zoning and 14 units under R-iA zoning. As proposed, the net density equates to 8,569 square feet of land per unit. The current plan removes two units from the previous plan and rearranges the balance of the units which satisfied staff's concerns pertaining to buffering between the project and adjacent land uses. TREE PRESERVATION. According to the developer's plans, 18 of the 34 trees on the site will be preserved. Of the 16 trees that will be removed, approximately one-half of the tree loss is due to road construction. WETLANDS. The Mound Wetlands Ordinance identifies the wetland contour in the area of the project as 929.5. Since this case was reviewed by the Planning Commission in November, a wetland 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 delineation was completed for the site· Ail of the proposed units comply with the Watershed District's 35 foot setback requirements from the edge of the wetland. CREATION OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS. This development will create nonconforming situations on the adjacent properties that are not part of this development. A new street frontage will be created for the two residential lots that lie along Three Points Blvd. to the south of the site. Parcel 250 has a garage that is located approximately 5 feet from the property line and the home is located approximately 15 feet from the new right-of-way line creating variances of 15 feet and 5 feet respectively. Parcel 246 has a detached garage that is 16 feet from the new right-of-way resulting in a 4 foot variance from the 20 foot setback requirement. Future improvements to these homes may require approval of a variance. The construction of the new street is certainly grounds for approving (recognizing) variances for the existing conditions should such be necessary in the future. TRAFFIC. Any development of this property will result in increased traffic. The proposed twin home development will actually generate less traffic than a comparable single family residential development. Theoretically, a single family development on the site would generate from 86 to 91 trips per day. The proposed twin homes would generate traffic ranging from 59 to 65 trips per day, according to published standards. Recommendation. The twin home use that is proposed is an appropriate land use for the existing site that lies between the condominium complex to the east and the business zoned property to the west. The revisions to the plan which include a reduction in size from 12 to 10 units satisfied staff concerns pertaining to overall project density and unit placement. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit, variances and preliminary plat, with the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, detailed landscaping plans for the site showing plantings on the association property to mitigate tree loss due to road and unit construction and containing typical landscaping treatments for twin home units. Landscaping plans shall identify all plant materials by name, size (height or caliper) and root type and shall be compliant with the minimum planting sizes referenced in the City Code. 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 Covenants, as submitted by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all times, maintain a positive fund balance. The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a 50 foot right- of-way for the land area between the two adjacent single family residential properties. In addition to the conditions contained herein, incorporation of suggested conditions by the City Engineer is also recommended. Discussion Mueller suggested that the Commission retract their motion denying the rezoning before they discuss the issue and re-open it. MOTION made by Mueller to reconsider the rezoning request, Case #96-68, since a change in circumstances exist. Motion seconded by Burma. Motion carried unanimously. Mueller asked for clarification relating to the number of units which would be allowed in the R-1 versus R-IA. Koegler summarized that with the R-1 zone, this property could be developed with 9 single family lots, and the R-IA zoning could have up to 14 single family lots, however, 14 units could never happen if the PDA shoreland regulations are applied. Mueller questioned if it is normal to have an R-1 zone located between an R-3 and B-2 zone. Koegler commented, typically not. Mueller further questioned if an R-3 zone would be appropriate for this parcel. Koegler stated that rezoning to an R-3 would probably get a positive recommendation from staff since the property is adjacent to that same zoning. Mueller suggested that all of parcel 246 should be included in the rezoning and noted that a portion of this property is currently zoned B-2. It was questioned, if the five foot wide strip at the edges of the new road were maintained, if this would eliminate the need for variances on the adjacent lots. Koegler stated that staff would prefer not to have the five foot strip and feels that the variances would ultimately be warranted. Mueller stated that he has a problem with creating two nonconforming parcels which are currently conforming. Clapsaddle questioned why parcels 246 and 250 were included in the rezoning. Koegler stated that it made sense to include the whole area so two parcels of a different zone were not left out. Staff took the conservative approach and included them in the public hearing notices so the option of including them was available. It was noted that they will need to find out how the owners of the Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 property feel about the rezoning. Mueller questioned how the variances for these property will get filed. Koegler noted that variances will not actually be issued until improvements are made to those lots. Mueller suggested that the city records for these properties reflect that this project created the nonconformities. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Alvin Donahoo, President of the Seahorse Condominium Association requested to be on record as asking the Commission not to rezone the subject property from R-1 to R-IA and to not approve the preliminary plat. They feel the rezoning will make it possible to cram more homes into 2.8 acres. They are concerned about the loss of green space and that the rezoning will stay in place even though this project may not take place. Also, if parcels 246 and 250 are included, the development may include many more units. He expressed a concern about snow removal from the new cul-de-sac and how the snow melting and drainage will affect their property and their garages which are adjacent to the property. They are concerned about vehicles being parked in the street due to lack of on-site parking. Michael confirmed that the Seahorse garage unit has a nonconforming side yard setback. Mueller asked Donahoo property. He replied successful. if they have considered purchasing the that they have tried but had not been Richard Spellman, resident at 5400 Three Points stated he is opposed to the rezoning. He indicated that there is R-1 zoned property just to the south of this property, and questioned why the City would consider lowering the zoning standards and allowing for smaller lot sizes, especially for the two existing properties. He also is not in favor of allowing more hard surface than what is standard. He expressed a concern that the elevations were incorrect. Gary Landsman, owner of parcel 250, stated that he is a long time resident of this area, and remembers the Seahorse property before it was developed. Landsman emphasized that the Seahorse property exceeds the allowable amount of hardcover, that they have only 600 square feet of land per unit, and they do not have a stormwater plan for their property. He feels the rezoning makes sense and is in favor of the rezoning. He would rather look at well-kept homes than at the back of garages. Tony Shelffo, resident at Seahorse suggested that Mr. Landsman's property be included with this development so they can meet the density requirements. 7 Planning Commission M/nutes December 9, 1996 Jack Montgomery stated that the storm water at Seahorse goes into a large pond and the dirt gets cleaned out and does not go directly into the lake. Louis Ptacek, owner of parcel 246 stated that they have owned this property since 1956 and they are in favor of the rezoning, and he would like his whole parcel rezoned to R-iA. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Reifschneider confirmed with staff that 10 units is the maximum allowed if this were rezoned to R-IA. Koegler confirmed that 10 units is the maximum allowed if the application involves a PDA, and if the application did not involve a PDA variances would be necessary and the likelihood of more than 10 units is practically nil. Mueller asked if they can attach a condition that restricts this property to no more than ten units. Koegler stated no. Burma commented that Seahorse has 108 units on 13 acres which calculates to 5,243 square feet per unit, so he is not concerned with 5,600 square feet per unit. Clapsaddle stated that he sees the R-iA zone as an excellent buffer between a business zone and a multiple family zone, and feels that the proposed twin homes is an excellent use for this area. Clapsaddle questioned if they can put stipulations on the types of trees they plant. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property as described in the public hearing notice, including parcels 246 and 250 from R-1 to R-lA with the following findings of fact: The R-lA zone is not as intense as the adjacent B-2 or R-3 zones, therefore, the R-lA zone will be a good buffer between the two existing zones. The owners of parcels 246 and 250 are in favor of the rezoning of their properties and the property to the north of theirs. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Burma, Michael, Voss, and Reifschneider and Weiland were opposed. Mueller, Glister. Reifschneider commented that he does not agree that parcels 246 and 250 should be included in the rezoning and feels there is a good buffer as is. Weiland feels the density is too much. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a PDA, Preliminary Plat, and variances for the proposed Maple Manors, as recommended by staff, subject to the following conditions: Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent with Section 330=120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, detailed landscaping plans for the site showing plantings on the association property to mitigate tree loss due to road and unit construction and containing t~pical landscaping treatments for twin home units. Landscaping plans shall identify all plant materials by name, size (height or caliper) and root type and shall be compliant with the minimum planting sizes referenced in the city Code, and there shall be no variance from the city Code requirements. Covenants, as submitted by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the city Attorney. Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all times, maintain a positive fund balance· The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a 50 foot right-of-way for the land area between the two adjacent single family residential properties. Locate and show on the site plan the existing driveway to the westerly residence (Parcel 246) to determine if it needs to be relocated, and if so, the cost of relocating shall be born by the developer. &11 drainage newly created by the development, either by excavating or building shall be maintained within the property so it does not go to the east and negatively impact any property to the east and that the provision be made that the engineer specifically look at that property abutting the east to determine that water flow stay within that property. 9 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 Findings of fact are: Now that the property is rezoned, it could possibly have up to 14 unit, therefore, the 10 units proposed is not a large impact. The proposed layout of the twin homes has a minimal impact on the overall land area that this owner has. the roadway and cul-de-sac are typical of others that have recently been approved by the city and have worked well. The proposed lot sizes, including common areas overall are beyond what is required in the R- lA zone. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 14, 1996. CASE 96-70= VARIANCE FOR FENCE R~IGHT, THOMAS PAULSON, 2465 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 16, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKEr 24-117-24 22 003C Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a 42 inch high chain link fence that exceeds the maximum allowable fence height of three feet when within 50 feet of the lake. The fence provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to reduce the visual impact of fences within the 50 foot setback of the lake. This site is located adjacent to lost lake that is part of Lake Minnetonka, however Lost Lake is substantially a wetland and from a visual perspective there is a minimal impact from the lake. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the six inch fence height variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with minimal encroachment. Concern was expressed that the fence is within the drainage and utility easement. Staff noted that the fence cannot interfere with the natural drainage, and there are no utilities located in this portion of the easement. Mueller commented that he would rather see a wood fence. Glister stated that she prefers the black chain link as it minimizes the visual impact. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by ross to recommend approval of the fence height variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Weiland, ross, Clapsaddle, Glister, Reifschneider and Burma. Michael and Mueller were opposed. 10 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 Mueller commented that he does not want to set a precedent for fence height variances on the lake side. Michael commented that he does not believe six more inches of fence makes a difference. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 14, 1997. CASE 96-71: VARIANCE/WAIVER OF PLATTING, JOHN & NANCY MAYER, 1853 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 4, 5t & PART OF 3, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT, 18-117-23 23 0063 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a waiver of platting and variances to impervious surface coverage in order to allow for the separation of the parcel along the original lot lines as shown on the attached survey. Both of the proposed parcels are conforming to the minimum 6,000 square foot lot area requirement for the R-iA zone. The applicant intends to demolish the existing dwelling and construct two new dwellings that would be conforming to all other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The original dwelling is an outdated old cabin that has been remodeled several times over the years. Separation of the parcels would result in a non-lot of record status. This property is located in the R-iA district which for a non-lots of record requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 40 feet, a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a minimum lakeshore setback of 50 feet. The following variances are applicable. The applicant is requesting the 40% ratio be used to determine the allowable impervious surface. LOT AREA ABOVE HARDCOVER @ PROPOSED VARIANCE ELEVATION OF 931 30% HARDCOVER LOT 5 9,250 SF 2,775 SF 3,556 SF 781 SF LOT 4 & P/3 10,400 SF 3,120 SF 3,583 SF 463 SF The applicant has calculated lot area to include the area down to the ordinary high water mark of 929.4. Our ordinance has two areas that address the calculation of lot area; the first in Definitions, Subd. 78 which defines Lot Area as "The area of a lot in a horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines, but not including the area occupied by floodplain. . ." The floodplain elevation for Lake Minnetonka is 931. The second area that addresses lot area is in the shoreland provisions, Section 350:1225, Subd. 1 and 2 which states in part, "Only land above the ordinary high water level can be used to meet lot area standards." When the applicant originally met with the Building official to discuss this request, he was not informed that calculating lot area does not include the area occupied by the floodplain. The applicant's proposal and staff's estimates of impervious 11 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 surface calculations exceed the 30% ratio on both of the proposed parcels by a minimal amount, and both are also well under the 40% maximum for lots of record. According to the existing elevations on the survey, and after preliminary review by staff, we have determined the site can be developed to direct a majority of the run-off over green space towards the lake. In addition, if the standards found in Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B are required and utilized, the drainage can be favorably accommodated for this site with no negative affects on the neighboring properties. In addition, there is a boulevard of approximately 16' to 28' in width between the lot line and the curb that adds green space and buffer to the site. Impervious surface coverage could be reduced by moving both dwellings towards the street, however the additional setback is more consistent with the neighboring properties. If the request is approved, utility services must be installed, or an equivalent cash escrow would need to be provided for lot 5 prior to release of the resolution. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request with conditions, as it is in substantial conformance with the ordinance, the additional impervious surface is minimized by the fact that the drainage can be directed substantially towards the lake, and there is the additional buffer of the boulevard that lessens the impact. Conditions of approval are as follows: 1) Impervious surface coverage shall be conforming to the requirements found in Zoning Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B. A survey detailing conformance with this section shall be submitted with the building permit application for each dwelling. 2) The utility services for lot 5 shall either be installed or a cash escrow suitable to the City Engineer shall be provided prior to release of the resolution for filing. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the fireplace down by the lake will be removed. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the waiver of platting and impervious surface coverage variance to allow up to 40% coverage, as recommended by staff, with the additional condition that the fireplace be removed prior to building permit issuance, on that lot. Motion carried unanimously. This case was scheduled to be heard at the January 14th Council meeting, but at the request of the applicant, will be heard at the January 28th meeting. 12 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 CASE 96-72: VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY SIGN, MARQUETTE B_~NK ! ST. JOHN'S CHURCHr 2451 FAIRVIEW LANEr RLS 739~ TRACTS A-G~ 24-117-24 12 0014 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow two temporary free standing identification signs to be placed on the property during the period of construction of the new addition to the church. The City's Sign Ordinance, Section 365:15, Subd. 9. (d) allows for one temporary identification sign during the construction phase of the project, and the sign must be removed when the project is 75% occupied. The variance request is a result of a citizen complaint regarding the excess signage. The Sign Ordinance is clear with respect to advertising signs in that only one sign is allowed, however, although there is minimal justification for an additional sign, the Planning Commission may wish to consider that the construction project is substantially underway and the remaining time duration for the additional signage is minimal. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission can make a finding that the remaining time duration for the additional temporary sign is minimal and has a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood, a recommendation for approval could be made. A condition with a specific time limit to allow the sign should be included. If a finding in favor of the additional signage cannot be determined, a recommendation of denial is in order that should include appropriate findings of fact. Clapsaddle commented, in as much as the sign is already installed and due to the nature of the project and schedule, he would recommend approval of the variance. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by ross to recommend approval of the variance to allow the two advertising signs, as requested. Mueller feels the signs are obtrusive, especially to the people who live directly across the street who see the signs when they look out their picture window. He does not feel the signs need to be placed in that location and suggested they be moved further east down Maywood so they are across the street from another business versus a residence. The time which these signs may be erected was discussed. It was noted that the signs are required to be taken down when the project is 75% occupied, or complete. The Building official stated that he is not sure when this will happen. Voss suggested the signs be removed before the Spring thaw. Reifschneider feels that since the sign was put up illegally, it has no business being there and should be removed. 13 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1996 Clapsaddle and Foss accepted an amendment to their motion to require that both advertising signs be relocated further west down Maywood Road across from the commercial business, and that the Marquette sign be removed by March 31, 1997. It was noted that a sign permit was paid for by Lutheran Aid and that no permit fee should have been collected and that it should be refunded. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Foss, Burma, Michael, Glister, and Reifschneider was opposed. Clapsaddle, Mueller. Reifschneider stated that he would like the sign removed. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 14, 1997. DISCUSSION= WAIVER OF PLATTING Mueller questioned the City Planner, when dealing with a waiver of platting, what constitutes a lot of record. His concern is, if you have a lot that was divided in the past and is no longer a lot of record, then it is combined, then can they separate it, using the waiver process, even though the original lots were not lots of record? Koegler commented, if there is a request for separation with no variances it could go directly to the City Council, if there are variances then it comes to the Planning Commission. Mueller requested a copy of the final waiver ordinance. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Burma to adjourn the meeting at 9:57 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 14 MINUTES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION-DECEMBER 19, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Members Present: Meisel, Brewer, Drahos, Jensen, Pietrowski and Willette. Absent and Excused: Longpre. Also Present: Cook, Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; Businaro, Finance Director; and Shukle, City Manager. Upon motion by Drahos, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the minutes of the November 21, 1996 meeting were approved. Lost Lake Improvement Project Chamberlain explained that he was preparing the permit application for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that was due in today. Also discussed were ideas for renaming Auditor's Road. It was suggested that the Promotions Committee be reactivated for that purpose. Meisel indicated that he had some pictures from Alaska that he wanted to share related to redevelopment of downtown areas. Auditor's Road Improvement Project Shukle updated the EDC on the recent purchases of right of way for this project. He indicated that all of the properties with the exception of the Johnson property, will be handled without condemnation. Recent acquisitions include the Saba property, the post office, Carlock and Lindquist. Closings on these properties have either taken place or will take place in the next few weeks. In addition, Meisel's have executed the easement regarding their involvement in the Lost Lake Improvement Project. Wagman has also agreed to sign an easement agreement for his side of the canal. Shukle indicated that he is working with the MCTO regarding the transit station. Update on Westonka Community. Center Shukle updated the Commission on the status of the project. He indicated that another site is being looked at for possible construction of a Senior Center/Community Center. The site is located in Minnetrista on the Westonka Recreation Association's property. He also indicated that the School District is proceeding on its plans to add an administrative building to the Shirley Hills Elementary School site. Other Business Shukle told the Commission about a visit from Kevin Sorbo who plays the role of "Hercules" on the Fox TV network. Sorbo is from Mound and will be visiting the City on December 23, 1996 at 10 a.m., City Hall. The purpose of his visit is to receive a proclamation from the City, Congress and EDC Minutes December 19, 1996 Page 2 State of Minnesota declaring that December 23, 1996 is Kevin Sorbo Day. Furthermore, Sorbo will return to Mound next summer to attend his high school class reunion and will participate in the dedication of"Kevin Sorbo Park" (currently Langdon Park) and will donate monies received from autographs back to the City for park development. In addition, he will contribute monies to make improvements to Kevin Sorbo Park in the future. It was noted that the next meeting of the EDC is scheduled for January 16, 1997, 7 a.m., City Hall. Meisel is scheduled to bring the rolls. Upon motion by Willette, seconded by Pietrowski, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 a.m. Ed Shukle City Manager 212 15THAVE. NE SUITE 2010 WASECA. MN 56093 PHONE [507) 8~)5-E)920 FAX (507) E~35-7977 TRIAX CABLEVISION December 10, 1996 Mr. Bob Polston, Mayor Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Polston: On behalf of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. (Triax), I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know how pleased and proud we are to have the chance to serve your community. We are particularly excited about the programming and service improvements we have planned for all communities, and the changes which are currently underway in our billing center. In every case, Triax has made a 110% commitment to making these changes as quickly and smoothly as possible for our customers and the communities we serve. While we have encountered some problems in the implementation of these service enhancements, we appreciate the patience and consideration that community leaders and our customers have given Triax. I want to personally assure you that everyone at Triax is doing everything they can to resolve any problems that you may have experienced as quickly as possible and are anxious to provide the best possible services to our customers. As I stated earlier, we are under an aggressive timetable to get our customer service center operating as efficiently as possible with our number one goal of exceeding customer expectations. We are closer to that goal today than we were two weeks ago, but there still is work to be done. From time to time I will try to communicate with you as to the progress we are making in providing enhanced services to our customers. I xvould also encourage you to contact Bob Muhich in Eveleth at (218) 744-3710 or Paul Pecora in Waseca at (507) 835-5975 if you have questions or concerns. Once again, thank you for your patience during these first few months. Sincerely, Ric Hanson Director of Operations Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. 0257566.01 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4 · This week, the Star Tribune will publish brief profiles of the Twin Cities metropolitan area's seven core counties, showing where growth is expected to occur. The Metropolitan Council is expected to vote later this month on a strategy to guide the area's growth into the next century. By Mike Kaszuba Star Tribune Staff Writer Most of Hennepin County -- the Twin Cities area's most populated county-- will sim- ply watch as people head for_ the metropolita~ area's outer to 78,000. And, befitting a mature metro area, some cities will be stagnant. Minnetonka, with 50,927 residents, will increase slightly to 51,000 people by 2020, according to estimates. As the Metropolitan Council discusses its growth options strategy, much of the talk from city. and county officials in Hennepin Coimty has been to remind the agency not to forget Minneapolis. Peter McLaughiin, the Hennepin County Board chairman, has talked of the rea~he~ during the nex~ quarter '~need for light-rail transit. Century.. .... ' Paul Farmer, Minneapolis' Although a few of its cities planning director, has under- will grow significantly, most of scored the need to redevelop the county's growth has the city's many "brownfields" already come and gone. -- property in the city that is Maple Grove will be one ex- not being redeveloped because ception, where a 65 percem of industrial pollution. jump in population, to 73,000 . With federal highway fund- , ~,~'~.,~ide~L~, is e~pected by 2020~ i !.:Ling drying up and w~.'th the. -~c.i~0ther ~ be Brooklyn. ;, ;~,~...baby-boom g. ener. au.on .aging, · ~.~:Pa~ ~Iteady'0iie Of the ~ ~:Farmer wonoerea wnemer .:Cities' largest suburbs, where: ".L ~ ~continued sprawl in the Twin ~building in the city's large, ': Cities area is a faulty assump- :'r~g bloc of undeveloped ' tion. -' ' · land is anticipated to boost its "We don't belie~,e we will be population from nearly 60,000 ' facing 90-10 highway funding," St Bonifacius Minnetonka Beach · - -- ~harewood Tonka Bay Excelsior Greenwood Deeohaven 3 miles Woodland ~ said Farmer, alluding to the federal government's policy of paying for 90 percent of new · "Clearly, the baby-'boom generation had an effect," he said of the area's growth. "{But] those baby boomers, in large nurabers.., are expected to downsize." Population (estimated) City 1995 2020 % change Bloomington 86,912 94000 8 Brooklyn Park 59~32 . 78,000 30 Dayton* 4,927 7,050 43 Eden Prairie 46,310 50,000 · 30 Excelsior 2,~7 :2,~0 --~ Golden Valley 20,9'/.l 23,000 10 .Crystal Robbinsdale , Hassan Twp. 2,419 3,750 55 Ind~endence ' 3,0~7 ~ 4 · Loretto 520 800 54 Sunday: Anoka County. Monday:. Carver County. Tuesday: Dakota Couv' Today:. Hennepin Co~ Thur~lay: Ramsey Co~,. Friday: Scott County. Saturday: Wgshington County. ' ' Population (estimated) City 1995 2020 % change Medina 3,493 6,300 50 Minnetonka 50,927 5/,000 Minnesb, ista --!?..q':;. ~-..=~31 * ~r ~.~; 7,500 ' :".::~96 New Hope 22,646 24~)00 Osseo 2,57~ ' 2850 Richfeld 35,237 38,000 8 ;~ ? i~O~ "7 ! ':~: ~.'..~ Rockford* 449 630 40 SL Louis Park 43,568 49,000 12 Spring Park 1,777 ...... ~ 4 Wayzata ..... ':: ............ 3.9~9 ......... 4~00 Maple Plain 2,129 ~0~_. ........... 90 - :--l~e-nr~pin County 1,0~3,631 1225,070 . 15 ,PATRICK D. McGOWAN 4ENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF ~OOM 6 COURTHOUSE 350 SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55415 t612) 348-374° FAX 348-4208 January 3, 1997 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Edward Shukle, Jr. Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Edward: The Hennepin County Sheriff's Office will be offering specialized law enforcement training to select members of the community. In that you and your city officials, including your mayor and city council, are known to be interested in community involvement, we are extending an invitation to interested parties to participate in our new program. This program, the Citizen Law Enforcement Academy, will be held in February and March of 1997. Classes are two and one half (2½) hours long and will run for eight (8) weeks. Instruction will be a combination of lecture, question and answer, demonstration, participation and tours. The class and subjects will be very similar to those ones taught to new deputy sheriffs and police officers. EXAMPLES OF SUBJECTS COVERED: Accident Investigation Child Abuse Civil Law Civil Liability Communications Court Procedures Criminal Investigation Crime Prevention Training Defensive Tactics DWI Enforcement and Procedures Evidence and Scientific Investigation Gangs Hostage Negotiations Jail Procedure and Tour K-9 Operations Mechanics of Arrest Narcotics Operations Patrol Operations Tactical Team Operations Traffic Stops Training Weapon Use Recycled Paper 20% Post- Consumer Fiber Participation in these classes will give students a unique insight into law enforcement, as the Sheriff's Office is the second largest law enforcement agency in the State of Minnesota and is charged with enforcing both criminal and civil law. This class is a must for business leaders, politicians, teachers, community leaders or interested tax payers who want to know how law enforcement and the criminal justice system work from an insider's perspective. It is our hope to also learn from you. The Sheriff's Office is looking for a representative cross section of the community to participate in this unique educational experience. Applicants must be twenty-one (21) years old. Due to the nature of the material presented, all applicants will be screened for criminal backgrounds. Classes will be held on Thursday nights from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. for 8 weeks. The first night of class will be February 6, 1997 and will run through March 27, 1997. The location of the classes will depend upon the geographic location of the majority of the applicants, however, we will conduct one class each at the Law Enforcement Training Facility in Maple Grove, the Sheriff's Communications Division in Golden Valley and the Sheriff's Patrol headquarters in Brooklyn Park. When each student successfully graduates, a certificate of completion will be awarded at a formal commencement ceremony. Please share this invitation with your city council and other city officials. If you or someone you know is interested in this class, please fill out the enclosed application form and return it to Captain Jim O'Shea, Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. Questions regarding the program may be addressed to Captain O' Shea at 348-7918. Wannest R~gards, Patrick D. McGowan, He~epin Co~ty Sheriff PATRICK D. McGOWAN ,4ENNEP[N COUNTY SHERIFF ROOM 6COURTHOUSE 350 SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55415 (612) 348-3740 FAX 348-,4208 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF CITIZEN LA W ENFOR CEMENT ACADEMY WHAT IS IT? The Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Citizen Law Enforcement Academy is a 20-hour block of instruction designed to give the public a working knowledge of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office and the Hennepin County criminal justice system. The Academy consists of a series of eight (8) classes, held once a week for two and one-half hours. The instruction is comprehensive, covering a different area of law enforcement or the criminal justice system each week. Instructors are professionals in their areas of law enforcement or criminal justice. WHO MAY ATTEND? Any Hennepin County resident over the age of 21 may apply for admission to the Citizen Law Enforcement Academy. Due to the nature of the material being presented persons previously convicted of a felony cannot be admitted. THE PURPOSE The Citizen Law Enforcement Academy was created to provide information to the citizens of Hennepin County so they may better understand the role the Sheriffs Office plays in the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system. It is hoped that this instruction will give graduates insight into the difficult and challenging situations law enforcement officers face every day. Significant time is set aside for class participation as we fully expect this to be a two-way learning experience. TOPICS Subjects covered include such diverse topics as crime prevention, criminal investigation, patrol operations, family abuse, narcotics investigation, jail operations, scientific investigation, civil law enforcement, communications and the court system. Instruction in these and other topics will be offered through a blend of lecture, tour, demonstration and hands on experiences. FOR MORE INFORMATION Application may be obtained from the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Room 6 Courthouse or calling 348-3744. For more information call Captain Jim O'Shea, Citizen Law Enforcement Academy coordinator, 348-7918. Recyclcd Paper 25% Post- Consumer Fiber Hennepin County Sheriff's Office CITIZEN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY Application for Enrollment Name (Last / first / middle) Date of Birth Street Address Home Phone City / State / Zip Drivers Licenee Number Are you a resident of Hennepin County? How long? Please explain briefly why you wish to enroll in the Citizen Law Enforcement Academy. Please list any associations, clubs organizations you belong to or are affiliated with. Have you ever been arrested for, convicted of, or cited for an offense other that minor traffic offences? YES__ NO If yes, please explain on back of sheet, list appropriate dates, charges, places and charges. Present Employer Supervisor Your title Address Telephone number Date hired Personal Reference Address Telephone Emergency Contact Relationship Telephone Were you recommended or advised to apply for If yes, by whom? enrollment to the academy? Yes No * I hereby certify that there are no willful misrepresentations omission or falsifications in the aforementioned statements and answers. I understand that any omission or false statements on this application shall be sufficient cause for rejection for enrollment or dismissal from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Citizen Law Eni0rcement Academy. I understand there is no charge for the Academy and, if selected for enrollment, pledge the time commitment to attend. I further understand that the Hennepin County SheriWs Office will conduct a criminal history and records check on all applicants, the results of which could be 8rounds for m,v rejection. Applicant's Signature Date Return completed applications to: Hennepin County Sheriff's Office For more information call: Citizen Law Enforcement Academy Captain Jim O'Shea Room 6 Courthouse 348-7918 Minneapolis, Mlq 55415 All applicants must be 21years of age. Incomplete and/or unsigned applications will not be considered. .,:...~:..-.?.~. ~ .. ....... ~.~.....~.~.:. ..."i '::. :::: . : ~::.. Received by: Received date: Records check by: Date completed: Recommendation: I am Bill Darling, commissioner and vice chair of the Mound Parks and Open Space Commission. I would like to address the City Council regarding the Proposal from Council member Mark Hanus, dated 8 January 1997. Mr. Hanus is proposing rearrangement of the Parks and Open Space commission and creation of a commons/dock commission. I would like to publicly, for the record and the local broadcast, comment on his proposal. First concern, is the procedural process associated with his proposal. Mr. Hanus completed and distributed his proposal on January 8th, the day prior to the last Parks and Open Space Commission. This proposal did not show up on the city council agenda as printed in the "Laker" newspaper, and city staffwas instructed to not distribute the proposal to the Parks commission at our last Thursday's meeting. I have to ask "What is it that scares various members of this city council?", "Why would the city council present and discuss this issue that requires change to city ordinance without first publishing their intent? Do they not want the public to review and ~ comment first?, Why ~h~s~ t~ various ~ members direct city staffto not present this to the Park Commission???" If for no other reason, this proposal should be tabled until such time that the park commission and the public have a chance to review and comment, or is the city council so afraid of opinion that they would circumvent the very procedural process they created?.'?? Second concern, is: Mr. Hanus's entire reason for this proposal I believe it is flawed, ..... · J l| il I ,~___ 1__. :, _ .... J Mr. Hanus says the expected results are "Avoidance of any more loss of shoreline control for Mound such as has happened in Woodland Point"'. Is Mr. Hanus implying the Parks Commission is responsible for the loss of city control of Woodland Point to its rightful heirs, as deemed by a judge. I would remind Mr. Hanus that is was the very city council his now sits on that refused to accept the rights of the Woodland Point residents, resulting in a ~ court case costing Mound tax payers nearly 000 in legal bills. Yr. ~ Does this mean Mr. Hanus's plans include making it tuff on anyone who tries regain their inherited rights resulting in a painful, long and costly battle if they stand up to the city council. It's bad enough to watch the city of Minnetrista fight a "Dig in my · ",~ ~ ..... __ __~, now we have to heels" mentality battle with Mr. Hawks, _ ___ -~'_. v ~" think Mr. Hanus would subject Mound to the same "controlling government" here. Mr. Hanus's second point is "Reduce frustration and personal conflicts". This is an interesting point of view, considering his relative's past legal fights with the city of Mound over building illegal structures on public lands and the intent to utilize those public lands for their own personal use. It is the very park commission that oversees the commons, and insures people like the Hanus's do not encroach on the rights given to all citizens. His third point is "Where possible, increase the number of inland households that have access to dockage in the city of Mound". The fact remains that the number of docks is a formula set by the LMCD and the Mound Docks program, which already ensures a fair method for all citizens to enjoy dockage on Lake Minnetonka. Neither Mr. Hanus nor a new commission can change the LMCD formula, nor could he give more docks to "Inlanders". II · , Il, II ~11 .... liJ~ A ,l~ , I ask the public to carefully scrutinize Mr. Hanus's and his supporting councilmembers' objectives, as these so called results are outside of the control of any commission. Mr. Hanus goes on to say conditions leading to his proposal are due to "...difficulties in the council soliciting opinions from the commission", "disagreement in philosophy., and ... It (the park commission) has become politically oriented...". The fact is, Mr. Hanus and other supporting council members are fearful of any dissension and are looking for ways to quell such dissension. It is our constitutional right and duty to question government d opi io w · ' "'~ · ' '_ "x? There use to be another government system that would erase other government bodies that opposed it. This council (like that government system) looks for complete and blind support and deals harshly with anyone that opposed them. Thankfully we defeated that system of government -- called Communism. Mr. Hanus indicates people were "turned away" because of the park commission, yet he failed to indicate that the very rules his city council installed were the direct reason for the public in not meeting their needs. Mr. Hanus indicates "...this is the best way to calm the litigious atmosphere surrounding the docks and commons"..., yet he forgot to tell everyone that it was the city council, not the park commission that pursued legal bullying of the Woodland Point residents. Mr. Hanus indicates that we joined the Parks and Open Space Commission because we were interested in "Parkland" and not "Commons". I can tell you from my perspective, that is false. Mr. Hanus has never surveyed the commission and I resent he represents my viewpoi% as it is inaccurate. Mr. Hanus indicates it has become increasingly more difficult to recruit commissioners, yet just this month we had three candidates apply for one position. Mr. Hanus indicates many commission meetings were canceled due to a lack of quorum, yet in my three years on the commission, I remember only two meetings canceled for such, and in each case the city councilmember representative was one of those absent without excused. Mr. Hanus indicates that we have "Pet Projects". The only pet project the commission has is the preservation of public lands for current and future generations to enjoy. Mr. Hanus says "We c_.~,gg..~t afford to risk losing more lakeshore to a lawsuit" I could not agree with you,(lM--Z. Hanus~r~ [ [ ..... "_' "' _ -' ~. y - -' 1 ......... ~ _e,. , - --11- '._. '.... ':' ' ~Rat~er than trying to ta~c~ public lahc~s for yourself and your relatives and friends personal pu. rposes, why don't you and other supporting council representatives try spending amt. your on Issues that really affect the public, like saving our community center, finding a home for the senior center and WeCAN, attracting new businesses to Mound, or giving our youths structured activities like the skating rink you have fought so hard to defeat. Mr. Hanus says it is time that the city council should be leaders. I agree. Step out from behind the protection of your position and work for the rights of the public, not the special interest that serves you best. I find your actions and this proposal to be a travesty to government, ~ ~. I can not force you to drop this self serving direction, but I can, as a matter of public record, expose this proposal for what it really is, and bring to bear as much public pressure as I can. Thank you. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 14, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 14, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Mark Koegler, and City Clerk Fran Clark. (~OATH OF OFFICE The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Elect Bob Polston and Council Members Elect Andrea Ahrens and Leah Weycker. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//96-68: REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-IA, WATERS EDGE INVKqTMENT CO. (JOE ZYLMAN), 5470, 5490 AND 5510 THREE POINTS BLVD., THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #'S 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE //96-69: PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES FOR "MAPLE MANORS", WATERS EDGE INVESTMENT COMPANY, (JOE ZYLMAN), THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #'S 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250 2 rr~M# l,,I R~OLUTION # MOTION BY '~~ SECONDED BY DEFEATED ABSTAINING rr~M ~ !,.2. RESOLUTION MOTION BY ,~'~,~n~ SECONDED BY ~c~ ROLLCALL~k.~3c ,~' Lk)INFAVOR ~~ AGAINST ABSTAINING DEFEATED ITEM # RESOLUTION # MOTION BY SECONDED BY ROLL CALL IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAINING APPROVED DEFEATED RESOLUTION # MOTION BY SECONDED BY ROLL CALL IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAINING APPROVED DEFEATED ITEM # RESOLUTION # MOTION BY SECONDED BY ROLL CALL IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAINING APPROVED DEFEATED ITEM # RESOLUTION # MOTION BY SECONDED BY ROLL CALL IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAINING APPROVED DEFEATED KESOLUTION # MOTION BY SECONDED BY ROLL CALL IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAINING APPROVED DEFEATED MOTION BY ~_~_._~ _'~k~ SECONDED BY - O 6 -'-fi. - , ~-- -- -' ROLLCALL ~ f"' IN'FAVOR ') AGAINST ABSTAINING DEFEATED MOTION BY KESOL~ON # ~ )4~ SECONDED BY _~ ~. _A_~,v~ DEFEATED AGAINST ABSTAINING ITEM RESOL~ON # MOTION BY SECONDED BY ROLL CALL IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAINING APPROVED DEFEATED ITEM # RESOLUTION # MOTION BY SECONDED BY ROLL CALL IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAINING APPROVED DEFEATED ITEM # RESOLUTION # MOTION BY SECONDED BY ROLL CALL IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAINING APPROVED DEFEATED APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. *CONSENT AGENDA: '1.3 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 10, 1996, REGULAR MEETING. · 1.4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 16, 1996, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIl, MEETING. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAY, OR FOR 1997. '1.6 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1997. ,,,1 J ,I , J, J ,,I , ,il, J, ~1,, , · 1.7 DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1997. · 1.8 APPROVAL OF BOND FOR CITY CLERK. · 1.9 APPROVAL OF BOND FOR CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR. *1.10 DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1997. ~PPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONS. //96-70: VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT, THOMAS PAUI.SON, 2465 LOST ROAD, LOT 16, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID//24-117-22 0030. · 1.13 CASE//96-72: VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY SIGN, MARQUETTE BANK/ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, RLS 739, TRACTS A-G, PID //24-117-24 12 0014. '1.14 SET BID OPENING FOR 1997 FRONT END LOADER. SUGGESTED DATE~ JANUARY 22, 1997, 11:00 A.M. OF DOCK LOCATION MAP FOR 1997. '1.16 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAl, USE PERMIT FOR 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE TO ALLOW S "MAJOR AUTO REPAIR" BUSINESS AS REQUESTED BY RANDY'S AUTOMOTIVE. SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1997. · 1.17 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THE UNIMPROVED OXFORD LANE LOCATED NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCKS 5 & 9 IN DEVON. SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1997. · 1.18 SET 1997 LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 22 1997, 7:00 P.M. '1.19 PAYMENT OF BILLS. 1.20 REQUEST FROM STEVE BEDELL TO SELL BEER FROM "BY THE WAY SNACK SHOP" LOCA~i~~_801 SHORELINE DRIVE. ~-~~.~' eA~.~,_ ~- ~ .'~~. ~,l mi I , I ,l ,,Il , ii~, · ,l~ i,, da CO~NTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. . . APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION. 1.22 EXECUTIVE SESSION: SUBURBAN ALLIANCE. 7 .23 2.23 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Ho ,INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Department Head Monthly Reports for December 1996. ............... 174- 194 LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for December 1996. ................ 195 LMCD Mailings. ....................................... 196 - 223 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of December 12, 1996 .......... 224 - 235 Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 1996. .................. 236-249 Economic Development Commission Minutes of December 19, 1996 ........ 250 - 251 Letter from Ric Hanson, Triax Cablevision, dated December 10, 1996. ............................. 252 Letter and enclosure from Charles D. Howe, 4730 Cavan Road, RE: Mound Visions. ............................ 253 - 255 Letter from Hennepin County Sheriff, Pat McGowen, RE: Citizen Enforcement Academy ................................ 256 - 259 REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 1997, IN OBSERVANCE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY. REMINDER: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA) BOARD MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6:30 P.M., JANUARY 14, 1997, CITY HALL. PLEASE REFER TO PACKET WHICH IS ENCLOSED WITH THIS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL PACKET. YOU ARE NOW THE HRA BOARD. PLANNING FIEPOFIT CC: I 1,;,, I,, AGENDA ITEM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: December 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment (Rezoning) APPLICANT: Waters Edge Investment Co. - Joe Zylman CASE NUMBER: 96-68 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96~5z LOCATION: 5490 Three Points Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential PREFACE: This rezoning request was first heard by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1996. At that time, the rezoning was being requested in order to seek approval of a 12 unit housing development on the site. After a full review of the proposal, the rezoning request was denied. Mr. Zylman withdrew his original request prior to the time that it went to the City Council and he is now seeking a rezoning in order to construct a 10 unit housing project. According to the Mound Zoning Code, "no application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the Ordinance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commission within the one-year period following denial of such request, except the Planning Commission may permit a new application, if in the opinion of the Planning Commission, new evidence or a change in circumstances warrant it." In staff's view, the change in the development plan represents a change in circumstances and therefore, the rezoning can once again be considered. If the Planning Commission does not feel that a change in circumstances exists, the item could be reconsidered on a motion by any of the Commission members who originally supported the motion for denial. BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning of the subject property (2.798 acres) from R-1 to R-lA, both of which are single family zones. The R-1 zone has a minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet and the R-lA zone has a lot size requirement of 6, 000 square feet. The site lies within the shoreland area and is therefore, subject to the additional shoreland restrictions that are contained in the Zoning Code. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow consideration of a twin-home development on the site that will be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The smaller lot size is required to meet an acceptable overall density for the project. Although the rezoning is a separate application from other requested approvals for the property, consideration of the rezoning will undoubtedly involve discussion of the overall plan for the property. Complete details on the overall development plan 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Zoning Amendment December 4, 1996 Page 2 for the site are found in a separate planning report. The subject site and two adjacent parcels constitute an existing strip of R-1 zoning that lies north of Three Points Boulevard. The property to the west is zoned B-2, General Business and the site to the east is zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Parcels 246 and 250 are not included in the applicant's request for rezoning and would remain two remnant pieces of R-I zoning unless consideration is given to incorporating them into the rezoning action. If incorporated into the rezoning, Parcel 250 has a total lot area of approximately 18,650 square feet which could possibly be redeveloped into two or three lots and Parcel 246 contains approximately 17,500 square feet which could potentially be redeveloped into two lots in the future. According to the plat map, the owner of Parcel 246 also owns an adjacent property which is in the B-2 zone. COMMENTS: It makes sense to consider the rezoning of parcels 246 and 250 as part of the overall consideration of a zoning amendment in this area. Unless they are rezoned, they will remain the only sites in this area north of Three Points Boulevard with the R-1 zoning designation. The public hearing notice was expanded to include these two properties in case the Planning Commission determines that their rezoning is appropriate after hearing testimony including comments from the owners of each of the parcels. If it is ultimately determined that it is not appropriate to rezone these parcels, the R- 1 zoned property lying immediately south of Three Points Boulevard connects to these parcels alleviating the concern of "spot zoning." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission defer action on the rezoning request until testimony has been taken from the owners of Parcels 246 and 250 and after the proposed development plan has been reviewed. After that has occurred, the action on the rezoning should be handled as a separate motion from any other approvals for the project. According to the City Code, zoning amendments "shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City. After the Planning Commission has thoroughly reviewed the development plans, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning of the subject property from R-I to R-lA. Unless there are objections from the abutting property owners immediately east and west of the site, it is also suggested that these properties be included in the rezoning action. The subject site lies between commercially zoned property and land zoned R-3 which is Mound's highest density residential zoning category. Rezoning the property to R-lA is consistent with the land use pattern in the area. Mr. Zylman intends to build the Maple Manors project after all approvals have been received. The Planning Commission should be aware, however, that once the property is rezoned, the new zoning will remain in place even if, for some reason, the Maple Manors project does not proceed. In the case of the Maple Manors site, however, wetlands, shoreland regulations and the shape of the site make it extremely difficult if not impossible to construct a development that approaches the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size allowed in the R-IA zone. 19. I ZaI ............. GOVT LOT 4 :. : . : :.:..; B 2 APT OWN NO 8 I ---~- SEANORSE CONI ~10 (251) Z (z-r) (4) I aid3111 (z) (47 '(48).< January 13, 1997 Subject: Rezoning R-1 and R-2 to R-IA See attached Case #96-68 To: Mayor J. Polston Mound City Council As a member of the Board of Directors of the Seahorse Condominium Association I would strongly urge you to consider the objection of the great numbers of people shown on the attached petitions. Many are Seahorse residents; however, many are resident neighbors - but all of whom will have to put up/live with this rezoning if passed by the city council on January 14. I understand that a member of the Seahorse Board of Directors beside myself has also submitted a letter to you, Mr. Mayor, and the members of the council in an effort to kill or stop the rezoning effort. It is also my understanding that a portion of the parcel included in the rezoning plan was not requested or required by the developer but rather by a member of the city planning council who had it tacked onto the original request. It is again, as I understand it, in the Southeast comer of the intersection of Three Points Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. The exact identification I do not have before me. Is this a common practice? A member of the planning council who also works for the City of Mound, getting involved in such a proposal? J. H. Hessburg, Jr. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE' ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY " FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of thg. property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the ,.Construction of too many units on said property,' setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .'the Mound community. v,° / 3 PETITION IN OPPOSITION'TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of the property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our .objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to thO"legal.property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that'a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that .wDm believe should not be followed in the Mound / community. ~1~' ~ ~ ~-o~j ~ '" ADDRESS URE '~- · !' It ri " / < ./ /7,,,."¢ 17o...? ADDRESS PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY /. FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in..the Mound community. OWNER " ADDRESS SIGNATURE PETITION IN OPPOBITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE:ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of t~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from R1 single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. OWNER t ADDRESS SIGNATURE OWNER PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY " FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6 000 square foot minimum lot size. ' We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many Units .on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY · ' FROM R1 TO RIA The undergigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th9 property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in..the Mound community. OWNER " ADDRESS SIGNATURE 6326 RAMBLER LANE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-5759 Dear Honorable Members of the City Council, My name is Joe Zylman, I am working on the Maple Manors Development. I have a few requests regarding Park Dedication Requirements. 1. I request you approve the $5,000.00 Park Dedication Fee as submitted by parks board. 2. I request that the city match these funds and we construct a wood chip nature trail which would run just above the wetlands line with access structures on 3 Pts. Blvd. by P.D.Q. as well as that part of the park that fronts on Maple Manors Court. 3. I request the privilege of placing a bronze dedication monument and naming the park "Maple Park" 4. I request approval to plant shrubs and perennial flowers in the road right of way to produce entrance gardens which will add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Joe Zylman RECEIVE0 JAN 1 3 1997 · REAL ESTATE BROKER · GENERAL CONTRACTOR 90°00' ii?' ! I ! ! CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-O6OO FAX (612) 472-0620 January 13, 1997 TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER FROM: LINDA STRONG SUBJECT: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE, LAS VEGAS NITE PERMIT Our Lady of the Lake Church submitted an application for their Las Vegas Nite scheduled for February 1, 1997. They are applying for a Beer Permit for that day. Their insurance is in order. This event needs your approval. Is prlnted on recycled paper $10.00 for 3 days, plus . c~ -01- c/'7 ,, $2.00 per day after Dates Permit Will B~ Used pef:'y~aft0'any Organ~zalao CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNF. SOTA 55364 TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMI~.. Organization: ~U~_ L~/~F-"FI4£ L~rX~.- orTitle: . , Wo,k Pho ,: q00 Section 810.10, Subd. 2. Liability Insurance. (a) Prior to the issuance of any Beer license, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of firmncial respomibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A. 801 to th~ City Clerk md to the Commissioner of Public Safety as ~ condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of fmancinl responsibility shall be given by filing a certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing th~ minimum coverages for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is th~ intent of this section to require the minimum insurance coverages and amounts g~un¢ of Insurance Co.: '-~ [ ,t Amount of Cov~raSe: ~b~ Dt)O. _ Section 810:10. SuM. 1. Application Form. In the case of any application for a Temporary 'On-Sale' license to allow sale and consumption of beer on public land or public school lands, the applicant shall, prior to issuance of such license, file the written consent of the owner of such lands to such us~ of its lands. J/ /~d~eq ~:~ _ , Applicant's Signature "' J ,· J Il ,il , ,Jk J ,li~, , ROD GRAMS MINNFSOTA COMMITTEES: BANKING. HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES FOREIGN RELATIONS JOINT ECONOMIC January 3, 1997 RECEiVEU 1 3 nited ;tates enate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 SHINGTON OFFICE: PH. 202-224-3244 FAX 202-228-0956 I NTERNET: 14A l L_GP.A~S~GRA~ S. SENATE. C-OV MINNESOTA OFFICE: 2C 13 SECONC AVENUE NORTH ANOKA. MN 55303 PH. 612-427-5921 FAX 6t2-427-8872 The Honorable Bob Polston Mayor City of Mound .5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Dear Mayor Potston: With the opening of the 105th Congress on January 7th, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your insights and provide you with an overview of some of the accomplishments of the 104th Congress. The taxpayers spoke clearly in the last election - they want a more accountable government for less money. And over the past two years, that is what we attempted to do. The 104th Congress_ enacted legislation eliminating "exempt status", making federal lawmakers live under the same laws everyone else does. We lowered the need for states and localities to raise your taxes (i.e. property taxes) by eliminating unfunded federal mandates. Congress..stopped the cycle of poverty by replacing welfare with a two-year limited "workfare." And we demonstrated that the government can live within its means (and let you keep a few more of your hard-earned dollars) when Congress passed the first balanced budget in nearly thirty years. But how does this translate home? For Minnesotans, the 104'th Congress was a win- win and here is how. Balancing the Federal Budget - Accomplishments aimed at empowering Minnesotans: Since assuming federal office in 1993, I focused my efforts upon balancing the federal budget without a federal tax increase. remain committed to this goal, not for myself, but for our children and grandchildren. And it is because of the potential impact on our children, that I worked to ensure that generational accounting be included in all Congressional Budget Office spending estimates. For the first time, we will have a real understanding of the long-term impacts of current spending trends. I believe it is important to recognize just how far the budget debate has progressed over the past two years. Rather than talking about whether or not a balanced budget can be achieved, we are talking about a bi-partisan initiative aimed at identifying our spending priorities to get us to a balanced budget shortly after the turn of the century. And as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I plan to ensure Minnesota's priorities are represented in the upcoming session. P~pared, Published & Mailed at Taxpayer Expe~ve Page 2 January 3, 1997 During the 104th Congress, we not only adopted a balanced budget blueprint, but we came within one vote of passing a constitutional amendment requiring such a plan. The current outlook is good for passage during the 105th. The 104th Congress also enacted a law to give the President unprecedented "line- item" veto authority. Like a majority of our Nation's governors, the President now has the power, and the responsibility, to eliminate wasteful federal spending. Balancing Environmental Policies - Accomplishments aimed at improving the world we live in for generations of Minnesotans: One of the most critical pieces of environmental policy during the 104th Congress was resolution of the nuclear waste crisis. With the '1998' deadline just around the corner, and the Courts having reaffirmed the Department of Energy's obligation to take the spent fuel from commercial reactors, timely action is essential. As a member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, I was pleased to have had the opportunity to ensure Minnesota's concerns were addressed, particularly since our ratepayers have contributed over $250 million. Working with my colleagues, the Senate passed a bill which ensured Dairyland Power's shut down reactor stopped being a financial burden to Minnesota's rural rat~payers, and we included provisions to lower program costs by using private sector companies whenever technically possible. And while economics appears to be a driving force, this legislation is good news for our environment. Rather than having waste scattered at over 100 sites around the nation, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996 provided an environmentally safe single solution to a nationwide crisis. Although the legislation fell victim to election year politics, I have assurances that floor action will occur early upon our return. Enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments (P.L. 104-182) was equally big news back home, particularly in Greater Minnesota. This legislation provided flexibility for local governments to direct limited resources to the greatest health concerns in their respective areas. Working with Minnesota's rural communities, we were able to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency utilize sound science in their development of sulfate reduction rules. This common-sense approach replaced bureaucratic rules such as requiring communities to provide bottled water, even if sulfates posed no threat. Working with Minnesota chemical manufacturers, I introduced a reform aimed at protecting the health of our citizens. The Antimicrobial Pesticide Reform bill gained wide bipartisan support because of its ability to expedite getting public health- Page 3 January 3, 1997 related products to the marketplace. Such an initiative could have saved lives in the 1993 floods which devastated the midwest, but now that it is public law, countless lives will surely be saved in times of natural disaster. Unlike any other initiatives, legislative proposals regarding the Voyageurs National Park and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness embodied the "environmental heart" of our state. Like all Minnesotans, I believe these areas are national treasures and must be Preserved for future generations. During the 104th Congress, the debate appeared to have lost sight of the objective: to find a solution that recognizes the original intent of the late Senator Hubert Humphrey, preserves our unique park and wilderness area, and represents a compromise where we are all winners. I will continue to work with members of our Congressional Delegation to ensure that the voices of all Minnesotans are heard in Washington. Balancing Agricultural Policies - Accomplishments aimed at meeting global needs with local resources in the 21st century: Of significant note was the enactment of the so-called "Freedom to Farm' initiative which changes agricultural policy as we know it. It is designed to encourage farmers to plant for the demands of the marketplace, rather than the dictates of a government payment. This is good news for Minnesota's farmers, consumers and taxpayers. I worked closely with my colleagues over the first session of the 104th Congress to ensure that the voice of our farmers was heard in the process. With U.S. agriculture exports on the rise, and the growing trend of value-added cooperatives, Minnesota's farmers are poised to produce for these new and expanding markets. One area of frustration, however, was the lack of comprehensive dairy reforms. While I worked aggressively to successfully delete the anti-competitive Northeast Dairy Compact during Senate floor action, regional pressures prevailed during the House- Senate conference negotiations. While I'm in the process of forming a bipartisan Dairy Working Group in an effort to develop a strategy to defeat this anti free-market agreement, I also introduced legislation to repeal this initiative. Preparations are already being made for a Congressional review by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 105th. Balancing Social Needs - Accomplishments aimed at improving the lives of Minnesotans: For working families, one of the key driving forces in choosing an employer continues to be health care coverage. This past year, Congress unanimously enacted legislation making those decisions a little easier. The "Kassebaum-Kennedy" bill made Page 4 January 3, 1997 health insurance more accessible, portable and renewable. One of the most significant changes to current law includes the prohibition on exclusions for preexisting conditions. Therefore, individuals will no longer face possible exclusion from health coverage as a result of a medical condition in themselves or their family. And by ensuring increased renewability, workers will find increased flexibility in choosing a career without fear of losing health coverage. As a member of the Senate, one of my key concerns revolved around the inclusion of medical savings accounts -- a central element of the "Consumer Choice" legislation I had coauthored in the previous Congress. My colleagues and I worked hard to ensure this option was contained in the final agreement because it provides access to affordable health care for individuals which may not otherwise have coverage. I believe an expansion of this provision during the 105th Congress should be considered. While these reforms helped those already in the workplace, the Welfare Reform Act aimed at improving the lives of out of work individuals by breaking the cycle of poverty. Under~ this bipartisan legislation, Congress strengthened the social safety net, not with a taxpayer hand-out, but with a hand up to a better life for themselves and their families. We replaced this broken down program with a system to get welfare recipients into the workplace, providing access to safe and affordable child care when necessary, and requiring "pay-for-performance" standards for benefit recipients. And we brought the programs back to the states; to local governments who are better able to determine the needs of their citizens. And while the past two years is marked with many impressive accomplishments, the 105th promises to be challenging. As before, I will continue to rely upon Minnesotans for their thoughts on pending legislation. I can be reached by letter, phone, or fax, but you can contact me through the Internet at "mail_grams@grams.senate.gov". And by visiting my website, you can learn about my current public statements and legislative proposals. I look forward to working with you this year. Sincerely, Rod Grams United States Senator ,I , January 13, 1997 Subject: Rezoning R-1 and R-2 to R-IA See attached Case #96-68 To: Mayor J. Polston Mound City Council As a member of the Board of Directors of the Seahorse Condominium Association I would strongly urge you to consider the objection of the great numbers of people shown on the attached petitions. Many are Seahorse residents; however, many are resident neighbors - but all of whom will have to put up/live with this rezoning if passed by the city council on January 14. I understand that a member of the Seahorse Board of Directors beside myself has also submitted a letter to you, Mr. Mayor, and the members of the council in an effort to kill or stop the rezoning effort. It is also my understanding that a portion of the parcel included in the rezoning plan was not requested or required by the developer but rather by a member of the city planning council who had it tacked onto the original request. It is again, as I understand it, in the Southeast comer of the intersection of Three Points Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. The exact identification I do not have before me. Is this a common practice? A member of the planning council who also works for the City of Mound, getting involved in such a proposal? J. H. Hessburg, Jr. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE' ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY " FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~.property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the ..construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .'the Mound community. OWNER " ADDRESS ~ SIGNATURE - . ..... ~ - · - · % : " 3 PETITION IN OPPOSIT~O~'~O HOD~F~CAT~ON TO ZONIN~ MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RIA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of the property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our .objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to th~)legal.property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that'a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that .WDl~el~eve should not be followed in the Mound / community. ~~. I~ ~ ~ '" ADDRESS ~RE '~ · r~ /! ./ ADDRESS. S~MATURE PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING NAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY :. FROM R1 TO RIA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in..the Mound community. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE:ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of t~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. OWNER " ADDRESS SIGNATURE pav .OWNER ADDRESS SIGNATURE , .~. ' .',,_ '- _ / PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY " FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from RI single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property,. setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY ~ FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of t~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propDrty described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property,' setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in..the Mound community. OWNER ', ADDRESS SIGNATURE 6326 RAMBLER LANE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-5759 Dear Honorable Members of the City Council, My name is Joe Zylman, I am working on the Maple Manors Development. I have a few requests regarding Park Dedication Requirements. 1. I request you approve the $5,000.00 Park Dedication Fee as submitted by parks board. 2. I request that the city match these funds and we construct a wood chip nature trail which would run just above the wetlands line with access structures on 3 Pts. Blvd. by P.D.Q. as well as that part of the park that fronts on Maple Manors Court. 3. I request the privilege of placing a bronze dedication monument and naming the park "Maple Park" 4. I request approval to plant shrubs and perennial flowers in the road fight of way to produce entrance gardens which will add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Joe Zylman RECEIVEO JAN 1 3 1997 · REAL ESTATE BROKER · GENERAL CONTRACTOR l I I I I l l / ;.'/ 6326 RAMBLER LANE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-5759 Dear Honorable Members of the City Council, My name is Joe Zylman, I am working on the Maple Manors Development. I have a few requests regarding Park Dedication Requirements. 1. I request you approve the $5,000.00 Park Dedication Fee as submitted by parks board. 2. I request that the city match these funds and we construct a wood chip nature trail which would run just above the wetlands line with access structures on 3 Pts. Blvd. by P.D.Q. as well as that part of the park that fronts on Maple Manors Court. 3. I request the privilege of placing a bronze dedication monument and naming the park "Maple Park" 4. I request approval to plant shrubs and perennial flowers in the road right of way to produce entrance gardens which will add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Joe Zylman RECEIVED JAN 1 3 1997 · REAL ESTATE BROKER · GENERAL CONTRACTOR · I I I I I I I i~, sgo'oo'oo" w / CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 13, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER LINDA STRONG OUR LADY OF THE LAKE, LAS VEGAS NITE PERMIT Our Lady of the Lake Church submitted an application for their Las Vegas Nite scheduled for February 1, 1997. They are applying for a Beer Permit for that day. Their insurance is in order. This event needs your approval. Is prinled on recycled paper $10.00 for 3 days, plus $:2.00 per day after ~F 70ur Pef:Y~ :~:':any:0rg~izati°n Dates Permit Will Be Used CITY OF MOIJND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAB MOUND, ~OTA 55364 ~abm~ e/a _~ Section 810.10, SuM. 2. Liability Insurance. demonstrate proof of financial res~nsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.$01 to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing a certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the minimum coverages for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is the intent of this section to require the minimum insurance coverages and amounts ~ D . Amount of Coverage: ~ ~ D 80 Section $10:10. Subd. 1. Application Form. In the case of any application for a Temporary 'On-Sale' license to allow sale and consumption of beer on public land or public school lands, the applicant shall, prior to issuance of such license, file the written consent of the owner of such lands to such u.se of its lands. Applicant's Signature CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 13, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER LINDA STRONG OUR LADY OF THE LAKE, LAS VEGAS NITE PERMIT Our Lady of the Lake Church submitted an application for their Las Vegas Nite scheduled for February 1, 1997. They are applying for a Beer Permit for that day. Their insurance is in order. This event needs your approval. printed on recycled paper 00 for 3 days, plus Dates Permit Will B~ Us~ · $2.00 per day at'tar . ii~ ,to Ten c0rx~utiveDays .: :,: .:, LICENSE #. - CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNF. SOTA 55364 Chairman '-,. ^ _ ... Address:_ ~'v~c~l} (' ~a~ a ~ ~_ A~! Section $10.10, Sub& 2. Liability Insurance. (a) Prior to the ism~nce of any Beer license, the applicant shall demonstrat~ proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Mimaesota Statutes Section 340A.801 to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license, proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing a certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the minimum coverages for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is the intent of this section to require the minimum insurance coverages and amounts Name of Insurance Co.: Amount of Coverage: Section $10:10. Subd. 1. Application Form. In the case of any application for a TemporarY 'On-Sale' license to allow sale and consumption of beer on public land or public school lands, the applicant shall, prior to issuance of such license, file the written consent of the owner of such lands to such use of its lands. Applicant's Signature II ,I January 13, 1997 Subject: Rezoning R-1 and R-2 to R-lA See attached Case #96-68 To: Mayor J. Polston Mound City Council As a member of the Board of Directors of the Seahorse Condominium Association I would strongly urge you to consider the objection of the great numbers of people shown on the attached petitions. Many are Seahorse residents; however, many are resident neighbors - but all of whom will have to put up/live with this rezoning if passed by the city council on January 14. I understand that a member of the Seahorse Board of Directors beside myself has also submitted a letter to you, Mr. Mayor, and the members of the council in an effort to kill or stop the rezoning effort. It is also my understanding that a portion of the parcel included in the yezoning plan was not requested or required by the developer but rather by a member of the city planning council who had it tacked onto the original request. It is again, as I understand it, in the Southeast comer of the intersection of Three Points Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. The exact identification I do not have before me. Is this a common practice? A member of the planning council who also works for the City of Mound, getting involved in such a proposal? J. H. Hessburg, Jr. pETiTiON ~N OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE' ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY .' FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~.property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential' which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the ~Construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .'the Mound community. S ./ PETITION IN 0PPOSITIONTO MODIFICATION TO ~ONING M~P TO REZONE ~TTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RIA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of the property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our .objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to th~"legalproperty described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that'a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a not be followed ill the Mound preced?nt tnat,%w~j ~el~e~e should '~_~ ADDRESS PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY :. FROM R1 TO RiA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal propgrty described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in..the Mound community. OWNER " ADDRESS SIGNATURE PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE'ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO RI~ The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of t~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register'our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from Ri single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. . OWNER OWNER ADDRESS SIGNATURE 3 7~'5' PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY " FROM R1 TO RIA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of th~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from RI single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many Units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in .the Mound community. PETITION IN OPPOBITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY .0 FROM R1 TO RIA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of t~ property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in said Exhibit A from R1 single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in..the Mound community. 0W~ER " ADDRESS SIGNATURE