The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-03-04CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperatiOn, provides at a [ reasonable coSt; quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive an~l flouriShing] community, ~: ~,Ev~.sCD A G E N D A MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 2. 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. ADD THE FOLLOWING: CONSENT *E. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION//96-40 APPROVAL OF FREE BENEFIT DANCE ADD THE FOLLOWING TO REGULAR AGENDA: 12. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 456:50, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO DOG QUARANTINE. *CONSENT AGENDA: *A. *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 25, 1997, REGULAR MEETING ................................. 847-853 BID AWARD: 50 H.P. TRACTOR AND FLAIL MOWER ............ 854 *C. *D. *E. *F. CASE____~96-45: GLENN & AMY HURD, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 9, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID//25-117-24 11 0034. REQUEST: VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING AND PROPOSED NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING DECK ............. PAYMENT OF BILLS. (tTO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION//96-40 APPROVAL OF FREE BENEFIT DANCE 855-880 845 "AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//97-02 - 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. ........................................... 881-896 pUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 350:640 TO ADD "SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. ..................................... 897-904 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, EXPANSION OF A "PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ADD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" IN THE R-1 ZONE, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SHIRLEY HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL), 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., PID//24-117-14 12 0059. PLEASE NOTE: THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS ITEM AT ITS MARCH 24, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAYOR COULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN CONTINUE IT TO APRIL 8, 1997 ......................... 905-906 CASE//97-11: JAMES & DENISE CRAWFORD, 5224 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 5, 6 & 9-12, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE. REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING .......................... 90%914 8. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRFSENT, RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS AS PROPOSED BY COMMONS TASK FORCE. ........................................ 915-947 10. PRESENTATION ON INFLOW/INFILTRATION (SUMP PUMP DISCONNECTION)PROGRAM - KYLE COLVIN AND DON BLUHM, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) AND JOHN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER. 11. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 600:25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITING DISCHARGES INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ............................ 948-949 ADD THE FOLLOWING TO REGULAR AGENDA: 12. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 456:50, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO DOG QUARANTINE. 846 II A OilSNDA - MOU1YI~ CITY covNcm PAGE .3 13. iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS; A. REMINDER: HRA MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997, 7:00 P.M. B. NO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997, DUE TO NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (N-LC) CONFERENCE. C. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997, 7:00 P.M. PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE. Do Eo PAEK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 1997 ................................. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 1997. 950-955 847 AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 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. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA: *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 25, 1997, REGULAR MEETING ................................. 847-853 BID AWARD: 50 H.P. TRACTOR AND FLAIL MOWER ............ 854 *C. CASE 96-45: GLENN & AMY HURD, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 9, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID//25-117-24 11 0034. REQUEST: VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING AND PROPOSED NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING DECK ............. 855-880 *D. PAYMENT OF BILLS. (tTO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//97-02 - 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 ............................................ 881-896 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 350:640 TO ADD "SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT ...................................... 897-904 845 AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, EXPANSION OF A "PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ADD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" IN THE R-1 ZONE, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SHIRLEY HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL), 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., PID #24-117-14 12 0059. PLEASE NOTE: THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS ITEM AT ITS MARCH 24, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAYOR COULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN CONTINUE IT TO APRIL 8, 1997 ......................... 905-906 CASE//97-11: JAMES & DENISE CRAWFORD, 5224 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 5, 6 & 9-12, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE. REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING .......................... 907-914 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS AS PROPOSED BY COMMONS TASK FORCE ......................................... 915-947 PRESENTATION ON INFLOW/INFILTRATION (SUMP PUMP DISCONNECTION)PROGRAM - KYLE COLVIN AND DON BLUHM, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) AND JOHN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 600:25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITING DISCHARGES INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ............................ INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: 948-949 A. REMINDER: HRA MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2997, 7:00 P.M. NO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997, DUE TO NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (NLC) CONFERENCE. Co REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997, 7:00 P.M. PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE. PAEK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 1997 ................................. 950-955 846 Minutes - Mound City Council - February 25, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 25, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 25, 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, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, City Attorney John Dean, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Fire Chief Steve Erickson, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and City Clerk Fran Clark; and the following interested citizens: Frank Ahrens, Karl Eridrnhoen, Karen Kingsley, Dotty O'Brien, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Mark Goldberg, Elta Erickson, Leona Peterson, Cathy Bailey, Kiki Sonnen, Dan Hessburg, and Amy Cicchese. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 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. The City Manager asked that the following items be added to the regular agenda: A discussion item on recommendations from the POSC on how 1998 capital outlay should be treated. They recommended some action be taken. The City Clean-Up Day is scheduled for April 26, 1997, at the Lost Lake site. He asked if this means Mound residents only. PCB testing for the Lost Lake Canal dredge. Possible expenditures that might be anticipated for this. Councilmember Weycker asked that Item A, the Minutes from the February 11, 1997, Regular Meeting, be removed and considered separately. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Agenda and the Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 1997, REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Weycker asked that a change be made on Page 647. In the motion made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker, it should read .... "The Dock & Commons Advisory Commission shall consist of seven members." Minutes - Mound City Council - February 25, 1997 MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Minutes of the February 11, 1997, Regular Meeting, as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *CONSENT AGENDA: 1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 1997 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimous. 1.3 CASE //97-03: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST FOR NEW DWEI.LING, FRANK NIF~qEN, 5300 LYNWOOD BLVD. LOTS 18, 19, 20 & P/21. BLOCK 7, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 34 0089. RESOLUTION//97-21 RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF FRANK NIESEN FOR FRONT YARD VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AT 5300 LYNWOOD BLVD. LOTS 18, 19, 20 & P/21, BLOCK 7, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID //13-117-24 34 0089 Ahrens, Hanus, unanimous. 1.4 PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MARCH 2-9, 1997, AS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICAN WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND. RESOLUTION//97-22 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MARCH 2- 9, 1997, AS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICAN WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND Ahrens, Hanus, unanimous. 1.5 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 810:30, SUBD. 3 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BEER LICENSES, BY REPEALING SUBSECTION (b). ORDINANCE//85-1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 810:30, SUBD. 3 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BEER LICENSES, BY REPEALING SUBSECTION (b) Ahrens, Hanus, unanimous. 1.6 REQUKqT FROM BASS CHAMPIONS DIVISION 3 TO USE MOUND BAY PARK AS A WEIGH-IN SITE FOR A BASS FISHING TOURNAMENT ON SATURDAY. JULY 19. 1997 AND SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1997. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimous. J I I I~ ,~ Minutes - Mound City Council - February 25, 1997 1.7 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimous. 1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT {CDBG) PROGRAM. The City Manager explained that four organizations have requested funding, but that the amounts proposed are not the amounts requested. This is because the City is held to a 20% cap on public service delivery programs under Federal HUD rules. The total amount of CDBG funds that Mound will receive is $67, 178. This is proposed to be broken down as follows: ACTIVITY BUDGET Westonka Senior Center Operations $ 8,025 Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) $ 2,821 Westonka Intervention $ 1,747 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) $ 806 Rehabilitation of private property $53,779 TOTAL $67,178 The Mayor opened the Public Hearing. The following persons spoke. Karen Kingsly, representing CASH. Kiki Sonnen, representing WECAN. Cathy Bailey, representing Westonka Senior Center. Dan Hessburg, representing Westonka Intervention. They all thanked the Council for their continued support. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-23 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1997 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM The voted was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 25, 1997 1.9 CASE//97-06: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, CONRAD & NANCY STARR, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE, LOTS 17-21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PID //24-11%24 44 0068 & 0069 (VARIANCE APPLICATION RELATES TO ALLOWING GARAGE TO REMAIN FOR 3 YEARS). The Building Official explained the request. The existing garage encroaches into the neighboring property and it also is setback 15 feet to the front property line, where a 30 foot setback is required. The garage is in need of structural repairs. The Staff and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a temporary three year variance to recognize the detached, nonconforming garage in order to allow construction of a conforming addition onto the house. The applicant has now decided to also put an attached garage onto the house which would be conforming. They would like to keep the detached garage for a period of time to allow storage until the new garage is built. They have asked to withdraw their request for a subdivision since it will not be necessary with the removal of the detached garage. They are requesting a refund of their subdivision application fee. Staff has no objection to the subdivision application fee being refunded. The Council agreed to refund the fee. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-24 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE FOR THREE YEARS TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO THE DWELLING AT 3152 ALEXANDER LANE, LOTS 17, 18 AND 19, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PID//24-117-24 44 0068, P & Z//9%06 Also included in this motion is the approval of a refund of the subdivision application fee. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.10 1996 DEPARTMENT HEADS ANNUAL REPORTS: The following Department Heads presented their 1996 annual reports to the City Council: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager; Steve Erickson, Fire Chief; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Jon Sutherland, Building Official. 1.11 REPORT ON INTEREST FROM THE COMMONS TASK FORCE TO SERVE ON THE NEWLY CREATED DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION. The City Manager reported that we have received 10 letters of interest in serving on the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission, by members of the Commons Task Force. There are only 6 positions available on the Commission. According to the ordinance you need 3 nonabutters and 3 abutters. Of the 10 who applied 3 are nonabutters, 6 are abutters and 1 person was serving in the at-large position. He reported that the person who was at-large does not meet the criteria because she is not presently in the City licensed dock program which is a requirement. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 25, 1997 Mayor Polston stated that since the Council knows the people who have served on the Task Force and they have worked closely with them as a City Council and they have worked with the POSC. He did not feel it was necessary to interview these people. Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION/t97-25 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT THE FOLLOWING PERSONS TO THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR THE SPECIFIED TERMS: MARK GOLDBERG - 1 YEAR TERM; JIM FUNK 2 YEAR TERM; DENNIS HOPKINS - 2 YEAR TERM; FRANK AHRENS - 3 YEAR TERM; AND GORDY TULLBERG - 3 YEAR TERM Councilmember Jensen stated that she feels that the proposed makeup of the Commission lacks diversity in two areas. 1. There were women who served on this Task Force who have been ignored. 2. The two abutters proposed are from the same Commons. Councilmember Hanus stated, "that he does not see this as a gender based issue and he doesn't see that it makes any difference one way or the other." Councilmember Weycker asked if having Councilmember Ahren's husband appointed creates a conflict. The City Attorney stated, "From a legal standpoint, the spouse of a City Councilmember serving on an Advisory Commission such as this, does not constitute any kind of legal conflict of interest. There is no legal prohibition to this occurring." Mayor Polston reminded the Council that two of the women who served on the Commons Task Force are also valued members of the POSC and he is hopeful they will continue to serve. He further stated that the diversity is there if you look at the two advisory commissions which will represent the needs of the City. Councilmember Weycker agreed with Councilmember Jensen that the proposed appointments lack diversity. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: 1.12 RESOLUTION//97-26 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MAYOR POLSTON AS COUNCIL LIAISON TO THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION Councilmember Jensen stated that since she is opposed to the creation of the Commission and the composition of the Commission, she would be voting against this also. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. Minutes - Moutut City Council - February 25, 1997 The Council asked the Staff to notify the people of their appointment and encourage them to set up their meetings to work out the work rules, as soon as possible. Mayor Polston stated that he is sensitive to what Councilmember Jensen suggested, as far as diversity goes. He hopes that no one feels that this was done on purpose and it certainly wasn't done, in any fashion, to insult or question the integrity of the women who have served extremely well on the POSC. He hopes they will continue to serve the City on the POSC. ADD-ON ITEMS 1.13 POSC - CAPITAL OUTLAY The City Manager reported that at the last POSC Meeting, it was recommended that the City Council advertise in the legal notice of the newspaper, asking for input from the public for the 1998 Budget request for park improvements. He stated that on the POSC there is some concern that the capital outlay hasn't had enough discussion or enough public input into the budget process in the past several years. They would like as much public input as possible on capital outlay issues. Thus, it is before you tonight. The City Manager explained that typically, how the budget process works, is that the Department Heads gather the information, in this case Mr. Fackler, has some suggestions each year that he puts before the POSC. He has a capital program that goes out over five years and he makes suggestions to the Commission at an early stage in the process. He further stated that citizen input is fine, but there is a process in place right now that welcomes that at any time and to advertise it might enhance it, but we probably wouldn't be changing the process at all, because we are on a budget timetable. Councilmembers Weycker stated that she does not feel that the draft POSC minutes, that were handed out tonight, give the flavor of what was discussed. She stated that the request for citizen participation in deciding what the parks wanted was what they were talking about not how we are going to spend the money, but rather, what people would like to see in a certain park. The Mayor suggested that the POSC solicit input from citizens, through some type of survey, of what they would like to see done in the parks. They could then develop a plan and prioritize the needs and wants for the parks. Councilmember Weycker stated that is what she felt the POSC was trying to do with the advertisement. The Council took no action on this item. 1.14 CITY CLEAN-UP DAY The City Clean-Up Day is set for Saturday, April 26, 1997, at the Lost Lake site. The City Manager asked if this is for Mound residents only or will it be open to everybody. The Council discussed this and decided they did not have a problem with it being open to everybody as long as the fees cover the costs. ,il i I II ,J ,,,1~1, ,ii I ,~ Minutes - MoutM City Council - February 25, 1997 1.15 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT {MIVCD) MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, .1997 The City Manager reported that the MWCD will be considering the permit application for the Lost Lake Canal Dredging Project. Part of that approval is contingent upon testing for PCB's in the Lost lake canal. He reported that the ballpark figure for the cost of this test is in the neighborhood of $10,000. He asked for the Council's approval of up to $10,000 for this testing and related costs. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to authorize paying up to $10,000.00 for testing for PCB's in the Lost Lake Channel. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 9. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Financial Report (Unaudited) for 1996 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. Financial Report for January 1997, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. C. Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1997. Do Finding of Fact Prepared by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's Attorney in preparation for the Meeting of the District to be held on Thursday, February 27, 1997, 7:30 P.M., Minnetonka Community Center. This is pursuant to the Board's action of February 6, 1997. We should probably establish that February 27, 1997, date as a Continued City Council Meeting of February 25, enabling all of the Council to attend pursuant to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Notice from the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Re: Reappointments to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers. Fo Notice from the LMCD of the appointment of Greg Nybeck to the position of Executive Director. Greg has been the Administrative Technician for the LMCD for the past two years. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker at 9:10 P.M. to continue this meeting to Thursday, February 27, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Minnetonka Community Center. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAY1NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 February 28, 1997 TO: FROM: RE: City Council ~ Jim Fackler, Parks Director Recolmnendation for the Purchase of a New 1997 50 HP Wheel Type Utility Tractor with a Side Mount 63" Flail Mower The (Tily of Mound received four (4) bids on February 26, 1997 in relation to the City's request of bids lo purchase a new Wheel Type Utility Tractor with a side flail mower. The quotes were as follows: !) Carlson Tractor 2) Doyle Inc. 3) Scharber & Sons 4) Long Lake Ford Tractor $36,648.78 $36,210.00 $34,399.OO $32,846.78 The lmv bid was Long Lake Ford Tractor at $32,846.78, but they did not meet the bid specifications in a xeD' impm'lant requirement of transmission type. The type of transmission specified was a hydraulic ~cxc~'sc~ synchronized with 12 speeds fi)rward and 12 speeds in reverse. This type of transmission is an upgrade which alh)ws tbr the shifting from forward to neutral or reverse without the use of a foot clutch, only a simple hand movement is required. This transmission upgrade is approximately $2,000.00 m~ a tractor and is needed for the type of conditions that we will be utilizing the tractor for. The transmission that was quoted by Long Lake Ford Tractor wag a base model with an 8 forward and 8 reverse synchronized transmission. This transmission requires the operator to foot clutch in conjunction with manual shifting to make changes from forward to neutral or reverse. There were other areas that the h~vv bid did not meet the specifications but were not as major as the transmission, some of which could bc overlooked and others that would be consider not acceptable. My recommendation to the Council is to accept the next closest bid that meets all the specifications, which is Scharber and Sons for $34,399.00. This bid is over the 1997 budgeted amount of $25,000.00 by $I0.{)00.00 due to the information that I received from suppliers misinterpreted what type of mower I was requiring. They had priced out a rear mount flail aad not a side mount flail which would not reach over the curbs and sidewalks to mow the areas in the city that are in need of maintenance. I have bccn intl,'mod that there are funds available, approximately $8,500.00 from the Capital Improvement l:und, thc same fund this utility tractor is budgeted, that was not used due to the bid for the Street Departments front-end loader coming in under budget. J]: printed on recycled paper March 4, 1997 RESOLUTION ~6- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING AND PROPOSED NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING DECK AT 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 9, BLOCK 13, DEVON PID 25-117-24 11 0034, P&Z CASE it/96-45 WHEREAS, the owners, Glenn & Amy Hurd, applied for variance to recognize the existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming deck which encroaches 2.3 feet over the property line onto the adjacent Devon Common, and; WHEREAS, after review of this case by the Planning Commission and Park Commission, the applicant revised their proposal to remove the deck encroachment of 2.3', resulting in the following setback variance requests: existing/ proposed required variance House to rear (south) 9' 15' 6' House to lake 38' 50' 12' Deck to rear (south) 0' 10' 10' Deck to lake 29' +/- 50' 21' +/- and; WHEREAS, the existing deck encroaches 2.3 feet over the property line onto the adjacent Devon Common, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the existing deck is dilapidated and in need of removal or replacement, and; WHEREAS, Devon Commons was dedicated by the original plat to the public, and it has been the past practice of the City to eliminate encroachments onto public and private land whenever possible, and; WHEREAS, it has also been the past practice to consider a minimally sized deck to be a reasonable use when there is lake front property with a comparable situation as this site, and; WHEREAS, a public lands permit was applied for and was also part of Batch//9 which was tabled by the Park and Open Space Commission on August 8, 1996, and; WHEREAS, one-third of the lot on the street side contains a sewer easement, and therefore the buildable footprint of the property is restricted and this creates a hardship, and; Proposed Resolution Hurd, March 4, 1997 P. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval for the proposed deck with the modification that the deck may be built up to the property line. There shall be no construction beyond the property line (on the commons). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks as listed below, to allow construction of a deck, up to the rear property line as shown on the attached 'Exhibit A' due to the existing sewer easement at the front of the lot. There shall be no construction beyond the property line, including stairways, and the applicant shall identify the location of property line by exposing or locating the property marker. setback setback approved required variance House to rear (south) 9' 15' 6' House to lake 38' 50' 12' Deck to rear (south) 0' 10' 10' Deck to lake 29' +/- 50' 21' +/- 2. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 9 and 10, Block 13, Devon. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a deck 24' x 9.2'. (Up to the property line) This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. ,il I I Il ,J J~, ,J 1. ~00 ZZow' x~O 6-.o[ :SOLUTION ~97- ~HIBIT A' n ~-<0 u~r-~0 Z / crosm cut in conc. roQd ' (~.~)-' :9.37.8) ,,, STING 15 (947.7) $0.0 'N 8.1.°49' .E · ' ' g S 89°49' W Blocktop I (945.1) D r i v e~o:. 35.0-/ LOT AREA= , 7955~ SQ. FT.: I "1 i~'~'l I I ~.! I I I 10.7- EXISTING ,~'i ~ HOUSE ,~hO %(938.2) [ Deck ~ oOSE Existing deck to :'" be removed end Ii ~= 06c~ -% rep aced with '"1'" . ~. new deck th '']---~ %9 ~ 1.2 ov~--' 74.7 5.3';' '"' ......... S 51°49' W "" I" "1 I, ~ ~ /I I~ '~1 I, t, I I I% I I~ I I \~1 -.o951.5 Contour Line '"929.4 Contour Line (O.H.W.) ~ ,,II<E /M/W/CET-Oit//~ A _EGAL-DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : _ots 9 and 10, Block 15, DEVON RESOLUTION ~6-99 'RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS KNOWN AS DEVON COMMON "BATCH #9" DOCK SITES 41824, 42406, 42961, 43020, 43080, 43120, 43180, 43235, 43420, and 43450 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is in the process of updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320 requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons, and; WHEREAS, "Batch #9" details the private encroachments located at Dock Sites, and these encroachments have been inspected by the Building official and Dock Inspector according to the Procedure Manual, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the Commons Task Force to look at the process for dealing with structures on the commons (i.e. buildings, flagpoles, decks, etc.), and City staff is withholding all action on these type of structures until the Council reviews the recommendation of the task force and gives staff further direction, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed this Batch #9 and has recommend approval, with the conditions of approval as listed, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve Public Land Permits for Batch #9, subject to the 'conditions of approval.' All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by the City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. These permits will expire five (5) years from the date of issuance and must be renewed with change in dock license holder. Batch #9 Public Land Permits DOCK I ABUTTING ADDRESS SITE ENCROACHMENTI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 41824 4665 ISlaND VIEW DR - ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET.* MARK SMITH & & OUTLET GINA ANDERSON - PHONE REMOVE OR RELOCATE PHONE OUTLET ONTO PRIVATE CONTACTED? YES PROPERTY, Resolution ~6-99 Batch ~9 P. 2 Il' DOCK J ABUTTING ADDRESS SITEI I ENCROACHMENTI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4743 ISLAND VIEW DR ROBERT EIDEM & NI¢OLE BLUM CONTACTED? YES DEVON COMMON, CLASS D - STAIRWAY APPROVE STAIRWAY WITH REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT TO BE MADE BY APPLICANT AND AS APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAl DEVON COMMON, CLASS B 42961 4801 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. CURTIS OLSON - PLANTINGS APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. CONTACTED? YES - RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. - ELECTRIC LIGHT OLD LIGHT HAS BEEN REMOVED. 43020 4805 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. MICHAEL KANE - RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. CONTACTED? YES - ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE LIGHT & OUTLET.* & OUTLET DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 43080 4815 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY W/ APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. ARLENE ESKEDAHL LANDING CONTACTED? YES - RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. - STONE WALKWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. 43120 4823 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. CARRELL KUCERA . CONTACTED? YES - PLATFORM APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. 43180 4829 ISLAND VIEW DR - STORM WATER/ APPROVED AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. JERRY MAREK ROOF DRAIN CONTACTED? YES 43235 4833 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY DILAPIDATED. REPLACE TO CODE AS APPROVED BY GLENN & AMY HURD BUILDING OFFICIAL. CONTACTED? YES - WALKWAY APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. - DECK (PORTION) DILAPIDATED. REMOVE ENCROACHING PORTION. ~esolution ~96-99 Batch tF3 P. 3 !srrE ! ABU'I I lNG ADDRESSI ENCROACHMENTI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4342O DEVON COMMON, CLASS B 4849 ISLAND VIEW DR STEPHEN HEWITT CONTACTED? YES - STAIRWAY (A) ON HILLSIDE - STAIRWAY (B) ON RIP RAP RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITIQN. APPROVE STAIRWAY TO BE INSTALLED AS A TRANSITION OVER THE RIP RAP. THE STAIRWAY SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CODE, AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. 43450 DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 4853 ISLAND VIEW DR MARK GOLDBERG CONTACTED? YES - STAIRWAY (A) ON HILLSIDE - STAIRWAY (B) ON RIP RAP - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE STAIRWAY TO BE INSTALLED AS A TRANSITION OVER THE RIP RAP. THE STAIRWAY SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CODE, AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVE PENDING ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. The foregoing resolution was moved by CouncilmemberJessen and seconded Councilm ember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen and Polston. Hanus was absent and excused. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: N one 'Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor by MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 27, 1996 1.6 CASE //96-45: VARIANCE FOR DECK, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE GLENN & AblY tIURD, LOT 9, BLK 13, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0034. Building Official Jori Sutherland stated that due to comments from the Planning Commission, Mr. Hurd has removed his item from the agenda and is redesigning his plans and will return to the Planning Commission. City Attorney stated the item should have action to refer the item back to the staff and Planning Commission. MOTION by Ahre~Ls to table Case #96-45 until the Staff and Planning Conunission review thls case with further information. City Attorney stated the item should have action to refer the item to Planning Commission and staff not to table it. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to refer the item, Case //96-45 back to staff and Planning Commission for further information. 1V/INUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COM/VIIgSION AUGUST 12, 1996 CASE 96-45: VARIANCE FOR DECK, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, GLENN & AMY HURD, LOT 9~ BLOCK 13~ DEVON~ PID 25-117-24 11 .0034 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling and deck in order to allow reconstruction of the deck on the lakeside. The existing deck encroaches onto the adjacent Devon Common by 2.3 feet. existinq proDosed required variance House-rear (south) 9' n/a 15' 6' House-lake 38' n/a 50' 12' Deck -rear (south) 2.3' encroach 2.3' 15' 15' Deck-lake 28' 28' 50' 22' The existing deck is dilapidated and in need of removal or replacement. It has been the past practice of the City to eliminate encroachments onto public and private land whenever possible. Consistent with this policy a recommendation of denial is appropriate in order to eliminate the encroachment of the deck at this time. It has also been the past practice to consider a minimally sized deck to be a reasonable use when there is lake front property with a comparable situation as this site. A Minimally sized deck of 8-9 feet wide would allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. There may also be area for deck expansion to the west that could be considered, in this location the lake setback would still be nonconforming, however the encroachment would be less than the existing situation. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the applicants request to reconstruct the deck in a nonconforming and encroaching situation. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a recommendation of approval for a minimally sized deck of $ to 9 feet in width that allows for maintenance of the deck on the applicants property, and in addition, that the new stairway from the deck be constructed so it does not encroach on the commons. This recommendation would be consistent with the Zoning Code and allow the applicant reasonable use with a minimum encroachment into the setback. Sutherland also reviewed the staff report for the public lands permit which the applicant applied for, and noted that the Park Commission tabled the request on August 8, 1996. Hanus recognized that one third of the lot on the street side contains a sewer easement which cannot be built on, so noted the property is restricted on the street side. 14 Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 Applicant, Glenn Hurd, explained that they only want to replace what is existing, and that it is screened by 6 foot high shrubs so he feels the deck has no impact to the neighbors or the commons in its present location. He noted that this commons is Type C which means you cannot traverse it, and there is no traffic. There is only one other dock in front of his house, and they use the adjacent fire lane to access their dock. He feels that because of the floor plan, it is best to have the deck in front of the house, and he does not want to build the deck to the side which would encroach onto green space. Mueller stated that you should not have a deck on somebody else's property. Hanus noted that the Commons Task Force is looking at the issue of encroachments on the commons, and the Park Commission is not currently acting on existing encroachments such as buildings and decks. He does not know if the task force is addressing the issue of replacing existing encroachments. Hanus suggested that the applicant could be given the option of reducing the deck size to a zero setback, pending the recommendation of the Commons Task Force. The structural condition of the deck was discussed. The applicant stated there are some rotted boards, the handrail is not to code, but it is safe. Weiland stated that they can cut the deck back and the bushes will fill in the vacant space. The applicant stated that the back side of the bushes are dead. The Chair noted the time at 11:00 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the meeting until 11:15 p.m. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance and that the request be deferred to the Park and Open Space Commission and that we agree with their decision relating to the encroaching portion. '~ Motion carried unanimously. The applicant confirmed that he could come back to the Planning Commission if the Park Commission takes too long. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 In light of the recent case, the Glenn Hurd variance, Peter Meyer updated the Planning Commission on the resolution which was passed by the Park Commission relating to the tabling of the public land permits. Meyer read the "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION." Hanus commented that it is his opinion that the Park Commission does not have the authority to resolve anything, and that the resolution is not valid, and the methods chosen were not appropriate. Mueller suggested that in all fairness to the previous applicant, and not knowing the situation with Park Commission, that maybe they should reconsider their previous vote. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Motion failed 4 to 4. Those in favor were: ross, Reifschneider, Burma and Glister. Those opposed were: Mueller, Hanus, Weiland, and Michael. Motion by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to continue the meeting for not more than 7 minutes. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were Mueller, Weiland, Burma, Michael, and Hanus. Those opposed were: Reifschneider, ross and Glister. Mueller moved to re-consider the motion made for Case #96-45, Glenn Hurd. Seconded by Weiland. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Mueller to recommend approval of a variance to allow the deck to be rebuilt up to the rear property lin. due to th..xisting sewer .asem.nt at the front of the lot.There shall be no construction beyond his property line, including stairways. The trees/bushes on the commons are not a concern of the Planning Commission. Voss seconded the motion. Sutherland commented that staff would be in favor of this motion. Hanus stated that he would like to make sure the applicant is aware of action taken and that the applicant be notified that they can go to the council to appeal. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of August 12, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~'~----7 ~ Variance Request Glenn & Amy Hurd 96-45 5214 & 5218 Drummond Road, Lots 4, 5, 14, & 15, Block 12, Whipple, PID 25-117-2421 0025 R-1A Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling and deck (as listed below) in order to allow reconstruction of the deck on the lakeside. The existing deck encroaches onto the adjacent Devon Common* by 2.3 feet (Devon Common was dedicated to the public for public use in 1911). existing proposed required variance House-rear (south) 9' n/a 15' 6' House-lake 38' n/a 50' 12' Deck -rear (south) 2.3' encroach 2.3' 15' 15' Deck-lake 28' 28' 50' 22' COMMENTS: The existing deck is dilapidated and in need of removal or replacement. It has been the past practice of the City to eliminate encroachments onto public and private land whenever possible. Consistent with this policy a recommendation of denial is appropriate in order to eliminate the encroachment of the deck at this time. It has also been the past practice to consider a minimally sized deck to be a reasonable use when there is lake front property with a comparable situation as this site. A Minimally sized deck of 8-9 feet wide would allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. There may also be area for deck expansion to the west that could be considered, in this location the lake setback would still be nonconforming, however the encroachment would be less than the existing situation. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Hurd Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the applicants request to reconstruct the deck in a nonconforming and encroaching situation. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a recommendation of approval for a minimally sized deck of 8 to 9 feet in width that allows for maintenance of the deck on the applicants property, and in addition, that the new stairway from the deck be constructed so it does not encroach on the commons. This recommendation would be consistent with the Zoning Code and allow the applicant reasonable use with a minimum encroachment into the setback. *The applicant has submitted a request for a public lands permit for the proposed encroachment that will be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission on August 8, 1996. JS The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1996. [ I VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-01500, Fax: 472-01520 , JUL 2 5,- AiSPlication Fee:--- $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: I! DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DF, SC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) Address ~ Subdivision ZONING DIS~CT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 Plat # B-3 Name Address ~, [~ Phone (H)~0,V) ~ 'j~~~;~--~ (M). ' * Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?.,~es, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. ~3. 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 P~QUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W~) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N ~ ft. ---%0' ft. ft- Side Yard: (~~) '- ft. I0' 4- ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( W ) ~5' ,~/ J~ ;'~c-c~ff. ft. ff. Lakeside: ( W ) ~'~; ft. I:~2~:~ 2~'L ff. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ff. ft. . ft. ft. Street Frontage:.. . o Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use .of the property Conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No~. If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ~>~xisting situation ( ) too shallow , ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 12/8/9.5) .J J J ~, ¥~fiaa~ Application, P. ~ Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyxon~aving property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), NoJ~ If yes, explain: J W~ tl~e hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No,~ If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), N~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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 Sign:ture.,&/ /~~/~ Applicant's S~gnature /~~__~/.~t_J ~~t/ Date~ Date _/~ 7/~_~.. / 7~-~ PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road~ Mound. MN 55364 Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 -'/~_~_BUILDING OFFICIAL RECEIVED DNR ~3/~~, CITY COUNCIL DATE~.~-~ MCWD --J ~ __PUBLIC WORKS ~ tcheck~one): i ~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE iSSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I I PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). I__1 CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ~ ~ LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. Ail permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant ~ Name {"F~/~A lk] ~ , Address - Phone (home) ~, ~[UD (work) ~Tb '~~ Abutting Address, ,. ,~ . , ~., --~ ' ' Property Owner __ __ Legal Lot ~. ~. lO Block ~ _~ Description Subd. ~~ Pub 1 ic Name~ Property Dock Site # ~~ Shoreline Type Contractor Name ~ Address ~ Phone ~Z' II7~ VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR a MATERIALS DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: ' Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) !OWNER'S NAME: : LOT AREA ~0~ SQ. LOT AR~ ~ SQ. LOT AREA SQ. *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official'. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT TOTAL HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) .,, DRIVEWAY, PARKI'NG AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X._ X ~ opening between boards} with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER. (indic~/~fferenc_~?~/../. PREPARED B¥~ DATE~ OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GLEN AND AMY HURD LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 1.3, DEVON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Drive acktop LOT AREA= 7935-* SQ. FT.', ~oUS£, -93~.5 Contour Line 74.7 ""929.4 Contour Line (O.H.W.) EXISTING HOUSE Deck Z ~,~'E' _EO~-_ 2ES.~-R:PTION CF PREMISES : _::~ -: :-c ~0. Block 13, DEVON :e-c:es existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum :e"3tes distcnce cs shown on the plat of DEVON ~e:,-:s ?c,vn =re =csed upon on assumed datum. snow the boundaries of the above described property, mouse, blacktop drive, deck, and propsed deck thereon. snow any other improvements or encroachments. XISTING ROAD OPERTYL-]]q~ SEE SURVEY ~x"~EXISTING DRIVEWAY'~ ~--'SEE SURVEY FOR EASEMENTS'~ /~'"PLANTER"--..~ EXISTING STAIR~ / I P LAN TE R'~.-...~, i// ii -EXISTING CHIMMNEY F~..__~EXISTING GAR AGE '---.-.~ ~//-E XISTING STAIR '"~'~-~E XIS TIN G P ATIO'--.,,.~I 14'-0" SHRUBS EXISTING OAK TREE~ WOOD WALK¥ SEE SURVEY ENTRY / ~,EXISTING EXISTING OAK ENTRY /~EXISTING H OU SE "---.~...~ 24'-6" GLASS PATIO r'~NEw PLANTER- EXISTING 7'-0" SHRUB TO EXISTING 7'-0" ,SHRUB~ DECK TO PINE LINE SEE SURVEY \ \ \ \ \ \ \ AND STAIR \ SIZE TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING O ~'""~OAK TREE / 'T- I / / VERT PC DOUBLE 0 4'-0" TREATED TO MAT( TREATED 2X12 JO 0 24" 0 CANTILE' DECK TC COMMON 2X12 T~ BEAM'-----. SONA T{ FROST r EXISTIN( AND GR ~HELPS BAY) ERVICF ROAD v CT.. e':.:Oj'~O %. 945.6 i' RESOLUTION NO. 76-261 RESOLUTION OF VACATION OF PORTION OF AN EASEMENT Southerly 9 feet o£ the easement in Lot 9 and the southerly 14 feet in Lot 10, all in Block 15, Devon Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a reEular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound~ Minnesota~ was held on the 15th day of June , 19 76 . The following members were present: Ulrick, Swenson, Fenstad, Philbrook and Lovaaeen The following members were absent: None Councilman Fenstad and moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution Wt[EREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice according to law, a public hearing was held by the City Council at the City Hall in the City of Mound on the 15th day of June ., 19 76 , at 7:50 o'clock P . M. to consider the vacation of a portion of Easement - the southerly 9 feet in Lot 9 and the southerly 14 feet in Lot 10, Block 13, Devon. (Easement is on the northerly 30 feet of Lot 9 and northerly 35 feet of Lot 10, Block 13, Devon) and WHEREAS, at such hearing all persons desiring to be heard were given such opportunity after which said public hearing was declared closed by the l~yor , and ~tEREAS, after review by the City staff and discussion by the Council there is not a public need for the dedicated and it is in the public interest to vacate said portion of easement NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. That that portion of easement described as the southerly 9 feet in Lot 9 and the southerly 14 feet in Lot 10, Block 13, Devon, may be and hereby is declared to be vacated. 2. That the City Clerk and City Attorney are directed to file a certified copy of this resolution wiQ~ ~,e He~nepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles, all in accordance with M.S.A. 412.8~1 and E.S.A. 117.19. The motion was seconded by Councilman Philbrook upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Ulrick, Swenson, Fenstad, Philbrook and Lovaasen and the following voted against the same: None and Adopted by the Council this 15th day of June, 1976. 76-261 6-15-76 7 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET RONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 ~ 6,000/40~2 2o,ooo/ao IR2 6,000/40 B3 R2 3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: L.. VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE. SIIEI) ..... N S E W~ N(gE W OR OTIIER DETACIIED ' ~,~ IHs~' q ¥~_c~ ~ I BUILDINGS ~q~) ~E FRONT FRONT SIDE N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' Bills March 04, 1997 BATCH 7023 Total Bills $150,482.66 $150,482.66 0'~ Z ii-" 01 0¸ -,~oooooo [o m z I' ' Io ' oo§ o o ::, ~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOO ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 3, 1997 Mound City Council Jon Sutherland, Building Official Minor Subdivision Resolution #96-40, 2156 Sandy Lane Lots 51 & 52, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood Resolution #96-40 approving a minor subdivision for 2156 Sandy Lane was approved by the City Council on April 23, 1996. The resolution states that the subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of the resolution. Staff never released the resolution for filing because Mr. Larson did not comply with the conditions of approval which needed to be completed prior to release of the resolution. Mr. Larson is now ready to comply with the conditions of the resolution and is requesting a six month extension. Staff recommends approval of the extension of Resolution #96-40. City Code Section 330:35, Subd. 9 states that final plats must be filed within 60 days of approval. City Attorney, John Dean suggested that the Subdivision ordinance could be amended to provide for a vehicle to allow for extensions. He also suggested that the Council review if 60 days is what is wanted, and if it should apply to minor subdivisions. CC: John Dean, City Attorneys Mark Koegler, City Planner Paul Larson, Applicant pnnted on recycled paper I L J .ii i ~,. m F R T i 1 : 40 P . 02 FE~--28--97 1597 February 27th 1997 City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: lot 51, Subdivision of lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood. To whom it may concern, It is my plan to build a new home on the above property this summer. Please extend my subdivision request for another Six months. Please call me with any questions. 471-2216 64 RESOLUTION//96-40 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A M~L-NOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2156 SANDY LANE LOTS 51 & 52, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32 RAVEaNSWOOD PID 13-117-24 44 0090 P&Z CASE//96-14 April !3, 1996 WHEREAS, the owner, Paul Larson, has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, l0 foot side yard setbacks for non-lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing lot to create two new lots. Parcel A will have 14,292 square feet and Parcel B will have 10,014 square feet, and; WHEREAS, Parcel B contains an existing single-family residence and it conforms to all zoning criteria. WHEREAS, construction of a duplex was proposed on Parcel A. According to the Zoning Code, duplex lots are required to have a total area of 14,000 square feet and have 80 feet of frontage on an improved public street. Proposed Parcel A has adequate lot area but only has 55 feet of frontage. Parcel A does abut an alley on the north side, however, the alley does not constitute an improved public street as defined by City Code, and; WHEREAS, the City has generally held to a policy of approving subdivisions with variances only when no other options for alleviating the variance are present. The provision of the Zoning Code allows single family homes in the R-2 district and abutting properties contain single family homes. Construction of a single family home on Parcel A without the issuance of a variance is a viable alternative, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: ,96--10 April 23, 1996 The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and B from Lots 51 & 52, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, as shown on the attached "Exhibit A", subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee being paid prior to release of the final resolution. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Co The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along ail new lot lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front' and rear lot lines. do Water service for Parcel A shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall be provided in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure installation of said service. The applicant shall file a variance application for the proposed lot width variance prior to the time that this case is scheduled for City Council review. The shed on Parcel B shall be removed prior to the issuance of any permits for construction or improvements on either Parcels A or B. The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A: Parcel A: That part of Lot 51 which lies westerly of the following described line and its extensions; said line being drawn from the most southerly comer of said Lot 51 to a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 51 distant 19.00 feet northwesterly from the northeast comer of said Lot 51, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood. Parcel B: Lot 52 and that part of Lot 51, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood which lies easterly of the following described line and its extensions; said line being drawn from the most southerly comer of said Lot 51 to a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 51 distant 19.00 feet northwesterly from the northeast comer of said Lot 51. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. //96-40 Apr/! Z~, 1996 The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember 3ensen and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and ?olston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Ak4st: City M~W~ ger ~ Resolution adopted: April 23, 1996 Mayor IN THE SI L J ,[ M, ,,,1~, "EXHIBIT A" RESOLUTION CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR PAUL LARSON ~1~ OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUISI"S RAVENSWOOD LOTS 51 & 52 ~ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ... ----//// ~./ ./ \ to, 0,¥ \ LEGAL DEStO'PI'ION OF PREMISES SURVEYEO: Lots 51 ~ 52. Subdiv:$ton oF Lots 1 & 32 Skarp & LindquxSt's Ravens.ood o: d~o/e$iron mq~er ~f · :denoc:s iron marker found Bearzflgs shown are O~$ed on ar, assumed datum. I~lS survey intends :o Show the ~oundarles of %he ~:ove desr:zed prope,'Cies and cne IOCdCLon O~ exxstlng nc.se tnere)n. 1% does not purpor[ to ~hown any other ~mpr3vemenC$ or encroachments. .) '~- $25.00 Day - Single Dance $200.00 Yr.- Annual Dance CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION Date of Single Dance / License Year Annual Dance LICENSE # ~AR 4 1997 CITY OF MOUND TYPE OF DANCE: CHAIRPERSOI¥ pR APPLICAm': ~fi'lGI /q- -.]?.~ZL-%T~ ~X trrLE: ADDRESS: HOME PHONE #: q-3c"Z. 'r-~' --'}L'~ ~- HOME PHONE #: WORK PHONE #: C/'~O~)· t,B~]~) WORK PHONE #: Date App~ DePartment APprgval/Denial (Submit mer~6~J denied) Appr.~ Denied Police Dept. Adm. "/ Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. ORDINANCE NO. -1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 456:50 RELATING TO DOG QUARANTINE The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 456:50 is amended to read as follows: Section 456:50. Quarantine. Any animal that bites a person and punctures the skin shall be quarantined for a period of not less than ten (10) days in the City designated kennel, veterinary hospital, or on the owner's premises, as determined by the Chief of Police or persog~tesignated by the Chief of Police. City personnel may refuse to permit confinement on the owner's premises if the animal has a repeated history of "running at large", does not have currently effective rabies inoculation, or is not properly licensed. If confinement on the owner's premises is permitted, the animal shall not be allowed off the owner's premises or in contact with other people or animals during the confinement period, except for medical purposes. The owner is responsible for contacting the police department after ten (ten) days and notifying of the condition of the animal and allowing City personnel to inspect the animal. If the owner fails to comply with these restrictions, authorized personnel may enter onto the property, seize the animal, and remove it to the City designated kennel. The owner shall be responsible for all costs of confinement under this section. March 4, 1997 RESOLUTION//96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS OXFORD LANE LOCATED NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCKS 5 AND 9 IN "DEVON" P&Z CASE//97-02 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Reschke, has requested the vacation of that portion of Oxford Lane adjacent to his property at 4737 Aberdeen Road, Lots 10 & 11, Block 5, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0036, and; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any park thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on February 11, 1997 and continued to the meeting on March 4, 1997, as required by law, and; WHEREAS, the vacation request was circulated through the City staff and the applicable utility companies and there was no proposed use identified or no objection to the vacation. In addition, it appears to be in the public's interest to vacate this right-of-way as it does not have a public use, and; WHEREAS, approval of this request will add vacated property to the neighboring parcels, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommend approval of the street vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to hereby approve the request to vacate the 30 foot wide unimproved platted right-of- way known as Oxford Lane located north of Hanover Road and south of Aberdeen Road between Blocks 5 and 9 in "Devon." A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared bY the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings. It is the responsibility of the owner to record this Certified Resolution in the office of the County Recorder and/or the Registrar of Tiles, as set forth in M.S.A. 412.851. The foregoing resolution as moved by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIl. - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 1.14 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. The Building Official explained the request. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial, but since then the City Engineer has revised his report due to obtaining additional information and his February 11, 197 memorandum was distributed to the Council. The Planning Commission did not have this memo when the vacation was considered. The Mayor opened the public hearing. KEN JUNKER, 4776 Island View Drive - asked who would get this property if it were vacated? He had no objection to the vacation. The City Attorney explained that normally half went to each abutting property owner. JIM KENNY, 2008 Thorndale Ave., New Brighton - owner of Lots 14-20 on Hanover Lane. He also spoke for his mother who owns Lots 1-6 on Aberdeen. He had no objection to the vacation as long as his property and his mothers continue to have access to their property after the vacation. The Building Official explained that the City Engineer has addressed this in his February 11, 1997 memo. It would be more feasible to extend Hanover Road west to Devon Lane, if Mr. Renny's property were to be developed. The watermain is already in place in Hanover Road and the sanitary sewer could be extended from an existing manhole in Devon Lane to serve this property. The Public Works Supt. explained that if Mr. Renny wanted to develop the property he could extend Hanover from where it ends at Oxford Lane. The Council discussed the fact that the Planning Commission has not reviewed the additional information and felt they should review this vacation request again. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to continue this public hearing to March 4, 1997, and refer the item back to the Planning Commission with the new information about the utilities and asking for their recommendations. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors ADDEND UM TO MEMORAND UM TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer DATE: February 11, 1997 SUBJECT: City of Mound Proposed Street Vacation Oxford Lane Case #97-02 MFRA #8902 A number of questions have been raised regarding my original memorandum dated January 6, 1997, resulting in further review of the proposed street vacation of Oxford Lane. I did not have an opportunity to visit this site prior to writing a report and tried to piece together enough information from old street plans and record utility plans. In addition, the survey furnished by the applicant was of poor quality and very difficult to read. Since that time, we have discovered that the City's record water plan did not show the existing watermain in Hanover Road from Devon Lane to Oxford Lane. In addition, the existing topography indicates that it would be more feasible to extend Hanover Road west to Devon Lane, if the vacant property, Lot 14 through 20, Block 9 are ever developed. With the watermain already in-place, the sanitary sewer could be extended from an existing manhole in Devon Lane to serve these lots. Taking this additional information into consideration, we do not see why the City should need this portion of Oxford Lane for any further utility or street improvements. e:Xmain:\8902~suth2-11 An Equal Opportunity Employer PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, 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 UNIMPROVED OXFORD LANE LOCATED NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCKS S AND 9 IN DEVON NOTICE IS HER]:.RY 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 Al~erdeen Road and between Blocks 5 and 9 in Devon. This portion of Oxford Lane is a 30 foot wide unimproved platted right-of-way, as shown below: ....,~.,' ~./~ '~1 t~, ~I~ -I-~,~,~ ..... '~ .... f'~"l'~' "'~r~ ~ ~'~--- ~ A~EP,~EEN RE' ~t~d'~'lt'~.';~7"l"~"r;~ ! ~t-;'"l"~.,r~o; i~:i~,l ~'.'['o I fl'i~'/ 5/~I~'"F~'/~o . I<~:f~,,;~l' "~'I ~I..~-.P.~F.~°..'I"~I~;~ - P~'I' EE~I'~' ~," , o-..~.- ..; >. - .......... : ~-- ... . . .... ~ ~, I~ "t?4! 1t'75t .<_[?6J. I;7'/.14~°1~[3"rl |[38]J .<..j'~_9;~ ._ J 4o140~j40J40J~,o) ,oj.lOl~Ol40/4p.l,ll_40140140~'U'd'io'E40H40J40J4( ,.~J,o.J~l~o-t~..~':~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~rsons a~~ at ~d h~ wi~ reference to the above will be ~iven ~ o~~ to be h~d at ~s m~n~ "~egg~ ~s, Planning Secretary Mailed to ~ffected property owners by February 1, 1997, Published in "The Laker" on February 1, 1997, and posted by ~anuary 28, 1997. printed on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1997 CASE 97-02: VACATION OF OXFORD LANE - PUBLIC HEARING MARK RESCHKE, 4737 ABERDEEN ROAD LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 5, DEVON, 30-117-23 22 0036 The Building Official handed out a copy of an anonymous letter received from a concerned area land owner who requested the City of Mound not to vacate the right-of-way. The Building Official reviewed the recommendation from the City Engineer, the utility companies and the other City departments who responded. The City does not have utilities located in this section of Oxford Lane. The engineer has a concern with the ,ndeveloped lots in Block 9 which, if they are ever developed, water and sanitary sewer could [~ extended from the end of the mains on Hanover Road. Hanover Road could be extended to provide access for these parcels; however it is already a dead end street almost 400 feet long with no turn around whatsoever. This portion of Oxford Lane could provide another exit, thus eliminating the existing dead end street. The Building Official discussed this case with the City Planner who is in agreement with the Engineer's comment that State Statute requires that a street vacation be in the best interest of the public, and with the potential for future development and elimination of a dead end street, approval is not recommended. The secretary informed the Commission that the Park Commission recommended denial of the street vacation because they did not feel it was in the public's best interest. The applicant, Mark Reschke responded to the allegations made in the anonymous letter that he is operating a commercial type business from his garage. He stated that he does wood carving with chain saws, as a hobby, he is an artist. The Building Official stated that the applicant stores wood on the unimproved right-of-way, however, there is no history of complaints being made regarding this activity. Chair Michael opened public hearing The applicant, Mark Reschke stated that he has lived at this residence for nine years and the driveway he uses which is located on Oxford Lane was there before he purchased the property. He stated that the vacant lots in Block 9 can be accessed by Hanover, and feels that if Oxford were improved it would create a traffic hazard when exiting onto Aberdeen. He noted that his house is only five feet from Oxford, and he would not want to see Oxford improved. Reifschneider noted that the vacation would make the house more conforming. Hanus commented that it appears it would be more practical to extend Hanover all the way to Devon, and if this is the case he may lean towards supporting the vacation. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. The option of improving Hanover was discussed. Weiland commented, if it isn't in the best interest of the public to vacate the street, and there is no dire need for it to be vacated, he would be opposed to the request. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Burma to recommend denial of the request to vacate Oxford Lane as it is not a necessity that it be vacated, and it is not in the best interest of the general public. Motion carried 4-2-1. Those in favor were: Weiland, Burma, Reifschneider and Glister. Those opposed were: Michael and Clapsaddle. Hanus abstained. This case will by heard by the City Council on February 11, 1997. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING January 9, 1996 REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF OXFORD LANE Parks Director, Jim Fackler, stated that he visited the site, and it was difficult to determine the location of the road since there were no corner markers visible due to the deep snow. This area contains large mature trees. At this time it appears that this area is already being used by the abutting home owners for parking and storage. This property does not abut an existing park or nature conservation area, and a portion of Oxford Lane to the south has already been vacated. The only benefit for not approving the vacation request is to retain the area for green space. Casey agreed that the site was difficult to see due to the snow, and suggested they not make a recommendation until they have a chance to look at the property more carefully. Darling asked if there were any responses from other staff or the utility companies that were notified of this request. The Secretary commented that responses have been received, and none of them were negative, however, the City Engineer did recommended that the easement not be vacated because he did not feel it was in the "public's best interest" to do so. Councilmember Hanus read from his copy of the Engineer's memorandum the following comments and recommendations: "The City does not have any utilities located in this section of Oxford Lane. The existing watermain in Hanover Road is looped back to Island View Drive through the portion of Oxford Lane already vacated. Our major concern is with the undeveloped portion of Block 9, Lots 14-20, lying east of Oxford Lane and north of Hanover Road. These lots are comprised of three separate tax parcels and are owned by one non-resident individual. If they are ever developed, water and sanitary sewer could be extended from the end of the mains on Hanover Road. Future street construction; however poses a different problem. Hanover Road could be extended to provide access for these parcels; however it is already a dead end street almost 400 feet long with no turn around whatsoever. This portion of Oxford Lane could provide another exit, thus eliminating the existing dead end street. With the potential for future development and elimination of a dead end street, we cannot recommend approval of the proposed street vacation. State statutes require that a street vacation be in the best interest of the public which in this situation that does not appear to be the case." MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Meyer to table the request until they can physically view the subject property. Casey questioned the cost to republish this request. The secretary commented that this request is already scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, and the Council on February 1 lth, so the case will still be heard by the Council even if the Commission recommends to table the request. The secretary commented that the application fee plus the cost to the applicant for labels would be about $300. The secretary commented that she does not believe it is required to get a recommendation from the Park Commission on street vacations, but she would need to verify that. Darling stated that he would rather withdraw his motion than risk it. Darling withdrew his motion. MOTION made by Casey, to recommend the request be denied due to the fact that they are unable to properly view the site due to snow, there is not a strong public interest to do so, the City Engineer has reconunended denial, and the only thing on the application to support the vacation is to make the applicant's house more conforming. Motion seconded by Darling. Motion carried 6 to 1. Ahrens was opposed. Jan '97 ,11 t ,Il COPIED ON 1-13-97 TO: MARK KOEGLER PLANNING COMMISSION FILE REC,-,,, ,_.u JAN 1997 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to voice my concerns over the City of Mound and it's public hearing to vacate the unimproved Oxford Lane located north of Hanover Road and south of Aberdeen Road between blocks 5 and 9 in Devon. My family has property in that neighborhood. We are periodically disturbed by noise from residences adjacent to this right-of-way. One of these residents uses the property for a commercial type of business which has caused noise that disturbs me while inside my house and foot traffic through my yard. I fear that vacating this right-of-way would give this person more property J expand their operation, and this would lead to more noise and traffic. For that reason, I request the City of Mound to NOT VACATE the right-of-way. Thank you for any consideration given to my concerns. Name Withheld McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer January 6, 1997 City of Mound Proposed Street Vacation Oxford Lane Case #97-02 MFRA #8902 As requested, we have reviewed the request to vacate Oxford Lane between Aberdeen Road and Hanover Road and have the following comments and recommendations. The City does not have any utilities located in this section of Oxford Lane. The existing watermain in Hanover Road is looped back to Island View Drive through the portion of Oxford Lane already vacated. Our major concern is with the undeveloped portion of Block 9, Lots 14-20, lying east of Oxford Lane and north of Hanover Road. These lots are comprised of 3 separate tax parcels and are owned by one non-resident individual. If they are ever developed, water and sanitary sewer could be extended from the end of the mains on Hanover Road. Future street construction; however poses a different problem. Hanover Road could be extended to provide access for these parcels; however it is already a dead end street almost 400 feet long with no mm around whatsoever. This portion of Oxford Lane could provide another exit, thus eliminating the existing dead end street. With the potential for future development and elimination of a dead end street, we cannot recommend approval of the proposed street vacation. State statues require that a street vacation be in the best interest of the public which in this situation that does not appear to be the case. e:\main:\8902~suth 1-6 An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 December 24, 1996 TO: Peggy James FROM: Greg Skiner Public Works Supt. SUBJECT: Vacate that part of Oxford Ln. There are no utilities on Oxford Lane and I see no reason not to let this be vacated. printed on recycled paper Northem States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 Telephone (612) 330-5500 January 3, 1997 City of Mound Attn.: Peggy James, Planning & Inspections Secretary 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 RE: Request by Mark Reschke to Vacate that part of Oxford Lane Dear Ms. James: In response to your inquiry regarding utilities involved in the vacation of Oxford Lane, Northern States Power Company does maintain electric distribution facilities along the Southerly right-of- way of Aberdeen Road that will need to be protected. Please feel free to contact me if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Karen K. Bickman Consultant/Land Services 330-6956 m: ~landikkb~O1039 71e. kkb CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 6, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission Peggy James, Secretary Jim Fackler, Parks Director Request to Vacate a Portion of Oxford Lane I viewed the portion of Oxford Lane that is being requested to be vacated by the adjoining homeowner at 4737 Aberdeen Road. The location of the unimproved street could only be estimated due to the comer markers not being visible and due to the deep snow. This portion of Oxford Lane, 160' x 30', intersects a larger portion of unimproved Hanover Road to the west which is 350' x 30. Both of these areas contain large mature trees, and at the same time is being used by abutting homeowners for storage and parking. This property does not abut an existing park or nature conservation area, and a portion of Oxford Lane to the south has already been vacated. The only benefit for not approving the vacation request is to retain the area for green space. prlnted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 23, 1996 City Engineer GTE Northern States Power Minnegasco Memorandum Fire Department Public Works Parks Department Peggy James, Planning & Inspections Secretar)~ Request by Mark Reschke to Vacate that part of Oxford Lane The City of Mound has received a request from Mark Reschke who resides at 4737 Aberdeen Road to vacate that portion of Oxford Lane located between Aberdeen Road and Hanover Road. This portion of Oxford is a 30 foot wide unimproved platted right-of-way. Do you foresee a need for this fight-of-way? Are there any utilities involved? What is your recommendation? Please submit your comments or concerns in writing, according to the schedule below. Park Commission Planning Commission City Council Comments Due Meeting Date 1/2/97 1/9/97 1/8/97 1/13/97 2/5/97 2/11/97 Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. Enclosures CC: Mark Koeger, City Planner Ion Sutherland, Building Official (File Copy) printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUB/ECT: Memorandum December 23, 1996 RECEIVED J/~N O 6 1997 City Engineer Fire Department GTE Public Works Northern States Power Police Department ~ Parks Department Peggy James, Planning & Inspections Secrem~ Request by Mark Reschke to Vacate that part of Oxford Lane The City of Mound has received a request from Mark Reschke who resides at 4737 Aberdeen Road to vacate that portion of Oxford Lane located between Aberdeen Road and Hanover Road. This portion of Oxford is a 30 foot wide unimproved platted right-of-way. Do you foresee a need for this right-of-way? Are there any utilities involved? What is your recommendation? Please submit your comments or concerns in writing, according to the schedule below. P~k Commission Planning Commission City Council m.C..9.In.~_~II.~ Meeting Date 1/2/97 1/9/97 1/8/97 1/13/97 2/5/97 2/11/97 Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. Minnegasco has no facilities within the above described area and has no objection to its vacation. Thank you for the advance notice. Ste~n Yon B~argen / Real Estate Specialist Minnegasco ~'~ prtnted on recycled paper Rev. 3-6-96 Application for City of Mound Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Case No. qfT--O~ Application Fee: $150.00 Distribution: I~°~ City Planner -~-/~/¥~{~'I-~ City Engineer ~.~ Public Works Police Dept. ! GTE Fire Dept. / Other Please type or print the following information: ADJACENT PROPER~ Name of Business (APPLICANT'S ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 50" l/ 7- 25 2Z DISTRICT OF STREET TO BE VACATED PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? Date CEI Ti. FI( AT : OF SURVEY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 10 and.ll, Block 5, DEVON., Hennepin. County, Minnesota. BOOK PAGE PROJECT NO. REVISIONS ~G~)77,~ o DENOTES IRON' FOUND /~ · DENOTES IRON SET *"'""DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW =u~ DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION (~x~d DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED ELEVATIONS LOWEST FLOOR GARAGE FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION GORDON Io ,q 1 tOO (59) 43 DO- ORDINANCE NO -1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350:640 OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE BY ADDING "SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 350:640 of the Mound Zoning Code is amended to read as follows:~ ~.~_~~_..~. Public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices allowed at a Conditional Use in the R-1 Residential Zoning District. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Adopted by the City Council March 4, 1997 Published in the Official Newspaper, The Laker March 8, 1997 EXCERPT . . . MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 1997 CASE 97-07: PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING AMENDMENT TO ADD "PUBLIC AND PRIVAGE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" IN THE R-1 ZONE BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the staff reports for both the zoning amendment and the conditional use permit application ZONING AMENDMENT: Westonka Public Schools is seeking a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the Shirley Hills School to house district offices and space for programs. The zoning ordinance currently allows "Public and Private Schools" as a conditional use in residential zones. Westonka Schools is requesting that the code be amended to allow "Public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices" as a conditional use in the R-1 zone. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment that will place "Public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices" as a listing in the chart found in Section 350:640 of the Mound Zoning Code under R-1 for Non-shore, G.D., and R.D. zoning classifications. Such a modification is consistent with a change in conditions in the City. Weiland expressed a concern about the amount of property required for the number of students for open space and play area. He remembers that this was an issue in the past when improvements were proposed on school property. It has something to do with qualifying for State aid. Bert Haglund of TSP/EOS Architects stated that this plan will also require approval from the state, and this site does conform to the required number of acres for a school. He is not aware of any certain requirements in the planning guidelines relating to a required area for play per student. He would be comfortable with an additional condition that requires that the State also approve of the plan. Reifschneider questioned the uses proposed for the addition. Haglund summarized that the addition will house childhood programs for about 75 toddlers and preschool aged children who will be transported to the site by bus and cars. The increase in traffic flow was discussed. Reifschneider asked if there were any plans to relocate the tennis courts. Haglund related that the School Board saw no need to replace the tennis courts. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being nobody present to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to allow for "Public and Private School and Administrative Offices" by conditional use permit in the R-1 zoning district. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Clapsaddie, Michael, Voss, Burma, Hanus, and Mueller. Weiland and Reifschneider were opposed. Weiland commented that there are too many things that need to be looked into yet. Reifschneider commented that he is not in favor of increased traffic as a result of allowing school administrative offices in the R-1 zone. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: February 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 97-07 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5e BACKGROUND: Westonka Public Schools is seeking a zoning amendment to allow administrative offices for public schools by conditional use permit in the R-1 zone. At the present time, Section 350:640 of the Zoning Code allows "Public and Private Schools" as a conditional use in all of the residential zones with the exception of such zones in the Natural Environment (NE) shoreland area. Westonka Schools is requesting that the code be amended to allow "Public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices" as a conditional use in the R-1 (single-family) zone. COMMENTS: The purpose of the subject request is to allow an application for a conditional use permit to add school administrative offices to the Shirley Hills School site. In order for such an application to be heard by the City, a zoning ordinance modification needs to occur. Mound's current code allows office functions that are an integral part of a particular school. The proposed administrative offices go beyond office functions associated with a single school and serve the needs of a greater portion of the school district. Because of the expanded nature of administrative offices in this case, the office operation will add employees and traffic that is not customarily part of the function of an individual school. If the proposed amendment is enacted, it will allow administrative school offices in any qualifying R-1 district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. In reality, the Shirley Hills School site is the only school, either public or private, that is located in the R-1 zone. Therefore, it is the only site currently in Mound that could entertain and application for a conditional use permit for administrative offices associated with a school. It is possible that St. Johns or some other church in the R-1 zone could establish a school curriculum and include administrative offices. The size of such office operations, however, would probably be very minimal. Zoning amendments can be considered by the City of Mound in cases that, "reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the (Comprehensive) Plan or changes in conditions in the City." This particular case would seem to qualify for consideration based on the "changes in conditions in the City" clause. The request is the direct result of upcoming land use changes that necessitate the relocation of the school offices. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Zoning Amendment January 3, 1997 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment that will place "Public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices" as a listing in the chart found in Section 350:640 of the Mound Zoning Code under R-1 for Non-shore, G.D., and R.D. zoning classifications. Such a modification is consistent with a change in conditions in the City. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 9%07 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 350:640 TO ADD "SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 to consider an amendment to the Mound Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:640 to add "School Administrative Offices" as a Conditional Use in the R-1 Residential Zoning District. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows Public and Private Schools to be located in the R-1 Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Pe~g-y Ja/n~,'fflannin'n~ Seci'etary .. Published in "The Laker" February 1, 1997. prtnted on recycled paper City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: ~,-- l O-qq , City Council Date: Distribution: I-;;;),'~-91 City Planner City Engineer -=-. ......ZONING_bi CiTY OF' , OUNI:ror Public Works DNR VIENDMENT APPLICATION lng Amendment Fee: Applicant Name Westonka Public S~hools (ISD #277) Address 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, MN Phone (H) (W) 491-8007 55364 (M) X J AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE It is requested that Section 350:640 of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: On the list of allowable uses, change "Public and Private Schools" to read "Public and Private Schools and Administrative Offices". Reason for amendment: Although necessary to the operation of a school district, administrative offices are not currently recognized as an allowable conditional use in a residential zone. I I AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP / ZONING DISTRICT It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from to Address & Address Legal of Lot Block Subject Addition Property PID# Plat Owner of Name Subject Site Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Present Use of Property Reason for Amendment Date January 23, 1997 Mound City Code Section 350:640 - CHART 63 3/15/93 Mound City Code Section 350:640 -CHART I 64 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOO ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE NO. 97-08 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO ESTABLISH "PUBLIC SCHOOL & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" AND "PRESCHOOL SERVING MORE THAN 13 STUDENTS" IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD. (SHIRLEY HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL) 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, MARCH 4, 1997 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of a public school to allow "Public School & Administrative Offices" and a "Preschool serving more than 13 Students" within the R-1 single family residential zoning district at the Shirley Hills Primary School site. The proposal consists of a 29,242 square foot two story addition to provide space for the following school district uses: Preschool, Early Childhood Family Education, Early Childhood Special Education, Special Services, Adult Basic Education, District Administration, and Community Education. The proposed expansion is to be located on the Shirley Hills Elementary School property, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., legally described as follows: All that part of Block 2, lying Northerly and Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the Southeasterly line of said Block 2 with the intersection of the Southwesterly line of "Re-Arrangement of Block Seven (7), Shirley Hills, Unit B" extended Northwesterly; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to the point of intersection of the extension Southeasterly of the line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 3, Shirley Hills, Unit D, and the Westerly line of said Block 2, and there terminating, except that part of said Block 2 lying Southeasterly of the Southeast line of Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 739, and Northeasterly of the extension Southeasterly of the Southwesterly line of Tract G, said Registered Land Survey No. 739, and except that part of said Block 2, lying North of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of Registered Land Survey No. 739, and the North line of Section 24, Township 117, Range 24; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Registered Land Survey No. 739 a distance of 33 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Westerly and parallel to the North line of Section 24, Township 117, Range 24 to the Westerly line of said Block 2, in Shirley Hills, Unit D, Mound, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~//~/~¢/~/7 ~ ~/~ P~ggy J/an~es,[Pla~g Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by February 21, 1997, and published in The Laker on February _ .22, 1997. ~rchih,cl,, and I':n~hH,ers MEMORANDUM February 20, 1997 To.' From: Re: Peggy James, City of Mound Bert Haglund, TSP/Eos CASE 97-08: Conditional Use Permit Westonka Public Schools (Shirley Hills Primary) At its February 10th meeting, tile Planning Commission tabled tile Westonka Public School's CUP application until February 24th. The I'lanning Commission expressed concern for the location of the Shirley Hills building addition (to the west) and asked that the school district bring drawings of alternative locations that had been considered for the addition. In particular, the commission was interested in the north east side of the building. At the February 24th meeting tile school district will present the process used to arrive at the project design as submitted. This will include a review of the alternative locations that were considered, including drawings and pro's and con's for each alternative. Ultimately, the school district decided to locate the addition to the west. This location provided the best solution to the needs of the project. These needs included, among others, consideration for the possible constuction of a senior center and the flexibility of building district programs and/or district offices on the site. These considerations played an important part in the decision to locate the addition to the west. Since that time, however, the senior center has decided not to locate on the Shirley Hills site. Also, the school district has decided to construct both district progra~n space and district office space, not just one or the other. In light of these changes, and following the discussion at the February 10th Planning Commission meeting, the school district has reconsidered each of the alternative locations. From this effort, it does appear that locating the addition to tile north east, as suggested by some commissioners, ~nay be feasible. The school district is considering the possibility of revising its CUP application to show the addition to the north east and will be prepared to discuss this with the Planning Commission on February 24th. ,.\n I'(i.al ( )l' ,ill [ Ii ~i .... ~, ,[I ,J ,~ I,~, 612-8~5-~160 HOISI NGTON KOEGLER 648 P02 FEB ~8 '97 11:~6 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: February 27, 1997 SUBJECT: Waiver of Platting APPLICANT: James and Denise Crawford - 5224 Waterbury Road (Lot.g 9 - 11) Richard Rutz - 5223 Windsor Road (Lots 5, 6 and 12) CASE NUMBER: 97-11 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5f LOCATION: 5223 Windsor Road EXISTING ZONING: Two-Family Residential COMI>REHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are seeking approval of a Waiver of Platting to allow Lot 12 to be separated from Lots 5 and 6. The purpose of the separation is to allow the owners of Lots 9, 10 and 11 to acquire Lot 12 and to 'add it to their parcel. Lot 12 exists as an appendage to Lots 5 and 6 which and has more of a physical orientation to Lots 9 - 11 than it does to the lots owned by the Rutz's. COMMENTS: If the Waiver of Platting is approved and Lots 5 and 6 remain as one parcel, the parcel and the home that currently exists on the parcel will conform to the lot area and setback requirements stated in thc Mound Zoning Code. However, this request does present an issue that needs to be addressed by the City Council. The property currently owned by the Rutz's is considered a lot of record for the purposes of applying the Zoning Ordinance. After the Waiver occurs and Lot 12 is separated, is the parcel still considered a lot of rexx)rd? The City Attorney will have comments for the City Council regarding this issue to aid in considering this matter. The lot of record determination is important because the existing home on this parcel does not have a garage and presumably, either this owner or a subsequent owner may want to construct a future attached or detached garage. Construction of a garde will impact both the amount of hardcover on the lot and the 'allowable side yard setback. If the parcel retains its lot of record status after the Waiver, hardcover will be limited to 40% of thc lot area rather than 30% of the lot area. Correspondingly, lots of record are required to observe side yard setbacks of 6 feet and non-lots of record are required to observe 10 feet on each side. RECONIMENDATION: Notwithstanding the lot of record issue, Staff recommends approval of the Waiver of Platting subject to the condition that Lot 12 be combined with Lots 9 - 11, Block 18, Whipple. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapoli.~, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 draft printed 9/20/96 Application for WAIVER OF PLATTING City of Mound, 5341 'Maywood Road, Mound, MM Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: ~-~ City Planner Public Works City Engineer 55364 Application Fee: ~C ~,~. Escrow Deposit: S~0 Delinquent Taxes? ~ .................................................... "': ........ INFORMATION LEGAL ZONIN~ ~~ DISTRICT Circle: -1A R-3 g-1 ~2 ~3 PROPER~ Are there existing structures on the prope~? ~/~ Do the existing structures comply with the zoning ordinance for se~acks, hardcover, etc.? ~ no AP.UCAnT Th, applicant is: __owner ~other: '-'O Phone (H) %Q~--q~% (W) (M) lit ~ Has an application ever been mede for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ! yes,:~' no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This appflcation must be signed by a// owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this ;$ not the case. Owner s ignature ~'/ Date Ov~n~r s Signature (/ Date MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 350:310, SUBD. 82. S~bd. 84. Lot of Record. Part of a subdivision, the plat of which has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles; or a parcel of land, the deed to which was recorded in the office of said Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles, in accordance with subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances of the City in effect at the time of said conveyance. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 , q]- Dennis Hill Department of Property Tax A-6 Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Sir: I hereby request a (separat ~ombi~~assessment on the following described land (include legal description and P.I.D. numbers): Distri~,t 85~- City of Mound Name of Taxpayer ~axpayer's Address k - For ~~ Tax Year ~~ ~1 ~ ~ ~~ ' ' Separation approved by City of Mound Planning & Inspections Department. ' By: Jon Sutherland Title: Date: printed on recycled paper 41 4Z 9~ 5223 Windsor Road Bldg Permit 4935 SAC pd $400.00 Excavation Permit Water Conn 19o. 00 Tapping Sewer Permit 790~ Plbg Permit -1.~ -.;.j' (pd (10-2-78 122 Whipple Lots 5-6 & 12 Blk 18 Zoned B-6,000 sq ft 85-37970/ 5224 Waterbury Road Joyce Gunion 11 - 15-88 ~' 7 - 3,~, 9',~' REROOF ~ 11457 (~18) (165) (114) 7-16-96 Whipple Lots 9-10-11 Block 18 25-117-24 21 3797O 0148 DRL LotS/~l'l-EIk. !D. AddltionWl~lf'Ft~' ' Address: .~-~. 2_~ City: Z&chman Homes Inc. House Name' '~)~H~/~/7- ~ # §q. :Ft.. ' /0~0 ' iELD NOTES bnow location o£ meters Private well Private well system Public water[ Public sewer[_ Natural gas L.P. Gas Culvert required Curb cut required Sewer 6 water stubbed-in~E~ Driveway surface~.4][.~bL~ Front yard setback ~ideyard setback Att. Garage ~ara£e [ le£tJright Local Inspector Name H~N~ Phone ~?z- /1~ LOT DETAILS size width Size depth Low point High point · wet Poles lephone poles Larger trees Need elevations as follows Street - Elev. 0.00' Lot corners High Point Low point Gutter or Ditch Local Electric Co. Name Phone Local Gas. Co. Name ~;NNf~JCO Phone .a) Stoops 2 b) Sidewalk ~0 sq.ft. Driveway_~ sq.ft. Parking pa--~-NB~sq.ft. lawn steps # #~ $ c) Finish Grade $ d) Black Dirt ~landscaping $ Sod ~ D sq. ft $ e) Underg?ound Utilities~$ Power. poles P Telephone..~oles T Larger Tr~es X Low Areas Highest Point $ $ $---~ ~ ~,~ $ o NORTH -Sow ~ ~ ~o.oo_(~ [._()- o '1 TOTAL $ Sac Charge ?// CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: '~-"'~.'2_"'~ ~..)I'T~C~~ ~ II OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X~30%)= (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X(40% ,!= (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x : X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTALDECK .......................... X = X = TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... EGAN, FIELD & NoW-AK .415 WAYZATA BLVn~MiNNEAPOLi$, MIN~ItS0TA I For -~ ck /RO ..... WA T£ Y CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Homesteaders, Inc. IZO. O0 ~IRON ..... (~,~.'$7 ROAD Scale: 1" = 30' DESCRIPTION: Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 18, WHIPPLE. .ted this 26th day of May ~e hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location at all building~ it any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said lend. 1977 · EGAN,_~,IELD & NOWAK, INC · - ' _/Surveyods~ rv"-~. __ _ _ ORDINANCE NO. 79-1996 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 330:12 TO TItE CITY ' SUBDIVISION CODE ALLOWING FOR A WAIVER OF PLATTING The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 330:12 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 330:12. Waiver of Platting. Any parcel of land, either platted or unplatted, that has been combined for tax purposes or for other reasons, cannot be reseparated or divided without an approved subdivision or a waiver of the platting requirements of this code. The City has many old subdivisions with small platted lots which standing alone do not meet current zoning requirements. Many of these lots have been combined for tax purposes and for various other reasons, i.e., to create a building site, to indicate a desire to combine to avoid or reduce special assessments for improvements, etc. A waiver of the platting requirement may be granted by the City Council after receipt of background information provided by City staff. A request for waiver of the platting requirements shall be signed by the property owner on forms prepared for and approved by the City Council, which shall include a provision to reimburse the City for all of its costs. This request or application for a waiver shall be referred to City Staff for review. The review by staff shall be conducted to determine if the division or release of the tax combination and the creating of new Property Identification parcels for tax and building purposes is in compliance with City Codes and ail planning and zoning standards and objectives. The staff shall prepare written findings and recommendations for the Council's consideration. The waiver of platting and the release of the tax combination may be approved if it is determined to be in compliance with all City codes. The Council may impose conditions to the waiver and shall require the payment of any deferred or forgiven specials assessments which have been avoided by a tax combination. The waiver may be granted without public hearings or without referral to the Planning Commission. Nothing herein shall preclude the staff or Council from referring the matter to the Planning Commission if it is determined that their advise will be helpful in determining if the request meets the City's planning and zoning objectives. If the application for a waiver of platting requests or requires any variances from any City code requirement, the waiver application shall be processed in accordance with Section 330:170 of the City Code and the request shall be referred to the Planning Commission and processed as any other variance request under this subdivision code. Approved by the City Council on August 27, 1996. To be published in The Laker, September 7, 1996 Attest: City Clerk Bob Polston Mayor PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1997 REVIEW COMMONS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION ON ENCROACHMENT POLICY Darling referred to page 105 of the packet which is also page 16 of the January 28, 1997 Mound City Council Minutes, and read the following: "The City Attorney stated he would like to ask a question about #1. I think that's a proper statement of circumstance and it really puts the City in the position of an arbitrator, arbitrating the kind of competing interest in the Commons that exist and that being the case, the notion occurs to me that, if you permit an abutting property owner to maintain a structure in the commons, aren't you, in fact, conferring a benefit on the abutting property owner, which you're not conferring on other people who also have equal interest in the Commons?" Darling stated that he would like to remind the Commission of the conflict of interest rule, and suggested if you are an abutting land owner, you have a potential conflict of interest with this topic of discussion. Byrnes opened discussion on the issue commenting that the Task Force worked long and hard on this subject, and finally agreed on what is presented, and they felt this was fair for the abutters, nonabutters, and people at large. She feels the Task Force was diversified and felt this was something everyone could live with. Pederson stressed the fact that the recommendation from the Task Force refers to encroachments that existed prior to our rule changes, it does not endorse new encroachments. Darling believes that the policy gives rights to a special group of people that are not afforded to the balance of the population and this sets a dangerous precedence. He would support this policy if it would afford everyone in the City of Mound the rights it is giving the abutters (i.e. he cannot build a shed on public land). Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February 13, 1997 ' - Pederson stated that she is opposed to requiring removal of existing structures, but agrees that new structures should not be allowed. Weycker questioned Pederson's interpretation of an encroachment, clarifying that not only boathouses are encroachments, but so are stairs, retaining walls, etc. Darling commented that the policy is full of loopholes and open to too many different interpretations that could be used however you wanted to use it. He feels the policy, as written, allows somebody to keep rebuilding dilapidated encroachments, the language is not tight. Pederson is in favor of allowing structures that were in existence since before 1950, as long as they are in good condition Darling also has a problem with the pressures put on the City to prove that an encroachment is not a safety hazard, he feels the onus should be on the person who is wanting to have the encroachment. The City should not have to prove something is safe. Darling feels that I.c. should state that it is the "applicants" responsibility to demonstrate if a structure is safe and that it is in the best interest of the public, not the "City." Pederson related that Goldberg feels when the City orders a structure removed, the City must justify its actions. Darling suggested that they pass-on their thought process to the new Dock and Commons Commission for their review. The following ideas were summarized: Tighten wording, it is too open to misinterpretation. Make it clear what 'new' encroachments are not to be allowed. Define encroachment. Define purpose for encroachments. It is suggested that the onus be on the applicant, not the City. The policy should give a "public good" perception. Any certain benefits given to abutting owners should be given to all residents of Mound (refer to attorney's comments in Council minutes). Meyer thinks it is important that the City has as a long range goal to get the encroachments removed from the Commons and thinks it is wrong to privatize public land. He sees the commons as a buffering area for Mirmetonka. Years ago the shoreline had more tall grass and brush which filtered the drainage into Minnetonka which provided a better habitat for the birds and also provided better erosion control. Now with a more tailored shoreline, riprap is needed to control the shoreline from eroding into the lake, and the riprap cost money. He is concerned that there will be no-one on the Dock Commission to give his view as a non-dock holder. Darling agreed with Meyer's views. Darling summarized that the policy in the past has been to allow encroachments that help provide access to the docks, and he feels the policy needs to limit encroachments and define what encroachments are appropriate to allow and which are not, such as flag poles and play structures, and those which are not appropriate should be phased out of the program. 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February 13, 1997 Weycker moved to continue discussion on this item for 15 more minutes. Botko seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Byrnes feels that commons are misunderstood. Pederson reviewed, the intent of our fore-fathers when they platted commons was to dedicate these areas to the neighborhoods, and she feels the word "public" has been misinterpreted from its initial meaning. Weycker stated that she would like to see the new Dock Conunission help educate new homeowners and the public about the commons. Meyer raised the issue of the budget and the fact that money is not budgeted in the Dock Fund for staff time for Peggy, Jon or Jim. Meyer asked if attorney's fees for the various lawsuits involving the commons have been paid for by only the dock fund? Fackler stated that a percentage was paid for out of the dock fund, and that staff time, other than the Dock Inspector, is not paid out of the dock fund, but it basically comes out of the same general fund. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Weycker to recommend to the City Council that the Dock and Commons Commission review the Park and Open Space Commission recommendations relating to the Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal and incorporate them into their proposal before presenting back to the City Council for final approval. Motion carried unanimously. Darling commented, if the policy is not changed and is worded as is, he will not support it and will do whatever needs to be done to actively defeat it. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 28, 1997 1.11 PRESENTATION ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMONS TASK FORCE- MARK GOLDBERG, CHAIR AND OTHER MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE. Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force, "stated, After 1 1/2 years, they are done, and they tried to come up with some recommendations that make sense." Mr. Goldberg explained that they have broken the recommendations into sections, time-line review of what was done, and then their recommendations to the City Council. They are as follows: 1. Shared dock policy recommendation. 2. The multiple dock program recommendation. 3. Commons encroachment recommendation. MARK GOLDBERG - "The Commons has been a source of friction and lawsuits and election hot buttons for quite some time and it's a difficult issue because you've got a strip of land that's directly in front of some peoples houses that is owned by, dedicated to the public or dedicated to specific neighborhoods and you've got a number of different constituencies that have rights and effects with regard to that land. That's where you get the problem and the key to this whole thing is moderation. You've got a real polarization out there. You've got a small minority of abutters that would like to see the whole property privatized and kick all the non-abutters off of there with the attitude, this is mine, go away. That is scaring the daylights out of the non- abutters and the citizens at large, as well it should. But it's a minority of abutters. On the other side of the coin, you've got a small but vocal minority of non-abutters that would like to see the Commons paved and fences put up between the Commons and the abutters houses. That is scaring the daylights out of the abutters. The thing you have to remembers is, you've got both extremes on this issue. Then you've got a very large chunk of abutters and a very large chunk 6 Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 of non-abutters that are basically mellow people that, if given the opportunity, can get along and both be pretty satisfied. The key is to put aside the vocal folks and recognize that they're an extreme minority and keep focused on what the majority of abutters and majority of non-abutters are really looking for and what will make them happy. Based on our year and a half of meeting, there is definitely room for consensus there and I think that's what we've found and I think that's what our recommendations reflect. In the past, we we've heard all kinds of extreme points of view. In the future, we'll have all kinds of extreme points of view. If we just really stay focused on what the vast majority of the middle people are looking for, I think we'll be able to come up with something that will work pretty well. We've been meeting for like a year and a half, since May of 1995 and it's been made up, primarily, of abutters and non-abutters, with a citizen at large represented at the first 'x' number of meetings. It was basically a lot of abutters gripping, a lot of non-abutters gripping back and we weren't working together all that well. Over an extended period of time, we got all the issues on the table, we talked frankly, and started realizing that the things that one side wants can probably be accommodated without losing what the other side wants. A number of votes we took weren't particularly split, if they were split, there might have been one person that objected. But, by and large, we kept hashing out the issue until we reached consensus and I think that's what these recommendations show. That was my conclusion." MARK GOLDBERG - "The first thing I want to go through is just a real brief time-line on the process. In March of last year, the Council recommended forming a Task Force to explore the issues, identify the frustrations and irritations that were being experienced by the users of the program. After numerous lawsuits and hot election issues, the Council, basically, decided, let's try to do a Task Force and try to explore what these issues are and see if there are solutions to them. We've held quite a number of meetings (26 as of December, 1996). We have done surveys, both in July of 1995 and a more quantitative, extensive survey in November of 1995 to identify where people are coming from and what their thoughts are. We separated all the polarized screaming from what the majority of the people really care about. We got the results back and presented them to the Council in January of last year and found that a very high percentage of non-abutters were very happy with the program. Over half of the abutting dock holders were unhappy with the program. The response from the citizens at large was relatively low and fairly mixed in terms of what we learned from that and basically we took away was that, citizens at large want access to the Dock Program. Beyond that, there's some fishing and miscellaneous issues but, by and large, the two groups that care the most about the Commons are the people that are using it. That being the non-abutting dock holders and the abutting homeowners. We found that the most important thing to the non-abutting dock holders was not the opportunity to have their non-abutting dock. It's to have their boat at the lakeshore, easy access, particularly walking distance from their house. With the abutters, it was a sense of privacy and a sense of more control over that land than they have. Not privatizing, not making it private property, but more the sense of, this land is right in front of my house, I'd like to have a little more say in what happens in front of it. It basically came down to, in a nut shell, how do we improve the level of satisfaction of the abutters without lowering the satisfaction level of the non-abutters? That's what we spent a fair amount of time working on. The key things for non-abutters were: Maintain the total number of boats participating in the Dock Program. Keep non-abutting boats within walking distance of their homes. 7 Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 The key things for the abutters were: Attempt to reduce the number of dock sites in front of some abutters homes, recognizing that some Commons have more problems than others due to topography and/or tight quarters. Encroaching structures. That was a hot button among a sizeable number of abutters. Where encroaching structures aren't harming the use of the Commons, basically, don't make a capital issue out of it. Those were the main points." "In the spring of last year, we tested a multiple boat slip dock. That was done last summer and we met with everybody involved with that in the winter just before spring hit and got everybody in the neighborhood on board to give it a try. We met again in the fall and there were some problems with the multiple boat slip, but by and large, people were happy with the way it operated. The primary problem was the lake level went down so much that some of the slips got almost unusable. In some instances, they had to walk their boat into their boat slip and that's not good. But beyond that, they were basically happy with the program. That was the pilot project on the multiple boat slip dock. We have been meeting since to finalize recommendations on a few other things. That's where we are. There are a number of Task Force members here. Jim Funk will review the shared dock recommendation and the multiple boat slip dock program and then I'll come back and talk about encroachments." JIM FUNK - "I want to start off by presenting the proposal on the shared docks. This is, in fact, a proposal that has actually been incorporated into the 1997 program and basically, the objectives of it are to reduce the dock density. It's good for the dockholders in that, it reduces the amount of in/out labor as well as the cost can be shared by two dockholders. It would be executed by the two dockholders, who most likely have shared docks next to each other, and would choose to share one dock yet continue to pay for their individual site. So the site that was vacated by the person moving over to share with someone would be left open. That would open up the space and then they wouldn't have to worry about that being filled by another dock. That would be in addition to the existing sharing rules that are in existence or have been prior, where two people can still share an existing dock." MARK GOLDBERG - "The Park Commission, I'm pretty sure, approved that with no changes." JIM FUNK - The second recommendation would be in regard to multiple boat slip dock and this stems off of the pilot program that was put in at Pembroke and that is borne out of the survey that was done and it was found that the dissatisfaction seemed to be greatest on the Devon Commons. That did show up pretty predominately in the survey that some Commons are pretty good left alone and people seem to be pretty happy and others seem to have a lot of tension. Devon was one of those. That was the reason for choosing that area as a pilot program. The objective here was to increase the number of satisfied users, both abutters and non-abutters, by reducing some of the congestion which would ease some of the tensions there. It can reduce the overall cost of participation by combining these docks and each person wouldn't have to maintain in and out the costs associated with their own dock and it would accomplish the objective of improving the shoreline appearance and the abutters are happy with that aspect. The implementation recommendation would be to continue with this program but concentrate on 8 mouna cu.~' ¢ound. January 28, 1997 problem areas rather than just get them across the board on all the Commons, because they won't necessarily all need it. Then follow the success like the pilot program at Pembroke. There was a meeting with those users at the end of the season and there were some recommendations on improving that and we recommend that we follow some of those recommendations on placement so they have easier navigation, as well as some security concerns. We would continue to use the feedback from these users to improve the multiple boat slip program. As Mr. Goldberg mentioned, we want to maintain the number of users not using the multiple boat slip program to either increase or decrease the number of users and keep it within walking distance was the other main factor that abutters were interested in." He then asked if there were any questions. Mr. Goldberg asked if the Council wanted to go through the specifics of the multiple boat slip recommendation, such as implementation steps or is the Council comfortable with it? Councilmember Hanus referred to page 369 of the packet, under Installation and Transition Issues, item F., #1. He asked if the following statement was written correctly or was it a typo and should read, "If a maiority (instead of minority) of nonabutters don't want to move to the multiple slip dock."? MARK GOLDBERG - "It's a minority. If a majority of nonabutters don't want to move, then maybe you don't do it at all." Councilmembers Hanus stated, "That's what I thought you said, keeping it voluntary. MARK GOLDBERG - "It's not as well written as it could be. The idea is to keep it voluntary. If a majority of nonabutters don't want to move, then it's not going to happen in that area. If a minority of nonabutters don't want to move, then they don't have to move and at some point in the future, when they drop out of the program, then maybe you can move that site or if they choose to move, then you move them. That's what we are trying to say there." The Council decided this was written correctly, but not clearly. Councilmember Hanus referred to the same page, under Secondary benefit. "You talk about allowing the remaining permit holders to have more than one boat, while maintaining the number of participants." Councilmember Hanus stated, "Actually, one of the big things that I look at there is that, I see is a huge opportunity, rather than looking at it the way you have it there, to actually provide availability of dockage to more households in Mound. In other words, you're spreading the program to more households rather than a taking an existing ...... It is purely a concept rather than a rule?" Mr. Goldberg explained, "We're starting to fix on a finite number of BSU's) Boat Storage Units allowed in our program. I can't remember what that number is, but somewhere around 600. 580 or 610 or something like that. So if you have 600 BSU's available and also one of the features of the program is that a dockholder can have more than one boat. With wave runners and fishing boats, there's still a fairly small number of people who have more than one boat at their dock. But, it is increasing a little bit, I think and plus that option is there. If the number of dockholders increase the number of boats they're using, that reduces the number of people you can have in the program because you're at a fixed number of BSU's. What the multiple Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 boat slip dock is set up to provide is one slip per permit holder. If you have a number of people that are comfortable with one boat and are going on this slip, that reduces the likelihood that you are going to start bumping into that top limit by putting more boats on a dock. You are leaving room for the number of people participating in the program, which would be limiting some of them to one boat." Councilmember Hanus stated, "This is similar to what I was trying to get at." Councilmember Jensen stated, "This isn't written to tell me that. It says limiting the multiple slip permit holders to one BSU gives more flexibility for allowing the remaining permit holders to have more than one boat ............. " Mark Goldberg stated,' .... while still maintaining the number of participants in the program and staying within the LMCD BSU limits. Councilmember Jensen asked, "So basically that says, if you are in the multiple thing, we limit you to one boat, but if you're not, you can have more than one?" Mark Goldberg answered, "yes." Councilmember Jensen stated that she did not like that at all. Councilmember Weycker agreed. She further stated, "I think it needs to be clearer that the people ..... ""I know even at your meeting, the people that were using the Pembroke dock were not told that they could only have one boat." Mark Goldberg - "No they weren't, but that was a pilot project and we're still getting the hang of this thing." Councilmember Weycker - "I just want that clear because, the overwhelming success thing has a lot to do with that too and I think that should have been a factor. I guess that's no secondary benefit, when it isn't written that clearly, to say O.K. we are restricting you to one boat at all the multiples. That needs to be clearer if that's what the intention is." Councilmember Jensen - "I could understand this if it was everyone who participates in the program can have one BSU, therefore we can have more people participating in a program." Mark Goldberg - "If they want to have more than one boat, they'll have to maintain their own dock because we can't charge someone $150 for a permit and give them more than one slip at that multiple dock. We just can't afford to do that." Mayor Polston - "I don't think that's what Councilmember Jensen is saying." Councilmember Jensen - "If you have 590 BSU's, I look at that and say that means I can have 590 people participate in the program, however, if one person wants to have two boats, now I can only have 589 people participate in the program." Mark Goldberg - "That's the reality." 10 Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Councilmember Jensen - "O.K., what this says to me is that we are going to fix the number below 590 and we're going to say to people on the multiple docks, you only get to have one boat, so that the folks here who are not on the multiple docks can have more than one boat. That's what doesn't make sense. It doesn't increase utilization or participation in the program at all." Mark Goldberg - "We're not trying to go below 590. We're just saying that as more people get wave runners and additional boats on their dock, if we can get people to go to that multiple boat slip and live with one boat, we increase the likelihood that we can keep a sizeable number of people in the program." Councilmember Jensen - "I like what you're saying, but not what this says." Mark Goldberg - "I don't have a problem rewriting it." Councilmember Weycker - "I don't think it's clear at all either." Councilmember Hanus - "I think Councilmember Jensen is getting close to what I was trying to explain too. It's saying something slightly different, but the trade off, as I see it in this particular thing, is.. the trade off to the people who are limited to one BSU on a dock is what they get for limiting themselves to that one boat, is they get the dock put in for them, they get it taken out for them, they don't have to buy the dock or maintain the dock. All of those things are taken care of for them so that's the trade off and keeping in mind that as they have this proposal here, it's voluntary. That's a key point. If you don't want to be on it, you're not on it." Mayor Polston - "I think we should change the language so that it says it is voluntary and is more clear." Mark Goldberg - "Most of the people in the total dock program do only have one boat. Councilmember Weycker referred to page 368, Implementation Steps, Item//4. "The multiple slip would be on a voluntary basis and if they did want an additional boat or they had a wave runner, then they probably couldn't go to this multiple dock so they would have to remain at their own dock. This doesn't allow them to have a dock in their neighborhood anymore, or within walking distance of home." Mark Goldberg - "One of the major objectives of the multiple boat slip dock is to reduce congestion in a particular area and what we don't want to have happen is we move permit holders to a multiple dock or they choose to move to the multiple dock and then we back fill right behind them and put someone else in that space so now we have multiple dock and individual docks. That's the purpose of #4. You can rework it." Mayor Polston - "I think the key to it is that it's voluntary. This is not anything that is being forced upon someone. However, when the individual dock site holder moves to the multiple slip dock, that dock can no longer be used as a dock location and that is intended to reduce the congestion." Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Councilmember Jensen - "So conceptually, let's say that the following year one of the people that is at the multiple dock says, I really do want to get that wave runner or whatever it is, have we permanently eliminated that site?" Councilmember Weycker - "That's my point exactly." Mark Goldberg - "We haven't really addressed that. We're not sure. We haven't thought about if they move and then choose to move back, what do you do." Mayor Polston - "Well obviously, as it stands, if they choose to move voluntarily and then next year or several years later they were able to afford more boats, then there is nothing that says they can't reapply, but they wouldn't necessarily get the same dock." Mark Goldberg - "One of the keys to this thing is that we want to at least maintain the number of situations in which a nonabutter is within walking distance of their house. That can get sticky in some of these situations. For instance, if they move to a multiple boat slip and then want to move back and you've already cleaned up the Commons and you like it just the way it is. Do we want to put another dock in there, or do you want to keep it within walking distance of their house. Can we accommodate them someplace else within walking distance of the house, maybe not. There are some issues." Mark Goldberg - "One of the things I liked about Councilmember Hanus' idea of the Commons Commission is, if you have an active body of people who are really heavily involved with lakeshore Commons, they can be ....... When these things keep coming up and they're going to keep coming up, you'll have people that can really dig into it and figure out how to do it. But this thing is going to be ongoing and we probably haven't got it perfect right up front and the pilot dock may not be the right word. It may need to be permanently pilot. In other words, you may need to be fooling with it as you go. We're not saying we have this thing nailed cold." Mayor Polston - "Well, the twenty some years I've lived in Mound, it has never been perfect, but over the years I think everybody has made an effort to try to move forward and that's basically what we're trying to do now. I don't expect that we're going to have come up with a perfect solution to every problem, but it is important that we continue to work on it. Mark Goldberg - "Let's hold that middle ground and try to ignore, as much as possible, some of the extreme viewpoints that are out there." Mark Goldberg - "The final section is the encroachments and this was probably the most controversial section. I should make a quick point. The Parks Commission basically approved the shared dock and multiple boat slip dock recommendations but they wanted to be sure that it is very clear that the multiple boat dock slip dock is funded in full by the Dock Program and in fact, it would be funded by the current fees." Councilmember Weycker - "I want it to be clear that it was not self-funding the multiple itself. That it is funded through the entire program. It is more expensive than the amount of people in it." 12 Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Mark Goldberg - "Yes, the people at the multiples are subsidized somewhat by the rest of the program. You could also make the point that the people who get rip-rapping at their shoreline and the people who get dredging because they are having problems getting in and out of their dock, are kind of subsidized too." The Park Commission has recommended approval of the Shared Dock Proposal and the Multiple Slip Dock Program but, have not finished discussing the Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal. They requested that the Council not review this item until they finish their review and recommendation. Mark Goldberg - "The underlying factors regarding the Task Force's recommendation on encroachments are: 1. Encroaching structures existed before rules restricting them existed and, in fact, there are city ordinances approving encroaching structures on Commons, dating back to the 50's and 60's. The City's mandate regarding existing encroachments also should have the right to impose any reasonable conditions that may be advisable to protect Mound resident use of the Commons shoreline. 3. The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good. 4. The City has a responsibility to monitor encroachments to confirm that they do not hinderthe Mound resident use of commons and that they are safe. This thing boils down to there's a whole bunch of encroachments out there. The policy, for the most part in the past, has been let's remove as many of those encroachments as we can and that was causing a lot of negative problems that we've been having with abutters. After review and after coming to conclusions on those key factors, we've made these recommendations: 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. b. Five year permit renewals are justified to aid the City in monitoring the encroachments. Rules governing maintenance of encroaching structures should be consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance and no more restrictive than all other shoreline in the City unless use hindrance or safety issues exist. In our view it comes down to use and safety. do Reduce the level of permit renewal authority needed. The objectives are to 1) lessen the "hassle" felt by the abutter in straight-forward renewal situations, and 2) reduce the politicalization of renewals: Give City staff authority to renew permits unless additional hindrance or safety issues arise. Write detailed rules under which staff must go to the Park Commission/Council before renewing a permit. Abutters should be made legally responsible for their encroaching structure through the Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 use of legal encumbrances or other means. Try to make that a little simpler to lessen the anxiety and hassle involved with the abutters. If we are going to allow these abutters to keep their structures, we have got to make sure that when they become dilapidated or something that they don't just leave the City holding the bag." Councilmember Weycker - "In regard to item "c", "What would be the difference in how it is now vs. under the Shoreland Management Ordinance?" Mark Goldberg - "Let me give you an example. There's a note on the current flow chart that kind of summarizes the City's current standard in regard to encroachments on Commons: 'Structures like boat houses, patios, decks, 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.' .... That's basically the current policy and we are making the recommendation that while obviously not violating the rules of the Shoreland Management Ordinance, if those structures aren't affecting safety or use, then let them be. We're talking about existing structures." Councilmember Weycker -" Under Shoreland Management too though you couldn't rebuild a structure." Mark Goldberg - "We're not recommending that structures be allowed to be rebuilt. We're just talking about existing structures." Councilmember Weycker - "I guess I'm confused on what the difference between the Shoreland Management, how they're handling it and how the City was handling it other than the wording." "Mark Goldberg - "The City is saying, at some point, we want these things out of here. That's the difference. Shoreland Management is not saying, at some point, we want things out of here. They're saying, if it's dilapidated you can't fix it up and replace it, but they are not saying get them out of here. They're not saying remove them." Councilmember Hanus - "Under both situations, they are both nonconforming uses, so in that sense they're the same." Councilmember Weycker - "So it's not really changing it a whole lot other than the language." Mark Goldberg - "Well, it is a different posture." Mayor Polston - "It is changing it dramatically." Councilmember Weycker - "In language." Councilmember Jensen - "I think the perception may be that we get the big stick out and we're going to start knocking these things down." Mark Goldberg - "The perception is that the structures have to justify their existence and we 14 Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 would like to change the onus as the City has to justify the removal of the structures based on use and safety issues.' Mayor Polston - "I think there is a very definite change, if the policy is adopted to allow them to exist under the permitting that's being suggested and recommended by the Task Force. It may be better to talk a little bit about, why that should happen. As a City, we could take the position that no, they're coming down and there is a certain date that they're going to have to come down by and if the property owner doesn't remove them, they're on public land and we're going to take them down, and so be it. Where we're headed with that thought process, is right back to a place where, I don't think we want to go: 1)We're going to create some really bad feelings between some of our citizens and the City, 2)We're going to end up in court and it's going to cost all of us a lot of money that we don't need to spend if we can achieve the end the result of what we want to achieve by letting them exist and finding a way to co-exist with the building there and not interfere with the public safety or the public use of the public land. I think that's where we all would like to go and avoid costly court battles and hostilities among the citizens in the City. We are looking for, I think, as a Council, and as a Task Force and as a City, that middle ground where we can find a way to live by each other and be neighbors without causing hassle and a great deal of legal cost that's not necessary." Councilmember Jensen - "It's unfortunate that the perception has developed that we are taking a proactive action to remove boat houses. We specifically said, we are not going to take that action because of the cost and the likely lawsuits that would result. To think that that was the approach that we were taking, is unfortunate because that is not the approach we have taken and we specifically stated that we are not going to start that. We haven't figured out how we're going to do that, but to let anybody think that we're going to ignore it would be irresponsible." Mark Goldberg - "There's a history of birdhouses and decks and all kinds of stuff that when a homeowner has wound up in front of City government has scrambled desperately to try to keep those and the City has maneuvered strenuously to remove them. It's not an unfounded perception and it doesn't just relate to boat houses. There's a number of instances of encroaching structures that are having no impact on either safety or public use. A good example is one right now that was tacked on just a month or so ago, a deck that is one or two feet onto Commons in an area that is not impacting the use of that Commons and the City recommended that the deck be moved off of Commons and it results in a deck that is pretty dam small and semi-usable relative to the way it is right now and the primary reason for the City recommending that change is to simply get that deck off of Commons." Councilmember Jensen - "When one has an opportunity, because of construction that is occurring, to correct something that is an encroachment, one does take that action and that was the situation that we had, we could correct that one. We didn't take proactive action. We didn't go out there and start that, the homeowner initiated construction and it was the opportunity to remove it from public land." Mark Goldberg -"That's a very narrow line and you're not sure when you're on one side of that line vs. on the other side of that line." Councilmember Jensen - "Public land is public land." Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Mark Goldberg - "It's Commons and the City is the trustee for the people that use that Commons and the abutting homeowner is one of the people that the City is trustee for. That's why we made the point that the City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good." Councilmember Hanus - "I will agree public land is public land, but not all public land is the same. I think that's a key point." Mark Goldberg - "A couple of things I want to address, a number of reasons that the Task Force unearthed through our proceedings as to why encroachments should be removed: 1. They're on public land. 2. They restrict public use of the shoreline by either making the Commons appear to be private or physically restricting the use. 3. They take away from the natural state of the shoreline. Those tend to be the main reasons we hear why encroachments shouldn't be there. With regard to #1, the City is the trustee of that land, not the owner of the lakeshore commons and the abutting property owners are some of that public that the City is the trustee for. With regard to #2, up until the 1970's, City Code gave approval for construction of boat houses, boat ramps and slip on lakeshore commons. It seemed safe to assume that lesser encroachments were acceptable as well. They were approved to be there and it just seems like there should be a good reason why they should be unapproved. Because we have the power to do so, relates to enforcement, that doesn't justify policy. Big difference. The City has the power to do all kinds of things, but, the full extent of power does not always make sense with what good public policy is and that's a significant distinction." Mayor Polston - "I don't have a problem with what you're saying, as far as the facts go, but I do get real concerned when you say, 'it seems safe to assume that lesser encroachments were acceptable'. It doesn't seem safe to me to assume anything, particularly when it relates to the Commons and the Common uses. I would just as soon not use that term. I would like to have some type of a factual basis." Councilmember Hanus - Mark, is it correct in stating that what you meant by that is that, boat houses and ramps and the like were acceptable by ordinance back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and I've read the ordinances that are in here. So what you're saying is that 'it's probably safe to assume a birdhouse is also acceptable'? Mark Goldberg - "I would also agree with Bob, that we can't base that on fact. The City Attorney stated he would like to ask a question about #1. I think that's a proper statement of circumstance and it really puts the City in the position of an arbitrator, arbitrating the kind of competing interests in the Commons that exist and that being the case, the notion occurs to me that, if you permit an abutting property owner to maintain a structure in the commons, aren't you, in fact, conferring a benefit on the abutting property owner, which you're not conferring on other people who also have equal interest in the Commons?" Mark Goldberg answered "yes, I would agree with that". "It's also fairly safe to say that you're conferring benefits on other people involved with the Commons that aren't equally shared, like 16 Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 tree removal and rip-rapping, and dredging." The City Attorney - "I wasn't trying to start an argument, I was just curious as to what your response to that question might be." Councilmember Jensen - "I didn't understand your statement that followed. Is it conferring additional benefits because of rip-rapping and tree removal?" Mark Goldberg - "I guess my thought was that the benefits of Commons are not perfectly even across the entire board. Where someone has the benefit of a tree removal or of the shoreline in their area being tip-rapped, that's not true of other people that don't have a dead tree or something." Councilmember Jensen - "You mean the City doesn't come in and remove dead trees from my property. Is that what you're getting at?" Mark Goldberg - "I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't seem that objectionable to have that benefit accrue to one homeowner because a structure is existing when it was acceptable to exist. That now it should be torn down in the interest of them having no more rights than anybody else on the Commons. Councilmember Jensen - "I would simply add that this group is often faced with having to deal with situations that were permissible in the past and now because of ordinance changes are no longer permissible, such as setbacks, be they street or sideyard setbacks, and given the opportunity to correct a nonconformance, for whatever reason, and often times it is historical, we have taken these opportunities to do that." Councilmember Hanus - "But, if you'd like to use that argument, the other side of that coin also is that we use a lot more leniency on cases that we have previously approved and were there legally or rightfully at one point in time. We give a lot of leniency to those people and call it special privilege if you will, I don't think that's what it is." Councilmember Jensen - "One important point, it's not public land." Mark Goldberg - "What are your thoughts on the statement, 'The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens, by showing a greater good. '?" Councilmember Hanus - "The concept, I like, personally." Mark Goldberg - "That is one of the key concepts to our recommendation." Councilmember Weycker - "I think it sounds fair. I would have to think of a situation where it would come into play and wonder how the City could prove that it would be harming someone. I'm not sure that it would be possible." Councilmember Hanus - "What it does is it forces the City to look at the entire picture rather than taking the opinion, public land is public land, doesn't matter what the conditions are surrounding it, it's on public land, it's got to go. What this forces the City to do is look at a Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 bigger picture and do a balancing act between everybody concerned and one of the people concerned is the person living there that has that structure and their loss has to be weighed against the public's loss as well. So I think that's what this is forcing." City Attorney - "I wasn't clear on a couple of things. If an encroaching structure is destroyed by a casualty, what would your group's recommendation be on how that would be handled?" Mark Goldberg - "We're not recommending that it be allowed to be rebuilt." City Attorney - "In other words, whatever right that existed would terminate with the casualty loss. How would that apply to significant rebuilding and things of that sort?" Mark Goldberg - "One of the issues we have to address, assuming you all agree with the majority of our recommendations on our various overheads here, is what's considered maintenance and what's considered rebuilding? That we haven't addressed, but that's an issue." Mayor Polston - "I think maybe the litmus test is the same as it is in other parts of the ordinance, where if the building or structure is 51% or more destroyed, then it is deemed not rebuildable." Councilmember Hanus - "That is one guideline you could draw, the 50% rule. Another issue too that we need to think about and now we're going to get wrapped up in some other ordinances. You talk about it being consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance, you have 50 foot setbacks so in most cases structures that we're discussing at this point, probably do not meet a 50 foot setback. If the construction being considered is incidental and Jon can maybe identify what this is, it will not require a building permit and may not require it to go through a variance process, but if it does require a building permit, now you're talking about a potential variance issue and it gets wrapped up into the regular Zoning Code as well as the Shoreland Management Ordinance. So that's another issue. How do you draw the line, how do you determine incidental maintenance vs. major rebuilding or construction. Those are not delineated here. These are things that will have to be looked at if we go forward at all." Mark Goldberg - "Another point that we've heard. They restrict public use of the shoreline by either making the Commons appear to be private or physically restricting the use. The problem we're having now is that currently the above is being used as the rationale to remove all offending encroachments and we need to be a little bit more sensitive on a case by case basis to make those decisions, since there is a wide variety of Commons. We can't use it as a blanket statement. It's not accurate given the number of circumstances we've got out there. 'They take away from the natural state of the shoreline.' This rationale must be balanced with the fact that it's an urban lake, it's lined with houses. It's O.K. to have boat canopies, large boats, multiple boats per dock. The following question needs to be asked: Does the negative impact on the lakeshore overwhelm the harms done to the encroachment or removing the encroachment? It's again, an issue of greater good vs. harm to the individual citizen. We're recommending a change to the flow chart as it affects lakeshore Commons. The summary of change is to remove the NOTE on the flow chart as discussed before and replace it with the following: 'All permits granted, are for a limited time, they are transferable, and the 18 Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 structure must meet City guidelines for renewal of Public Lands Permits.' Mayor Polston - "I somewhat disagree with that. I still would think we want it to be the goal of the City to have the encroachments removed at some point in time, whether it's through natural removal or whatever. I don't think we w~t to change that concept, but I think we want to be able to work and allow them to be permitted. My feeling is that we don't want to change that as a goal. The City would like to have the nonconforming uses removed at some point in time. The rest of the Council can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know that that is something that we want to totally remove." Mark Goldberg - "I think in the Shoreland Management Ordinance that eventually this stuff goes away, but it goes away because it is not maintained, or becomes dilapidated, or gets nailed by a lightening strike, or something. Not that it's in good shape and it's forced to be removed because you just plain want it out of there." Mayor Polston - "Allowing this to be a scenario where somebody lets something get in such a rundown condition, either through neglect or through no fault of their own, and they would not or could not correct the situation and it became a safety issue for the people who are using the property, I don't think the City ever wants to relinquish the right to remove something that's a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the general public." Mark Goldberg - "We stated the exceptions are safety and use. We couldn't not agree with the safety issue and frankly, we couldn't disagree with the use issue, if it's blocking use of the Commons, you can't justify that." Councilmember Jensen - "I'd like to think we have language in here that suggests that if something does become dilapidated, it's not a threat, but it's dilapidated and you have a change in ownership occurring, there's an opportunity to fix something. The suggested language says you don't get to do that because it's transferrable." Mayor Polston agreed. Mark Goldberg - "I don't think the Task Force has a problem with the idea that if the structure is dilapidated, the City should enforce its removal. We're not trying to say that and if some of this language allows that to happen, we're trying to justify it." Mayor Polston - I think the open dialogue is great. That's how we're trying to get to where we're going by working out the difficulties." Councilmember Weycker - "There was a year on that too, right? In your NOTE section, all permits granted for a certain period of time. Mark Goldberg - "Five years." Councilmember Weycker - "So the City would jump in at that point, even if it is transferrable, you've got a five year permit." Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Mark Goldberg - "We're not trying to justify that dilapidated structures be allowed to stay there." Mark Goldberg - "The second significant change in the Flow Chart is, previously, the request to maintain an encroachment resulted in a negative impact on a use plan and if it does then you grant the permit, but if it's not renewable, then the encroachment has got to go. We added a box which asks the question: 'Is the negative impact on the use plan substantial enough to override the negative impact on the owner of removing the structure? Again, this is to make sure there is a balance of judgment going on." Councilmember Hanus suggested that Box (7) on the Flow Chart have the following question which he feels would be a more appropriate question: "Is the construction consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance? That's where that issue comes into play and then reverse the Yes and No. In other words, is it consistent with the SMO, if it's no - boom, you deny the request. If it is consistent, its yes, you go down to the next one and now you start asking the same questions. It seemed as if the verbiage was more consistent with your recommendations if you ask the question, if it's consistent with the SMO rather than a boathouse or other building because there are some other buildings that may be, conceivably, if this all went through, could be allowed. Mark Goldberg - "We didn't spend as much time on the left hand side of the Flow Chart as we did on the right. So you'd be comfortable if we changed the left side of the Flow Chart consistent with the recommendations we've made on the previous pages. Councilmember Hanus - "Yes. O.K." Mark Goldberg - "Some of the issues that we thought about with regard to encroachments - transferability, and definitions of use hindrance and safety hazard, allowable maintenance without a permit, and what constitutes maintenance vs. rebuilding. That's basically it." Councilmember Hanus - "One Item that I would like to add if you could discuss them is delineating what dilapidated is. Somehow we need to define all this stuff as well as define what construction constitutes rebuilding versus incidental. I think Jon is going to need a lot of input on that one, if, in fact, I assume we are going to be dealing with the Building Code. So I think that's got to be interpreted by Jon, in a lot of cases." Mark Goldberg - "Also, how do you make abutters legally responsible for their encroachments so that the City is not held responsible." That's a legal question. The City Attorney stated it would be hard to do. The Council discussed putting an encumbrance on the home or requiting a bond or financial guaranty of some kind. In case the City said to remove the encroachment and the owner did not, the money would be there to have it done. Mayor Polston - "Mark, what are you and the Task Force looking for with this presentation of the recommendations? 20 Januar~ 28, 19~7 Mark Goldberg - "Basically, the ball is now in your court and this recommendation is what we would like to see changed and you determine what you can live with and what you can't, and we would like to see some of this adopted." Mayor Polston - "I'm going to throw out a suggestion and you can take it from there. If anyone has a better suggestion or would like to modify it go ahead. I think what we may need to do is have Mark Goldberg and a couple of Councilmembers, the Attorney, the Building Inspector, and the City Manager sit down, having heard the concerns and try to put something together with the recommendations from the Task Force that meets that criteria. Then bring it back before the whole body after they've had a chance to put it together and address the issues that have come up tonight or what comes out of this group meeting. ~ Mark Goldberg - "It may be worth a Committee of the Whole Meeting to chew this stuff around and see what you all might be able to reach a consensus on and what things are going to be shot down. Mayor Polston asked the City Manager what the next Committee of the Whole Meeting looks like for Agenda content? The City Manager stated there will be some issues coming back from the last COW Meeting and there will probably be some new issues coming up. We always seem to have a full agenda. Councilmember Jensen - "A couple of thoughts. One is I can see that the recommendation can easily be divided into three parts, shared dock, multiple dock and encroachments. Shared dock and multiple dock, I didn't have a whole lot of issue with them. Where is the rest of the Council on these? I'd like to get down to some specifics when it comes down to is there going to be a multiple dock at this spot, with this many slips on it, and I don't know that we're there yet, but conceptually it all makes sense." Mayor Polston - "I think what they're looking for is conceptual approval of the shared dock and multiple dock recommendations. I don't feel comfortable to conceptually approve the encroachments part of the recommendation. I think we need to do some work on the encroachments part." Councilmember Hanus - "I agree with that. There are some loose ends we need to tie up and whether that stops you from endorsing it conceptually or not doesn't bother me too much one way or the other. I would not adopt this until the loose ends are tied down. In addition to what was said, I also agree witht the shared policy (I don't know if there is enough of a carrot dangling out there to have a lot of success yet, but there is no harm in trying it). I endorse the multiple dock recommendation. On those two issues we have Park Commission recommendations. The encroachment recommendation, we do not have a Park Commission recommendation. Mayor Polston - "If we feel comfortable enough to adopt the conceptual part of the Shared Dock and Multiple Dock recommendations, then we could bring back the Encroachment part to the Committee of the Whole Meeting. The Council all agreed that they wanted to wait for the Park Commission's input on the Encroachment Mound City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 part of the recommendation. The Council asked this be put on the March 18th Committee of the Whole Meeting. They asked that the Park Commission put this item on their priority list so that the Council will have their feedback. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to conceptually approve the Shared Dock and Multiple Dock part of the Task Force recommendation and schedule referring the Encroachment section to the Park Comm[qsion with their recommendations to come to the March 18th Committee of the Whole Meeting. Councilmember Jensen asked that the motion be read back because there are sometimes sensitivities about how we communicate things to the Park Commission. The City Clerk read the motion back. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council thanked the Park & Open Space Commissioners and the Task Force Commissioners for all the work on this project. ,J~ J ~ ~, ,I t,, Park and Open Space Commission January 9, 1997 C03L~IONS ENCROACHMENT POLICY PROPOSAL Casev referred to I.c. "The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good." He does not think that because we have public land that we have to justify that it is the City's/People's right to have the land free from encroachments, he does not think they sh()uld have to justify it, as a factor. Pederson commented that she likes "c." because at one time the fathers of the City said it was okay to build structures and now they are saying that it is not right. Casey referred to Ordinance #10 dated 5/9/50, which states "no dock or boathouse shall hereafter be erected, kept or maintained . . . without first securing a license." And, Subd. 6 states, "It' at any time it shall appear necessary to the Village Council of the Village of Island Park, in the public interest, or roi' the improvement of any public street, road, park or common for the further public use or enjoyment thereof by the establishment of public docks, bathing beaches, recreation grounds or the opening of any street, road or common or otherwise, any and all licenses issued under the terms of the within ordinance may be cancelled by direction of the Village Council upon 10 days' notice in writing .... "He noted that this language is repeated on all fi~e subsequent ordinances which acts as notice to these people that they do not have the automatic right to keep those structures, but that it is up to the City Council. There is no guarantee of perpet~lity to have a boathouse on commons or any other public land, and this is reflected in Ordinm~ces gl0, #20, and//94. Pederson noted that the boathouses were built before these ordinances, and just because we don't like thegn anymore, does that mean we can take them away? Darling cognmented that he also has a problem with this recommendation and cannot support it the xvay it is written. He is very much in favor of the concept that public land is public land. }te feels, the way this is written allows people to install structures on commons that we do not allow people to do in public parks. Park and Open Space Commission January 9, I997 Goldberg emphasized that they are talking about existing structures, not new. Casey noted that they are out of time, and suggested they discuss this item further at their next Commission meeting. Faclder noted that the Council will be reviewing these recommendations at their meeting on January 28, 1997. Casey moved that the Council defer its decision on the Commons Encroachment Policy recommendation until the Park Commission has the chance to adequately consider and discuss the rest of the recommendation that they have not reviewed. Ahrens seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Ahrens commented that it is probably not wise to vote on this, because the Commission can ask the Council to defer its action, but there is no guarantee that action will be deferred. Ahrens suggested that the Commission devote the first 30 minutes after the interviews to further discuss this subject. Motion failed 2 to 5. Those in favor were: Darling and Casey. Those opposed were: Ahrens, Meyer, Pederson, Byrnes, and Botko. MOTION moved by Ahrens that the next 30 minutes following the interviews be devoted to discussion on the Commons Encroachment Policy, except if there is anyone present to discuss another issue on the agenda, that item will be discussed f'u'st. Byrnes seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS COMMONS ENCROACHMENT POLICY PROPOSAL - continued discussion. The Commission decided to continue discussion on this issue for 30 minutes, until 9:15 p.m. Pederson agrees that we should not allow any more building, but is concerned with requiring that the existing go because it would harm the people to not allow their existing structures to remain. Casey referred to Ordinance #10, Subd. 6 and Subd. 8 and reviewed the intent of the language. It is his opinion that it is clear that the intentions since the 1950's has been that people build at risk that the City Council may in some future time find that it is in the public interest to change that. He thinks the focus is what rules we have been operating under since 1950. Pederson asked about the structures constructed prior to 1950. Casey commented that Ordinance 10 Park and Open Space Commission January9, 1997 10, Section 4. states, "With respect to docks and boathouses already erected at the time of the passage of the within ordinance, a license to continue the maintenance thereof shall be applied for in the manner hereinbefore described for the licensing of new docks and boathouses, within 30 days after the within ordinance takes effect as hereinafter provided, and all such applications shall be presented to the Village Council and licenses issued therefor in the same manner as is herein provided for licensing of the erection of new docks or boathouses." Casey summarized that having these structures are not a permanent right and there is also the right to take them away that's reserved by the City Council by issuing licenses in the first place. Goldberg commented that he thinks all those points are consistent and does not think there are any conflicts in any of the statements that have been made thus far. The City has the responsibility to make sure use of commons, either past or present actions, be in the public interest, and that is not inconsistent with the concept that harm to an individual citizen must be justified by the City. How the permit process worked in the past was discussed. Ahrens noted that the ordinance which Casey had referred to earlier was dropped in future ordinances, and to connect that to what the Task Force is recommending which is that it should serve the greater public good, the key is to balance it. Darling commented, the way that the Task Force recommendation reads, he firmly believe it gives an abutter the perception that they can privatize that land, and his concern is the ones that would abuse this. It is his impression that this would harm the public is that it restricts everyone else's use of that land. He does not agree that the onus should be put on the City. Goldberg noted that their policy proposal pertains only to existing structures. Darling emphasized that the proposed policy would allow somebody to repair an existing structure to the point that it would remain forever, and people would use these rules to their advantage, and the way it reads now would open that door for them. He feels the policy will open Pandora's Box. Darling is concerned that there is a loop hole in the proposed policy that would allow somebody to reconstruct a dilapidated structure. Casey directed discussion back towards "I. Key Factors." Casey referred to 1.c., which states, "The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good." He questioned if the City has to prove that the harm to one is more than the harm to another in order to require something be removed. The Commission discussed the difference in the rights of one affected individual versus the balance of the Mound population. Encroachments and the benefits of removing them versus the rights to the owner of that encroachment was discussed. Goldberg stated that there are only about six boathouses located on commons. The historical value of the boathouses was discussed. Boathouses located on Type C commons was discussed. Botko commented that 1.d. says it all, "The City has a responsibility to monitor encroachments to confirm that they do not hinder Mound resident use of commons and that they are safe." 11 Park and Open Space Commission January 9, 1997 Darling commented that we either figure out a way to tighten up the words or he cannot support it. He wants to make sure that people do not think they can keep these structures forever, and the wording in the proposal allows for people to abuse their ability to have structures on the commons. Darling referred to the amended Decision Flow Chart, and noted that either way, existing structures would be granted a permit to continue, and would never get denied. Casey noted that time is up. He would like to have the opportunity to further review this proposal before it goes to the City Council. MOTION by Casey, seconded by Darling, to recommend that discussion on this item be tabled until the next Park Commi.qsion meeting and that the Council not review this item until they f'mish their recommendation. _ Ahrens suggested that the Commission schedule an additional meeting prior to the January 28th Council meeting so they can finish discussion on the item. Motion carried 6 to 1. Ahrens was opposed. Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal Drafted 7/26/96 Rev. 8/15/96 Rev. 9/5/96 Key Factors. a. Encroaching structures existed before rules restricting them existed. The City's mandate regarding existing encroachments is as follows: The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect Mound resident use of the commons shoreline. The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good. The City has a responsibility to monitor encroachments to confirm that they do not hinder Mound resident use of commons and that they are safe. Commons Task Force Recommendation. 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. Five year permit renewals are justified to aid the City in monitoring the encroachments. 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. Reduce the level of permit renewal authority needed. The objectives are to 1) lessen the "hassle" felt by the abutter in straight-forward renewal situations, and 2) reduce the polificalizafion of renewals: Give City staff authority to renew permits unless additional hindrance or safety issues arise. Write detailed rules under which staff must go to the Park Commission/Council before renewing a permit. Abutters should be made legally responsible for their encroaching structure through the use of legal encumbrances or other means. Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal Rev. 9/~/96 Page 2 me I~ue, tO discuss. a. Transferability. b. Definition of use hindrance, safety hazard. c. Allowable maintenance without permit. d. Request to Council to review steps required recommendation. for implementation of Definition of Hindrance: An encroaching structure that significantly inhibits Mound resident use of this commons where the encroaching structure exists. PROPOSED REVISIONS COMMONS TASK FORCE 11-7-96 (AS IT APPLIES TO LAKESHORE COMMONS) DECISION FLOW CHART IMPLEMENTING TH~ PROCESSING OF SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS (R~GULATED BY CItY CODE SECTION 320) RECEIVE"PUBLICLAND (1) PERMIT APPLICATION" NOTE: All permits granted are for a limited time, are transferable, and the structure must mee~ City guidelines for renewal of Public Land permits (Exhibit J in tho Prncadura Manual). LN4A~.' Stn~lum like b~u~, patio~, shah, ffG~m~ J~gS (2) all NO~~G U~. i~ ~ ~e i~Cily ] A STRUCTURE~QUESToRINVOLVEJj JJ SEPA~TE t~ ~'"~ ~:t 't ~ r"'-- h'e ~ ~ J~S~I"° ~SID~"C~? ~v~ f~~ In~ All ~nf~ ~ lA.ACHED ~ ~ [ ~ IS REQUIRED. ~ m~t Slate B~di~ C~ ' ~ES PROPOS~ I~ROV~E~ (3.5) REQUIRE ~PRO?AL ] ~OTHER AGENt? IF YES, b. YES i 1(9) Will the J ' Deny Re~eet Requeet~result L NO in a nagetival-- impact on J tis Uae Plan?] Grant permit up to flys years and renewable. YES DENY REQUEST. DEVELOP PLAN ACCORDING TO PRIORITIES. NEW - CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS (new) - LAND ALTERATION (grading, retaining walls, trees, etc.) (4) HOUSE OR OTHER BUILDING? WILL THE REQUEST (10) EN~CE AND ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY nE USE PLAN? YES l "SHOED nE CI~ q(ll) BUILD OR ~INTAI? EXISTING NANCE (repair exist- ing structure) CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE (to remain "as is") ENRAANCE AND ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY THE USE PLAN? ,YES NO WILL THE REQUEST RESULT IN A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE USE PLAN? .0 GRANT PERMIT UP TO ! [ GRA~ PERMIT UP TO ~1 I'~T PERMIT UP TO IR the negative impact on tho Use plan eubstantial an~gh to override the negative ~pact on the owner of removing the structure? ~ (i6) I PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits Exhibit J Page 1 of $ Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports for Public Land Permits Staff reports shall be written according to applicable ordinances, regulations, and policies, including: Use Plan Comprehensive Plan Shoreland Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200) "Policy for Structures on Public Lands" adopted by Resolution No. 93-142 on October 26, 1993 Recommendations for permissible uses, according to the Decision Flow Chart, such as stairways, retaining walls, land alterations, etc., will be based on the following: If a structure is in good condition and meets the building code, staff will recommend to the City Council permit approval for 5 years. b. & c.: Use a means of enforcement other than witholding dock permits. Instead, use fines, liens, special assessments, etc. (Abutters need to be made legally responsible for their encroachments). If a structure is in good condition but does not meet building code, staff will recommend approval and the structure must comply with code within the time specified by the City Council and dock permit will not be issued until structure meets code. If structure is not corrected or removed within time specified by City Council that dock site will be exempt from dock license issuance. The permit holder for that structure must remove or correct the structure at their expense, if not, the City will attempt to abate through legal channels. If a structure is in hazardous condition staff will recommend removal or correction immediately. The Site Holder's Dock License will not be issued until structure meets code. The dock site will be reserved for the that dock site holder until the structure is corrected, however, the dock will not receive it's license. Recommendations for uses inconsistent with the Decision Flow Chart and other applicable by * regulations shall be reviewed on a case case basis. D ....... .~,: ...... :,1 t.~ ~, .... :~ .~ Buildings or other structure may require separate legal review, and the following information should be assembled: pertinent facts, history, existing conditions, current photos, and a draft report. This information should be submitted to the City Manager and City Attorney for review, when necessary. Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96 Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports for Public Land Permits, cont. Exhibit Page 2 of 4. Stairways: New Stairways. All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform Building Code standards for residential stairways. Existing Stairways. All stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this Procedure Manual (4-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe or otherwise unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures, provided such continued use is not dangerous to life. Alterations or Repairs to Existing Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any stairway without requiring the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway. Maintenance of Stairways and Other Structures. All stairways, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the permit is issued is responsible for all maintenance. ............ ~' .... :-~ The City shall inspect and approve such repairs where a building permit is required. Minor Maintenance of Stiarways and Ohter Structures. Minor maintenance of any currently permitted stiarway, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can and should be done at the discretion of the homeowner or upon the direction of the Building Official. Parks Director or Dock Inspector. Correction Orders. All stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by the Building Official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal. Electrical: All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to from the abutting property must be disconnected by a qualified electrical contractor until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Pre-existing electrical installations that do not meet code shall be ~ven thirty (30) days to be brought up to code. Expiration Date for Permits: concurrently. All permits, for each property, will be made to expire Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96 PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports for Public Land Permits, cont. Exhibit J Page 3 of 3 10. 11. Minor Maintenance: Minor maintenance of any currently permitted encroachmenB enisOag t~ can and should be made (without a public land permit} at the discretion of the permit, holder or upon the direction of the Building Official, Parks Director, or Dock Inspector. The Dock Inspector currently writes correction orders for minor items such as loose treads, handrails, or replacement of boards on docks. The Building Official is to be copied on all correction orders regarding building code items. Platforms: Platforms (one edge on-grade) for the use of dock storage, not exceeding 4' x 8', consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance at 32 square feet, are allowable on Class A and C Common areas only, due to steep slope and nontraversibility. Riprap: Riprapping of the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka that is below the 100 year floodplain elevation of 931 is regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and below the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 929.5 is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. Permits are required from these agencies before a Public Lands Permit can be granted by the City of Mound. Seaw0.11~; Basically the same as riprapping (above). Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance for more regulations. Vegetation Alterations and Trimming: Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. q4 t Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96 Commons Task Force Commons Task Force Recommendations to Mound Council November 25, 1996 Outline For Presentation to Mound Council Task Force formed by Council Resolution 95-37 on March 28, 1995. 1. Task force established to look at the Commons that are applied to the Docks Program to identify the frustrations and irritations that are being experienced by the users of the program. 2. The task force would have the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for consideration on how the existing Dock Program could be improved. B. Task Force held 26 meetings from May-December of 1995. 1. Task Force developed a list of issues for three groups of people that have similar desires/concerns regarding lake shcre commons. Task Force toured the majority commons lake shore during the Summer months. In July, a mailing was sent to all commons dock site holders soliciting their input. 2. Three separate surveys were developed by Task Force. In October, 100 % of all abutter(181), 100 % of all nonabutting dock site holders (320), and 550 surveys were sent on a random bases to citizens at large. 3. Surveys were tabulated and recommendations were formulated based on survey results. Sixty-five(65) percent of abutters, fifty-seven(57) percent of non-abutters, and fifteen percent of citizens at large responded to the survey. Survey results and recommendations presented by Task Force to City Council on January 9, 1996. 1. 87% on nonabutters expressed satisfaction with program. 51% of abutting dock holders expressed dissatisfaction with the program. Response for citizens at large was low and the sum of the results were inconclusive. 2. Task Force concluded from the surveys that inexpensive boat dockage is very important to most dock holders. Being with walking distance to dock site was very important to nonabutters. Abutting dock holder sited that docks are too close together in some areas and that many abutters were uncomfortable with having nonabutting docks in front of their homes. There was a desire on the part of abutters to keep private structures and they were willing to take responsibility for the structures on commons. Some commons have more problems than others(e.g. Devon, Wawonaissa). 3. To improve the level of satisfaction of abutters without lowering the satisfaction levels ofnonabutters, the Task Force made the following recommendations: a. Maintain the total number of boats participating in the dock program, Keep nonabutter boats within wal .king distance from their homes. b. Attempt to reduce the number of dock sites in front of some abutter's homes, recognizing that some commons have more problems than others due to topography and/or tight quarters. Encourage increased shared dock usage. Explore creating small multiple boat dock complexes (about 6 boats) at neighborhood locations within walking distance. Explore creating multiple boat dock complexes where possible, at public park locations without infringing on existing usage. c. Governing encroaching structures more stringently than the Shore land Management Ordinance is justified only where nonabutting users are hindered by an encroachment's existence. The flow chart should be amended, and then the ordinance amended according to the flow chart to increase the number of years for which a permit is valid from "3 years" to 'for the life of the structure". Encroachments should be regulated by the Shore land Management Ordinance, the same as structures on private properly. The ownership/responsibility of these encroachments may need to be clarified by the City Attorney. d. The topography of some commons areas cause significant backyard privacy and visual impact problems. Large boats (e.g. cabin cruisers), boat canopies, and winter storage needs to be limited in those areas. e. Explore establishing neighborhood associations or committees to work out problems specific to their commons. f. Direct the Task Force to work with city staff`to make implementation recommendations for specific commons areas with problems. g. Communicate with the public to increase understanding and give opportunity for additional dialogue through open forums, newspaper articles and throu~ the city newspaper. Mound Council takes action on recommendations from Task Force after February 20 th Committee of the Whole meeting. 1. Council accepted Task Force recommendations. Council directed Task Force to continue their work as a task force and to work with city staff to make implementation recommendation for specific commons areas with problems. Ill AGENDA/OUTLINE City Counc'fi Meet'rog City of Mound, MN 7:30 pm, Tuesday, March 4, 1997 Council Chambers Introductions Metropolitan Council Staff (2 minutes) Bo Program History Review 1992 CI-I~M Hill Report Cost of clear water to Metropolitan Area Plant and system improvements Trealxnent, Operational & Maintenance Established I/I Goals for City Metropolitan Council 1996 I/I Grant and Loan Program (12 minutes) Co Video Presentation City of Plymouth "Stopping the Drain" (6 minutes) Do Analysis of Potential Financial Benefit Review City's 1996 Flow Estimated I/I in City & Targeted for Removal Potential Savings to City Payback Analysis (10 minutes) Total Time: (30 Minutes) 0 CZ. E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D L.L3 ~ ¢v') Od (- (- 0 0 0 0 0 0 (.O I.~ ,ff' ('0 OJ ~ 1996 ESTIMATED VOLUME OF VI CITY OF MOUND, MN March 3, 1997 Month Flow Monthly Base Est. Volume (MG) Flow (MC) (Me) January 36.0 36.6 .... February 35.1 36.6 .... March 45.6 36.6 9.0 April 50.2 36.6 13.6 May 57.1 36.6 20.5 June 50.5 36.6 13.9 July 43.4 36.6 6.8 August 40.2 36.6 3.6 September 37.0 36.6 0.4 October 37.2 36.6 0.6 November 38.2 36.6 1.6 December 36.1 36.6 .... Total Estimated I/I (MG): 70.0 Note: Baseline flow based on the average of the monthly flows in January, February, and September thru December 1996. Program Specifics & Payback Analysis SUMMARY 1996 UI Sump Pump Disconnection Program City of Mound, MN March 3, 1997 Estimated total Fl in City System: (From Graph) Cost of Total FI to City (approx.): 70MG x $1,318 per MG = 7O MG $92,260.00 Total Cost of Inspection Program: Total of MCES I/I "Loan/Grant": Net Cost of Program to City: ($101,200 - $40,000) $101,200 $4O,OOO $61,200 Estimated I/I in City from Clear Water connections: (Based on 25% to 30% total City wide I/I) (City est.) Cost of I/I attributable to Sump Pumps: 21.0MG x $1,318 perMG-- 21 MG $27,678 Program Payback Analysis Net Cost of Program to City: Annual cost savings in Billings of from I/I removed: $61,200 $27,678 $61,200 $27,678 = 2.2 years a: \~o~spcl~ae~oxxttl~'~ ~ ~acmd~ s ay ' Jl J i Ii ,il ,,,mi, j ,~, Eo Go According to survey, Devon Commons had the h/ghest level of dissatisfaction among a/1 abutters in the Commons dock program. On Devon Commons, 75°,/0 of abutters were dissatisfied with having nonabutter docks in front of their homes and 75% felt that dock spacing was to close. The Task Force looked at the Pembroke access to Devon Commons as a potential cite for a pilot multiple dock location due to the closeness of the houses to the commons, the close spacing of the docks on the commons and the general dissatisfaction of the dock program among the abutters in this area. Task Force developed a plan to place a multiple dock for 7 nonabutting dock site holders at the Pembroke Beach access to Devon Commons. The Task Force presented the multiple dock proposal to the Mound Council on April 9, 1996. The council authorized the purchase of the dock for the 1996 Summer boating season. On Saturday, April 20, the Task Force, city officials, and the affected dock holders on Devon Commons meet to discuss the pilot project for the multiple dock system. The dock was installed mid May. A follow up meeting was held with multiple slip dock complex users and affected abutting property owners at the Sept. 19 Task Force meeting. The overall reaction to the pilot project was favorable. Comments were made that the inside dock slips were too shallow and maneuvering into them was difficult. Dock configuration needs to change to improve the accessibility of three of the slips. We did have an unusual Summer this year in that the lake level dropped a foot and one half. Vandalism was about the same as when boats were at individual docks. A security light was installed by the city at the multiple dock and was appreciated by the dock users. Trespassing was a little more than previous years of individual docks. More kids using the docks for fishing. Some neighborhood people consider it a municipal dock open to everyone. A no trespassing sign was installed during the middle of the Summer too cut down on the trespassing problem. Abutting homeowners expressed appreciation for reducing the number of docks in the neighborhood. In conclusion, the nonabutting dock site holders were comfortable with continuing the multiple slip dock program at Pembroke Beach access. There is a need to reconfigure the dock so that all slips are easily accessible. Consideration should be given to placing a gate at the entrance to the dock to restrict the dock to permit holders and their guests. Task Force prepared recommendations to make the Pembroke Beach access to Devon Commons multiple dock slip permanent. They also developed implementation plans and criteria to used in selecting other locations for additional multiple dock slips. See exhibit A. The Task Force made recommendations for share of docks that would allow the participants to place their original site on hold for their future use. See exhibit B. The Task Force also made recommendation related to encroachment that coincides with the original recommendations made to the City Council in January of 1996. See exhibit C. ORDINANCE # -1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 600:25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITING DISCHARGES INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM The City of Mound does Ordain: Section 600:25 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 600.25 - Prohibiting Discharges into the Sanitary Sewer System. Subd. 1. Purpose. The discharge of water from roof, surface, groundwater sump pump, footing tile, swimming pool, air conditioning, or other natural precipitation into the City sewerage system results in flooding and overloading of the sewerage system. When this water is discharged into the sanitary sewer system, it is treated at the sewage treatment plant. This results in very large and needless expenditures. The City Council, therefore, finds it in the best interest of the City to prohibit such discharges. Subd. 2 Discharge Prohibited. No water from any roof, surface, groundwater sump pump, footing tile, swimming pool, or other natural precipitation shall be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. Dwellings and other buildings and structures which require, because of infiltration of water into basements, crawl spaces, and the like, a sump pump discharge system shall have a permanently installed discharge line which shall not at any time discharge water into the sanitary sewer system, except as provided herein. A permanent installation shall be one which provides for year round discharge capability to either the outside of the dwelling, building, or structure, or is connected to City storm sewer or discharge through the curb and gutter to the street. It shall consist of a rigid discharge line, without valving or quick connections for altering the path of discharge, and if connected to the City storm sewer line, include a check valve and an air gap located in a small diameter structure as shown in the City's standard plates. Subd. 3 Disconnection. Before April 1, 1997, any person, firm, or corporation having a roof surface, groundwater sump pump, footing tile, or swimming pool now connected and/or discharging into the sanitary sewer system shall disconnect or remove same. Any disconnects or openings in the sanitary sewer system shall be closed or repaired in a manner, as approved by City Public Works or their designated agent. Subd. 4 Inspection. Every person owning improved real estate that discharges into the City's sanitary sewer system shall allow an employee of the City of Mound or a designated representative of the City to inspect the buildings to confirm that there is no sump pump or other prohibited discharge into the sanitary sewer system. In lieu of having the City inspect their property, any person may furnish a certificate from a licensed plumber certifying that their property is in compliance with this ordinance. ,ill Mound City Code $~tion 600.25 Page 2 Any person refusing to allow their property to be inspected or refusing to furnish a plumber's certificate within fourteen (14) days of the date City employees or their designated representatives are denied admittance to the property, shall immediately become subject to the surcharge hereinafter provided for. Any property found to violate the Ordinance shall make the necessary changes to comply with the Ordinance and furnish proof of the changes to the City by May 1, 1997. Subd. 5 Future Inspections. Each sump pump connection identified will be reinspected periodically. Subd. 6 New Construction. After April 1, 1997, all new dwellings that require sumps shall have sumps piped to the outside of the dwelling and comply with the provisions of this ordinance before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Subd. 7. Surcharge. A surcharge of One Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($100.00) per month is hereby imposed on every sewer bill mailed on and after August 1, 1997, to property owners who are not in compliance with this ordinance or who have refused to allow their property to be inspected to determine if there is compliance. All properties found during yearly reinspection to have violated this ordinance will be subject to the $100.00 per month penalty for all months between the two most recent inspections. Subd. 8 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective from, and after its adoption and publication. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council March 25, 1997 Published in The Official Newspaper, The Laker, April 5, 1997 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1997 Present were: Vice Chair Bill Darling, Commissioners Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Rita Pederson, City Council Representative Leah Weycker, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Tom Casey was absent and excused. Councilmember Mark Hanus was also present. MINUTES Motion made by Byrnes seconded by Botko to approve the minutes of the January 9, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried 5 to 1, Weycker abstained. AGENDA CHANGES None. WELCOME NEW CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, LEAH WEYCKER Weycker referenced her letter in the packet and commented that she would welcome input from the Commission on what they feel the Council liaison role should be. Pederson suggested that the Commission members visit other City's Park Commissions to learn their accomplishments and long term goals and get ideas. Weycker commented, at a recent seminar she attended for newly elected council members, she learned that most other council representatives do not vote, and maybe this is something that can be looked at when, or if other Commissions are visited. Byrnes stated that she would like to see the Commission take a positive attitude towards things such as Music in the Park, she would like to see commission members attend these events. Weycker commented that she is open to comments at any time. REVIEW COUNCIL ACTION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE P&OSC AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION Weycker announced that the Council approved this ordinance amendment with a 3 to 2 vote, and the new ordinance will be effective Saturday, February 22, 1997 when it is published. Weycker and Jensen voted in opposition of the amendment. The Dock Commission is to be comprised of three nonabutting members, two abutting members, and one Council Representative. The Parks Director commented that the City Manager will be contacting eligible task force members and asking if they want to participate in the new commission, and if there are still vacancies, they will need to advertise. 95o Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February I3, 1997 Meyer asked councilmember, what were the reasons for reducing the size of the park commission? Hanus replied, in order to gain a little more control, it will make the commission easier to function, the smaller the number, the easier it is to function. Meyer disagreed with the philosophy and feels that as long as there are enough people who want to volunteer their time the number should not be limited. He feels you get more ideas with more members. Botko noted, with five members on the dock commission, and five members on the park commission, there will still be ten people giving input. Darling asked Hanus why it was suggested that the Commission have an even number of members, even though the attorney suggested an odd number of members for voting purposes. Hanus replied that the intent was to keep the Commission small, and to add more would mean more dysfunction. Hanus added, it is rare that everyone is present, and therefore, if one member is absent, then there is an odd number. Also, the Commission's are only an advisory body with the Council having the final vote. REVIEW COMMONS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION ON ENCROACHMENT POLICY Darling referred to page 105 of the packet which is also page 16 of the January 28, 1997 Mound City Council Minutes, and read the following: "The City Attorney stated he would like to ask a question about #1. I think that's a proper statement of circumstance and it really puts the City in the position of an arbitrator, arbitrating the kind of competing interest in the Commons that exist and that being the case, the notion occurs to me that, if you permit an abutting property owner to maintain a structure in the commons, aren't you, in fact, conferring a benefit on the abutting property owner, which you're not conferring on other people who also have equal interest in the Commons?" Darling stated that he would like to remind the Commission of the conflict of interest rule, and suggested if you are an abutting land owner, you have a potential conflict of interest with this topic of discussion. Byrnes opened discussion on the issue commenting that the Task Force worked long and hard on this subject, and finally agreed on what is presented, and they felt this was fair for the abutters, nonabutters, and people at large. She feels the Task Force was diversified and felt this was something everyone could live with. Pederson stressed the fact that the recommendation from the Task Force refers to encroachments that existed prior to our rule changes, it does not endorse new encroachments. Darling believes that the policy gives rights to a special group of people that are not afforded to the balance of the population and this sets a dangerous precedence. He would support this policy if it would afford everyone in the City of Mound the rights it is giving the abutters (i.e. he cannot build a shed on public land). Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February 13, 1997 ' ' Pederson stated that she is opposed to requiring removal of existing structures, but agrees that new structures should not be allowed. Weycker questioned Pederson's interpretation of an encroachment, clarifying that not only boathouses are encroachments, but so are stairs, retaining walls, etc. Darling commented that the policy is full of loopholes and open to too many different interpretations that could be used however you wanted to use it. He feels the policy, as written, allows somebody to keep rebuilding dilapidated encroachments, the language is not tight. Pederson is in favor of allowing structures that were in existence since before 1950, as long as they are in good condition Darling also has a problem with the pressures put on the City to prove that an encroachment is not a safety hazard, he feels the onus should be on the person who is wanting to have the encroachment. The City should not have to prove something is safe. Darling feels that I.c. should state that it is the "applicants" responsibility to demonstrate if a structure is safe and that it is in the best interest of the public, not the "City." Pederson related that Goldberg feels when the City orders a structure removed, the City must justify its actions. Darling suggested that they pass-on their thought process to the new Dock and Commons Commission for their review. The following ideas were summarized: Tighten wording, it is too open to misinterpretation. Make it clear what 'new' encroachments are not to be allowed. Define encroachment. Define purpose for encroachments. It is suggested that the onus be on the applicant, not the City. The policy should give a "public good" perception. Any certain benefits given to abutting owners should be given to all residents of Mound (refer to attorney's comments in Council minutes). Meyer thinks it is important that the City has as a long range goal to get the encroachments removed from the Commons and thinks it is wrong to privatize public land. He sees the commons as a buffering area for Mirmetonka. Years ago the shoreline had more tall grass and brush which filtered the drainage into Minnetonka which provided a better habitat for the birds and also provided better erosion control. Now with a more tailored shoreline, riprap is needed to control the shoreline from eroding into the lake, and the riprap cost money. He is concerned that there will be no-one on the Dock Commission to give his view as a non-dock holder. Darling agreed with Meyer's views. Darling summarized that the policy in the past has been to allow encroachments that help provide access to the docks, and he feels the policy needs to limit encroachments and define what encroachments are appropriate to allow and which are not, such as flag poles and play structures, and those which are not appropriate should be phased out of the program. 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February 13, 1997 Weycker moved to continue discussion on this item for 15 more minutes. Botko seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Byrnes feels that commons are misunderstood. Pederson reviewed, the intent of our fore-fathers when they platted commons was to dedicate these areas to the neighborhoods, and she feels the word "public" has been misinterpreted from its initial meaning. Weycker stated that she would like to see the new Dock Commission help educate new homeowners and the public about the commons. Meyer raised the issue of the budget and the fact that money is not budgeted in the Dock Fund for staff time for Peggy, Jon or Jim. Meyer asked if attorney's fees for the various lawsuits involving the commons have been paid for by only the dock fund? Fackler stated that a percentage was paid for out of the dock fund, and that staff time, other than the Dock Inspector, is not paid out of the dock fund, but it basically comes out of the same general fund. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Weycker to recommend to the City Council that the Dock and Commons Commission review the Park and Open Space Commission recommendations relating to the Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal and incorporate them into their proposal before presenting back to the City Council for final approval. Motion carried unanimously. Darling commented, if the policy is not changed and is worded as is, he will not support it and will do whatever needs to be done to actively defeat it. REVIEW "SETON BLUFF" PRELIMINARY PLAT - PARK DEDICATION & DOCKS This item was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. DISCUSS PARK COMMISSION'S REQUEST FOR 1998 CAPITAL OUTLAY Darling noted that a workshop is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 27th to discuss this issue. Byrnes suggested that staff provide a list of park improvements needed and what play structures need replacing, and that the commissioners come with ideas of what they think is needed in the parks. Pederson asked staff to provide a copy of the list drafted last year, and to have the items highlighted that were done, and to include with the list items that were done but were not on the list. Darling suggested that they request from the Council a ball-park figure of what they will allow them to spend. Darling moved that the Council, at their next meeting, discuss and set a potential ball-park dollar amount of what might be available for the Park Commission for the 1998 capital outlay (i.e., what do they have to play with?). Meyer seconded the Motion. Motion carried 5 to 1. Weycker abstained. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February 13, 1997 ' ' It was noted that on February 27th the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be reviewing the Lost Lake Dredge project. The Commission unanimously decided to cancel the workshop scheduled for February 27th, and to discuss this subject as a regular agenda item at their March 13th meeting. Meyer suggested a notice be posted in The Laker prior to their meeting asking the public to attend and help us come up with a list of park improvements for the 1998 budget. Meyer moved that a notice be published in "The Laker" requesting citizen input on the 1998 budget request for park improvements. Citizens are to be invited to the meeting and/or they may submit their comments in writing. Motion seconded by Weycker. Motion carried unanimously. 1998 PARKS AND BEACH PROGRAM UPDATE The Parks Director referred to the memorandum from Tim Piepkorn and explained that a better report will be submitted in March. Meyer asked if the budget was increased for these programs. Fackler explained that the budgeted amounts did increase, as follows 1996 1997 Parks/Recreation 13,300 17,800 Beach/Lifeguard 16,400 18,400 REVISED 1997 AGENDA CALENDAR Fackler explained that he removed those items from the calendar which will now be reviewed by the Dock Commission, and noted that those dates referring to budget review should be changed to 1998. REVISED WORK RULES The secretary noted that she changed the number of members required for a quorum from 5 to 4, and this will comply with the new ordinance amendment reducing the number of Commissioners from 9 to 6. SKATING RINK UPDATE Meyer explained to Weycker the status of the proposed Community Skating Rink and the steps that have been taken so far. 5 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February 13, 1997 ' - CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT The Commission explained to Weycker that this is the time that she may report on actions or discussions by the Council which she feels are important to the Commission. PARK DIRECTOR'S REPORT Fackler reported that he is in the process of purchasing those items approved as capital outlay items for 1997, including, a basketball hoop for Swenson Park, a graple fork, and bumpers for the dock at Mound Bay Park. He is in the process of getting bids for the flail mower, and is working on getting a contractor to do the siding and windows at the depot. He hopes to have the depot improvements done in May or September. He plans to retain the same look of the building with a tan colored steel or aluminum siding, white fascia, trim, doors, and windows, and green shutters. He has contracted for the improvements at Bluffs Beach for the retaining wall and sand blanket. He is getting quotes for the new fence at the cemetery and tree plantings. He will not be purchasing a multiple dock until the new commission decides where it will go. Pederson questioned Fackler about the colors proposed for the depot, and asked what the original color was. She also asked about the split rail fence at the depot and commented that it does not fit the look of the building. Fackler explained that the fence was installed to deter snowmobilers from crossing at that point. The Commission suggested staff check with the historical society about the color of the depot and also to get their input. It was determined they will discuss this issue again at their March meeting. Proposed improvements to Langdon (Sorbo) Park were briefly discussed. Darling expressed his disappointment of the fact that the proposed name change of the park was not brought to the Park Commission for review. DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT McCaffrey reported that the dock applications are coming in slowly, but expect a lot to come in at the end of the month. There are already 36 people on the waiting list, and this is a large number compared to other years. Motion by Botko, seconded by Byrnes to adjourn the Park and Open space Commission Meeting at 8:41 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 6 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 1997 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, 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. Commissioner Frank Weiland was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Mark Reschke, Audrey Froeming, Candice Anderson, Yolanda Clark, Carol Tollefson, Mary Albrecht, Bert Haglund, Dr. Pam Myers and Mark Thiede. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1997 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1997 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 97-02: VACATION OF OXFORD LANE MARK RESCHKE, 4737 ABERDEEN ROAD LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 5, DEVON, 30-117-23 22 0036 Council Representative Mark Hanus reviewed the previous City Council action relating to this Case. The Council continued the public hearing on this case and referred the item back to the Planning Commission. The City Engineer revised his report since he found that there is an existing watermain in Hanover Road and was able to view the topography of the area. He sees no reason for the City to retain that portion of Oxford Lane. Sutherland added that the Planner also agrees it would be viable to release this portion of platted right-of-way. Mueller addressed the letter in the packet from a neighbor expressing a concern about running a business out of his garage. Reschke stated that he carves wood with a chain saw once in a while as a hobby and has never known the neighbor to complain about it before. Sutherland commented that the Planning Department had not received any prior complaints. MOTION made by mueller, seconded by Voss, to recommend approval of the street vacation as requested. Motion carried unanimously. ,ill L i Ii 1~, , ~,1 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 CASE 97-08: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SHIRLEY HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL) "PUBLIC SCHOOL & ADMIN. OFFICES" & "LICENSED DAY CARE & PRESCHOOL" 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., 24-117-24 12 0059 Chair Michael announced that this is not a public hearing, but all meetings are considered to be open meetings and he will give those present the opportunity to speak after the school presents their report. Bert Haglund of TSP/EOS Architects explained that they are here before the Commission again as a result of the tabling action at the previous meeting and they have returned to demonstrate the steps used to get to where they are with the project today. Haglund referred to his memorandum in the packet which makes reference to the fact that in going back over the process used to choose the location of the addition, and in-light of a couple of things that have changed since the earlier decisions, one option previously considered may be more feasible now. Haglund utilized the overhead to show the locations of Options 1 through 4, and briefly reviewed how they came to choose their preferred location. Originally, they were looking at including the senior center on this site, and they still were not certain if the district offices and/or programs would be located there. Option 1: Shows the add'ition to the north east. Originally, if both the district offices and programs were not part of the proposal, the building would have been too short to reach the parking lot. Option 2: Shows addition to the south. Option 3: Shows addition to the north. Option 4: (APPLICANT'S FIRST CHOICE) Shows addition at the south end of the building, but to the west. According to the School's list of pros and cons, originally Option 4 showed to be the best, however, in light of changes, they are now considering Option 1 with the addition at the north east of the building to be feasible. With the addition in this location they can utilize the existing parking lot, keep the tennis courts, and leave the south side of the building untouched. They do, however, have some concerns yet. The parking lot on the north was constructed by St. John's, and they need to investigate how the existing parking count for both the church and the school would be affected. Dr. Pam Myers reported that when working through the pros and cons of the different options, part of what they wanted to do was not disrupt existing uses of the site, and Option 4 did not infringe on existing uses as the other options do. Option 4 is still their first choice. Option 1 uses area the school uses now. Myer stated that she would appreciate input from the Commission on the difference options. Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 '--- With Option 1 a courtyard-type area is created in the center of the buildings, Mueller asked if there is a plan for this area. He feels the courtyard would provide a nice contained area to utilize as a play area. Myer commented, on the contrary, it has been discussed that this enclosed area poses a security issue as it provides a contained area for people to hide during non-school hours. Myer summarized that her main concern with Option 1 is that is disrupts the current Shirley Hills School use and the school staff is not in favor of Option 1. Audrey Froeming, teacher at Shirley Hills and Mound resident objects to Option 1 because the students and school staff will then be viewing a brick building from their windows rather than trees and open space. She stressed the fact that the school recently remodeled their media center which is a beautiful room with tall windows which would face this new addition if built in this location. She stated that 90 percent of the staff is against this plan. They are concerned that the sun will be blocked, and kids on the first floor will be affected most. They prefer the original plan because it is least obtrusive on the school. Yolanda Clark, teacher at Shirley Hills and resident in Minnetonka stated that she objects to this site because she feels it is important for the early childhood programs to be located within a closer walking distance to the kindergarten rooms which are located on the other side of the building. Part of the objective of having the early childhood programs brought to this site is to be able to unify the ECFE program with the existing kindergarten program. Option 4 would be more sensible. Carol Tollefson, a third grade teacher at Shirley Hills for almost 30 years, has a room with windows which would face the addition. She is concerned that their view will be a brick building versus the existing hill and trees. She feels it is important that students have a pleasant view from their classroom, that it will affect their attitude. She is also concerned about noise and distractions created during construction and if the addition were on the south side this would be minimal. The view from the media center will also be mined. Mueller suggested that maybe the addition could be designed so it does not affect the media center as much. He feels it makes more sense to put the addition between two uses that are similar rather than towards a residential area. The commissioner's were polled on their opinions: Clapsaddle: More inclined to prefer Option 1, but this is strictly from reviewing the site plan, he does not know what is inside the building. Burma: More in favor of Option 1, but would like to take time to come visit the school and look from the inside out. Reifschneider: Not in favor of Option 1, more in favor of the original plan, Option 4. ,iii Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 ': - Prefers Option 1. With Option 4 he is concerned about the visual affect to those driving north on Wilshire which will be an ominous brick wall which would look like a castle on a hill, he is also in favor of utilizing existing parking. He recalled that one of the benefits of allowing the parking lot on the north to be constructed is that it could be utilized by both the school and the church because times of use do not conflict, and currently that parking area is grossly under- utilized. VOSS~ Prefers to reserve comments until he can tour the building. Glister: Agrees that children need views (she was a teacher for three years), and that the addition needs to suit the needs of the community as well as the children. She would prefer to see a new plan that could accommodate both needs, but if not, she would be in favor of Option 4. Mueller: Prefers Option 1. Likes the fact that they would utilize the existing parking lot, it would minimize the amount of traffic and impact to the balance of the community. Michael: Tends to share glister's comments in that he would like to see if a new proposal could be developed to satisfy both concerns, but if that cannot be accomplished, he would support their original plan, Option 4. There was concern expressed about the open meeting law and if this would apply if five or more Commissioners toured the school together. The secretary is to investigate this issue. DOWNTOWN PLAN - SIGNAGE Bruce Chamberlain of Hoisington Koegler Group, continued review of the zoning criteria drafted for the Pedestrian District. Chamberlain asked if signs in the Pedestrian District should have a different character than those in the Destination District? Should the sign ordinance be different that the current B-1 district? Hanus suggested that it is difficult to give an opinion on signage until they get a feel for the type of development proposed, and to not get too specific on the sign ordinance until a proposal from developers is received. Clapsaddle asked, what do we want for Mound? Now is the time to get what we want, we should not ask the developer what we want to be, we should plan this now. Writing an ordinance to fit what is going to be built versus writing an ordinance for what we want was discussed. Hanus commented that the City currently has two developers interested in developing the downtown area. Michael suggested that they give courtesy to Chamberlain and give him some outline to work with. 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 Chamberlain reviewed the "Signs" section of the draft ordinance for the Pedestrian District dated November 1996. SIGNS 1. Exempt Signs a. Temporary civic, cultural and public service window posters, when posted inside commercial establishments, provided they do not, individual or combined, occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of said window or five square feet, whichever is less. Temporary window signs are permitted on ground floor windows only. Temporary promotional or special sale signs when erected in conjunction with a commercial establishment provided they do not, individually or combined with other window signs, exceed 25 percent of the total area of the display window or sixteen square fee, whichever is less. Temporary signs advertising a business opening or change in ownership shall not exceed an area of sixteen square feet, and shall require a temporary zoning permit, specifying the date of removal. All temporary signs shall have the date of removal printed clearly on the lower right hand corner, as viewed from the exterior, and shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days. Temporary promotional signs are permitted on ground floor windows only. Prohibited signs. a. Signs employing mercury vapor, Iow pressure and high pressure sodium and metal halide lighting; plastic panel rear-lighted signs. Michael commented that this requires all signs to have exterior lighting which is more expensive and more open to vandalism. Is this what we want? It was agreed that this is the style that is being pursued. b. Signs on roofs, dormers, and balconies. c. Billboards. do Signs painted or mounted upon the exterior side or rear walls on any principal or accessory building or structure, except as otherwise permitted hereunder. e. Free-standing pylon signs over 6 feet in height. f. Back-lit awnings. g. Interchangeable letter boards or panels. h. Flashing signs. Clapsaddle questioned how interior businesses, such as those in courtyards will get advertised? 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 '.-_ 3. Permitted signs. a. Wall-mounted or painted signs, provided the following standards are met: (1) The sign shall be affixed to the front facade of the building, and shall project outward from the wall to which it is attached no more than six inches. The area of the signboard shall not exceed five percent of the ground floor building facade area or 24 square feet, whichever is less. The maximum permitted height is fifteen feet above the front sidewalk elevation, and shall not extend above the base of the second floor window sill, parapet, eave, or building facade. (4) The height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed eight inches. The majority of the Commissioners agreed that the height of the letters, etc. should be allowed up to 12 inches. The sign shall be granted to commercial uses occupying buildings facing on public streets only and shall not be allocated to other uses. (6) Limited to one sign per business. One wall-mounted sign, not exceeding six square feet in area, shall be permitted on any side or rear entrance open to the public. Such wall signs may only be lighted during the operating hours of the business. Chamberlain clarified that this is thought of as a secondary sign to a business. Mueller commented that he would be in favor of allowing the sign to be lighted all hours unless it would affect a residence, such as an upper level apartment. Glister agreed, commenting that lights after hours gives an ambience to an area, as long as they will not adversely affect residences. Burma commented that the parking lot will be lighted anyway and feels it would be okay as long as the lights shine out, not up. The Commission agreed that signs may be allowed to be lighted with no restriction on time as long as the lights do not adversely affect residences. Wall-mounted building directory signs identifying the occupants of a commercial building, including upper story business uses, provided the following standards are met: (1) The sign is located next to the entrance. The sign shall project outward from the wall to which it is attached no more than six inches. (3) The sign shall not extend above the parapet, eave , or building facade. The area of the signboard shall not exceed three square feet, with each tenant limited to one square foot. ,Ill I I I, I I~,, i ~, Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 (5) The height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed four inches. It was decided that buildings should be limited to one directory per entrance. d. Applied letters may substitute for wall-mounted signs, if constructed of painted wood, painted cast metal, bronze, brass, or black anodized aluminum. Applied plastic letters shall not be permitted. The height of applied letter shall not exceed eight inches. It was agreed that the height of the letters should be changed to twelve (12) inches. Michael expressed a concern about limiting the type of materials. It was agreed that "acrylic" should be a permitted material. e. Projecting signs, including graphics or icon signs, mounted perpendicular to the building wall, provided the following standards are met: (1) The signboard shall not exceed an area of six square feet. (2) The distance from the ground to the lower edge of the signboard shall be ten feet or greater. (3) The height of the top edge of the signboard shall not exceed the height of the wall from which the sign projects, if attached to a single story building, or the height of the sill or bottom of any second story window, if attached to a multi-story building.. (4) The distance from the building wall to the signboard shall not exceed six inches. (5) The width of the signboard shall not exceed three feet. (6) Limited to one sign per business. Projecting signs are not permitted in conjunction with wall-mounted, freestanding, or applied letter signs. A poll was taken to determine if projecting wall signs should be allowed: Mueller yes Glister no Voss yes Michael yes Hanus yes Reifschneider no Burma yes Clapsaddle no Majority ruled that projecting wall signs should be allowed. Mueller suggested they include provisions for banners. Chamberlain will draft a section relating to banners. 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 Window or door signs, provided that the following standards are met: (1) The sign shall not exceed ten percent of the window or door area or four square feet, whichever is less. The sign shall be silk screened, hand painted, applied letters/graphics, neon tubing or other sign technologies that meet these standards. Limited to one sign per business, applied on either the window or the door, but not on both. (4) The sign shall not have an opaque backing of any type. Michael suggested that they allow for a "smoked glass" backing because it is basically invisible, and at the same time hides wiring or cords. It was agreed to add to//4 "except smoked glass." May be in addition to only one of the following: a wall-mounted sign, a free standing sign, an applied letter sign, a projecting sign or a valance awning sign. g. Awning signs, for ground floor uses only, provided that the following standards are met: (1) If acting as the main business sign, it shall not exceed ten square feet in area, and the height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed ten inches. If acting as an auxiliary business sign, it shall be located on the valance only, shall not exceed four square feet in area, and the height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed four inches. (3) Limited to two such signs per business. If acting as the main business sign, it shall not be in addition to a wall-mounted sign. Mueller suggested that 'f.' and 'g.' be switched, since 'f. (5)' refers to awning signs. It was agreed that the letter height be allowed to 12 inches high, consistent with wall signs. It was questioned how this ordinance would affect businesses that have tall windows that may be two stories high. h. One free-standing sign, provided that the following standards are met: (1) The building in which the advertised business is located, shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the right-of-way line. It was suggested this read 'built-up line' instead of 'right-of-way line,' and that no part of the sign should encroach into the right-of-way. (2) The area of the signboard shall not exceed six square feet. 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 '.-- (2) The area of the signboard shall not exceed six square feet. The height of the top of the signboard, or of any posts, brackets, or other supporting elements shall not exceed six feet from the ground. The signboard shall be constructed of wood or metal and shall be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors and details of the building. Michael suggested this read 'aluminum' not 'metal,' and 'acrylic' should also be included. (5) The sign shall not be illuminated after 10:00 p.m. It was agreed that the lighting should be allowed the same as previously discussed with no time limit as long as it does not affect residences. (7) Limited to one sign per building and shall not be in addition to wall-mounted applied letters or projecting signs. i. Businesses located in corner buildings are permitted one sign for each street frontage. Chamberlain will work on tightening this language to specify what constitutes a corner building and qualifies as "street frontage." Businesses with service entrances may identify these with one sign not exceeding two square feet. One directional sign, facing a rear parking lot. This sign may be any type of permitted sign other than a free standing sign, but shall be limited to three square feet in area. In addition to other signage, restaurants and cafes shall be permitted the following, limited to one sign per business: (1) A wall-mounted display featuring the actual menu as used at the dining table, to be contained within a shallow wood or metal case, and clearly visible through a glass front. The display case shall be attached to the building wall, next to the main entrance, at a height of approximately five feet, shall not exceed a total area of two square feet, and may be lighted. It was agreed that the height restriction be deleted. (2) A sandwich board sign as follows: The area of the signboard, single-sided' shall not exceed five square feet. The signboard shall be constructed of wood, chalkboard, and/or finished metal. Letter can be painted or handwritten. Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1997 The sign shall be located within four feet of the main entrance to the business and its location shall not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation. The information displayed shall be limited to daily specials and hours of operation. The sign shall be removed at the end of the business day. Chamberlain commented that he is not sure if they can allow different signage for certain types of businesses, he will need to check with the attorney on this issue. It was the consensus of the Commission to not allow sandwich board type signs. mo Each business hall identify the number of its address within the above sign parameters with a minimum of one sign at the main entry and one sign at the secondary entry if a secondary entry exists. It was the consensus of the Commission that all address numbers be provided by the City, they all be the same, and they should consistently be located above the doors of each business. Chamberlain noted that he will further investigate provisions for signage for second story businesses and businesses located within alleys. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Hanus suggested that staff provide the Council with a copy of the letter from Nancy Starr. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss to adjourn the meeting at 10:47 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 10 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 4, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 4, 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, Mark Hanus, 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. *Consent Agenda.. All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 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. ADD THE FOLLOWING: CONSENT *E. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION//96-40 *F. APPROVAL OF FREE BENEFIT DANCE ADD THE FOLLOWING TO REGULAR AGENDA: 12. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 456:50 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO DOG UARANTINE. *CONSENT AGENDA' ,X-~~ aC ~ *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 25 1997 REGULAR MEETING. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 *B. BID AWARD: 50 H.P. TRACTOR AND FLAIL MOWER. moved and seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-27 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE BID OF SCHARBER & SONS FOR THE 1997 50 H.P. TRACTOR AND FLAIL MOWER IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,399 *C. CASE 96-45: GLENN & AMY HURD, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 9, BLOCK 13.. DEVON, PID//25-117-24 11 0034. REQUEST: VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXI,qTING AND PROPOSED NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO AIJ,OW A NONCONFORMING DECK. moved and seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g97-28 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING AND PROPOSED NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING DECK AT 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVES, LOT 9, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID //25-117-24 11 0034, P & Z CASE//96-45 2 ,111 I I ,ii ,t~ .... i~, MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 *D. PAYMENT OF BILLS. *E. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION//96-40 moved and seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g97-29 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION FOR RESOLUTION//96-40 FOR ONE YEAR *F. APPROVAL OF FREE BENEFIT DANCE MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #97-02 - TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF TH'I~: UNIMPROVED OXFORD LANE LOCATEi) NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCKS 5 & 9 IN DEVON. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONINC ORDINANCE SECTION 350:640 TO ADD "SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFI41CES,, AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 e PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, EXPANSION OF A "PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ADD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" IN THE R-1 ZONE, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SHIRLEY HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL), 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., PID #24-117-14 12 0059. PLEASE NOTE: THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS ITEM AT ITS MARCH 24, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAYOR COULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN CONTINUE IT TO APRIL 8, 1997. 7. CASE//97-11: JAMES & DENISE CRAWFORD, 5224 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 5, 6 & 9-12, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE. REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING. 5 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 Se COMMENTS & SUGGKSTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT e _RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS AS PROPOSED BY COMMONS TASK FORCE. I0. PRESENTATION ON INFLOW/INFILTRATION (SUMP PUMI' DISCONNECTION) PROGRAM. KYLE COLVIN AND DON BLUHM, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) AND JOHN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEE.____RR. ~ ~q ~ 7~~ 7o° MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 11. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 600:25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITING DISCHARGES INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. ADD-ON ITEMS: 12. APPROVAL OF J~I~DINANCE AMENDING SECT~IO~~ THE CITY cOrSE ~I~f~G ¢_g~~~ ........ 7 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 13. INFORMATION/MIgCELLANEOUS. A. REMINDE____RR: Hra Meeting Tuesday, March 4, 1997, 7:00 P.M. No City Council Meeting, Tuesday, March 11, 1997, due to National League of Cities (NLC) Conference. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, March 18, 1997, 7:00 P.M. Please note time change. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of February 13, 1997. Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 1997.