The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-03-25AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL MARCH 25, 1997 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 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. o OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALI.EGIANCE. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. *CONSENT AGENDA: PAGE }.t9 *A. 1.1 *B. 1,9,. *C. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1997, REGULAR MEETING. ............................ 955-966 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 18, 1997, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ............... 967-969 CASE 97-11: JAMES & DENISE CRAWFORD, 5224 WATERBURY RD., LOTS 5, 6 & 9-12, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE LOT 9, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID//25-117-24 11 0034. REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING - RESOLUTION GRANTING THE WAIVER OF PLATTING AND GIVING THE "LOT OF RECORD" STATUS FOR THIS CASE ....... 970-981 CASE//9%09: BRIAN & PATRICIA STEVENSON, 6189 SINCLAIR ROAD, LOT 5, BLOCK 17, THE HIGHLANDS, PID//23-227-24 34 0070. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK & MUD ROOM ADDITION ..................... 982-995 956 AGENDA - MOUND CITY CO UNCIL MARCH 25, 1997 .CASE//97-10: ROBERT S. PIERCE, 1741 BLUEBIRD LAND, LOTS 11 & P/12, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 24 0004. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION ......................... CASE//97-13: BRADLEY H. WHITE, 5090 WINDSOR ROAD, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, PID//25-117-24 12 0234. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK ......................... 996-1013 1014-1027 (PLEASE NOTE THAT APPLICANT HAS MADE A REQUEST TO BE HEARD THE DAY FOLLOWING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE CLOSING ON THE PROPERTY. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 24 WILL BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING.) APPLICATION FOR QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION-PORTABLE SIGN, MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT-FAMILY HEALTH & SAFETY DATE. ............................... 1028 LICENSE RENEWALS: HAWKER TRANSIENT MERCHANT TREE REMOVAL SET-UP PUBLIC GATHERING PERMITS 1029 1.7 SET DATE FOR BID OPENING FOR 1997 SEAL COAT PROJECT. SUGGESTED DATE: APRII. 10, 1997 ................... 1030 PAYMENT OF BILLS. ......................... 1031-1052 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. CASE//97-05: PHILLIP A. KLEIN, 5010 WOODLAND ROAD, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0146. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION .... 1053-1074 957 AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL MARCH 25, 1997 6. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.. Ao Bo Co Fo Go Jo DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR FEBRUARY 1997 ............................. 1075-1101 LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 1997 .......................................... 1102 LMCD MAILINGS ............................. 1103-1114 FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 1997, AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR .................. 1115-1116 LETTER FROM JAMES L. GIRARD, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF MOUND'S LETTER REGARDING CITY SPENDING PRACTICES. HIS COMMENT ON THE SECOND PAGE, LAST PARAGRAPH IS INTERESTING CONCERNING COMMUNICATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING TO SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS HIS CONCERNS WITH THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES BEFORE HE WROTE HIS DECEMBER 11, 1996 LETTER .......... 1117-1118 QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THE WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RE: PRICE OF GOVERNMENT AND PROPERTY TAX IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND RETURN IT TO THE CHAMBER ................... 1119-1121 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 1997. 1122-1126 YEAR END REVIEW AND ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY (SRA) ............... 1127-1129 RESPONSE TO CHAIRPERSON POLSTON'S LETTER RE: HRA CONCERNS ON BUILDING AT 2020 COMMERCE BLVD. UPON RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, I SENT A COPY TO PINKY CHARON. SUGGESTED TO HER THAT WE CONTINUE TO PERSIST IN GETTING BETTER ANSWERS FROM HUD, RAMSTAD'S OFFICE AND OTHERS ........... 1131 PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 1997. ............................ 1131-1136 958 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNC/L- 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, and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen arrived at 7:45 P.M. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Clerk Fran Clark; and the following interested citizens: Pam Myers, Kyle Colvin, Donald Bluhm, Dean Korts, Mike Wallis, Bill Stewart, Glenn Hurd, James Crawford, Mark Reschke, and Mrs. Richard Rutz. *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: APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 456:50, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO DOG QUARANTINE. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Agenda and the Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was 4 in favor, with Councilmember Jensen absent and excused. Motion carried. *CONSENT AGENDA: 1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 25, 1997, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Ahrens & Hanus, unanimously. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL- March 4, 1997 1.2 BID AWARD: 50 H.P. TRACTOR AND FLAIL MOWER. RESOLUTION #97-2'~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE BID OF SCHARBER & SONS FOR THE 1997 50 H.P. TRACTOR AND FLAIL MOWER IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,399 1.3 1.4 1.5 Ahrens & Hanus, unanimously. CASE 96-45: GLENN & AMY HURD, 4833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 9, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID//25-117-24 11 0034. REQUEST: VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTINIg AND PROPOSED NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING DECK. RESOLUTION g97-2~ 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 Ahrens & Hanus, unanimously. PAYMENT OF BILLS. Ahrens & Hanus, unanimously. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION//96-40 RESOLUTION//97-29 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN RESOLUTION//96-40 FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR Ahrens & Hanus, unanimously. 1.6 APPROVAL OF FREE BENEFIT DANCE 1.7 APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 456:50, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO DOG QUARANTINE. The City Attorney stated this section of the City Code refers to the City Health Officer which we have not had for some time. It came to our attention b~ause of a dog bite and the request by the owner to quarantine the dog at home rather than at a kennel which requires the approval of the City Health Officer. The City Attorney presented the proposed amendment which gives the Chief of Police or his designee the authority to decide on where the animal is to be quarantined. Ahrens moved and Weycker seconded the following ordinance: ORDINANCE//86-1997 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 456:50, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO DOG QUARANTINE 2 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen absent and excused. Motion carried. 1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE //9%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. The City Engineer explained that this has been before the Planning Commission twice. He stated that Hanover Road ends at between lots 11 and 12, but the watermain does extend to Devon so the unimproved lots on Hanover would have service. If or when these lots are ever developed the street would have to be extended and sanitary sewer would have to be extended, but the watermain is in place. There are no utilities in the portion of Oxford Lane that is proposed to be vacated. He and the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the Public Heating. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #97-30 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 BLOCK 5 AND 9 IN "DEVON", P & Z CASE//97-02 The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen absent and excused. Motion carried. 1.9 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONINC ORDINANCE SECTION 350:640 TO ADD "SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. The City Planner explained that Westonka Public Schools is seeking a zoning amendment to allow school administrative offices for public schools by conditional use permit in the R-1 zone. 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. A zoning amendment 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 a direct result of upcoming land use changes that necessitate the relocation of the school offices. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Planner advised that the District will be submitting a CUP application for an administrative office and classroom addition at Shirley Hills School. They have begun this process and it will be going to the Planning Commission later this month. That will be a separate action from the zoning amendment. Tonight's action is to change the zoning code which would enable the CUP to occur. The Planner advised that the City Attorney has asked that the amendment read as follows: Public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices on a school site be allowed as a Conditional Use MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 in the R-1 Residential Zoning District." This would clarify that these type of uses have to be in conjunction with a larger school campus environment. The Council discussed rezoning vs. ordinance amendment. There were concerns about the following: Rezoning to a business zone which would not fit in the R-1 residential Zone. That this amendment could impact all R-1 zones in the City. Making a zoning amendment with no CUP plan at this time. What happens if this CUP were not to materialize. Increasing traffic and congestion in a residential area. The Planner pointed out that the City has a considerable amount of control with the use being allowed as a CUP. COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN ARRIVED AT 7:45 P.M. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. The Council was concerned about approving this zoning amendment without a CUP plan being before them. Ahrens moved to table the item so that it could be brought back when the application for a CUP is submitted on April 8, 1997. Motion died for lack of second. The City Attorney advised that if this is considered at the same time as the CUP, on April 8th, there will be an additional 10 day delay because of the publication requirement. He asked if this would pose a problem for the applicant. Dr. Para Myers, Supt. of Schools, stated that their timeline has been pushed back as they have worked with the Planning Commission so they are already a month behind. They feel they are going to have a very good plan to submit at the next Planning Commission Meeting and the April 8th Council Meeting, but would appreciate not being delayed an extra 10 days after April 8th. The Council agreed that these administrative offices should only be allowed on a site where a school is located, not on just any property that the school district might own. The City Attorney suggested that the Council could add an effective date provision so that if the CUP application from the school district did not materialize, the ordinance amendment would be void. Ahrens moved, and Jensen seconded the following ordinance: ORDINANCE #87-1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350:640 OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE BY ADDING "SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT The amendment to read as follows: MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 "Public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices on a site which contains a school, is allowed as a Conditional Use in the R-1 Zoning District. This ordinance shall not be effective until the City Council issues a Conditional Use Permit for the location of a School Administrative Office at Shirley Hills Elementary School, at 2450 Wilshire Blvd and shall be void if such Conditional Use Permit is not issued by July 1, 1997. A vote on the ordinance was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, EXPANSION OF A "PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ADD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" IN THE R-1 ZONE, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SHIRLEY HILL EI,EMENTARY SCHOOL), 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., PID//24-117-24 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. The Mayor opened the Public Heating. No one commented. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to continue this Public Hearing until April 8, 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Motion carried. 1.11 CASE//97-11: JAMES & DENISE CRAWFORD, 5224 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 5~ 6 & 9-12, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE. REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING. The City Planner explained that 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 add it to their parcel. The only complication to this waiver of platting is the Lot of Record status, if this is approved. Would Lots 5 and 6 still be considered a lot of record? This is a concern because hardcover requirements and setbacks are different if a parcel is considered a lot of record. The City Planner stated that there have been various interpretations of a "LOt of Record". Anytime a property has been subdivided, there's a question about whether the remaining property that's there still retains its "Lot of Record" status. That being, a lot that's in existence at the time the Zoning Ordinance is modified or adopted. The City Attorney stated that the only definition for "Lot of Record" is in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:310, Subd, 84. There is nothing in the definition that talks about combinations for tax purposes. It talks about a plat or subdivision, and if you go to the subdivision ordinance, there is no reference there at all to combinations for tax purposes. He related that the definition for "Lot of Record" really needs some work and suggested that this be referred to the Planning Commission. The City Attorney stated that you cannot, through a tax combination, create a lot of record, under Mound's ordinance. He further stated that apparently Lots 5, 6 & 12 have been considered a "lot of record" because of the way it has been developed and built upon. He saw no reason why Lots 5 & 6 could not continue to be considered a "lot of record". MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, I997 The City Attorney suggested that this "lot of record" issue in the zoning ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission to determine how this should be applied in future cases of a waiver of platting. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to have the City Attorney prepare a resolution granting the waiver of platting and giving the "lot of record" status for this case (Lots 5 and 6), with a f'mding of fact that the ordinance is confusing and the burden of proof should fall on the City. This to be brought back to the Council for approval on March 25, 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 1.12 BILL STEWART, 2960 Hazelwood Lane, suggested that the Council speak into the microphones so the public can hear what is being said. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS AS PROPOSED BY COMMONS TASK FORCE. The City Manager stated that this item was brought before the POSC at the last meeting. They recommended that the newly formed Dock & Commons Advisory Commission review this and give their recommendations to the City Council. He reported that the Dock & Commons Commission will have its first meeting on March 19, which is the day after the Council has its discussion on this at the Committee of the Whole Meeting. He reminded the Council that the newly formed Dock & Commons Commission is comprised of the members of the Task Force that originally came up with the policy on encroachments. Councilmember Weycker stated that she did not see a problem with the Council discussing it at the COW meeting on March 18, 1997. No action was taken at this time. 1.13 PRESENTATION ON INFLOW/INFILTRATION {SUMP PUMP DISCONNECTION)PROGRAM- KYLE COLVIN AND DON BLUHM, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) AND JOHN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER. The City Manager stated that at the February 18, 1997, COW Meeting there was discussion about the upcoming sump pump disconnection program from the sanitary sewer. The City applied for and received a grant and/or loan for $40,000 from the Met Council Environmental Services Agency, to perform inspections of Mound residences to determine whether they have sump pumps and if they are connected to the sanitary sewer system or not. As a part of this program, the City has been asked to consider an amendment to the sanitary sewer ordinance dealing with sump pump disconnections. This would put a little more teeth into that ordinance so that residents of the community will comply with the sump pump disconnection ordinance. Kyle Colvin and Don Bluhm from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), and the City Engineer made a presentation of the reasons for this program, history of the program, how it was developed, the impact the program will have on the City's sewer rates, and ultimately what this means to the residents in savings in sewer rates. They pointed out that this could cost the City up to $1000.00 a year per sump pump that is discharging into the sanitary sewer. An informational video was run explaining how the program works. 6 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - March 4, 1997 The City Engineer explained that Visu-Sewer will be doing the inspection work, much like what was done with the water meter installation. The Council discussed educating the public on this so they know they will be saving tax dollars and dollars on their sewer bill by complying with the disconnection of sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system. The Mayor stated he is not against the program, but he does have a problem with the surcharge in the ordinance for noncompliance. 1.14 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 600:25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITING DISCHARGES INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. Ahrens moved and Weycker seconded the following: ORDINANCE #88-1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 600:25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITING DISCHARGES INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMA TION/MIS C ELLANEOUS: A. REMINDER: HRA Meeting Tuesday, March 4, 1997, 7:00 P.M. Bo No City Council Meeting, Tuesday, March 11, 1997, due to National League of Cities (NLC) Conference. C. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, March 18, 1997, 7:00 P.M. Please note time change. D. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of February 13, 1997. E. Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 1997. F. SAVE THE COMMONS GROUP The City Manager stated, that the City being a property owner in this area has received an invitation from the Save the Commons Group, which is apparently taking some legal action to get a Declaratory Judgement on the Wawonnossa and Waurika Commons issue. The City is being asked to consider participating either as a plaintiff or a defendant. They are having a meeting tomorrow evening, March 5, 1997, at 7:00 P.M. at the Senior Center. The City Attorney and the City Manager discussed the letter/invitation and it was their suggestion that the Council take a low profile position and not become an active participant at this time. The Mayor asked that the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission, address the implementation of the mediation findings, as one of their first tasks. The Council agreed. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL- March 4, 1997 MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - MARCH 18, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers: Ahrens, Hanus and Weycker. Absent and excused: Jensen. Also Present: Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; Ed Shukle, City Manager; and the following interested persons: Mark Goldberg, Bev Botko and Marilyn Byrnes. Interviews with Potential Developers - Mound Visions Project Shukle explained that the City Council had asked at the February 18, 1997 Committee of the Whole meeting to have the two interested developers in the Mound Visions project visit with the City Council in person regarding their qualifications and interest in the recievelopment of downtown Mound. Each developer would be given ½ hour to present their qualifications and why they were interested in the project. Shukle introduced Chris Moam and John Laurent, Laurent/Parks Development, Wayzata. Mr. Moarn gave an overview of experiences in development in other communities and Mr. Laurent talked specifically about the project underway in the City of Wayzata. Laurent addressed questions from the Council on that particular project and the Council asked questions about Laurent/Parks' ideas and concepts for the Mound Visions project. Laurent/Parks proposed retail/office for the area along the new Auditor's Road and also talked about how important it was to incorporate development along County Road 110 as part of the redevelopment scheme. The Council thanked Mr. Moarn and Mr. Laurent for their presentation and City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that he would be in contact with them regarding the Council's interest at a later date. Shukle then introduced the development team from Dunbar Development Corporation. Jim Winkels, Amcon Development, presented an overview of work experiences as part of the Dunbar team. Bob Van Slyke, Senior Housing Partners, was then introduced. Mr. Van Slyke discussed the housing aspect of a retail/housing project. He discussed his work experience in this regard and types of development projects that Senior Housing Partners and Dunbar have collaborated on together. Frank Dunbar, President, Dunbar Development Corporation arrived at discussed his company's interest in the redevelopment of downtown Mound. He discussed a retail/housing project currently underway in Shakopee and his company's involvement in that project. He also covered the Laurel Village project, which he was responsible for, in downtown Minneapolis. The Council thanked Dunbar for their presentation and City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that he would be in contact with them regarding the Council's interest at a later date. .Updates on Lost Lake Improvement Project and Auditor's Road Improvement Pro jet I Ed Shukle and Bruce Chamberlain updated the Council on what the status is of each of these projects. Permits from DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers are in process. Sites for disposal of the dredge spoils have been located. Testing for PCB's has been completed by Braunlntertec and the City is awaiting the results. Conunittee of the Whole Minutes March 18, 1997 Page 2 Also discussed was the opportunity for the development of the Lost Lake Inn. A letter of interest was presented from Northern Hospitality, Inc., of Brainerd, Minnesota regarding their interest in locating a Country Suites by Carlson on the Lost Lake site. Northern Hospitality, Inc., would purchase the franchise rights from Carlson and would own and manage the facility. The Council was excited about this possibility but is hesitant to commit to an exclusive rights agreement, (Northern Hospitality has requested this), until the decision on a senior center is resolved (Lost Lake site has been selected as a possible location for a new senior center). Until this matter is resolved, the Council wants to delay any decisions regarding an exclusive rights agreement. Westonka Community_ Center/Senior Center Update Mayor Polston indicated that he has asked for a public meeting of the Westonka School Board and the City of Mound regarding the future of the existing community center at Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. Polston wants to get the issues "out on the table" regarding this matter and to discuss what can be done to save the existing center through renovation. Several dates were discussed and Polston was going to contact the Chair of the School Board to arrange the meeting. Review of Recommendation from Commons Task Force Re: Commons Encroachment Policy Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force and a member of the newly created Docks and Commons Advisory Commission was present along with Bev Botko and Marilyn Byrnes who were also members of the Task Force and are members of the Park and Open Space Commission to discuss this proposed policy. The Council had questions relating to the language under some of the provisions of the proposed policy and what was being proposed: 3. 4. 5. Buildings or structures on commons and building code issues regarding these structures. "Maintenance" of encroaching structures relative to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Legal issues and the need for a legal review to be performed by the City Attorney. Flow chart and the proposed changes to it--health, safety and welfare issues with regard to existing structures. Structures and whether they were "water oriented" or other types of structures on the commons. It was the consensus of the Council that these issues be discussed in more detail by the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission who then can provide their recommendations back to the City Council at a later date. Committee of the Whole Minutes March 18, 1997 Page 3 MCTO Proposal Re: Circulator/Dial-a-Ride Service City Manager Ed Shukle presented a request from Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO) regarding their interest in starting up a dial-a-fide service which would replace some of the mid-day routes currently running in the City of Mound. A mini-bus would be available through dial-a-fide for passengers in certain areas of the City which would take them to downtown Mound to link up with a standard MCTO bus for travel outside of the area. MCTO made a request to have an area along Lynwood Blvd. near the Commerce Place Shopping Center for this link-up to occur. City staff recommended that the stop location be on Lynwood Blvd. near the Bickman property rather than right at the Commerce Place Shopping Center. This would work better since there is a great deal of traffic congestion in the Commerce Blvd./Lynwood Blvd. area. The City Council will take formal action in this regard at their next regular meeting. Proposed City_ Council Chamber Usage by Westonka Public Schools Ed Shukle presented a draft agreement between the City of Mound and Westonka Public Schools regarding the School District's request for use of the City Council Chambers, on a permanent basis, for school board meetings. The City Council took the matter under advisement. Westonka Intervention Ed Shukle indicated that this item was placed on the agenda pursuant to the Council's request following the CDBG public hearing held February 25, 1997. The City Manager was asked to research other agencies who might serve these types of needs in the western Hennepin County area. Other Busi.~ness There being no further business, it was noted that the next meeting of the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for Tuesday, April 15, 1997, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Upon motion by Polston, seconded by Weycker and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Ed ghukle City Manager %? RESOLUTION g97- RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR LOTS 5, 6, AND 12, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE (5224 WINDSOR ROAD) AND ACCORDING LOT OF RECORD STATUS FOR LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE, P & Z CASE//97-11 WHEREAS, the owners of the property located at 5223 Windsor Road and legally described as Lots 5, 6 and 12, Block 18, Whipple, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, have made application for a waiver of the city's subdivision regulations to allow Lot 12, Block 18, Whipple to be detached from their property; and WHEREAS, the owners of the property located at 5224 Waterbury Road and legally described as Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 18, Whipple have by the same application requested that said Lot 12 be combined with Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 18, Whipple; and WHEREAS, Lots 5, 6 and 12, Block 18, Whipple are currently combined as a single tax parcel having the PID #25-117-24 21 0147; and WHEREAS, Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 18, Whipple are currently combined as a single tax parcel having the PID #25-117-24 21 0148; and WHEREAS, Section 330:12 of the City Code requires that such configuration of land must either be done by approved subdivision or by a waiver of the platting requirements of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Mound Planning Commission at its February 27, 1997, meeting voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed waiver; and WHEREAS, this matter was first considered by the City Council at its March 4, 1997, meeting; and at such meeting an issue was raised concerning what impact the proposed subdivision waiver would have upon the "lot of record" status of the existing assemblages; and WHEREAS, following the close of public testimony, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare proposed findings 1) approving the requested waiver; and 2) addressing the impact of the recombination of the parcels upon any "lot of record" status which might be currently available; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with these findings and is fully aware of their content. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: ge Findings as to Waiver. The City Council herewith finds and determines that: 1. The land assemblage which is the subject of the request was created by tax combination. me 2. The request for waiver has been made by all of the affected property owners. o Staff has determined that the proposed combination is in compliance with all the City Code requirements including all the requirements imposed by Section 330:12. 4. The proposed combination provides for a more orderly assemblage of parcels. Conclusion as to Waiver. Based upon the foregoing, the requested waiver of the City's subdivision regulation is hereby APPROVED. In future conveyances, Lots 5 and 6, Block 18, Whipple shall be conveyed as a unified parcel; and in future conveyances, Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 18, Whipple shall be conveyed as a unified parcel. The City Manager and City Clerk are instructed to take all steps as may be necessary from time to time to effectuate this waiver. Findings as to Lot of Record Status. Parcels which are accorded lot of record status are subject to different setback, coverage and lot area requirements than are lots which do not have such status. If the combined Lots 5 and 6 are entitled to lot of record status, the side yard setbacks will be six feet and 10 feet for the dwelling and if a garage is added, the side yard setback will be six feet and six feet. Without the lot of record status, the side yard setback will be 10 feet for both sides. It appears, based upon the pattern of development, that Lots 5, 6, and 12 have been viewed as a single lot of record; and specifically, the structure on the property straddles the lot line between Lots 5 and 6. The applicant has informed the City that the prospective purchaser of Lots 5 and 6 intends to construct a garage on the property which cannot be built unless the lot of record status is available to Lots 5 and 6. It does appear that the garage could be built if 12 were not detached; and whether or not Lot 12 is detached does not appear to have any clear planning implication regarding what happens to Lots 5 and 6. The Assistant City Attorney has informed the City Council that it is unclear as to how the lot of record provisions of the code would be applied in this situation. IVe Ve e The City Council finds that not to accord lot of record status to Lots 5 and 6 would contradict development expectations, would creat undue hardships on the owners, and would serve no clearly defined planning objections. Conclusion as to Lot of Record Status. Lots 5 and 6, Block 18, Whipple shall as a unified parcel be accorded lot of record status. Directive to the Planning Commission. The City Council requests that the Planning Commission review the provisions in the Code relating to Lots of Record; and report to the City Council at its earliest convenience concerning what alterations, if any, should be considered. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIl, - MARCH 4, 1997 1.11 CASE//97-11: JAMES & DENISE CRAWFORD, 5224 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 5, 6 & 9-12, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE. REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING. The City Planner explained that 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 add it to their parcel. The only complication to this waiver of platting is the Lot of Record status, if this is approved. Would Lots 5 and 6 still be considered a lot of record? This is a concern because hardcover requirements and setbacks are different if a parcel is considered a lot of record. The City Planner stated that there have been various interpretations of a "Lot of Record". Anytime a property has been subdivided, there's a question about whether the remaining property that's there still retains its "Lot of Record" status. That being, a lot that's in existence at the time the Zoning Ordinance is modified or adopted. The City Attorney stated that the only definition for "Lot of Record" is in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:310, Subd, 84. There is nothing in the definition that talks about combinations for tax purposes. It talks about a plat or subdivision, and if you go to the subdivision ordinance, there is no reference there at all to combinations for tax purposes. He related that the definition for "Lot of Record" really needs some work and suggested that this be referred to the Planning Commission. The City Attorney stated that you cannot, through a tax combination, create a lot of record, under Mound's ordinance. He further stated that apparently Lots 5, 6 & 12 have been considered a "lot of record" because of the way it has been developed and built upon. He saw no reason why Lots 5 & 6 could not continue to be considered a "lot of record". The City Attorney suggested that this "lot of record" issue in the zoning ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission to determine how this should be applied in future cases of a waiver of platting. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to have the City Attorney prepare a resolution granting the waiver of platting and giving the "lot of record" status for this case (Lots 5 and 6), with a t'mding of fact that the ordinance is confusing and the burden of proof should fall on the City. This to be brought back to the Council for approval on March 25, 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 612-855-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 6~8 PO~ FEB ~8 '~? 11:~6 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. [!IH 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 (Lots 9 - 11) Kichard Rutz - 5223 Windsor Road 0.,ors 5, 6 and 12) CASE NUMBER: 97-11 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5f LOCATION: 5223 Windsor Road EXISTING ZONING: Two-Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE 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 a.q 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 the 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 record? 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 the 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. RECOMMENDATION: 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, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 draft printed 9/20/96 D istr ibut ion: ~-,2~ City Planner Public Works City Engineer Application for WAIVER OF PLATTING City of Mound, 5341 'Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 Application Fee: ~C I"~,~, Deposit: $~0 Escrow OtherDNR Deficient Unit Charges? -~1'11 Delinquent T~es? ~e ~ or p~t ~e foHo~ ~o~a~on: - INFOH~A~ON ~AL ZONING ~R DI$TRICT Circle: -1A R-3 8-1 ~2 B-3 PROPER~ Are there existing struc~res on the prope.?~/~ Do the existing structures comply with the zoning ordinance for setbacks, hardcover, etc.? ~ no ~..uc~.~ ~. =..,c..=,.: __ow..r ~o,~.,: 9~mh~ ~r~~ ~ ~%~ LOt '-'0 0 r {if other then applicant, Address SURV~OH/ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes,,~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This appflcat/on must be signed by aH owners of the subject property, or an exp/anat/on given why this ;s not the case. Owne~r's~. ignature - ~ _ Date Owner's Signature Date CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Dennis Hill Department of Property Tax A-6 Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Sir: I hereby request a (separat~assessment on the following described land (include legal description and P.I.D. numbers): District 85~- City of Mound " ~' (...5", " si~a~,~re of Fee ~.n~er Name of Taxpayer Taxpayer' s Address For \~- Tax Year ~t~ ~,. ~, ' ' Separation approved by city of Mound, Planning & Inspections i Department. By: Date: Jon Sutherland Title: printed on recycled paper 5223 Windsor Road Bldg Permit 4935 (pd SAC pd $400.00 (10-2-78 Excavation Permit 122 Water Conn 190.00 Tapping Sewer Permit 790 Plbg Permit Whipple Lots 5-6 & 12 Blk 18 Zoned B-6,000 sq ft 85-37970/ (t~2)43 9~ t 48 5224 Waterbury Road Joyce Gunion 11 - 15-88 REROOF f~ 114 5 7 (114 (1~8) ~6A. 7-16-96 Whipple Lots 9-10-11 Block 18 25-117-24 21 37970 0148 See attached For legal LotS/~,,l%Blk. I~. Addlt|onV4 Address: ~~ ~I~SD~ Builder Z&chman Homes Inc. House Name' '~fC#/°//~J~7- ~ House .Style LU/~.ZffO/'.~f- R ~/~ ~ ~q. ~t.. ' I0~0 " FIELD NOTES Show location of meters Private well Private well system IPublic water[ Public sewer Natural gas L.P. Gas Culvert required Curb cut required Sewer ~ water stubbed-in~ Driveway surface~l] Front yard setback ~ideyard setback ~0. Att. Garage Gara£e [ left[right Local Inspector Name H~ Phone ~?z- I1~ LOT DETAILS size width Size depth 'Low point High point Power Poles Telephone poles Larger trees Need elevations as follows Street ~ Elev. 0.00' Lot corners High Point Low point Gutter or Ditch Local Electric Co. Name Phone Local Gas. Co. Name HIN~ES~SCO Phone .a) Stoops 2 b) Sidewalk ~o sq.£t. Driveway ~_G~sq.£t. Parking pa--d~-~sq.£t. lawn steps # ~ c) Finish Grade d) Black Dirt ~landscaping.$ Sod N ~ sq. ft e) Undergiound Utilities~ Power..poles P Telephone..Doles T Larger Tr~es X $ .~ 7.~; ~' $' Low Areas Highest Point NORTH TOTAL Sac Charge CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONE (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) ' ~00~ = (for all lots) .............. I. 1 LOT AREA SQ. FT. X = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X X = TOTAL HOUSE X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ....... ~ ....................... PREPARED BY ~ DATE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For Homesteaders, Inc. IZO. O0 L ~ck : Propo~.,d O -~ ! .9~Z ~5 r IRON wATERBURY ROAD Scale: 1" = 30' DESCRI'PTTON: Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 18, WHIPPLE. We hereby certify the! this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of ali building% if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said lend. Dated this 26th .,,~ .o,J z603 Iisook .o,I ~0-_~ ,I EGAN, _,~,1 ELD./SLJrveyor~sm & NOWAK, INC.~/~ I ORDINANCE NO. 79-1996 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 330:12 TO THE CITY SUBDMSION 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 all 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 RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DECK & SHED TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK & MUD ROOM ADDITION AT 6189 SINCLAIR ROAD LOT 5, BLOCK 17, THE HIGHLANDS, 23-117-24 34 0070 P&Z CASE #97-09 WHEREAS, the owners, Brian & Patricia Stevenson, have applied for variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback to a shed and a nonconforming lakeside setback to a first level deck to allow construction of a conforming 6' x 10' mud room addition and a conforming 8' x 22' second level deck, and; WHEREAS, at time of application, the property contained the following nonconforming situations: Shed # 1. The shed located to the side of the garage on the street side has a nonconforming side yard setback of 3.5 feet __ to the required 4 foot setback. Shed #2. The shed located to the side of the dwelling has a nonconforming side yard setback of 5.5 feet +_ to the required 6 foot setback. Number of Accessory Buildings. There are three accessory buildings on the property, only two are allowed by ordinance. ° Deck (on-grade). The large on-grade deck adjacent to the dwelling is setback 38 feet + to the lake, a 50 foot setback is required, resulting in a 12 foot setback variance request. This deck is relatively large, however it is on-grade, is fully screened from view, and has a minimal impact to the lake and the adjoining properties. The deck fits very well into the topography of the lot. Deck (detached on shore). The deck adjacent to the shoreline is nonconforming to the required 10 foot setback and to the screening requirements for water oriented structures required by Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 3. b. 2. a. The intent of the ordinance is to eliminate this nonconforming structure and reduce the impact to the lake. and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the proposed mud room addition and deck are fully conforming and are reasonable, they will both enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or actual increase in nonconformities, and; WHEREAS, Impervious surface coverage is conforming when the wood decked areas are eliminated from the calculations. The impervious surface calculations could be considered at the 40% threshold because this is a lot of record, and; Proposed Resolution Stevenson, 3/25/97 P. 2 WHEREAS, the owner bought the house in July of 1996 and all these nonconforming issues were existing. He would prefer to remove that shed adjacent to the dwelling and have a variance granted for the shed adjacent to the garage, and he is also be willing to remove the deck at the shore, 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: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 3.5 feet + ,to the shed located adjacent to the garage, and the existing nonconforming lakeside setback o~r8 to the on-grade deck, to allow construction of a conforming 6' x 10' mud room addition and 8' x 22' second level deck, subject to the following conditions: The detached deck located adjacent to the shoreline shall be removed by July 1, 1997. bo The nonconforming shed located adjacent to the dwelling shall be removed by July 1, 1997. 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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures 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 6' x 10' mud room addition and a 8' x 22' second level deck on the lakeside of the dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 5, Block 17, The. Highlands. 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. In order to insure compliance with paragraph number one above, and prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a bond or equivalent and a right-of-entry agreement all in forms acceptable to the City to be used by the City as necessary to enforce compliance with the removal conditions contained in paragraph number one above. .< ,o.'r. EAS'r C0..[R 0~ .0'r e c~t 14 8,9°o8's8" E [ HTUIVl I NOU DRIVE. GARAGE ..try WOOD DECK JOE, 140. 97010 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1997 CASE 97-09: VARIANCE FOR DECK & MUD ROOM ADDITION BRiAN & PATRICIA STEVENSON, 6189 SINCLAIR ROAD LOT 5, BLOCK 17, THE HIGHLANDS, 23-117-24 34 0070 Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming items listed in the staff report to allow for the construction of a conforming 6' x 10' mud room addition on the front of the dwelling, and a conforming 8' x 22' second level deck on the lakeside of the dwelling. The proposed expansion of the mud room and deck are fully conforming and are reasonable, they will both enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or actual increase in nonconformities. The impervious surface calculations by the surveyor include the wood steps, deck and walk and this area is not considered impervious according to the ordinance. Impervious surface is conforming when the wood decked areas are eliminated from the calculations. The impervious surface calculations could be considered at the 40% threshold because this is a lot of record. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lakeside setback variance of 12' +/- to the on-grade deck, subject to the following conditions: 1) The detached deck adjacent to the shoreline shall be removed prior to the release of the resolution for filing at Hennepin County. 2) The nonconforming shed on the street side shall be removed or relocated and attached to an existing accessory structure in a conforming location. Reifschneider asked if the on-grade deck should be counted as hardcover. Sutherland commented, according to our ordinance it is not realistic to consider the deck as impervious. Applicant, Brian Stevenson stated that he bought the house in July of 1996 and all these nonconforming issues were existing so he feels somewhat penalized because what he is proposing is totally conforming. Stevenson commented that he understood the shed located on the side of the house also to be nonconforming in that it requires a 6 foot side yard setback, but is only about 5.5 feet from the side lot line, and therefore, would prefer to remove that shed and have a variance granted for the shed at the side of the garage. He would also be willing to remove the deck at the shore. A time limit to have these structures removed by was discussed. Stevenson noted that the interior remodeling of the dwelling cannot be finished until the mud room is completed and he would like to get approval as soon as possible. MOTION made by Reifschneider, seconded by Mueiler, to recommend approval of the variance request to allow construction of the mud room and deck subject to the removal of the shed located to the side of the house and removal of the deck at the shore by July 1, 1997. Motion carried unanimously Michael commented that this is a case where Truth in Housing would have been helpful and would hope that the Council reconsider their intent to pursue such an ordinance. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of March 10, 1997 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official --~.¢-"~qc ~7 Variance Application for Addition Brian and Patricia L. Stevenson 97-09 6189 Sinclair Road, Lot 5, Block 17, The Highlands, 23-117-24 34 0070 R-2 One and Two Family Residential The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming items listed below in order to allow for the construction of a conforming 6' x 10' mud room addition on the front of the dwelling, and a conforming 8' x 22' second level deck to be constructed on the lakeside of the dwelling. 1) Shed. The street side shed is setback approximately 3 feet from the side yard, a 4 foot setback is required by Ordinance Section 350:445, Subd. 5. A. resulting in a 1 foot variance request. 2) Number of Accessory Buildings. There is also a variance required to the number of accessory buildings, three are existing and only two are allowed by Ordinance Section 350:645. Subd. 2. C. Comment: The street side shed could be removed or relocated and attached to the other shed or garage in order to bring it into conformance. printed on recycled paper Staff Report, March 10, 1997 Stevenson p. 2 3) Deck (on-grade). The large on-grade deck adjacent to the house is setback 38 feet +/- to the lake, a 50 foot setback is required, resulting in a 12 foot setback variance request. Comment: This deck is relatively large, however it is on-grade, is fully screened from view, and has a minimal impact to the lake and the adjoining properties. The deck fits very well into the topography of the lot. 4) Deck (detached on shore). The deck adjacent to the shoreline is nonconforming to the required 10 foot setback and to the screening requirements for water oriented structures required by Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 3. b. 2. a. Comment: The intent of the ordinance is to eliminate this nonconforming structure and reduce the impact to the lake. The deck could be removed and the area restored to green space with suitable plantings. COMMENTS. The proposed expansion of the mud room and deck are fully conforming and are reasonable, they will both enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or actual increase in nonconformities. The impervious surface calculations by the surveyor include the wood steps, deck and walk and this area is not considered impervious according to the ordinance. Impervious surface is conforming when the wood decked areas are eliminated from the calculations. The impervious surface calculations could be considered at the 40% threshold because this is a lot of record. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lakeside setback variance of 12' +/- to the on-grade deck, subject to the following conditions: 1) The detached deck adjacent to the shoreline shall be removed prior to the release of the resolution for filing at Hennepin County. (Note to the applicant., a building permit for the addition cannot be issued until the resolution is filed.) 2) The nonconforming shed on the street side shall be removed or relocated and attached to an existing accessory structure in a conforming location. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1997. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $$364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No. qT-Oq DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot ~)'[- ~, I~zg-Oc-id- 17, '-F~- ~ t6~4~c~t4~% B~ook i'-~ Subdivision PID# c~ $-1l'7 ' 2q 5 q 00'7 0 Plat # ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA d-~2) 8-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Name ~'~.-I/~ ¢, ~Dp~T-I-~i(21~ L. ~~~0~ Address ~ ]~q ~ ~~1~ ~- ~C'~, l~ ~~¢ Name Address Phone (H) (W). (M) Has an application ever been made .for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, .~..no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. J' Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 1114/97) Variance Application, P. 2 ]1,. Case No. Do tge existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (/~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W )~,~ ~ · ft. '~,~ '~ ft. .~ ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) %'-0 ft. ~'~'~5:~ ft' ft- I1, ft. ·(NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft 4. Does the pre§ent use 6f the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes }~x~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ('~) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil (') too small ( ) drainage (~) existing situation (;~") too shallow ( ) shape other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 1/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship d&scribed above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~2~. If yes, explain: 7~.~this, petition? Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described No/(~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments:~i)[ A~--~ ~tgt~L~//h3L'~ FD~ 'Tflt% q,'hr3_/Ar, JC'-~ it, J OCdSc'-~-. '-l't ~Au"g A LbE-O,F-L OFP Ct~ w-,,4e' I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature -4D~ '~. Date --~~~, Date ~qO (Rev.'/14/97) -I*1 M BE.R RET, OF LOT ~; ~9°08's~"E BITUM t NOU ~' DRIVE GARAGE DEC K JOB 140. cJ'7010 97010 _..' I 17,_4 ,.\LDI:~I~.MAN CONSTP, UC'FION ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 53(}0 S. tlwy. No. 101 Minnelonka. MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 SURVEY mr: ALDERMAN CONSTRUCTION SURVEYED: JanuaD'. 1997 DRAFTED: Januao'28.1997 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 17. The Itighlands. Hennepin Count>', Minnesota. I,IMITATIONS & NOTES: The scope of our sen, ices lbr this job is as tbllows: t. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description you furnished. 2. Showing the location ofexisting visible improvements (lot covered with 2 feet ofsnowL 3. Setting new monnments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Tabulating hardcover of the improvements located and shown. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "o" Denoles I/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235. set. if"o" is filled in. then denotes found iron monument. CERTIFICATION: t hereby certify that this survey ,.vas prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Jh~mes H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 SCALE: ONE INCH EQUALS 20 FEET HARDCOVER WORKSHEET JOB 97010 I House Area 1 22.4 41.8 936, 2 9.9 16.4 162 JTotal House Garage & Sheds Area 3 24.3 24.4 593 4 8 6 48 5 8 6 48 [Total Garage & Sheds Driveway 6 44 Area 22 968 1Total Driveway Wood Steps and WoodWalks Area 7 3.5 45 158 8 16 3.5 56 9 3.5 2 7 10 9 10 90 11 6 9~ 54i 12 5 3 15 13 5 2 10 14 45 3.5 158~ 15 4 7 28 16 22 28 616 17 4 4 16: 18 4 3 12~ 19 3 3 9 20 7 3 21 21 34 3.5 119 22 31 6 186 23 8 8 64 24 8 6 48 1Total Wood Steps and Wood Walks 10991 689[ 9681 16661 Concrete Walk Area 25 1 4 4 [Total Concrete Walk [TOTAL HARDCOVER 4421 ffOTN. LOT AREA 957'/ II,~lC~l' OF LOT THAT MAY BE HARD 1SQ. IT. OF AU_OWABLE HARDCOVER 2873 IAREA OF H.C. UNDER + OR OVER - ORD. -1552 DETAIL A o CITY Of MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA x SQ. X .0% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH SQFT TOTAL HOUSE X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS X X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~/OVER (indicate difference) PREPARED BY DATE ~7~01 //J I CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADP~ss.... ... ~, , ---~l~ d ~S · TRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: · 0 J~l _~, oc__{~ t" a ~, ~o,ooo~.. ~,~00,0 HOUSE ......... [ ""~'~ '"' '"'~' I EXISTiNG/PROPOSED FRONT S E W FRONT N S E W N S E W 1.5' ~ · 10' OR 30' OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS SIDE REAR TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, $llED ..... FRONT N S E W / FRONT N S E w SIDE N S E 4' OR 6' SIDE N S 4' OR 6' L^~E · ~-T ~' ¥ --- ~ I ~ OPOFBLUFF I ~ -- -- ~-- ~ ~ I0' OR 30' ~ Planing ~ mment ffi ~-~ en~ outhned m ~e C~ty of Mound P at 472~__. '~ Nh. Ordiu~ee. Fm ~er mfi . ormauon, con~ct ~e C~ty of Mound '~'( :-'3' (:01) I~.~1 O0 0'~ 0'~ k.O kid I ~ I I30 -l:" I~ I--' 4"0 RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1741 BLUEBIRD LANE LOT 11 & THE SOUTHEASTERLY 79 FEET OF LOT 12, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 24 0004 PID P&Z CASE #97-10 WHEREAS, the owner, Robert Pierce has applied for a 3 foot rear yard setback variance in order to construct a 16.5' x 26' second story addition to an existing home, including the rebuilding of an existing main floor room that is conforming, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the existing home conforms to all ordinance criteria. The applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition with a 3 foot cantilever along the rear wall of the home. Substantial portions of the proposed cantilevered area encroach into the required 15 foot rear setback. At the southwest corner of the home, the total encroachment is approximately 3 feet, and; WHEREAS, at some time in the past, one foot was detached from the underlying Lot 12 which affects the rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the proposed construction is more aesthetically pleasing than alternate plans, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval with 6 in favor and 1 opposed with the following findings of fact: Practical Difficulty exists due to the placement of the house on the lot. The amount of the encroachment into the setback is very minimal. The only encroaching portion is cantilevered which has less impact than if it were an entire wall. The bathroom will not need to be relocated with this plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a three foot rear yard setback variance to allow construction of a second story addition. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Pierce, 3/25/97 P. 2 o o It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a second story addition (approx. 26' x 16.5') with a three foot cantilever along the rear wall, and reconstruction of a 12' x 12' existing main floor room. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 11 and the Southeasterly 79 feet of Lot 12, Block 9, Dreamwood. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1997 CASE 97-10: VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION ROBERT S. PIERCE, 1741 BLUEBIRD LANE LOT 11 & P/12, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 24 0004 Building Official, Jon Sutherland reviewed Mark Koegler's Planning Report. The applicant is seeking a 3 foot rear yard setback variance in order to construct a 16.5' x 26' second story addition to an existing home. The project will also include rebuilding an existing main floor room to make it suitable for a second story addition. The existing room is in a conforming location on the lot. The existing home conforms to all ordinance criteria. The applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition with a 3 foot cantilever along the rear wall of the home. Substantial portions of the proposed cantilevered area encroach into the required 15 foot rear setback. At the southwest corner of the home, the total encroachment is approximately 3 feet. At some time in the past, one foot was detached from underlying Lot 12 which affects the rear yard setback. Alternatives seem to exist in the form of either reducing the size of the addition or constructing additional living space over the top of the existing one story garage. As a result, staff does not feel this case supports a finding of hardship. Practical difficulty is the other consideration in granting variances. Mr. Pierce states in his application that the proposed construction is more aesthetically pleasing than alternate plans. If the Planning Commission finds that aesthetics is a key concern and that the proposed construction represents an appropriate action, a finding of practical difficulty could occur. Such a finding would need to be accompanied by findings of fact. Staff does not feel that the proposed variance request represents a finding of hardship. Unless the Planning Commission can delineate findings of fact that support practical difficulty, staff recommended that the Commission recommend denial of the requested variance. Applicant, Robert Pierce presented visual aids showing which portion of the floor plan would encroach into the required 15 foot rear yard setback and emphasized the minimal amount of encroachment being requested. He emphasized the crooked positioning of the house on the lot. Weiland recalled that the one foot of lot 12 which was transferred to the neighboring property was done because they had a nonconforming rear yard setback. MOTION made by Burma, seconded by Glister to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Findings of fact include: Practical Difficulty exists due to the placement of the house on the lot. The amount of the encroachment into the setback is very minimal. The only encroaching portion is cantilevered which has less impact than if it were au entire wall. The bathroom will not need to be relocated with this plan. Weiland feels there are alternatives available. MOTION carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Burma, Reifschneider, Michael, Glister, and Mueller. Weiland was opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1997. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: March 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Robert Scott Pierce CASE NUMBER: 97-10 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5g LOCATION: 1741 Bluebird Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R- 1 A) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a 3 foot rear yard setback variance in order to construct a 16.5' by 26' second story addition to an existing home. The project will also include rebuilding an existing main floor room to make it suitable for a second story addition. The existing room is in a conforming location on the lot. COMMENTS: The existing home conforms to all ordinance criteria. The applicant is proposing to construct the second story addition with a 3 foot cantilever along the rear wall of the home. Substantial portions of the proposed cantilevered area encroach into the required 15 foot rear setback. At the southwest corner of the home, the total encroachment is approximately 3 feet. At some time in the past, one foot was detached from underlying Lot 12. If this portion of the lot was still part of the parcel, the requested variance would be 2 feet in lieu of 3 feet. Variances can be granted on the basis of either hardship or practical difficulty. Hardship us[~ally can be found in cases of unique lot shape or other unusual physical features. In this case, the lot is a typical square configuration and no unusual physical features exist. Another aspect of hardship is a lack of alternatives to the proposed action. In this case, alternatives seem to exist in the form of either reducing the size of the addition or constructing the additional living space over the top of the existing one story garage. As a result, staff does not feel that this case supports a finding of hardship. Practical difficulty is the other consideration in granting variances. Mr. Pierce states in his application that the proposed construction is more aesthetically pleasing than alternate plans. If the Planning Commission finds that aesthetics is a key concern and that the proposed construction represents an appropriate action, a finding of practical difficulty could occur. Such a finding would need to be accompanied by findings of fact. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Pierce Variance March 3, 1997 Page 2 'RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not feel that the proposed variance request represents a finding of hardship. Unless the Planning Commission can delineate findings of fact that support practical difficulty, staff recommends that the Commission recommend denial of the requested variance. (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 '-A'PpliCa-ti~n Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer ~blic Works DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address l."-It4[ ~:~lk_.~XR~ Lot ~_ k. ls,l,4.~ ~ Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-1 Block R-2 R-3 B-1 Plat # Li~M.-.~ B-2 B-3 Name Address Phone (H) (M) Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, 00 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.): (Ret,. 1/14/97) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 0¢, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 0~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 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 (,,t.) too small ( ) drainage 0c) existing situation ( ) too shallow ('~,) shape ( ) other: specify Please (Rev. 1/14/97) Variance Application, p. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No gO. If yes, explain: o Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (gl. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature (Rev. 1/14/97) Date Date TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I //~/~[(/~A/~' , as a abutting property to the resident's of 1741 Bluebird Lane, have been informed of the requested variance. approve of the requested change. Sincerely, . Signature Date. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN , as a abutting property to the dent's Lane, have been informed of the requested variance. of 1741 Bluebird l~.ppro~~isapprove of the requested change. Sincerely, - ~igna~tur~ Date: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS,. (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) IPROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA {~(~{~ SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SO FT ?_~ x ~ tn = Lc '/-~ ~7- ,. X ~7- = t~~. TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ~¢:;~-~ X = X : TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. _~,~,.3J~. x = ~---~ x = -/-~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... x = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I -L'5~"t UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I '[-~-~ I hereby certify tlmt this is a true and correct re!)r.::ent:, ti ,., of a curve.v of the bmmdarje:: e? Lot 11 and the Southe,,sterly 7'7 Fe,':t of Lnt 12, P. lnek 9, Drear,w~,,d, thc [c.c:~tjc, n tf any, thareor:~ and l.b,: ::r,mosed I~"ui'ion cf' o ~:rr.,~):;--, b~iil.'lin£'. It does not purl~rt to show eLl,er Jmp'r.,v,;~,¢:ntc cr Scale: 1" = 30' Ihte : 9-,..,-83 o : Iron lr~l-ker ~ : Spot elevation 'I]~um: Mound City sewer datum GORDON R. COFFIN CO., INC. T CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET llOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF Z S E W (9~E w N S GARAGE, $IIED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED N S E W FRONT FRONT NS E W REQUIRED ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~B1 7,500/0 ~a 6, ooo/~o~s2 2o,ooo/so ~ 6,000/40 a3 10,000/60 R2 14,O00/80 R3 SEE O~D. I~l~n.nnn/~t.l,.~_0 E~STING~ROPOSED __ SO' 10' OR 30' BUILDINGS SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W $0' TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER CONFORIvIINO? YES / NO 10' OR 30' This Zoning Informj/[ion Sheet onl~ summarizes a port on of Planning Departmft at 472-0600. ~ EXISTINO LOT SIZE: ., S LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound ( HARR I SONS 0 0 0 0 I'rl 0 Ma~-17-97 01:46P WHY'rE BUILDERS inc. 612-S51-1722 P.02 Whvte Builders Inc. 5547 Wingwood Court. Minnetonka, Mn. 55345 612-934-5930 Fax 612-934-5930 IVlarch 17,97 Mr. Edward. Shukle, Jr. I am writing you to request that you please put my application for a variance on your city planning meeting on march Z4, 97. And then city council meeting on march 25. I have a contract to close on this property on March ?_8, 97. So I would appreciate if you could expedite this matter. I am also requesting that the variance application fee be waived since this property should have been vacated. Therefore a variance would not be needed. Sincerely, Bradley H. White President PAID MAR 1 4 1997 ~Cllht O1= HOUND 'iFOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEG&L DF. SC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) _VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 552364 Phone: 4720600, Fax: 472-0620 City Planner City Engineer Public Works Application Fee: Case No._d~. '~-] ?) Block Plat # {') ,~ ~ .~ 13-2 B-3 (M) '70 9-~ 711 Address Lo, /--} ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-3 B-1 Address Phone (ID Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, tN/no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed dcscripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): . (Rev. 1114197) /o/S' Naxiance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes {~j, No (), If no, specify each non-conforming usc (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUIRED REQUESTED (or exisdgg) VARIANCE From Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. , io/ ft. [0' ft. '' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sci ft sq ft sqft sqft sqft Docs thc present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 00, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (:~ too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please · Vaxiaace Applica6on. p. 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes Ca'), 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 ~K), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? .... 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature "- Applicant's Signature~ (Rev. 1/14t97) Date Date I'iAR-17-97 lION 14:59 ~4EST PHOTO FA× NO, 6123794047 Mar-17-g7 O1:57P WHYTE BUILDERS 4nc. ~_2_551-1722 c~Y 0F ~0~ ~1 ~~ ~md, Mound, ~ 5~ l~oue: 472-060e, F~x: P, 02 p .0~ A1~lication Fee:~ PiL. u'fin$ Conu~ssion Da~: City Councit D~e: City Pleune~ _ -- Pub]~ Wor~m D~ PROPERTY DF, SC. ~ OTE~ PtD~ ZONING DI~TRIC'f R-I R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 B-3 Has an mpplictfion ever been med~ for zoning, vat.ce, conditions/usc ~, or o~er m~ pt~e for ~ pmpe~? ( ) ~, M ~. U y~, lig ~t~s) of zppll~on, ~ou ~n, ~l~on n~r(s) ~ provi~ ~pi~ of ~solu6o~. DeutUcd desczipton of proposed constr~tion o~ alteration (size, number of stories, t~pe of u.~, etc.): 2~.~ .', z.. / - , A,&-~.p,c.=.,'7',F_.,4';-- /f/~-'~~' ...... EXCERPT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1997 CASE 97-13: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING WHYTE BUILDERS INC., 5090 WINDSOR ROAD LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, 25-117-24 12 0234 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planner's Report. The applicant, Brad White, is seeking approval of a front yard variance in order to construct a new home in the Teal Pointe development. Lot 4 is located on the corner of the improved Windsor Road and the unimproved Cobden Lane and because it is a corner lot, is subject to A 20 foot front yard from both roads. The home is proposed to be located 10 feet from the Cobden Lane right-of-way which would be a normal side yard setback. When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was submitted the developer had originally proposed the vacation of Cobden Lane. After public hearings, the Council denied the vacation request. The general conclusion was that Cobden Lane would probably never be improved for street purposes. The preliminary plat that was filed for Teal Pointe incorrectly identified a 10 foot setback requirement from the Cobden Lane right-of-way. The plat was drawn assuming setbacks with the right-of-way being vacated. Locating a home within 10 feet of the line does not compromise future use of Cobden as either a formally marked or informally used public trail. Even if utilities were needed in the future, they could be placed within the right-of-way without being hampered by the location of the proposed home. The fact that Cobden Lane is likely to be held by the public as perpetual open space and the fact that the new home does not compromise the future use of the public right-of-way are grounds for a finding by the Planning Commission that this case satisfies the existence of practical difficulty. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested 10 foot front yard setback variance to allow the proposed home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-way of Cobden Lane. The facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty. Sutherland noted that the applicant requested a refund of the application fee and that staff sees no reason to waive the fee, however, this decision can be made by the Council. Reifschneider questioned if a house can be built up to an easement. Staff confirmed there is no setback requirement from an easement. Hanus commented that a house width of 50 feet is not minimal and suggested the structure could be deeper rather than wider. Sutherland commented that a 50 foot wide house would better match the houses in the rest of the neighborhood. In addition, the applicant had the understanding and belief the setback was 10 feet and designed the house as such. The history of this plat was reviewed in relation to what happened with the first denial of the vacation of Cobden Lane. It was noted that if Cobden would have been vacated they could have built a wider house on this lot. Drafted Planning Commission Minutes Whyte Variance Page 2 Mueller feels that Cobden acts more like a fire lane or alley and a side setback should apply. It was questioned if other lots are affected in this subdivision because the road did not get vacated. Hanus noted that Lot 3 is affected. Sutherland commented there may be a proposal to build one house on Lots 1, 2, & 3 and he has discussed the potential for other variances with the Planner. Sutherland noted that because we do not know what is coming for those lots, they should concentrate on this application alone. Weiland expressed a concern that the building envelope is buildable, and questioned why a variance should be granted just to allow a bigger house. Reifschneider commented that Cobden is steep and inaccessible, and he would have preferred vacating the street with an easement. He hates to see variances, but because Cobden will never be improved and because the other houses have 10 foot side setbacks, he would be in favor of a variance being granted. Burma agreed with Weiland that the building envelope easily allows for a dwelling without a variance, and does not feel a variance should be granted just because a mistake was possibly made. Sutherland commented that after the original vacation request was denied, staff would have recommended approval of the ten foot side yard setback anyway because Cobden will not be improved and will continue to be green space. The impact of a reduced setback towards unimproved Cobden is minimal. Mueller commented that if the 20 foot setback is enforced you will have a 30 foot wide strip of green space, plus two 20 foot strips on each abutting property resulting in a 70 foot wide strip of unbuildable green space. He suggested the Commission be realistic and emphasized that staff feels it is reasonable. Burma stated that he is worried about setting a precedent. Mueller commented that maybe the ordinance needs to be changed as it relates to setbacks to unimproved right-of-ways since there are so many roads platted in the City that run through wetlands and on steep slopes that will never be improved. A lot of the unimproved right-of-ways are used as green space or access to docks. MOTION made by Reifschneider, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the ten foot side yard setback variance as recommended by staff. Motion failed 3 to 3. Those in favor were: Reifschneider, Mueller, and Hanus. Those opposed were: Weiland, Glister, and Burma. Vice-Chair Mueller stated that this case will be forwarded to the City Council with no recommendation. This case will be heard by the Council on March 25, 1997. Weiland commented that he was opposed to be motion because of the amount of square footage and what the building envelope is, and because they could go deeper with the house. Mueller commented that he feels the variance is reasonable. Ma~-l?-~7 01:58P WHYT( BUILDERS 3 (PRINTED PAGE 3) ] Case No. P,03 Do the cxistin$ structures comply with all a~ea, height, bulk. and setback re~atto~ for the zouin$ district in which it is loc.~ted? Yes t~', No (). If no, specif7 each no--confonnin$ u~e (.d~cribe re,uoa for variance requests 1.¢. setback, lot ~ea, etc,): REQUIRED REQUESTED (or esbdq) VARIANCE Does the preseut use of the property conform to all reaula~ions for ~e zoning district in which it ia located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-couformiu{ use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject prop,uty prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted, in that zoninS district? ( ) too smdi ( ) too dmilow ( ) ( ) dt*~ige ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) exislin8 situation ( ) other: Io1, M~R-17-@7 MON 15~O1 WEST PHOTO M&t"-~XT-9? O! --58P ~dHY'rE BUILDERS F~X ~0, 6123794047 q (PRINTKI) PRBK ~} 8].2-551- 1722 ~ nc.. ........ Ca.~ No. P, 04 p.04 Wu the b~'ds~ de.~crroed mbova ~ted by ~e action of anyone t~vtng property interests in the ~ aft~ the zoning ord~nca wns ad~pt~! (t982)? Ye~ ~), No (). If les, explain: 7. Was ~c l~'dsMp r~entecl by nny ot~er mnn.made c. tumge, ~t~ as ~c r=loe, afion of · ro,xl? Ye~ ~, No (). If ~es, explain: [ r.~rLif~ th3t all of the above stateme~J ~u~ ~e ~t~ ~n~ n~t~fion by ~y ~~ o~ctd of ~ Ci~ of Mou~ for ~ ~~g ~ t~v~ su~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ r~ by hw. IO .0 W- Z Z W m 30 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR WHYTE BUILDERS OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA '-'.'.,'~'-...~ .-, _~ ,o.~ PROPOSED ~W ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREUlSE~ : Lot 4, B)ock l, TEAL POINTE 0 : ~eDo~e~ ~FOD mOFkeF ~eoF~n~ ~hown Ore bo~ed upon oD o~su~ed dotu~. Th]~ Survey intends tO ~ho* the bouDdoF]es of the ubove described property, ond the proposed Iocot]on of o proposed house thereon. It does not purport to 8how on) other ]~provemeDts OF eDcrooch~eDts. -04~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: LOT AREA //?..5~d~ SQ. FT. X 30% -- (for all lots) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *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 al)proved by tho Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ,~5~ X Z~e -,. //g~' DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (114' min. ol~ning between boards) with a pervious .urface under ate not counted as hamlcovat OTHER X ~ TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ///' ,~ / X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. / F;x v_z_= 5/ x zz = y' x /'~-~' >' = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY O.~///?z~"~"~~'~ ~z"i~_._[~.~ ~/~t~ /..Y..-c~, DATE T II I' Ill I ,I, il, ~,1~ I ~, CITY OF MOUND - ZONIN( INFORMATION SHEET HOUSE ......... FRO~ ilf;~dsoc FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SHED ..... FRONT FRONT N(~ E W N S E N 5 E W S E W S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 1OfO00/60 B1 ?,500/0 ,~ 6,000/4~ B: :O,O00/B0 R2 -- 6~000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 ORD. 11 30 0 100 R3 SEE ~ 50' I0' OR :30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT VARIAHCE 1(3' ¥ SIDE OR OTHER DETACHED .~E w N S E(~ N S~_~W SIDE N 5 E W REAR i S E W LAKE N S E W BU,LD,,',OS '~ cD ,.~ / 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' $0' TOP OF BLUFF .,,,~OVER 0 S 0 CONFORMINO? Y~S I DATED: This Zoning Information Sheet ~ a portion of ~e requiremen~ outlined in ~e City of Mound Zo~ng Ordiu~ce. For ~er information, contact ~e City of Mou~ .Pl~nin{ ~p~m~nt at 472~. C 0 tn O~ SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBETC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. ~DREss oF SIGN ~.OCaTION ~ '~C~ ~,~ (If more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper) NAME OF APPLICANT '~¢~ ~.3.~=~L~.~.~,---~ PHONE APPLICANT'S ADDRESS NUMBER OF SIGNS: TYPE OF SIGN: banner temporary SIZE OF SIGN: q feet high x DATES OF USE: FROM O~ / DESCRIBEREASON/PURPOSEFORREQUEST: f-f~.p--L ¥ fff ~r~ wall mount permanent ~ feet wide = free standing ~ ~ square feet DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): AppI~cant's Signature Date IIII/////I/I/I////I/111!111111/111111/11111/11/11////1111//I/11//I//////11/11/ APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: March 19, 1997 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: SUBEJCT: CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK LICENSE RENEWALS The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is April 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Hawker Blue Bell Ice Cream Transient Merchant By the Way Snack Shop Tree Removal License Aaspen Tree Service Emery's Tree Service Four Season's Tree Service Randy's Tress Service Shorewood Tree Service The Tree-Stump Co. Set-Up License A1 & Alma's Supper Club Public Gatherine Permits BASS CHAMPIONS DIVISION 3 - JULY 19 & AUGUST 23, 1997 - WEIGH-IN AT MOUND BAY PARK MINNETONKA BASS CLASSIC (DENNY NELSON) - JUNE 8, 1997 - WEIGH-IN AT MOUND BAY PARK o BETHEL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH SERVICE AT MOUND UNION CEMETERY MARCH 30, 1997 - WORSHIP pr~nted on recycled paper ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS CITY OF MOUND 1997 SEAL COAT PROGRAM Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. Thursday, April 10th, 1997 at the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials for the application of approximately 26,000 gallons of bituminous material and 1,300 tons of seal coat aggregate. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, April 22nd, 1997. All proposals shall be addressed to: City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "PROPOSAL FOR 1997 SEAL COAT PROGRAM" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the Plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payment of $20.00 per set (includes MN sales tax), which is NON- REFUNDABLE. Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. City of Mound, Minnesota Robert Polston, Mayor ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk BILLS, .March 25, 1997 Batch 7024 Batch 7032 Total Bills $143,991.28 141,673.83 $285,665.11 Z Z l, ii, i, llL ,Il J~ z I u o ~ ~Z 0.-4 I I I I ! ,I, JI, ;, IJIL r,,-. ~0 1 r~ I ~ 0 0 U L ii, ,,ILL ud ,'", I:D ~ I ZZ I I I I 1037 ~J ,-4 Z -: ~. I~_~.~.¢,__c ,¢ t..:.~- ,:.IL:,..: ~t 4 UJ I0~0 W W n h, II I po I ii I {>*.4 JJ I 1, I, I,, I, IlL il J i Z 0 0 0 ~ I I I §§ *-1.-4 ,VI i L ,El ;;::.-.-.-.-.-, I I I lo'lC, o u~ (LO Z 0 o~ Il ..r.I MINUrES OF A MEETING OF THE OUNO nOVISO, Y,'LANN ;,:O ,SSION CASE 97-05: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION PHILLIP A. KLEIN, 5010 WOODLAND ROAD LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, 13-117-24 11 0146 Building Official, Jon Sutherland noted for the Commission that the minutes from the previous meeting relating to this case are in the packet on page 24. Sutherland, reviewed that the applicant had originally proposed an addition that was 22' x 16', which has now been reduced to 22' x 14'. The setback to the east property line would now be 17 feet +/- to the required 30 foot setback resulting in a variance request of 13 feet +/-. All other issues are conforming. The applicant's proposal is essentially the same as before, and the staff recommendation is identical to the previous report. Staff visited the site again and determined that specific circumstances have not been identified as outlined in Ordinance Section 350: 530, and in this case cannot support a finding of hardship. If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding, a recommendation for denial should be made. Mueller confirmed with the Building Official that the existing structure is suitable to carry a second story addition above the garage. Phil Klein, applicant, confirmed that he did review his request with the Building Official. He feels an addition above the garage would not be functional because there is no architecturally feasible way to get access from the home without going through the garage or without eliminating their eating area. Planning Commission Minutes March I0, 1997 Klein noted that if the addition were placed on the northwest corner of the dwelling it would not work because that is where the gas and electrical services come into the house and that is where all the mechanical intakes and exhausts are and he feels it constitutes a hardship to have to relocate these utilities. Sutherland noted that he and the planner discussed these issues and feel they are of a financial nature and do not constitute a practical difficulty or hardship. Klein also emphasized that while constructing his house they encountered the worst soil conditions at the northwest corner of house. They had to excavate down about eight feet to get to clay soil, remove the bad soil and fill with sand and compact it. He feels that because his lot has three street frontages with a 30 foot setback requirement on each side that this constitutes a hardship or practical difficulty. He noted that there is a property across the street on Woodland Road where the house is only 15 feet from the property line. Mueller commented that when this house was originally designed they could have planned for these needs at that time since the lot could have accommodated a larger dwelling. Klein commented that an addition above the garage does not suit his needs and it is not architecturally feasible. Mueller confh'med with Klein that this dwelling has an unfinished basement. Klein commented that there are other conforming locations, but then daylight would be taken away from existing rooms and it would affect existing landscaping. Michael noted that this request is only a two foot difference from the previous request, and it is essentially the same thing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend denial of the variance as requested. Clapsaddle commented, for the record, there are several ways this house could be added onto architecturally which would require further change to house and which would be different than what the applicant is trying to get approved, but in order to have a variance-free solution it takes flexibility to come up with a design that would work. He stated there are certainly no hardships. MOTION to deny carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1997. Weiland asked that the Commission discuss the "mother-in-law apartment" concept at a workshop meeting. 2 ,il J 1, I, iii,, i, lli, ,Ii ,i~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FRO M: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: Planning Commission Agenda of March 10, 1997 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official -~, Revised Variance Application for Addition Philip A. Klein 97-05 5010 Woodland Road, Lots 13 & 14, Block 20, Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0146 ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential The applicam had originally proposed an addition that was 22' x 16', on the revised application this has now been reduced to 22' x 14'. The setback to the east property line would now be 17 feet +/-, a 30 foot setback is required resulting in a variance request of 13 feet +/-. All other issues are conforming. The applicant's proposal is essentially the same, and the staff recommendation is identical to our previous report. Specific circumstances have not been identified as outlined in Ordinance Section 350:530, and in this case staff cannot support a finding of hardship. If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding, a recommendation for denial should be made. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1997. prlnted on recycled paper ~~/I~~ VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 FEB 2 O 1S97 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OH-'ICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No. g~----~, DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot Subdivision Block PID# ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 Plat # B-2 B-3 Name Address Phone (H) /-/7.~-- 7~//-(' ty/ (w) ?Va- ~' 7' 4 (M) Address Phone (H) .(W) (M)_ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): sz .?, e_; (Rev. 1/]4/97) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes t~f, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: ( N(~I}~ W ) ( N S(~).~ ) (NSEC) ((~S EW) (NSEW) · (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: I1, ~'~ sq ft ~) ,~'~ sq ft ~0'~e,. sq ft ~018 sq ft %$~ sq ft ~o,~ 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 ~>4 soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ¢~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (~ other: specify O~r~'e.~- Please describe: (Rev. 1/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Co,"%.,. 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature I{~$ (Rev.,/14,97) Date Z' Zo- ~' 7 Date 2- -~0 '9 7 Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SUEVEYOE~ 0 E~GI~E~D UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA ~1 - ~3rd Avenue No~ ~3~3 M~ea~lb, Ml~o~ 55428 ~000.0 Bench~rk: Top nut of hydrant at south~st corner of Enchanted Lane and Heron Lane. Elevation= 957.13 _ .,~_ INVOICE NO.. 37999 F. B. NO. 573-71 SCALE I" = 20' Denolee Iron Monumenl Denole$ 'Wood Hub Set For [ ZCQVQIion Denotes £xl$1lng Elevation Denotes Proposed Elev0lion Denolee Surface Drainage Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor .. Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building - .% Lots 13 and 14, Block 20, "SHADYWOOD POINT, BENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN.' Proposed buildin9 Jnformution must be checked with approved building plan before excavation and construction. T)~ o~ly lalqmfll~ts it~ I~a I~ p~o of ~ ~ Ifll~ll~ ~ ~ clot. ~ ~ ~1~ ~ Ihll la I t~ ~ c~l r~l~ of I lucy of t~ Ib~ ~M, If ~, f~ ~ ~ ~d ~. ~~lm 21st ~of July 10 94 Signed Ray,~ond A. Prasch Minn~ Reg. No. 6743 JJ J 1, I, Il, I, IIL ,I J~ FEB 2 O 1997 ,1 ,JJ I 1, J~ iii, j,J,, ,J C) cO r~ (.) MINIYrES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 1997 CASE 97-05: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION PHILLIP A. KLEIN, 5010 WOODLAND ROAD LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, 13-117-24 11 0146 The applicant is seeking a setback variance of 15.5 feet to the required 30 foot front Y9a, rd setback to the east in order to allow construction of a 22' x 16' two story addition with a x 7' entry. This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district and is a unique site in that it has street frontage on three sides. A 30 foot setback is required to Woodland Road to the south, and to Heron Lane that wraps around on the east and the north yards. A side yard setback of 10 feet is required to the west. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1994 and is conforming to the zoning ordinance. 7 ,ill I J, I, i~, Jl ~1 ,J ,~ i Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, I997 ' - The criteria for granting variances requires that in order to grant a variance a finding of hardship or practical difficulty must be made and also that specific circumstances exist as outlined in Section 350:530. In this case staff cannot support a finding of hardship as there are other options available to the applicant such as moving the addition to a conforming location on this site or relocation to another site that can accommodate their needs for additional space. If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding a recommendation for denial should be made. When reviewing past variance cases with respect to corner lots there has been discussion that corner lots are an issue that may deserve further study and that in some cases the ordinance provisions result in a minimal buildable footprint when applied to coruer lots. In this case, the applicant was able to construct a suitable dwelling to meet their needs in 1994 without the issuance of any variances Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider the application of the corner lot provisions of the ordinance as they apply to this parcel and determine if issues of practical difficulty can be found that result in an unreasonable buildable footprint. If issues of practical difficulty cannot be identified, a recommendation for denial should be made based on lack of hardship. Weiland questioned if this is going to be a "mother-in-law" apartment. Sutherland confirmed that it appears so, and that this use is permitted as long as there is no identifiable separation between the living areas and there is no locked door between the units and the house resembles a single family dwelling in all aspects. The Commission discussed other possible locations for the addition and poor soil conditions on the site. Applicant, Phil Klein explained that the worst soil is to the rear of the house which is the only area where the addition could be put and still meet setbacks. He has also done a lot of landscaping in the back yard with boulder walls and does not want to disturb it. He will have to tear out one wall to build it where it is proposed, but he will not lose any trees. He stated it would be a hardship to construct the addition in any other location. This is the most architecturally appealing proposal that would accommodate his needs for his family to have his mother in the house to help raise their children. He commented that there are many other nonconforming structures in his neighborhood. The addition will be 22 feet from the edge of the road as there is a 7 foot boulevard. Klein commented that topography of the lot is also a reason to allow the addition where proposed so the basement can have windows. Hanus clarified with the applicant that the elevations noted on the survey do not reflect what is existing. Clapsaddle suggested that the addition be located at the northwest coruer of the house, it is difficult to find hardship in this case, and feels that the addition in the location which is proposed would visually plug up the neighborhood area of Heron lane. Clapsaddle feels there are other options available. Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 ': - MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma to recommend denial of the variance as requested. Klein questioned the definition of a "hardship." Koegler stated that there is a definition in the State Statutes, however, the closest reference to "hardship in the zoning ordinance is reflected in the Variance Provisions, Section 350:53, Subd. 1. A. "Exception or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this Ordinance have no control." Koegler summarized, if there is no alternative, or if a variance is driven by topography, then there may be grounds for hardship. The practical difficulty role is far more subjective. Mueller suggested a f'mding for denial is that the dwelling was constructed in 1994 and is conforming and there is an alternative location for the addition. Burma commented that often they have been more lenient with corner lots, but there does appear to be an alternative here and it does not appear that every avenue has been explored to seek conformity. MOTION to deny carried unanimously. Hanus explained to the applicant that he has the option to withdraw his request and re-work his proposal before it is formally acted on by the Council. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of February 10, 1997 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance for Addition Phillip A. Klein 97-05 5010 Woodland Road, Lots 13 & 14, Block 20, Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0146 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a setback variance of 15.5 feet to the required 30 foot front yard setback to the east in order to allow construction of a 22' x 16' two story addition with a 9' x 7' entry. At the time this report was generated there was inadequate information available to determine if a height/story variance would also be a part of this application. The ordinance allows a maximum of 35 feet in height or 2 and one half stories. The application states a three story addition is proposed. In order to evaluate this issue all, of the exterior elevations must be accurately drawn to scale, and must indicate the existing and final grade. This property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district and is a unique site in that it has street frontage on three sides. A 30 foot setback is required to Woodland Road to the south, and Heron Lane that wraps around on the east and the north yards. A side yard setback of 10 feet is required to the west. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1994 and is conforming to the zoning ordinance. pr~nted on recycled paper Staff Report - Klein February 10, 1997 Page 2 COMMENTS: The criteria for granting variances requires that in order to grant a variance a finding of hardship or practical difficulty must be made and also that specific circumstances exist as outlined in Section 350:530. In this case staff cannot support a finding of hardship as there are other options available to the applicant such as moving the addition to a conforming location on this site or relocation to another site that can accommodate their needs for additional space. If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding a recommendation for denial should be made. When reviewing past variance cases with respect to corner lots there has been discussion that corner lots are an issue that may deserve further study and that in some cases the ordinance provisions result in a minimal buildable footprint when applied to corner lots. In this case, the applicant was able to construct a suitable dwelling to meet their needs in 1994 without the issuance of any variances STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the application of the corner lot provisions of the ordinance as they apply to this parcel and determine if issues of practical difficulty can be found that result in an unreasonable buildable footprint. If issues of practical difficulty cannot be identified, a recommendation for denial should be made based on lack of hardship. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. ,J J J, l, iII, ,J J i ! ! -/ <3 f~ CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FIt. E7 YES I NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD J DIREL'I'ION J REQUIRED w ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R2 EXISTING LOT SIZE: ].0,000/60__.) B1 7,500/0 LOT WIDTH: 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 6,000/40 B3 10,O00/60 ]-4,000/80 LOT DEP'JH: SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 VARIANCE IIOU,gE ......... FRONT S,DE SIDE REAR LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, $llED ..... OR OTI1ER DETACHED BUll DINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' 10,5' q HARDCOVER ~ ~40% / Th,s Z ..... :nro~ summ ~a ortmn of the rea ~ :N - of Mound '. ' g ' Y ~i~ p ' q iremen~ ot:t[ined in the City of Mound Zo~ng Ordin~ce. For ~r~er information, con.ct lhe City .Planning ~paament at 472~. (WEST ARM) I / ,. (,~) ,il i J, I, JI J, ill,, J MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT ~IZIS .... .IAS~ ~51IS' YEAR LAST YEAR ~br-j_H OF FEBRUARy ~.~7 M~ M~ ~ ~ TO DA~ ~. OF C~ 47 50 97 143 ~OUND F~ 9 14 23 34 ~~ 15 16 31 46 ~INNETONKA BEACH ,FTM 0 1 1 1 ~~ 0 0 0 3 ~zRzs~x F~ S' 0 5 zo ~~ ~ 5 zo 4 )RONO ~'~ ~ 2 7 12 ~G~ 0 3 3 4 ~0~EWOOD ~'~ 0 0 0 0 ~PRING PARK ~'~ 0 1 1 8 ~'~ 5 7 12 17 'JUTUAL AID-' ~ 2 0. 2 2 - ~~ 1 0 1 1 ~OTAL FIRE CALLS 21 18 39 67 ~OTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 26 32 58 76 ~CI~ 0 0 0 ~SID~ 5 3 8 7 ~'~ 0 0 0 t ~S & ~~S 3 7 10 20 ~ o. o o 5 F~E ~ / FIRE ~ 10 8 18 30 ~. OF H~ ~ 192 343 535 707 - MOUND ,~~ 286 30~ 590 948 - HTKA BEACH ~G~ 0 0 0 67 ~ 0 23 23 93 FI~ 289 0 289 172 M' TR I STA ~.~ 107 107 214 92 ~ 396 107 503 264 ~'~ 106 74 180 216 ORON0 ~~ 0 48 48 77 ~ 106 122 228 293 [~ o o o o SHOREW00D ~~. 0 21 21 23 ... ~ 0 21 21 23 ~ 0 13 13 138 SP. PARK ~~ 91 113 204 368 , ~ 91 126 217 506 ~ 60 0 60 61 - ~ ~D ~~ 20 0 20 27 T~ ~O O 80 88 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 172.5 175 247,5 342.5 TOTAL FIRE HOURS 647 453 1 lO0 1320 TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 504 5g~ ]Q97 1602 ~L F~E & ~G~ ~ 115~ 1046 2197 2p22 ~UTUAL AID RECEIVED 2 Q 2 O MUTUAL AID ~IVZN 3 0 3 3 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF FEBRUARY ]g97 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 2/10 2/17 ~ ~ H/1RS RA/E ,m.;'~ ~q~,qEN X X 2 19.00 8 39 6.50 253. ! ~?~ ~ t~.rp ,~(~.l X X 2 19.00 2 39 6.50 253.50 ~ ?~.i~ ~'~ X X 2 19.00 2 39 6.50 253.50 ' ?.-'.V.7% ~n,m X X, 2 19.00 9 31 6.50 201.50 ~ _cCOr? ~?¥(. ~. ~ X 1 9.50 28 27 6.50 175.50 ~ 3!.M CASEY X X 2 19.00 4 27 6.50 175.50 ,~ ST~ COLLINS X X 2 19.00 2 23 6.50 14 9.50 ~ ~OB Ck%~.'~FORD X X 2 19.00 8 31 6.50 201.50 c. ~u\~DY ~FlJ{AR, T X ~--~ 1 9.50 8 18 6.50 117.00 C S?E%~ ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 0 30 7.00 210.00 ~.'~ GR~DY X X 2 19.00 8 27 6.50 175.50 · 2 :~E~ _..~ GkkDY X X 2 19.00 4.5 30 6,5(] .2 ~?r ~??.~?SQN X X 2 19.00 9.5 30 6.50 .- ~ ...w35_ ~DEp. S(~ X X 2 19.00 4 35 6.50 227.50 L5 ?~?, F_ _n~T~ y X ~--) 1 9.50 0 26 6.50 169, QQ ~6 _~AT? __Wig~TC~F..q X X 2 19.00 5.5 . 37 6,50 ~0.50 !7 ROG_rR KRYC~ X X 2 19.00 11.5 37 ~, ~Q ;~ 0.50 ~- $ 30.~tW k~LRSON X X 2 19.00 14~i., 5 4 9 ~. ~Q 318.50 ~-~ 3ASON ~LiAS X X 2 19.00 2 36 ~,~Q 234.00 2C 30:~ .ttkFUS x x 2 19.00 2.5 36 6. ~0 234.00 o_~ 3.~_'-~S .NELSON X X 2 19.00 2.5 31 6.~0 201.50 22 S~_~T .k~ICCUI.~ E~ X 1 9.50 4 22 6.50 1,~3.00 ~ GREG ?.%!2I X X 2 19.00 2 32 6.50 208.00 ~'~ !!_rKE PAI2I X X 2 19.00 5 28 6.50 182.00 25 I~.I PALM X X 2 19.00 2.5 26 6.50 169.00 26 GREG PEDERSON X X 2 ]9.00 0 32 6.7~ 21~.00 27 C-wlRIS POUNDER X X 2 19.00 8 '~7 6.50 240.50 2~ T0.%~ ~S.~[USSE~; X X 2 19.00 1.5 35 6.50 l~ R!CF3_RD ROGERS X X 2 19.00 2 40 6.50 260.00 ~. '.lIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 10 30 6.50 195.00 51 K~rVII~ SIPPRELL X X 2 19.00 1 27 6.50 175.50 ~_~ R0N S~i~.LI21~N X 1 9.50 1.5 19 6.50 123.50 ~2 BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 19.00 2 38 6.50 247.00 5~ ED V.~k~ECEK X X 2 19.00 2 27 6.50 175.50 ~ RICK %,rfT_LIJ2.i9 X X 2 t9.00 [7.5 19 6.50 123.50 36 ?I~I ~.TILLI;24S X X 2 L9.00 2 34 6.50 221.00 57 D~-'~%~.~S ~OYTCKE X X 2 [9.00 4 27 6.50 175.50 ; 35 ' 34 69 87 I FIRE 7C~ .5 85 172.5 1655.50 200.5 1151 W~ 7,504.50 172.5 ]I~T~ L~ 655.50 200.5 ~ 1,167.00 ~ 9,327.00 ilL, ~, IJli,, J ~i City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: February 1997 No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Residential 1,143 1,144 17,814 Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total $29,473 $61,718 $5,228 $96,419 Commercial 124 124 3,243 $4,723 $14,077 $106 $18,906 03/04/97 Utility-97 Total 1,267 1,268 21,057 $34,196 $75,795 $5,334 $115,325 Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total $27,602 $50,543 $4,547 $82,692 $5,853 $21,680 $101 $27,634 $33,455 $72,223 $4,648 $110,326 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 March 4, 1997 TO: FROM: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER ~/~ SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 1997 MONTHLY REPORT Ground Hog's Day, Valentine's Day and President's Day are not exactly significant dates that stimulate sales in the liquor industry. Coupled with the fact that there are only 28 days in February, and you have your slowest month of the year. March doesn't exactly set the world on fire either. Since the ice houses have to be off the lake by March 1st, and with the snow birds not back yet, we are caught between seasons. It's akin to late October and early November when the boaters have departed yet the ice hasn't formed for the fishermen. However, if Easter happens to fall in March, which this year it does, then your talking some excitement. Nothing too overstimulating. Just enough to lift us up out of the winter doldrums. Those of you who have been on the Council for some time are probably aware of by now my Jekyll and Hyde personality. During the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holidays, I appear to sound like a nervous wreck. Come January through March, I seem to be bored stiff. Ah, the ups and downs of a municipal liquor store manager. As you can tell I am rambling. There is nothing new at all to report on for February. I am still looking for help and thus I am continuing to work long hours. Hope springs eternal. Perhaps come spring things will get better. JK:ls prmted on recycled paper ,il I 1, I~ Iii,, I, ill,, J TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR FEBRUARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Balance: February 1, 1997 Bought: Money Market Money Market Money Market CP CP 4M Plus 4M First Bank Smith Barney Smith Barney Matured: Money Market CP CP Money Market Smith Barney Smith Barney Dain Bosworth First Bank Balance: February 28, 1997 $4,288,083 2,653 1,253 46,656 576,277 246,731 (277) (571,727) (509,413) (90,000) $3,990,236 Audit of the Year 1996 During this month we continued to work on getting the books ready for the audit. The annual written report of the department, submitted to you on the 25th, reflected preliminary amounts. Adjustments will be needed to meet the national reporting requirements set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which is the board that sets what is referred to as GAAP or the Generally Accepted Accounting Principals for governmental entities. Recycling Seminar Conference (As reported by Joyce Nelson) Here are some highlights of the recycling conference that Joyce attended: People from MNDOT spoke on issues related to used oil, floor absorbents, shop towels, oil filters, parts' solvents, and antifreeze. All these items are of concern, but costly to dispose of properly. One area that is getting some attention is waste audits for hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and businesses. Experts would analyze the garbage generated and give suggestions on what could be recycled and what could be replaced with more permanent or better quality products. In regard to garbage collection/recycling a new (old) approach would be the so called "onepass" collection. Namely, one truck would collect garbage, yard waste and recyclables. This type of truck would cost $150,000 to $200,000. - And last, a note of high interest to you, I am sure. John Guillemette of SMC (compost and wood grinding) is still very interested in getting a site located in this area. They have recently opened a site in Blaine. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MARCH 20, 1997 ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK FEBRUARY MONTHLY REPORT There were two regular Council Meetings in February. There was agenda preparation, minutes, 11 resolutions, 2 ordinances, and clean-up items from the two meetings. I am continuing to input the 1997 minutes (resolutions and motions) on the Clerk's Index Program. Cigarette and Garbage Hauler Licenses were issued as well as several miscellaneous licenses. Notices of expiring Tree Removal Licenses were sent. There were the usual calls and questions from citizens regarding various subjects. fc I0 fro printed on recycled paper ,Ill I 1, [ il, I, JJJ,, ,J Jl CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PARKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR FEBRUARY, 1997 March 6, 1997 General Comment We are continuing to maintain the three ice rinks in the parks. The weather never seems to be cooperative. The warm and cold spells keep being worse for making ice. We left the rink at Philbroke go the last week of February because the melt off did too much damage. We will continue with the ones at Three Points and Highland Park into March as weather permits. The contract for residing, new soffits, facia, windows and doors at the Depot has been given to Minnesota Exteriors, Inc. They will begin work as soon as the windows are ready. This will be long before summer. Docks As always, the end of February is busy because that is the last time an application can be made without a late fee. Currently, we have over forty people who are on the new application list for a dock. The demand has been growing every year since the drought ended that had the lake at such a low level. Cemetery There were no burials during February. Trees One tree on City right-of-way had be trimmed of hazardous branches. JF:ls prtnted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Mar(:h 6,1997 FebYuaYy MonLhlY Repo~-L for P.W. S,I:.~ eot Dopart. l,et~t F'Jnally, after 3 long months of wint+~.r u,.~e had a ve¥'y i,ice mot~th. During this time we Yeloaded out- supplies a~d caught up on ~he ~epairs ol: our equipment. We did have to go ou~ ~o plow and sand a coupie of Limes Lhis month. The auto repair budget was hit pretty I~ard. Rear springs:, brakes, and wing parts were the big itenls for repair. Also during this time we had a chance to get the sweepers and tar, kef ready for the Tile bid opening for tho sealcoati~g is set for' April J0,1997. t,,le, will be sealcoatit~g all oi: lhree Points this ye~r. Wate~ Department l'he only good thing about this ~.\,inter is that we hove not had al. or. of main breaks, },et. We had one this m~nth an(:.! one <.:~a~evalve r'epair. The }epair was at Commer'ce and "[t~ree P<~Jrlts. We had to cut our street lite wires to repair this valve because the~e were to many other utilities in this area. ~e had our annual inspection for the ~ater system this menth. This is done b'/ Hinnesot. a Health Department. 1 have not received the report back yet but we are in good shape. 5ewe'~ [.)spar t.le nt We t~ad time Lc, t:atch up on our lift station mainter, ance this month. [de had to send one of our pumps out for repairs. Seems something very large found it's way into the system and than got caught in tile pump. This caused damage to the pump and over heated the motor causing it to burn up the wi~ lng. We hope to stat t our wet well cleaning by the end of March. Misc. We have beer, participating it', Safety Training classes that have been put on by the Lake F, inneto~lka Area Coope]ating CiLies. pr~nted on recycled paper ,il I J, [ III, I,IJII, ,J ,~ ~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 5, 1997 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official February 1997 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 23 building permits issued in February for a construction value of $937,870. This value includes 3 new dwellings. In addition to the building permits, we issued 26 plumbing, mechanical, and other miscellanous permits for a total of 49 this month and 77 year to date. PLANNING & ZONING Our planning case statistics are located in the attached chart, the major cases being processed are the Seton Bluff PDA and Westonka School's CUP for the proposed administration building at the Shirley Hills site. Staff is tracking the number of cases that are impacted or that do not require a variance since the ordinance for the streamlining of variances has been adopted, and there is nothing to report to-date. Note: road weight limit restrictions will be starting on March 15th. JS:pj pnnted on recycled paper A D W T T A D W T T FEBRUARY P E I A O P E I A O MONTHLY REPORT P N T B T P N T B T R I H L A R I H L A PLANNING COMMISSION O E D E L O E D E L ZONING CASES V D R D V D R D E A E A D W D W N N VARIANCES 1 1' 2 1 2 3 VARIANCE EXTENSIONS 0 ! 1 2 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 0 0 PLATS / PDA'S 1' 1 1 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 1' 1 1 1 2 REZONING 0 0 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 1 1 1 1 STREET VACATIONS 1 1 1 1 MOVING BUILDING PERMITS 0 0 The Phil Klein variance request that was denied was withdrawn by the applicant so he could revise his plans and return to the Commission in March. The Seton Bluff PDA that was denied, and the Westonka School's CUP that was tabled will both be coming back to the Planning Commission in March with revised plans. City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: February Year:. 1997 THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE ~ESIDENTIAL II /PERMITS ( IUNITS ( VALUATION II #UNITS j VALUATION EW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 3 3 /400,790 3 /400,790 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) TVVO FAMILY ! DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS} SUBTOTAL 3 3 400,790 3 400,790 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL LTERATIONS ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING i 60,000 I 60 t 000 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS i 10,000 DECKS SWIMMING POOLS REMODEL- Ul$C RESIDENTIAL 13 66,465 '22 160,864 REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS SUBTOTAL 14 126,465 24 230,864 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 1 100 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL 2 8,6 [ 5 3 73 ~ 365 INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS /church 3 402,000 3 402,000 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL 5 410,615 7 475,465 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS I J 1 1 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS I ~ ~ -- I TOTAL DEMOLITIONS i i ]~ # PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UHITS VALUATION 3 23 3 937,870 1,107,11.9 TOTAL * 35 I I PERMIT COUNT I THIS MONTH · BUILDING 23 35 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 0 0 Stuns 3 5 PLUMBING 10 18 MECHANICAL 13 17 ~RADING 0 0 S&W. STREET EXCAV., ~RE, E~C. 0 2 TOTAL I 49 I 77 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for February 1997 The police department responded to 941 calls for service during the month of February. There were 26 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 4 burglaries, 2 aggravated assaults, 17 larcenies, and 2 vehicle thetis. There were 76 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 5 child abuse/neglect, 4 forgery/NSF checks, 1 weapon, 4 narcotics, 5 damage to property, 4 liquor law violations, 6 DUI's, 6 simple assault, 12 domestics (4 with assaults), 2 harassment's, 7 juvenile status offenses, and 20 other offenses. The patrol division issued 212 adult citations and 9 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 133 tickets. Warnings were issued to 148 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 adult arrested for a felony. There were 32 adults and 8 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 9 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 9 vehicle accidents, none with injuries. There were 23 medical emergencies and 45 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 9 occasions in February and requested assistance 6 times. Property valued at $20,730 was stolen and $7,400 was recovered in February. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - FEBRUARY 1997 II. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators were involved in 4 child protection issues and 3 criminal sexual conduct cases that accounted for 35 hours of investigative time. We assisted the SWMDTF during February and that assistance accounted for an additional 80 hours of investigative time. Other cases included 2nd degree assault, burglary, tax evasion, the~, fleeing a police officer, damage to property, violation of an order for protection, domestic abuse, harassment, NSF checks, gross misdemeanor DWI, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for violation of an order for protection, disorderly conduct, damage to property, issuance of a worthless check, and harassment. III. Personnel/Staffin~ The department used approximately 30 hours of overtime during the month of February. Officers used 6 hours of comp-time, 17 hours of vacation, 57 hours of sick time, and 11 holidays. Officers earned 27 hours of comp- time. IV. IV. Five officers attended mandatory training through PTAC addressing issues regarding blood-borne pathogens, hazardous materials, and use of force. Investigator Swensen attended the Juvenile Officer's Institute and Officer Nelson attended the DARE. Conference. Sergeants McKinley and Grand attended a leadership course through the FBI. One officer attended a First Aid refresher/recertification. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS Officers Packard and Clark addressed 42 animal complaints, 51 ordinance violations, and 168 miscellaneous calls for services. The reserves donated 75 hours during the month of February. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1997 OFFENSES ~ EX. PT~ CI~2%P~ED BY A/RRESTED R~PORTED UNFOUNDED CLEA~tED AR~EST ADULT JUV PART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 1 ! 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 26 0 I I I 0 PART II CRIMES Child ~buse/Neglect 5 3 0 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 4 0 3 1 1 Crimlnal Damage to Property 5 0 0 1 ! Weapons 1 0 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 4 0 0 4 4 Liquor Laws 4 0 0 4 2 DWI 6 0 0 6 6 Simple Assault 6 0 0 2 Domestic Assault 4 0 0 4 3 Domestic (No Assault) 8 0 0 0 0 Harassment 2 0 1 0 O Juvenile Status Offenses 7 0 2 4 0 Public Peace 3 0 0 3 4 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 Ail Other Offenses 17 0 1 9 9 TOTAL 76 4 7 39 32 8 PART 1I & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 9 0 0 23 45 9 748 834 HCC? Inspections TOTAL 941 40 33 8 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT FEBRUARY 1996 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Propety Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS MONTH 123 89 33 90 73 133 6 5 9 0 0 3 38 0 9 26 76 23 45 51 697 YEAR TO DATE 187 174 46 189 155 219 20 15 19 4 0 4 75 0 tl 33 120 46 100 51 1,209 LAST YEAR TO DATE 58 72 51 100 120 193 5 3 14 4 0 12 48 6 36 45 119 62 68 55 1,154 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,529 64 34 5 9 6 2,677 118 57 5 17 8 2,225 147 83 13 33 25 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1997 CITATIONS DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL ADULT 6 5 1 8 2 80 4 3 40 0 17 1 8 0 20 0 1 133 2 1 0 4 0 345 JUVENI~ 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 lO'lo MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1997 WARNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 41 37 27 0 0 15 0 0 0 10 130 8 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 Run~ 4-Mar-97 8:33 PRO03 ~ MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 1 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 Activity codes: All Property Status: All Property Types: All Property Descs: All Brands: All Models: All 0fficers/Badges: All Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Recov'd Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2 Value Code Assnd Assnd D E I J M O P R $ T U X Y Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals Prop type Totals Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop ~ype Totals: Prop [ype Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Report Totals: 80O 36 7,400 3,100 460 660 163 1,633 1,089 324 4,000 975 90 20,730 0 2.000 0 1.000 7,400 2.000 0 2.000 0 3.000 0 3.000 102 4.000 0 9.000 0 1.000 0 3.000 0 1.000 0 3.000 0 3.000 7,502 37.000 Run: 4-Mar-97 8:07 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 -ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MODTgD POLICE DEPARTMEN~ Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ~ER OF INCIDENTS Page 9000 SPEEDING 9001 J SPEEDING 9002 NO D/L, EXPIREDD/L 9004 RESTRICTED D/L 9012 OPEN BOTTLE 9014 STOP SIGN J-STOP SIGN 9016 FAILURE TO YIELD 9018 EQUIPMEN-f VIOI2%TION 9019 J EQIPMENT VIOLATION 9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 9021 J-CARELESS/RECKLESS 9022 EXHIBITION DRIVING 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION 9036 OBSTRUCTED VISION 9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 9039 J-ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 9040 NO SEATBELT PARKING/ALL OTHER 9140 NO PARKING/WINTER HOb-RS 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 80 3 2 17 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 4 12 121 8 Run: 4-Mar-97 8:07 CFS08 ~ Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE Nbq~BER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 40 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 20 9240 CH~GE OF DOMICILE 3 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 1 9309 FOUND/RUNAWAY 2 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 1 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 1 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 8 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 1 9561 DOG BITE 1 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 1 9567 DANGEROUS DOG 1 9710 MEDICAL/ASU 2 9730 MEDICALS 18 9735 IOD INJURY 2 9740 MENTAL CASES 1 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 3 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 8 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 1 9810 LOITERING/LURKING 2 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 5 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 6 Page Run: 4-Mar-97 8:07 CPS08 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9930 9950 9980 9990 9991 9992 9994 A2522 A5332 A5351 A5354 A5355 A5505 A9502 A9503 AL351 83334 83394 ~{AhrDGUN APPLICATION INFO/INT WARRANTS MISC. VIOLATIONS J MISC. VIOLATIONS MUTUAL AID/8100 MUTUAL AID/6500 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER ASLT 2-THREAT BODILY H/LRM-FIREARM-ADLT-ACQ ASLT 5-INFLT BODILY HARM~F~NIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ ASLT 5 MS INFLICTATTEMPTS HRM-HA2~DS-ADLT-FAM ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HA/~DS-CHLD-ACQ ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-CHLD-ACQ TERR THREATS INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ TERR TBREATS~INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADULT-STR DOM ASLT-MS INFLT BODILY ~L~-HAN-DS-AD-F/tM BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-F~RIJ-UNK 6 1 9 1 1 3 2 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 83764 DA540 Page 3 Run: 4-Mar-97 8:07 CFS08 a Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION DC500 I3060 J2501 J2504 J2E0t J2E04 J3500 J3501 J3E01 J3T01 L1077 M3001 M4140 M5350 N3030 N3070 N3190 P2120 P3110 P3120 P3130 P3600 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT A/~ALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS DRUGS-DRUG PARAPB-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 2 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 4 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 TR3%FF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-SNOWMOBILE 1 TP~AF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ~MV 1 TP. AF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-SNOWMBL 1 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 1 TP~AFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 3 TRAF-ACC-MS AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 3 TRAF-ACC-MS UND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH 1 CSC 1-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F 1 JUVENILE ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18~21 1 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 7 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE 1 DISTURB PEACE-MS-H~P~ASSING COMMI/NICATIONS 2 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNK INTEN~f 1 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 Page Run: 4-Mar~97 8:07 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: Ali Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOL~D POLICE DEPART~MENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE N~ER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 2 TC189 THEFT-501-2500-FE-FISHOUSES-OTH PROP 1 TF159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 3 TF169 THEFT 201-500-GM-WATERCPJkFT-OTH PROP 1 TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-MS BUILDING-MONEY 2 TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS MAILS-MONEY 1 Tm THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 TGi59 THEFT-LESS 200 MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 4 TGi79 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-POSTAL-OTH PROP 1 I'G189 THEFT-LESS 200-MS FISHOUSES-OTH PROP 1 UI013 THEFT-FE-BY CHECK-$501-$2500 1 U2017 THEFT-GM-BY CHECK-201-500 1 ~32027 THEFT GM-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-201-500 1 U3028 THEFT MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 1 VA024 VEH-MORE THAN 2500 FE-THEFT SNOW 1 VB024 VEH-MORE T}{AN 2500 FE-THEFT-ATV 1 W3190 WEAPONS MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR 1 X2200 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NkM-POL 1 X3!90 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-FALSELY REPORT CRIME 1 3 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION 2 X3360 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-VIOL HARRASS PEST ORDER 3 Y3230 CRIM AGNST GOVN-MS-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH 1 Page 5 Run: 4-Mar-97 8:07 CFS08 ~ MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 6 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS Report Totals: 525 Run: 4-Mar-97 8:23 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 T ~nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED - - - ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL A~DULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLE;LRED A2522 A5332 A5351 A5354 A5355 A5505 A9502 A9~ AL351 ~3334 N3394 N3494 R3764 DA540 ~C500 .' 3060 32501 .J2504 12E01 32E04 J: 33501 33E01 ASLT 2-THREAT BODILY HARM-FIREARM-ADLT-ACQ 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 ASLT 5-INFLT BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-H~S-ADLT-FAM 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HR-M-HANDS-CHLD-FAM 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ I 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HAP. M-NO WEAP-CHLD-ACQ i 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UIgK WEAP-AdDULT-STR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1000 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 !000 BURG 3 UNOCC RES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 3 UNOCC RES FRC U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 3-UNOCC N-RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 DRUGS-SM A~T IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 DRUGS-DRUG PAPJ{PH-POSSESS-UNK UNK 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-SNOWMOBILE 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0' TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 !00.0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-SNOWMBL 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UI~DER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UArDER INFLUENCE 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 Run: 4-Mar-97 8:23 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 2 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- AC773AL CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PEN-DING ..... OFFENSES CLEARED - - - ADULT JIB;ENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED I100 J3T01 TP~AF-ACC-MS-UND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 !00.0 L1077 CSC 1-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 M3001 JIIVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 !00.0 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 7 0 7 0 0 5 2 7 I00.0 N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CON-DUCT 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 ~3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC Nq3ISANCE 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 ~3!90 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 ! 5C 72120 PROP DAP~AGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 10CO 7~i10 PROP DAF~GE-MS PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 ~3,20 PROP DAPL~GE-MS-PUBLIC~UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 73130 PROP DAF~GE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 0 1 0 0 0 t 1 10O0 ?C159 THEFT 501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 TC189 THEFT-501 2500-FE-FISMOUSES-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ?F!59 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 ~.0 TF!69 THEFT-201 500-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 TGO2! THEFT LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 100~ ?G061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 0 1 t 0 0 0 0 TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 TGi79 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-POSTAL-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG189 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-FISHOUSES-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 Run: 4-Mar-97 8:23 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No DaCe Reporced range: 01/26/97 - 02/25/97 range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions= All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOLrNID POLICE DEPAR%hMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 3 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JI/VENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED U1013 U2017 U2027 U3028 VA024 VB024 W3190 X3190 X3250 X336© Y3230 THEFT-FE-BY CHECK-$501-$2500 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 THEFT-GM BY CHECK-201-500 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 THEFT-GM-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-201-500 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 i 100.0 THEFT-MS ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200OR LESS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOW 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-ATV 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 WEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 i00.0 CRIM AGNST ;dDMN JUST-MS-FALSELY REPORT CRIME 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 CRIM AGNST ;~DMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 ! 50.0 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-VIOL }{ARR3tSS REST ORDER 3 0 3 1 2 0 0 2 66 6 CRIM AGNST GOVN-MS-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 **** Report Totals: 92 4 88 39 32 9 8 49 55.6 03/0G/1997 09:19 G12--472443§ TOM REESE PAGE 01 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ~00 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 · WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE S1~473-?033 G. Alan WIIleutt, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARO MEMBERS Douglas E, Babcock Chair, Tonk~ Bay Tom Reese Vice Chair, Mound Joseph Zwak Secreta~/, Greenwood Roberl Rascop Treasurec Shorewood Kent Dahlen Mlnnetonka Beach Be~t Foster Oeept~even Gretchen Maglich Mlnnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata Craig MolI~ Victoria Craig Nelson SI3rir~g Park Eugene Pa~lyka MInr~etHSta Paul Stark Ezcelsior Herb J, Suerth Woodland TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 6,1997 FROM= TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTA'rlVE SUBJECT: FEBUARY REPORT - LMCD 1.0 General Items. I. I Greg Nybeck. who had been the assistant, has been appointed District Executive Director. We will be hiring a Technical Assistant to replace Greg. 1.2 The lake water quality repol~ that we partially fund with the Hennepin Parks was presented this month. Copies are available at the District. This is an example of outstanding cooperation between agencies that results in significant savings for all. 13 With the departure of director Mollett, and the illness of Bob Pillsbury, the Save the Lake Committee is undergoing restructuring. 2.0 Exotic Species Task Force. 2. ! We are continuing to look at the program efficiency enhancements that might result from the acquisition of a transporter to move the cut weeds from the lake to shore. 2.2 The ordinance amendment providing for the mandatory washing of permit events boats that have been recently in contaminated waters has been approved. The DNR has some questions on this, and will be invited to attend an upcoming Board meeting. They have been kept apprised of our intentions and have had the input they chose to give. 3.0 Water Structures 3.1 I was narrowly unsuccessful in getting the existing floating boat house grandfathered by the Board. While I think Mr Hawks was wrong in what he did, in my mind, the issue is not as large as the fuss being made about it. He is now suing the LMCD and several of us individually in a civil suit. Hc is being prosecuted himself criminally. Minnetrista and the DNR want us to continue to pursue this. I think it is nuts. 4.0 Lake Use. 4.1 No significant items. ModR0 Mound Specific Items 5. ! The multiple dock permit for the Lost Lake project was d this month. e;e epresentative - LMCD RECEIVED LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 12, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES- 2/26/97 Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. EWM/EXOTICS TASKFORCE A. Discussion with Jay Rendall, DNR Coordinator of Exotics Species Management Program, regarding LMCD Ordinance #145; B. Discussion on the use of a Transporter to improve the efficiency of EWM harvesting operations; C. Additional Business; WATER STRUCTURES A. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Consideration of 2/12/97 Public Hearing Report, continued discussion on new multiple dock license application; *B. 1997 Multiple Dock Licenses, approval of 1997 multiple dock license applications, w/o change, as outlined in 3/4/97 staff memo in categories A, B, C, and D; C. Additional Business; LAKE USE & RECREATION *A. Queen of Excelsior & Queen of Excelsior II, staff recommending approval of 1997 renewal "On-Sale", with Sunday option, Liquor licenses; *B. 1997 Beer and Wine License Renewals, staff recommending approval for the following charter boats: 1) Al & Alma's VI 2) Al & Alma's X 3) Al & Alma's XI 4) Al & Alma's Xll 5) Al & Alma's Avant-Garde 6) Al & Alma's Aventure 7) Fantasia 8) Paradise Grand 9) Paradise Lady 10) Paradise Princess C, Additional Business; 4. SAVE THE LAKE *A. 3/6/97 meeting was cancelled; B. Additional Business; 5. ADMINISTRATION FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; - 3/1/97 - 3/15/97 B. Additional Business; 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, February 26, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Joseph Zwak, Greenwood; Gretchen Maglich, Minnetonka; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director. Members absent: Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Orono and Victoria have no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUCEMENTS There were no chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES Zwak moved, Foster seconded to approve the minutes of the 2/12/97 regular Board meeting as submitted. Foster stated on page 10, he recalled the motion "was to not approve the final paycheck unless the law does not authorize the deduction of family health insurance premiums owed to the LMCD." Babcock noted a typographical error on page eight, 6C where "this" should be "these". Zwak and Foster agreed to these amendments. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMIVIENTS There were no public comments from persons not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Zwak moved, Gilman seconded to approve the consent agenda items identified by a "*' on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (Approved consent agenda items include: 1D, "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet Refunds; Item 3A, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report). Motion carried unanimously. SAVE THE LAKE A. 1996 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka, Report from John Batten. John Barten provided a brief overview of the Report to the Board. He noted: * Sampling in 1996 showed that trends that existed in 1995 generally continue to exist in 1996. Specifically, water in Halsted Bay, Jennings Bay, and West Arm have poorer quality than the rest of the lake. * Water quality generally improves as you go from west to east. * Reduced phosphorous concentrations were reported in bays on the west end due drought conditions. * Water clarity was poorer in these bays, though, because of the lack of water movement out of these bays. * Significant increases on phosphorous levels were observed on the west end of the lake. HaY' Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 P~e2 Foster asked what impact on the lake comes from the east side? He used Long Lake as an example. Barten stated he believed Long Lake drains into North Arm through painters Creek. He reviewed the report and noted water quality in North Arm is marginal and is a concern. Zwak asked Barten if there is a correlation between the agriculture and rural characteristics of the west end of the lake and the poorer water quality conditions? He added is there anything that can be done to improve water conditions. Batten stated he believed there is a correlation. He added he believed drainage into Halsted Bay includes the City of Victoria and other municipalities. He discussed the need for retention ponds to treat water before it drains into the lake. He stated communities should be encouraged to update their stormwater management requirements. Gilman asked for an explanation on why sampling is every two weeks? Batten explained statistically, the timeline for a 25 % change can be reduced to five or six years when testing is done every two weeks versus monthly sampling. He added as development occurs and water moves downstream from west to east, there is a question on what impact will the water quality have on these bays. He explained fertilizer runoff and phosphorous level concerns related to it. Babcock asked if the sampling of the bottom of the bays will assist in determining a conclusion on the phosphorus content? Barten stated it takes at least a couple of years to collect this data. He added bottom sampling of 15 bays will be sampled in 1997 as compared to six bays in 1996. Gilman asked how long testing has been done on Lake Minnetonka? Barten stated this was the second year that Hennepin Parks coordinated this project with the LMCD. He noted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has been conducting sampling on Lake Minnetonka for several years. He added that Hennepin Parks will conduct all the sampling on Lake Minnetonka in 1997. Babcock asked how the MCWD will be participating in this program in 19977 Barten stated they will be provided some funding for the sampling in Lake Minnetonka. He noted the number of samples in 1997 will increase from 15 to 18 bays, and samples will be taken in 15 of 18 bays at the top, middle and bottom. Frequency of sampling in these bays will be 10-12 times in 1997. Ilot Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 Page 3 e Be Hennepin Parks, Request for $2,500 for 1997 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to approve the Hennepin Parks request of $2,500 of Save the Lake funds to assist in the 1997 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report. VOTE: Ayes (7); Nays (1, Gilman); Motion carded. Reese supported Barren in this project and stated he believed the use of Save the Lake funds is appropriate. Babcock suggested Barten provide the LMCD a breakdown of costs associated with this program. C. Discussion on Committee Makeup Babcock stated he had nothing new to report on this agenda item other than the committee is looking for new members to participate. Nybeck recommended the next committee meeting scheduled for 3/6/97 be The Board recommended staff resolve this with Craig Mollet. E. Additional Business There was no additional business. WATER STRUCTURES A. Minnesota Transportation Museum, Review of proposed lighting plan for 160' pier at the Excelsior Park Pavilion Leo Meloche, Minnesota Transportation Museum, reviewed the proposed lighting plan for the pier at the Excelsior Park Pavilion. He discussed the need for two lights on the dock and six lights on the trail to address safety concerns. He showed a sample lightpole which utilized a lightbulb that is directed straight down. He believed it addressed LMCD concerns with glare and brightness. Babcock asked Meloche if they checked into other lighting covers that utilizes indirect lighting rather than direct lighting.'? Foster suggested using a complete, opaque shield on the lights so the direct lighting will be on the dock, not on the lake. He stated impairment of night vision is an Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 P~e4 issue. Gilman offered to help find a more efficient light source that addressed LMCD concerns Meloche stated he would work with Gilman and bring back another option. Eagle Bhlff HOA, Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock and variance applications. Babcock stated he believed the main issue of non-continuous shoreline has been resolved because the neighbor in Lot 1, Block 1 has agreed to have thctr dockage rights included in the multiple dock license. He outlined that a variance application was received, $250 which is refundable and $250 which is non-refundable. He added the increased dockage on Lot 1, Block I has increased Water Storage Units for the total application by four. He noted staff is recommending a refund of $470, the full $500 for the variance application minus the $30 for the increase in WSU's. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to refund $470 to Eagle HOA as recommended by staff. Rascop stated he is inclined to not be in favor of the motion. Even though there was not a public heating, he believed they were provided a great deal of input from the Board at the last meeting. VOTE: Ayes (7); Nays (1, Rascop); Motion carried. Nybeck stated the Board may not want to restrict the westerly slip on Outlot C to not have a canopy because it would not comply with double side setback requirements. He stated Code would require a minimum of 40' side setback and the applicant is proposing 3 I' side setback. Board members discussed setback requirements for canopies and concurred that the double side setback of 30' was the intent relating to canopies. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to approve the 1997 multiple dock license for Eagle Bluff HOA. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Foster moved, Gihnan seconded to direct the attorney to prepare a Code mnendment to not require double setbacks for canopies from 20', but to double from applicable side setbacks. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distr/ct Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 P~e5 Ce me Bill and Sheila Todd, Discussion and Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of side setback variance at 20 Crabapple Lane, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay; setback requirements. Board members reviewed Plans A and B which highlighted dock configurations for the proposed variance application. Bill Todd stated he and his wife preferred Plan A. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a zero foot side setback variance, utilizing Plan A. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. City of Greenwood, Minor Change Application to Extend Non-Conforming Dock to 100' Babcock asked for a brief overview from Nybeck on this application. Nybeck stated the City of Greenwood is currently licensed for 29 BSU's at three separate sites. He noted the proposed minor change application is to extend the dock from 96'6" to 100' at the 26 BSU dock site at the end of Greenwood Circle on St. Albans Bay. The other two dock sites would be renewed without change. He noted this dock site is currently grandfathered for both density and side setback requirements. He stated that he had expressed setback concerns to the applicant and stated he believed they should be addressed in an amended application. Brian Burdick, Greenwood Dock Committee circulated and reviewed an amended application which would extend the City's dock at Greenwood Circle to 100' and would address LMCD staff concerns. He clarified the amount of non-continuous shoreline dedicated for the overall license is 259' rather than 249'. He stated the existing dock at this site has a 30' side setback to the east and a 15' side setback to the west. He noted the proposed dock would be rearranged to where both side setbacks will be 25'. He stated slip sizes would either remain the same in size or be reduced in the proposed site plan. He stated the City is investigating purchasing a new floating dock system for this site. Zwak stated he understood that the proposed site plan addresses setback concems by reducing the width of the total structure. Babcock stated it appears the dock on the west end may extend beyond 100' from shore. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 Page 6 Do Fe Burdick stated the proposed site plan does not accurately define the contour of the shoreline. Babcock stated Greenwood would need to provide a site plan which accurately identifies they conform to the 100' role. Foster asked why the docks to the west are more angled than the others? He stated it looks like the main dock is not perpendicular to the shoreline. Burdick explained the docks are angled for maneuverability. Rascop stated he would like to have an as-built survey. LeFevere discussed the grandfathered status of Greenwood. He noted the main question that needs to be resolved is whether the proposed dock plan is an expansion of the existing structure. He stated if the Board concludes this is not an expansion within the double setback rule, they can approve the request. Babcock suggested the 30' setback be maintained to the east and it not be treated as an expansion. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to approve the minor change application to extend the non-conforming dock on Greenwood Circle to 100', subject to I) a 30' side setback be maintained to the east and a 20' side setback to the west, 2) them will be no increase in slip sizes, 3) the dock will not extend more than 100' from shore at any point, and 4) a survey will be provided prior to constructing the dock. The other two dock sites at Curve Street and Meadeville would be renewed without change. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lord Fletchers of the Lake, Review of Public Hearing Report and Continued Discussion on new Multiple Dock and Special Density License Applications. Babcock tabled discussion on this agenda item because the applicant was not present. DNR Letter, 6/25/96 from Ceil Strauss regarding the Bil Hawks' houseboat. Maglich left at this time. Babcock stated this letter was included in the packet to clarify the DNR's position on the Bil Hawks situation. HIo Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 Page 7 e G. Addilional Bush~ess There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Staff Report on Final Payments/Billing to A! WilicuR Babcock stated Willcutt was sent his final payroll paycheck,//1598, after discussion with the attorney. He added staff has recommended Board approval for accrued vacation hours of $2,169.52. He noted staff has recommended withholding this check until payment of $1,999.26 has been received for unpaid health insurance premiums for his family. He stated Cobra continuation coverage has been offered to Willcutt regarding health insurance. He concluded a response is waiting from Willcutt. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to approve payment of $2,169.52 for 94 accrued vacation hours to A1 Willcutt, and to withhold this payment until receipt of health insurance premium reimbursement from Willcutt. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded to approve check #1598 as final payroll for A1 Willcutt. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment: 2/16/97 - 2/28/97 MOTION: Zwak moved, Rascop seconded to approve audit of vouchers for payment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. January Financial Sununary and Balance Sheet MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to approve the January financial summary and balance sheet. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Additional Business There was no additional business. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 Page 8 e e 10. 0 e LAKE USE AND RECREATION B. Additional Business There was no additional business. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Discussion on 2/5/97 letter from Jay Rendall, DNR Coordinator for the Exotics Species Program The Board discussed in length the letter received from Jay Rendall. Foster recommended inviting the DNR to a Board meeting in the near future to discuss SOlne DNR concerns outlined in the memo. Staff was directed to prepare a memo to Rendall addressing concerns and to extend an invitation to him to attend a Board meeting in the near future. EXECUTIVE SESSION (Hawks vs. LMCD pending litigation) LeFevere stated he believed an Executive Session is not necessary to discuss this litigation unless the Board feels it is necessary. He noted that George Hoff has been appointed by the LMCIT to defend the LMCD and Board members named in the civil law suit by Bil Hawks. He stated after discussions with Hoff, he believes this is an ideal time to file a counterclaim against Mr. Hawks and have an injunction to get the structure off the lake. He stated the LMCIT would pick up the vast majority of the counterclaim because of the civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Hawks. Any legal preparation up and beyond this would be billed to the LMCD at $110 per hour. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to select George Hoff as legal counsel to represent the LMCD and authorize him to file a counter claim for injunction against Mr. Hawks. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Rascop left at this time. EWM/EXOTICS (CONTINUED) B. Additional Business There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff Report on Filling Vacant Administrative Technician Position The Board discussed the position description and advertisement to be published in Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 P~e9 e e 11. the newspapers outlined in the staff memo. The following changes were recommended: * LeFevere recommended including some mobility requirements as pan of the position description. * Foster stated the job description should encourage those that are handicapped to apply for the job and include the applicant will perform other jobs as assigned by the Executive Director. * Reese and Foster stated the applicant should be required to work a minimum of two evenings per month. * Reese stated he would like to see this new position assume responsibility to oversee EWM harvesting operations in the near future. Nybeck stated he concurs with Board members that some fine tuning on the position description needs to be done but he was targeting advertising for this position in the Star Tribune on 3/2/97. Babcock asked if any changes should be made to the proposed classified ad. Reese stated he believed a salary range of $22-28k, DOQ, should be posted in the advertisement. The Board concurred. Nybeck stated the Knowledge, Skills, & Abilites section recommended by Maglich should be included in the position description. He added he recommended delaying advertising for this position one week. He stated he believed advertising should be done in the Star Tribune and not the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The Board concurred. The Board stated that typing skills should be changed to keyboard skills in the KSA section. B. Additional Business There was no additional business. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT 1113 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting February 26, 1997 Page 10 There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Joe Zwak, Secretary CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Feb. 1997 16.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Feb. 1997 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,266,46O 0 0 6,250 458 9O2 121,800 10,877 14,671 968,210 28,840 40,090 51,100 574 1,746 65,000 10,206 10,206 43,300 298 488 43,500 0 0 10,000 1,038 1,766 (1,266,460) 0.00% (5,348) 14.43% (107,129) 12.05% (928,120) 4.14% (49,354) 3.42% (54,794) 15.70% (42,812) 1.13% (43,500) 0.00% (8,234) 17.66% TOTAL REVENUE 2,575,620 52w291 69,86~9 {2,505,751._~) 2.71% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FU ND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 336,020 14,914 108,320 5,280 1,525,000 92,563 430,000 33,593 880,000 75,563 4,100 0 73,800 42,830 76,307 (259,713) 22.71% 10,222 (98,098) 9.44% 196,831 (1,328,169) 12.91% 67,882 (362,118) 15.79% 173,254 (706,746) 19.69% 0 (4,100) 0.00% 56,244 (17,556) 76.21% 03/18/97 rev97 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Feb. 1997 16.67% Feb. 1997 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 69,370 8,599 22,307 47,063 32.16% Pro motions 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00% Cable TV 800 1 O0 1 O0 700 12.50% City Manager/Clerk 193,470 15,948 30,765 1 62,705 15.90% Elections 2,100 0 1,663 437 79.19% Assessing 59,480 124 131 59,349 0.22% Finance 168,960 13,548 25,466 143,494 15.07% Computer 23,550 2,235 7,271 16,279 30.87% Legal 114,460 10,006 13,876 100,584 12.12% Police 924,350 68,725 1 55,407 768,943 16.81% Civil Defense 4,100 100 674 3,426 16.44% Planning/Inspections 172,870 11,903 21,059 1 51,811 12.18% Streets 405,270 33,605 87,156 318,114 21.51% City Property 82,840 5,524 13,789 69,051 16.65% Parks 148,550 10,254 18,779 129,771 12.64% Summer Recreation 36,200 0 0 36,200 0.00% Contingencies 20,000 4,467 4,467 15,533 22.34% Transfers 161,390 12,869 25,738 135,652 15.95% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2591 760 198 007 428 648 2 163 112 16.54% Area Fire Service Fund 336,020 25,494 46,792 289,228 13.93% Recycling Fund 118,950 8,983 23,316 95,634 19.60% Liquor Fund 289,020 15,162 40,028 248,992 13.85% Water Fund 429,300 32,661 53,251 376,049 12.40% Sewer Fund 1,020,460 89,616 209,248 811,212 20.51% Cemetery Fund 8,100 0 812 7,288 10.02% Docks Fund 68,440 4,791 5,220 63,220 7.63% exp97 03/18/97 G.B. IIII. MAR--l?--9? MOH 85:01 PM MUiiITECH IHC MINNESOT~ Department of Revenue Commissioner's Office 612 4?2 5?54 St. Paul, Minnesota P.02 55146.7100 March 12, 1997 The Honorable Bob Polston Mayor, City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 56364-1687 Dear Mayor Polston: Thank you for your letter in response to my letter of December 11, 1996. Like most of the cities that chose to respond, your city has done an excellent job of.,.', keeping spending under control this year. Although you were not directly involved in the large levy increases, I still feel it was important that you know and understand the situation large increases made by other cities might have on your city. Abeady, talk of a property tax freeze is being heard around the capitol. I am sure all cities would find that loss of local control to be difficult. There also seems to be a good deal of interest in propertY tax reform. The actions cities take will have a large influence on what reform might mean and that certainly will affect all cities - not just those with large levy increases. Our information shows 30% of the cities reported an increase in proposed levies of over 10%. These relatively large increases occurred in cities of all sizes and from all parts of the state. Several reasons were given for the large increases - some small cities indicated that the purchase of snowplow or other pieces of machinery greatly increased levies. On a percentage basis, cities that are in the process of taking over transit funding, as a result of last year's legislative session, also reported large increases. However, a large number of cities appear to have increases substantially funded by significant increases in commercial and industrial property values. Many of these cities were able to significantly increase levies without increasing tax capacity rates. Many of these cities indicated they were not raising taxes when in fact, spending levels increased dramatically and many taxpayers are paying significantly more in property taxes. Many cities also indicated their un-happiness with the state becoming involved in local decision-making processes. While I am sympathetic to local control issues, state and local spending decisions are very closely tied. The State of Minnesota directs a great deal of money into local governments through programs such as .' LGA and I-L4.CA. In addition, the State's system of classifications and rates make it extremely difficult for taxpayers to know and understand what increased. spending might mean long-term for their individual tax situation. An equal opporhznity employer TDD: (612) 297-2196 1117 MAR-l?--9? MON 85:82 PM MUNITECH INC 612 4?2 5?54 P.O~ Mayor Polston March 12, 1997 Page 2 As part of any property tax reform plan I would hope we could make the system more understandable for taxpayers not involved in its everyday mechanics. If we could achieve a simpler more understandable system, it would greatly decrease the need for state oversight. Unfortunately, at the moment a certain amount of accountability is lacking at both the state and local level. In a meeting with the League of Minnesota Cities, I have pledged to sit down and discuss the issues involved in this year's levy cycle. It is my hope we may work .together to ay. oid.~e.kinds of in.c. reases we observccl, thi~ ye_gr thr, gugb,..b~..tt~_r. ~. communication. Sincerely, .tames L. Girard Commissioner Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce 4165 Shoreline Dr., Suite 40 At The Yacht Club, Spring Park, MN 55384 · (612) 471-0768 RECEIVED March 17, 1997 TO: Mayor Bob Polston, City of Mound FROM: Teresa Fogarty, Director, Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce SUBJECT: THE ATTACHED QUESTIONNAIRI~. Please take a moment to complete the attached questionnaire. Doing so will help me keep local chamber members up-to-date on your views on three very important issues: the price of government, business property taxes and property tax reform. I will publish your responses in our next newsletter. The deadline is April 15, 1997. Thank you in advance for helping me keep chamber members informed of your views on these issues. /ldk Enclosure ~"Working Togelher'~ Serving the communities of Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono (Navarre), Spring Park, and St. Bonifacius. I ~ t 7 PRICE OF GOVERNMENT AND PROPERTY TAX QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer the following questions. Feel flee to elaborate on your responses in the space that's provided. All results and comments will be published in our next newsletter. Do you support setting the price of government as a percentage of personal income for the state and local governments and doing so before any money is spent? YES NO Background: A 1994 law requires the legislature to set revenue targets by March 15th of every odd-numbered year. The targets or "pr/ce of government" are expressed as a percent of personal income. They apply to all state and local taXes, fees and charges. The Legislature's 1995 "price of government" resolution calls for reducing the price from 18.2% to 17.7% of personal income by the end of FY 1999. By setting the price for the next four fiscal years, the Legislature gives taxpayers, local governments and state administrators an indication of the level of revenue growth that they can expect over the next four years. The price of government targets are goals. There are no penalties for either the state or local governments if their revenue growth exceeds the amount anticipated by the goals. Do you agree that business property and rental housing need property tax relief?. YES NO Background: Effective tax rates on both business property and rental housing are among the highest in the United States. This is the case whether the business or apartment is located in the central city, a Twin Cities suburb or greater Minnesota. For business property, the average effective tax rate is almost 6%. This means Minnesota's property tax is almost the equivalent of having an annual sales tax on every lVfinnesota business. For apartments, the tax is so high that it frequently means that potential tenants cannot afford the rent necessary to make the project cash flow. That means that apartments won't be built. Do you agree that reforming our complex property tax system is necessary? YES NO Please elaborate. If you agree that the tax needs reform, how would you proceed? If'you think that its structure is fine as is, explain why. Background: The property tax is now Minnesota's largest tax, producing more revenue each year than the personal income tax and the general sales tax. The property tax burden (measured as the effective tax rate) has at least doubled since 1981, making this tax one of the fastest growing expenses in a family or business budget. The circuit breaker, renters credit and targeting programs have provided some relief for homeowners and renters; however, most homeowners and renters remain concerned about escalating property tax burdens. MINIfrES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1997 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were: Commissioners Bill Voss and Council Representative Mark Hanus. The following people were also in attendance: Phil Klein, Brian Stevenson, and Robert Pierce. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 1997 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 1997 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 97-05: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION PHILLIP A. KLEIN, 5010 WOODLAND ROAD LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, 13-117-24 11 0146 Building Official, Jon Sutherland noted for the Commission that the minutes from the previous meeting relating to this case are in the packet on page 24. Sutherland, reviewed that the applicant had originally proposed an addition that was 22' x 16', which has now been reduced to 22' x 14'. The setback to the east property line would now be 17 feet +/- to the required 30 foot setback resulting in a variance request of 13 feet +/-. All other issues are conforming. The applicant's proposal is essentially the same as before, and the staff recommendation is identical to the previous report. Staff visited the site again and determined that specific circumstances have not been identified as outlined in Ordinance Section 350:530, and in this case cannot support a finding of hardship. If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding, a recommendation for denial should be made. Mueller confirmed with the Building Official that the existing structure is suitable to carry a second story addition above the garage. Phil Klein, applicant, confirmed that he did review his request with the Building Official. He feels an addition above the garage would not be functional because there is no architecturally feasible way to get access from the home without going through the garage or without eliminating their eating area. Planning Commission Minutes March I0, 1997 Klein noted that if the addition were placed on the northwest corner of the dwelling it would not work because that is where the gas and electrical services come into the house and that is where all the mechanical intakes and exhausts are and he feels it constitutes a hardship to have to relocate these utilities. Sutherland noted that he and the planner discussed these issues and feel they are of a financial nature and do not constitute a practical difficulty or hardship. Klein also emphasized that while constructing his house they encountered the worst soil conditions at the northwest comer of house. They had to excavate down about eight feet to get to clay soil, remove the bad soil and fill with sand and compact it. He feels that because his lot has three street frontages with a 30 foot setback requirement on each side that this constitutes a hardship or practical difficulty. He noted that there is a property across the street on Woodland Road where the house is only 15 feet from the property line. Mueller commented that when this house was originally designed they could have planned for these needs at that time since the lot could have accommodated a larger dwelling. Klein commented that an addition above the garage does not suit his needs and it is not architecturally feasible. Mueller confirmed with Klein that this dwelling has an unfinished basement. Klein commented that there are other conforming locations, but then daylight would be taken away from existing rooms and it would affect existing landscaping. Michael noted that this request is only a two foot difference from the previous request, and it is essentially the same thing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend denial of the variance as requested. Clapsaddle commented, for the record, there are several ways this house could be added onto architecturally which would require further change to house and which would be different than what the applicant is trying to get approved, but in order to have a variance-free solution it takes flexibility to come up with a design that would work. He stated there are certainly no hardships. MOTION to deny carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1997. Weiland asked that the Commission discuss the "mother-in-law apartment" concept at a workshop meeting. 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1997 CASE 97-09: VARIANCE FOR DECK & MUD ROOM ADDITION BRIAN & PATRICIA STEVENSON, 6189 SINCLAIR ROAD LOT 5, BLOCK 17, THE HIGHLANDS, 23-117-24 34 0070 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming items listed in the staff report to allow for the construction of a conforming 6' x 10' mud room addition on the front of the dwelling, and a conforming 8' x 22' second level deck on the lakeside of the dwelling. The proposed expansion of the mud room and deck are fully conforming and are reasonable, they will both enhance the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or actual increase in nonconformities. The impervious surface calculations by the surveyor include the wood steps, deck and walk and this area is not considered impervious according to the ordinance. Impervious surface is conforming when the wood decked areas are eliminated from the calculations. The impervious surface calculations could be considered at the 40% threshold because this is a lot of record. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lakeside setback variance of 12' +/- to the on-grade deck, subject to the following conditions: 1) 2) The detached deck adjacent to the shoreline shall be removed prior to the release of the resolution for filing at Hennepin County. The nonconforming shed on the street side shall be removed or relocated and attached to an existing accessory structure in a conforming location. Reifschneider asked if the on-grade deck should be counted as hardcover. Sutherland commented, according to our ordinance it is not realistic to consider the deck as impervious. Applicant, Brian Stevenson stated that he bought the house in July of 1996 and all these nonconforming issues were existing so he feels somewhat penalized because what he is proposing is totally conforming. Stevenson commented that he understood the shed located on the side of the house also to be nonconforming in that it requires a 6 foot side yard setback, but is only about 5.5 feet from the side lot line, and therefore, would prefer to remove that shed and have a variance granted for the shed at the side of the garage. He would also be willing to remove the deck at the shore. A time limit to have these structures removed by was discussed. Stevenson noted that the interior remodeling of the dwelling cannot be finished until the mud room is completed and he would like to get approval as soon as possible. Planning Commission Minutes March I0, 1997 MOTION made by Reifschneider, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance request to allow construction of the mud room and deck subject to the removal of the shed located to the side of the house and removal of the deck at the shore by July 1, 1997. Motion carried unanimously Michael commented that this is a case where Truth in Housing would have been helpful and would hope that the Council reconsider their intent to pursue such an ordinance. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1997. CASE 97-10: VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION ROBERT S. PIERCE, 1741 BLUEBIRD LANE LOT 11 & P/12, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 24 0004 Building Official, Jon Sutherland reviewed Mark Koegler's Planning Report. The applicant is seeking a 3 foot rear yard setback variance in order to construct a 16.5' x 26' second story addition to an existing home. The project will also include rebuilding an existing main floor room to make it suitable for a second story addition. The existing room is in a conforming location on the lot. The existing home conforms to all ordinance criteria. The applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition with a 3 foot cantilever along the rear wall of the home. Substantial portions of the proposed cantilevered area encroach into the required 15 foot rear setback. At the southwest coruer of the home, the total encroachment is approximately 3 feet. At some time in the past, one foot was detached from underlying Lot 12 which affects the rear yard setback. Alternatives seem to exist in the form of either reducing the size of the addition or constructing additional living space over the top of the existing one story garage. As a result, staff does not feel this case supports a finding of hardship. Practical difficulty is the other consideration in granting variances. Mr. Pierce states in his application that the proposed construction is more aesthetically pleasing than alternate plans. If the Planning Commission finds that aesthetics is a key concern and that the proposed construction represents an appropriate action, a finding of practical difficulty could occur. Such a finding would need to be accompanied by findings of fact. Staff does not feel that the proposed variance request represents a finding of hardship. Unless the Planning Commission can delineate findings of fact that support practical difficulty, staff recommended that the Commission recommend denial of the requested variance. Applicant, Robert Pierce presented visual aids showing which portion of the floor plan would encroach into the required 15 foot rear yard setback and emphasized the minimal amount of encroachment being requested. He emphasized the crooked positioning of the house on the lot. Planning Commission Minutes March 10. 1997 Weiland recalled that the one foot of lot 12 which was transferred to the neighboring property was done because they had a nonconforming rear yard setback. MOTION made by Burma, seconded by Glister to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Findings of fact include: Practical Difficulty exists due to the placement of the house on the lot. The amount of the encroachment into the setback is very minimal. The only encroaching portion is cantilevered which has less impact than if it were an entire wall. The bathroom will not need to be relocated with this plan. Weiland feels there are alternatives available. MOTION carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Burma, Reifschneider, Michael, Glister, and Mueller. Wetland was opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1997. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Wetland, seconded by Mueller to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury. Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM SRA Member City Manager/Admin~r/Director/Alternate r 6 fh~ ~ Jim Strommen, Kennedy & G ay~~ March 7, 1997 SRA Year End Review and Anticipated Projects JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 Enclosed are two single page documents that we send out to SRA cities at the beginning of the assessment and budgeting process. As one of the 15 new members of the SRA and under the terms of the agreement, there is no assessment nor obligation to remain an SRA member beyond June 30, 1997. This information, however, should be helpful to your city council and other interested city representatives regarding the SRA's activities last year and anticipated 1997-98 issues. It is our hope that your city will find it beneficial to remain a member of the SRA. As the 1997- 98 issues suggest, there is the possibility of significant change in utility regulation and municipal rights in the coming years. A recently commenced cost proceeding regarding "geographic deaveraging" is an example of the far reaching effect of utility rate changes and the importance of the role the SRA can play. The Twin Cities now enjoys the largest flat rate local calling area in the United States. This is due in large part to the SRA efforts in eliminating the tiered system of US West telephone rates in 1991. "Geographic deaveraging" is likely to change those rates, raising rates for some and possibly reducing rates for others. There is no other group intervening in this case representing suburban interests. State agencies are charged to protect all ratepayers generally. Therefore, the Attorney General and the Department of Public Service would be constrained from protecting one uniquely situated group (like suburbs) over another group (like rural or urban ratepayers). As an SRA member you are encouraged to contact me with questions you may have on any electric, gas or telecommunications matter. As an SRA member, such information and counsel is part of the membership, unless such an issue becomes a unique and wholly individual city matter. We thank you for your participation to this point and urge you to consider continued membership. At the April 16, meeting at 4:00 in New Brighton, we will discuss the matters now pending before the legislature and PUC. If you have any questions, please call at the above number. SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY ANNUAl, REVIEW 19915 The following is a brief summary intended for the city councils of Suburban Rate Authority ("SRA") member cities. It highlights the major activities and achievements of the SPA during 1996. The SRA is a joint powers association consisting of 47 Twin Cities suburban municipalities (15 new members) that monitors rates and rate design issues of electric, gas and telecommunications utilities. 1996 was a very active and successful year for the SRA both in the traditional rate regulation (Minnegasco) and in the newly developing wired and wireless telecommunications issues. Minne~asco Rate Cas~ In 1995-1996, Minnegasco petitioned the PUC for an increase in its rates for gas service of 24.3 million dollars annually, and a 7.7% increase for residential customers. The SRA, through its expert witness, Robert Towers of Chesapeake Regulatory Consultants, actively opposed a one million dollar annual claimed ratepayer expense resulting from Minnegasco's purchase of the Midwest Gas system. The SPA also argued that the revenue deficiency from the residential customer class alleged by Minnegasco was exaggerated and that Minnegasco's requested increase in the fixed monthly residential customer charge from $5 to $6.75 was unwarranted. The SPA had successfully challenged the customer charge in the 1993 Minnegasco case. The SRA's arguments were successful in each of the areas challenged, either alone or with complementary arguments from the Department of Public Service or the Office of the Attorney General. The PUC rejected the one million dollar annual expense item, allowed a revenue increase of under twelve million dollars a year (2.3% for residential customers), and maintained the customer charge at the current level. As a result of these decisions, we estimate that SRA residents and businesses will save a total of approximately $215,000 pc, .year. Telecommunications The SRA actively assisted the League of Minnesota Cities and other municipal groups in opposing attempts by US West to seek court and PUC orders reducing or eliminating much of the right-of-way authority cities believe they have and need over telephone companies. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 has ushered in a new paradigm of telecommunication competition and resulting demands on right-of-way use. Municipal efforts were successful before the PUC and district court, but were reversed by the Minnesota court of appeals. Throughout 1996 and into 1997 the SPA, and other municipal groups will seek to establish laws that will allow cities to protect their rights-of-way, public safety and avoid a taxpayer's subsidy of telecommunications carriers. The SRA also contributed substantially to the preparation of the League of Cities Model Wireless Telecommunication Water Tower Antenna Site Lease Agreement. This agreement has been used as a basis for many water tower leases between cities and wireless service providers. Model Gas and Electric Franchise Ordinance~~. The SRA provided its model to the League of Cities resulting in an updated model gas and electric franchise. With the advent of electric deregulation and existing partial gas deregulation, the terms and conditions of franchises between cities and the utility providers becomes an even more important issue. Franchise rights of cities regarding gas and electric may be as significant an issue in coming years, as it currently is regarding telecommunications. Electric Industry Derek_ ulation The SRA has monitored the developments in deregulation of the electric industry in Minnesota. Though not actively involved in the investigation undertaken by the PUC, the SPA has positioned itself to inform SRA cities of new issues, including benefits available to them when deregulation is instituted. The PUC and the legislature has decided to move deliberately on deregulation in part because of the many important issues facing regulators (and cities) in the event of deregulation, including: universal service, franchise issues, equal competition, stranded investment and continued assurance of reliable service. 1997-98 SRA PROJECTS & ANTICIPATED PROJECTS To assist in the 1998 SRA Budget review process, the following information describes issues the SPcA is currently addressing and those in which we believe the SRA will be involved to protect SRA residential, business, and city government ratepayers. Given the many important issues, it is possible the SP, A will be required to focus on two or three of these issues to stay within its budget constraints. 1. CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT. One of the significant issues of the 1997 legislative session is the issue of city right-of-way management and telecommunication carriers. There are three bills presently before the relevant committees in the House and Senate. The S1LA has assisted in the formulation of policy and legislation. The SRA has also participated in meetings between and among municipal groups, industry representatives and state regulators regarding the right-of-way issues of management cost recovery and franchise rights. It is likely legislation will be passed in this session, perhaps to be followed by study and revisions in 1998. 2. GEOGRAPHIC DEAVERAGING OF TELEPHONE RATES.. A very important post- Telecommunication Act cost proceeding has recently been commenced and will run through 1997. It involves a cost determination of rates to be paid by competitors to US West (and other local telephone providers) for its facilities, including costs as they var3' by ~eo~raphic location_. This implicates the issue the SRA successfully fought through the 1980s - the elimination of a tiered system of rates in the Twin Cities Metro area causing suburban ratepayers to pay higher rates than urban ratepayers. The Telecommunications Act requires interconnection between incumbent local exchange carriers (like US West) and competitors (like AT&T, Sprint, MCI). It also recognizes that costs may vary depending on the location of the customer. Urban customers generally cost less to serve than rural customers. Under monopoly regulation, costs of serving urban and rural customers has been "averaged" to keep rural (and less developed suburban area) rates Iow. This cost proceeding will run through December 1997 and is perhaps the most important rate proceeding for Twin Cities suburban customers, particularly in the US West service area, for many years. 3. CITY TOWER CITING ORDINANCES AND LEASES. The Slik continues to take an active role in reviewing the development of leases for water tower antenna and sites for wireless telecommunications providers. It is also assisting in the preparation of model zoning ordinances for cities. 4. ELECTRIC INDUSTRY DEREGULATION. The SRA continues to monitor developments in electric industry deregulation. As large customers, cities stand in a unique position to benefit from deregulation, while at the same time needing to ensure that their residents are protected from being excluded from the benefits of competition. 5. BUSINESS-RESIDENTIALTELEPHONE RATE "REBALANCING". It is possible that US West will petition in 1997 for a reduction in the business rate ratio, increasing residential rates. The PUC has required that telephone rates for business bear a 3 to 1 ratio to residential rates. US West and other local exchange carriers, have indicated that they intend to seek a "rebalance" of this ratio. U.S, Department of Housing and Urban Development Minnesota State Office 220 Second Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2195 Bob Polston, Chairperson Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound c/o City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Polston: 1997.This letter is in response to your letter dated February 21, Thank you for your concern for improving the Indian Knoll Manor in order to provide a healthy environment for it's tenants. Your request as submitted, however, cannot be approved for HUD funding. HUD has a program, Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP), that should be available for you to apply for in the very near future, possibly even this quarter. You will be notified of the fund availability for this program by HUD Washington. This program is competitive, however, and will be available for all small PHAs throughout Minnesota. I would advise not borrowing against these funds as they are very competitive and may not be available for your use. Your request, as is, would not qualify for emergency funding under the CIAP program. Also, I would advise you not to solely depend on CIAP funds but to pursue other avenues to accomplish your improvements needs. Other sources could be the City of Mound and Hennepin County funds from the CDBG program, tax levy funds from the City of Mound, local bank grants under the Community Reinvestment Act, and other grants that you may find through yours or your staff's experience. If you have any question about the CIAP program, please contact Norb Kowalczyk or Deb Kravik at 612/370-3204. Very sincerely yours, Daniel Larson, Director Office of Public Housing 1130 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING MARCH 13, 1997 Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, City Council Representative Leah Weycker, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Rita Pederson was absent and excused. Tim Piepkorn was also in attendance. MINUTES Motion made by Botko, seconded by Byrnes to approve the minutes of the February 13, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried 3 to 1. Those in favor were Meyer, Botko and Byrnes. Casey abstained. AGENDA CHANGES None. ELECT VICE-CHAIR FOR BALANCE OF 1997 Botko nominated Marilyn Byrnes for Vice-Chair. There being no further nominations, Casey moved to elect Marilyn Byrnes for Vice-Chair by acclimation. Motion carried unanimously. (Weycker arrived.) 1997 PARKS AND BEACH PROGRAM UPDATE Parks Director, Jim Fackler, referred to the memorandum in the packet. Tim Piepkorn arrived and asked for questions from the Commission. Meyer asked Piepkorn about the 4 day a week program versus 5 days a week. Piepkorn noted that with 4 days per week they will get more weeks out of the year, plus on Friday the special trips will be offered. These trips include going to the Apple River, Minnesota Zoo, Science Museum, Anoka Wave Pool, Valleyfair, and hopefully a Twins game (except they do not have Twins games on Fridays). Also, by extending the program, it would give more regularity to the employees so they have a job for a longer season. The cost of the Friday programs was discussed. Piepkorn noted that the buses will pick-up at every park and will drop-off at the high school in conjunction with the Adventure Club program. I15l Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................... March 13, 1997 The beach program is proposed to run similar to last year. They will have a new head lifeguard this year. Jackie Meyer will be in charge of just the aquatic program this year, and will not be involved with the Parks Program. Piepkorn noted that this year they are spending some money on equipment for the parks programs, such as balls and a parachute, and they hope to buy more equipment every year to gradually increase their inventory of supplies and equipment. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko to approve the budget for the parks and beaches programs as presented by Tim Piepkorn in his memorandum dated March 7, 1997. Motion carried unanimously. 1998 CAPITAL OUTLAY / PARK IMPROVEMENTS Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed those items which were approved from last year's Park Commission 'wish list' as noted in his memorandum, and other department 1997 approved expenditures. Fackler then reviewed proposed capital outlay items for the Parks Department, and suggested capital outlay purchases for the Park Commission which have been discussed in the past, as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 6 picnic tables ..................... $ 1,800 2 water fountains for Highland & Belmont . . $ 6,000 Misc. Games for Summer Parks Program .... $ 1,500 Megaphones for lifeguards ............. $ 1,000 Outdoor Community Ice Skating Rink ..... $ 9 Shelters for parks .................. $ 9 The depot improvements approved for 1997 were discussed. Fackler reviewed that the siding will be steel with insulation behind it. Work is planned sometime between April and May. The historical society will be approving the colors. All the windows and doors will be replaced, except the doors on the lower level. All the windows will have white trim. They are adding one picture window. Maintaining the original style of the building was discussed. Fackler commented that they believe the original color of the depot was gray, then white, then it was moved and painted tan. The existing siding is not original. Fackler suggested they consider how this building will fit into the park and blend in with the area. It was questioned if the original building had a sign that extended out from the exterior wall that most depot buildings have. Staff is to check into this. The Commission commented that they would like to see a copy of a photograph of the original depot. JI3 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................... March 13, 1997 MOTION made by Casey that the Park Commission recommends that the improvements to be made to the depot building be as close as possible to the original historical character. Meyer seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. Casey noted that the Council approved in the 1997 budget that money be expended from the Park Dedication Fund for the Depot improvements and Bluffs Beach improvements, and expressed a concern about losing funds which should be spent on obtaining more open space. Fackler noted that the interest earned in the Park Dedication Fund is now being rolled back into that fund and beginning in 1997, approximately $6,000 of interest was earned. Casey would like to see the Commission make recommendations on open spaces to purchase. Weycker asked for clarification on what is park dedication. Casey expressed his opinion, that when developers buy land they can either donate land to the City or pay a park dedication fee, which he sees as buying loss of open space, so he feels the funds should be used to buy open space. Byrnes questioned where there is any land left to develop in Mound. Casey referred to Rex Alwin's property. Byrnes suggested that the Park Commission tour Mr. Alwin's property and commented on how beautiful it is. Meyer stated that a good example of what private land is available is the Maple Manors property by Seahorse. He feels there are properties out there that we may not know about. Casey Commented that Minnesota Land Trust has programs available to help groups keep open space. Casey suggested the Commission do an inventory to find out what is out there. Meyer moved to continued discussion on this item for another I5 minutes. Weycker seconded. Carried unanimously. The outdoor community skating rink was discussed. It was noted that they have to wait until a joint powers agreement is completed. They are also unsure about the location since the sale of the Community Center. Relating to the shelters, Fackler suggested the Commission discuss what type of shelters they want and where they want them. Meyer commented that since Swenson Park has no shade, this was one site where a shelter would be welcomed. Also, the parks that are used for the parks program, shelters would be beneficial on days when there is light rain because they could use the shelters and do crafts. The cost of the shelters is a concern. Weycker suggested they could work with local contractors who may be willing to volunteer time with construction. Weycker noted that shelters in parks also provide a focus point. The shelters do not need to have walls. Byrnes suggested that benches be installed at the perimeter of Philbrook Park as a lot of people walk around the park. Byrnes commented that Pederson suggested lights be installed at Mound Bay Park for kids who play volleyball in the evening. Fackler noted that curfew is 10:00. Meyer suggested that they interview the kids in the parks to find out their wants and needs. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................... March 13, 1997 Casey noted that he would prefer to see money spent on a skating rink rather than drinking fountains. Meyer noted that because they are not sure of the location, they cannot budget money for site development. A plan cannot be developed for the skating rink until the site is determined. Meyer noted that he has a tank that can be used for resurfacing, however, they will need a hefty trailer or truck to mount it on. Meyer commented that the Comprehensive Plan states that Mound is lacking in particular types of parks and open spaces and agrees that the Commission could concentrate on accumulating land. Weycker stated that she would like to see nicer parks, and feels the existing parks are lacking. She feels there is nothing worse than an empty park. Meyer suggested they have a Park Commission meeting at a park, they can advertise the meeting and invite input from the neighbors. Other ways of getting public input was discussed. Weycker referred to a motion in the February 13th Park Commission minutes at the bottom of page 4, and commented that she has learned that this is not the way the budget works, that the Commission is not given a set dollar amount to work with. Fackler briefly reviewed how the budget process works. The Commission first needs to determine what items are important for the City and what is needed, then the cost needs to be determined. It is up to the City Manager to try and make the budget request work within the budget, the cost is one factor used, but the need is based on other department requests weighed by importance to the Council to see if it will work. Fackler referred to the example time line for the budget process. A final proposal for the Budget will be needed by the May meeting. Byrnes suggested the Commission have a workshop meeting to discuss long range and short range goals. MOTION made by byrnes, seconded by Meyer, to have a workshop meeting on Thursday, April 3, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. Carried unanimously. Weycker moved to amend the February 13, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes, the motion on page 5, as follows: "Meyer moved that a notice be published in "The Laker" requesting citizen input on t~e !998 buflgct request fer 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." Motion seconded by Byrnes. Carried 4 to 1. Casey abstained. DISCUSS PARK TOUR FOR 1997 (DATE, TIME, AGENDA) Areas that have been toured in the past were discussed. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................... March 13, 1997 Holding meetings in the parks and getting citizen input was discussed. Instead of having the tour on April 10th, it was suggested they invite citizens to that meeting to get input, not specifically for the 1998 budget, but for long range goals. It was suggested that the Park Commission receive input from the public first, then have their workshop meeting. It was agreed that citizen input will be scheduled for their regularly scheduled meeting on April 10th, and their workshop will be moved to April 24th at 7:00 p.m. Applying for grants was briefly discussed. It was agreed to post-pone the Parks Tour for now. 1997 AGENDA CALENDAR The Commission agreed to keep the agenda calendar open. DISCUSS MEETING START TIME (7:00 PM OR 7:30 PM) It was the consensus of the Commission to change the start time to 7:30 p.m. The Commission discussed the possibility of meeting in the conference room around a table. It was determined that when no other public is in attendance, an effort will be made to meet in the conference room. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT The appointment of the Dock Commission members was discussed. PARK DIRECTOR'S REPORT Fackler reviewed that preliminary plans are being put together by the City Planner for Veteran's Park. A pathway, sitting area, and plantings are part of the plan. This plan will be presented at the April meeting for review. The ice rinks are no longer being maintained due to weather. The ball diamond at Philbrook Park has a pile of agri-lime on it which was provided by the Babe Ruth league. Fackler reviewed that last year the council approved improvements to this field, including a fence and field repairs at the expense of this league. The Parks Department crew will be helping them, as available. Meyer asked if the Parks Director can look into making the sliding hill at Swenson Park safer, he noted that there is a big dip at the bottom which is dangerous. Fackler noted that it is not a recognized sliding hill. 1t35' Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................... March 13, 1997 Meyer commented on an article from the paper which talks about a large bond referendum which was just approved in the City of Prior Lake in order to improve their parks. Byrnes noted that the Council suggested the Commission develop some type of survey to solicit input from citizens and feels short range goals and long range goals need to be developed. She feels we need things in the parks for junior high kids and adults. Weycker suggested that the Westonka Helping Youth Community Task Force (WHY) be invited to the April meeting and that they invite kids to the meeting. It was suggested Sue Cathers be contacted to get her help in inviting kids to the April meeting. It was agreed that the notice in the paper should state that kids of all ages are invited to give input on what they would like in their parks. MUSIC IN THE PARK~ Byrnes stated that she would like the Park Commissioners to be able to attend the Music in the Park Programs. It was suggested the Commission meetings in June, July and August begin at 8:00 p.m. so the Commissioners can attend the programs. Byrnes commented that they did not get a grant this year to help fund the program and they are looking for donations or other ways to raise money. The City has not contributed any funds to this program. MOTION made by Botko, seconded by Byrnes to change the start time for the June, July and August Park Commission meetings to 8:00 p.m., and if necessary, the meetings could be extended an additional half hour after 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Weycker, seconded by Byrnes to adjourn the Park and Open space Commission Meeting at 9:21 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 1131. 6 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 26, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall PUBLIC 7:00 1) HEARINGS Seanote Cruises Inc., Consideration of new on-sale intoxicating liquor license application for the charter boat Seanote. 2) Aahhhz of Excelsior Park, Consideration of new on-sale intoxicating liquor license application for the charter boat Her Excellence. 3) Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Consideration of new multiple dock license application for 22 transient transient Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 1,500' of continuous shoreline on W. Upper Lake. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock - 4/9/97 Bd Mtg scheduled at Shorewood City Hall READING OF MINUTES- 3/12/97 Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. SAVE THE LAKE A. Consideration of Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol request for "Save the Lake" funds to purchase rescue equipment; B. Discussion of draft 1997 "Save the Lake" budget (handout); C. Additional Business; LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Discussion and consideration of new on-sale liquor license public hearing for Seanote Cruises, Inc.; B. Discussion and consideration of new on-sale liquor license public hearing for Aahhhz of Excelsior Park; C. Additional Business; 3. WATER STRUCTURES A. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock license application; B. Lord Fletchers of the Lake, Review of 2/12/97 Public Hearing Report and 'continued discussion on new multiple dock and special density license applications; *C. Bill and Sheila Todd, staff recommends full refund of $250 deposit for side' setback variance; D. Additional Business; 4. E~/MIEXOTICS TASK FORCE *A. Minutes of the 3/14/97 meeting; B. 3/14/97 meeting report; C. Additional Business; 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff update filling the vacant Administrative Technician position; B. Additional Business; 6. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; - 3/15/97 - 3/31/97 B. February financial summary and balance sheet; C. Additional Business; 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, March 12, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall .CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Gretchen Maglich, Minnetonka; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Herb Suenh, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director. DRAFT Members absent: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Orono and Vicoria have no appointed members. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS Babcock reported that Tonka Bay City Hall would not be available on 4/9/97. Rascop suggested checking to see if Shorewood City Hall is available that evening. The Board concurred a meeting would be held on 4/9/97 at a location to be announced. .READING OF THE MINUTES Zwak moved, Reese seconded to approve the minutes of the February 26, 1997 Regular Board meeting as submitted. Ayes (8), Abstained (2, Partyka and Nelson); Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Babcock recommended removing agenda item 2B off the consent agenda. Reese moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the consent agenda identified by an "*" on the agenda, excluding 2B. Motion carried unanimously (Approved consent agenda items include: Item 3A, Queen of Excelsior and Queen of Excelsior II, staff recommending approval of 1997 renewal "on-sale" with Sunday option, liquor licenses; Item 3B, 1997 Beer and Wine License Renewals, staff recommending approval for the tbllowing charter boats: 1) Al & Alma's VI, 2) Al & Alma's X, 3) A1 & Alma's XI, 4) A1 & Ahna's XII, 5) Al & Alma's Avant-Garde, 6) Al & Alma's Aventure, 7) Fantasia, 8) Paradise Grand, 9) Paradise Lady, 10) Paradise Princess; Item 4A, 3/6/97 "Save the Lake" meeting was canceled. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Discussion with Jay Rendall, DNR Coordinator of Exotics Species Management Progrmn, regardh~g LMCD Ordinance//145 Suerth introduced Jay Rendall, Coordinator of the DNR Exotic Species Management Program, to discuss LMCD Ordinance//145. Rendall addressed the questions and concerns he outlined in a 3/5/97 memo regarding LMCD Ordinance //145. He encouraged feedback from the Board on these questions and concems. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 12, 1997 Page 2 e Be Ce The Board discussed the questions and concerns outlined by Rendall. The Board expressed concern with not using quat in areas that cannot be reached by the high pressure sprayer, however, they stated they intended to cooperate with the DNR on their concerns. The Board also expressed interest in maintaining the boat washing station at hours where the most boats can be washed. They also expressed interest in the DNR providing some enforcement assistance and encouraged input t'rom the DNR in training potential inspectors. Mark Fisher, who fishes on Lake Minnetonka regularly, and Denny Nelson, who coordinates some fishing tournaments, raised some additional comments and concerns with the ordinance. Discussion on the use of a transporter to improve the efficiency of EWM harvesting operations Reese stated he and Suerth had recently met with Todd Grm~s, EWM Supervisor, regarding whether the use of a transporter would improve the efficiency of EWM harvesting operations. He noted preliminary calculations indicate that the use of a transporter, in conjunction with three harvesters, could improve efficiency by up to 50%. He stated one harvester could have preventative maintenance and the crew size would remain the same. He concluded the calculations need to be verified. Rascop suggested a timeline be developed and brought back at a future meeting. MOTION: Rascop moved, Gilman seconded to continue investigation of costs and efficiency numbers. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Additional Business Suerth stated he would contact Laura Smith, Public Relations Intern in 1996 to check if she is willing to assist the LMCD in 1997. WATER STRUCTURES A. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Consideration of 2/12/97 Public Hearing Report, continned discussion on new multiple dock license application. Babcock stated that he, Mayor Palmer, and Nybeck had met recently to discuss how the "Envelope Concept" ordinance, Section 2.015, might be used to consider their application. He stated the ordinance may allow the City to maintain the size of boats being stored with a tradeoff of fewer Boat Storage Units (BSU's). He stated two points need to be established to consider the application under the ordinance. They are 1) establish the outer boundaries of the envelope, and 2) to determine the cumulative square footage of the BSU's when they were grandfathered. He noted Lake Minnetonka Co~tservation District Regular Board Meeting March 12, 1997 Page 3 once these two points have been established, the City may reconfigure within the envelope provided it meets the conditions outlined in the ordinance. He concluded the Board needs to decide how large tie-on slips were for a finger dock, the side setbacks that should be applied, and whether density shifting should be allowed. He reviewed the documentation of slips square footages grandfathered in and proposed square footages for 1997. He concluded the City is proposing a reduction in BSU's from 92 to 87. Rascop asked how many feet of lakeshore in Minnetonka Beach is dedicated for the multiple dock license? Nybeck stated the City has dedicated 2,370' of shoreline. Rascop expressed concern with how this ordinance addresses grandfathered status of the City and how it allows for changes. LeFevere stated with grandfathering on land, it does not necessarily freeze every aspect of the non-conforming use. Babcock stated when this ordinance was drafted and reviewed by the Board, the idea of no growth and no perceived growth was a key element of the ordinance. Rascop asked if we are then accepting slip sizes the way they were in 19777 Babcock stated this is why this issue is before the Board because documentation of these slip sizes has not been found. He stated he would like some direction on slips sizes for tie-ons from the Board to assist staff in calculating cumulative square footage of the 92 BSU's. Partyka asked if there was a reasonable effort to find out what the slip sizes were in 1977 rather than arbitrarily assuming slips sizes for tie-ons were 10' X 20'? Mayor Palmer stated the City has done extensive research on determining slips sizes ~n 1977 and he believed what is documented in the calculations is as accurate as they cm~ come up with. Babcock stated the calculation of 10 X 20' for tie-ons was done subjectively. He recommended if the Board is not comfortable with this, he suggested they come up with a different dimension tbr tie-ons. LeFevere reviewed the issues to which he believed need to be discussed. He stated it is up to the Board to establish a policy decision on what they believed existed in 1977. Zwak stated he believed it is not possible to determine what was there in 1977. He stressed the importance to move forward with this request and determine what will Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 12, 1997 Page 4 Be be there from this point on. Jim Gilbert, representing John Goodman~ stated he believed the City has made enough efforts to locate historical records to document what existed in 1977. He distributed aerial photographs from 9/21/79 that documented docks that existed at site 11. Babcock stated he believed the Board is reviewing this application to ensure it is consistent with the LMCD's lakewide management policy. Gilbert expressed concern in using 10' X 20' slips sizes tbr tie-ons. Mayor Palmer believed the photos presented by Gilbert were not relevant because the license was approved in 1984, and then back licensed to 1977. Babcock discussed the timeline for review of the envelope concept including the need tbr an application and a public hearing. Partyka stated he had a problem with using a 10' x 20' slip dimension for tie-ohs. MOTION: Maglich moved, Zwak seconded to allow for 10' X 20' slip dimensions for tie-on slips on docks that are 60' long. VOTE: MOTION: Ayes (8), Nayes (2, Rascop and Partyka); Motion carded. Zwak moved, Nelson seconded to allow a minimum of 5' setbacks in lots of 50' in width or less, and not require double setbacks. VOTE: MOTION: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Gilman); Motion carried. Zwak moved, Maglich seconded to approve the transfer of square footage between sites under a single application VOTE: Ayes (7), Nayes (3, Rascop, Partyka, and Gilman); Motion carried. 1997 Multiple Dock lice~tses, approval of 1997 multiple dock license applications, w/o change, as outlined in 3/4/97 staff memo in categories A, B, C, and D MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to approve all 1997 multiple dock license renewals as described in category A. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to approve all 1997 multiple dock license renewals as described in category B, subject to payment of the balance. Lake Minnetonka Cmtservation District Regular Board Meeting March 12, 1997 Page 5 e e VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to approve all 1997 DMA license renewals as described in category C. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business There was no additional business. LAKE USE AND RECREATION C. Additional Business There was no additional business SAVE THE LAKE B. Additional Business Nybeck stated the Water Patrol has submitted a request for "Save the Lake" funds to purchase rescue equipment to assist their efforts. He briefly outlined the proposed equipment to be purchased. Babcock stated the LMCD has for some time used "Save the Lake" finds to purchase safety equipment to benefit the Water Patrol and their efforts. Board members discussed the purchase of equipment in the past and directed staff to present a mission statement developed a few years ago on how these funds were to be used. MOTION: Maglich moved, Nelson seconded to approve the purchase of dry suits and accessories, and the purchase of rescue equipment, as detailed in the 3/6/97 memo from Sgt. Schilling. MOTION: Nelson moved, Zwak seconded to table this item until Sgt. Schilling provides a report at a future Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Bush~ess There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION There was no business. 6. FINANCIAL Lake Minnetonka CotLservation District Regular Board Meeting March 12, 1997 Page 6 e ge 10. Ae Audit of vouchers for payment 3/1/97 - 3/15/97 Nelson reviewed the vouchers of payments as submitted. He noted check #2004 made to Alan Willcutt should be added to these vouchers. He stated this check is to pay for the 94 accrued vacation hours for Willcutt. He noted a check has been received from Willcutt to pay for his share of health insurance premiums for his family. MOTION: Babcock moved, Rascop seconded to approve the vouchers for payment as submitted, adding check #2004. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Be Additional Business Nelson stated he is working with Nybeck on locating CD certificates, the securing of safety deposit box, and the renewing of a CD that matures on 3/20/97. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported the following: * Duane Markus has resigned as the Board representative of Wayzata effective 3/17/97. * He recommended a quarterly mayors' meeting be held in the near future. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT There being no filrther business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 11:03 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Joseph Zwak, Secretary DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE MINUTES 8:30 a.m., Friday, March 14, 1997 Gray's Freshwater Center, Suite 19, Navarre, MN Present: Herb Suerth, Chair; Tom Reese, LMCD Board; Mike Brandt, Hennepin County; John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Chip Welling, MN DNR; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director. Minutes: Minutes from the 1/10/97 meeting were accepted with the following changes: * Reese noted approximately 180 sailboats were washed in 1996 by the sprayer. * Welling recommended deleting the sentence under Clear Water Technologies that stated "the DNR will be helping with a portion of the data gathering and observations within the approved lake arms". LMCD Ordinance # 145 Suerth reported that the LMCD has received some resistance and concerns to this ordinance from some fishing groups and Jay Rendall at the DNR. He noted the ordinance is not the cure for all potential troubles, but rather the first step in the process. He added that Rendall has stated he believes the Holiday Crappie Fishing Tournament is a low risk to Lake Minnetonka for infestation of zebra mussels and that a waiver to require boat washing may be appropriate. Nybeck stated he had discussed this with Jay Rendall and Dan Engen from Holiday Companies. He noted that Rendall would be sending a memo over in the near future outlining why he maintains it is a Iow risk to Lake Minnetonka. He added a meeting to discuss details such as dissemination of brochures and maps, and the idea of a voluntary wash station will be scheduled in the near future with Engen. Brandt asked when the tournament is scheduled? Nybeck stated it is scheduled for 4/26/97. Brandt stated the launching ramp on Spring Park Bay should be open, but it may not be fully constructed. Welling stated if the LMCD utilizes a public release for education, it should identify ali exotics rather than zebras mussels specifically. He noted it is the DNR's philosophy to change the user's habits for all exotics. The committee discussed in great detail how the ordinance relates to the $1,000,000 bass fishing tournament scheduled in June on Lake Minnetonka. It was reported the tournament could bring approximately 300 boats from out of state that may need their boats washed. Staff EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 3/14/97, Page 2 was directed to contact the tournament sponsor to coordinate a meeting to discuss the logistics of this ordinance to the tournament. Batten stated he would like to know the logistics so Hennepin County Parks could assist the LMCD with this ordinance. Transporter Reese stated Suerth and himself had meet recently with Todd Grams, EWM Supervisor, to discuss whether the purchase of a transporter would improve the efficiency of EWM harvesting operations. He noted after analyzing existing data, it was concluded that it would improve efficiency by around 50% using three harvesters. He concluded the Board has authorized staff to further pursue this concept by verifying the accuracy of these figures and to get an idea of how much a transporter would cost. He left at this time. Nybeck stated it is highly unlikely that a transporter could be utilized for the 1997 harvesting operation because of timing restrictions. He noted this may allow the LMCD to establish a more accurate means of determining how many acres have been harvested. Barten stated the LMCD may want to investigate the use of a GPS system to have a better means of accurately measuring acres harvested. Brandt stated the LMCD may want to consider reporting efficiency numbers such as harvester loads and truck loads rather than reporting acres harvested. Welling questioned whether there is a need. He added if this is something that is pursued, it may be an opportunity to track bio-mass in conjunction with the water clarity monitoring already being done. Baxten stated he believed the public is interested in an accurate number of acres harvested per year by bay. He concurred with Welling that tracking bio-mass in coordination with the water clarity monitoring would be beneficial. He believed tracking heavy growth areas on an annual basis would be good information to collect. Suerth believed the idea of using a GPS is worth further investigation. He encouraged this be included in the next "Save the Lake" solicitation letter. Staff was directed to contact Dave Dotzenroth to find out whether he is interested in participating in the EWM/Exotics Task Force. Agency Reports Welling circulated a copy of the 1996 DNR annual report regarding harmful exotic species of aquatic plants and wildlife in Minnesota. He reported that: * Participation in 1996 was up from the previous year to 39 lakes. .* In 1997, the DNR will provide the same amount of funds to the lakes, however, the .. amount per lake would be down because of the increased number of lakes participating. * Dr. Newman's weevil program is on-going. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 3/14/97, Page 3 * There is no new major development in herbicides. He noted a meeting on 2/20/97 on fluoridone indicates that it causes extensive damage to non-control plants. Batten reported the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park is scheduled to open this Spring. Brandt restated the Spring Park Bay public landing should be open when the ice is off the lake. Area wide lake association reports No reports were provided. Old Business There was no old business. New Business There was no new business Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Gregory S. Nybeck Executive Director MINUTES - MOUND CITY C(~UNCIL - MARCH 25, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 25, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor ,tt~s-.l~l~e~, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, ~ ,le.m~and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: 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. 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. MOVED AND SECONDED A MOTION The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously / in favor, with nays.