The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-10-14AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1997, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1__ OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. *3. CONSENT AGENDA: *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 REGULAR MEETING ................................. 3446-3458 *B APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ................... 3459-3461 *C. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2, 1997 JOINT CITY COUNCILS' AND WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD MEETINO462-3463 *D. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS - ASBESTOS REMOVAL, JME OF MONTICELLO ................................... 3465 *E. *F. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION//87-16, ADDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN THE PELICAN POINT SUBDIVISION ..................... 3466-3470 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPROVAL, RALPH BAUER, 1774 HERON LANE ................................... 3471-3481 3442 o *G. PAYMENT OF BILLS PUBLIC HEARINGS: 348223500 Ae Be DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS ........................... 3501-3502 (Total amount will be given Tuesday evening) UNPAID MOWING CHARGES ..~.~ .................. 3503-3504 C UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES 3505-3518 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING PROGRAM ................................. 3519-3521 E. SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ............... 3522-3524 0 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING RESTAURANT DESCRIBED AS RENOVATION WITH ADDITIONAL 825 SQ. FT. OF BASEMENT STORAGE LOCATED WITHIN THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5201 PIPER ROAD, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8 & LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-11%24 21 0156, P & Z 97-42, AL & ALMA'S ................ 3525-3554 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND, MUELLER/LANSING PROPERTIES, LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2240 COMMERCE BLVD/SHORELINE DRIVE, PID 13-117-24-33 0073 & 13-11%24-33 0041, P & Z 9%37 .............. 3555-3574 e PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A PRINTING & COPY SHOP LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2316 COMMERCE BLVD., LOT 4, 29 3/10 FT. S. OF LOT 4, PID 13-11%24 33 0047, P & Z 9%44 .... 3575-3594 3443 CASE 9%43: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR REMODELING, ~ AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, 5201 PIPER ROAD, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE PID 13-117-24 41 0005 ......... ......... 3595-3623 CASE 96-62: VARIANCE REQUEST, SCOTT & LINDA MACK, 4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, VARIANCE FOR A DETACttED GARAGE, LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 ........................ 3624-3668 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM IS GOING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 13, 1997 SO THERE WILL BE HANDOUTS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT TUESDAY'S MEETING). 10 APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, RICHARD JOHNSON PROPERTY - AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEME~ PROJECT 3669-3675 11. APPOINTMENT OF LMCD REPRESENTATIVE FOR ONE YEAR TERM BEGINNING 1/1/98 .................................. 3676 12. RESCHEDULE NOVEMBER 11, 1997, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. This needs to be done because it is a legal holiday (Veterans Day). (Suggested dates November 12 or November 18, 1997.) COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 13. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Department Head Monthly Reports for September 1997 ................... 3677-3705 LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for September 1997. Tom Reese appeared at the September 30, 1997 Committee of the Whole Meeting so you can refer to your notes from that meeting regarding topics of interest at the LMCD. Letter with enclosures dated September 25, 1997 from Representative Steve Smith on emergency funding for the HRA ............................... 3706-3708 Announcement from the Steering Committee looking at the management of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), of which I am a member, notifying cities within the MCWD, of the need for names for possible appointment to fill two positions on the Board of Managers. The Steering Committee is looking to have a list of names submitted to the Hennepin County Board for possible appointment to replace Woodrow Love and Monica Gross. The Steering Committee believes this is a very important process since the attitude on the Board of Managers needs to be changed and what better way to do this than to replace the current members who are up for appointment next March. The timetable for replacement is such that we need 3444 to submit names to the Board before the end of the year. The Steering Committee wants to be active in the process and is looking at conducting interviews of potential candidates. We can either submit names and/or send a letter to the Steering Committee supporting the Steering Committee as the coordinator/endorsement body for the MCWD nominations. What do you think? Please give this consideration for some discussion Tuesday evening· · 3709 Material for the next meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA). Councilmember Hanus is the City's delegate to the SRA ................... 3710-3721 REMINDER: Next Joint City Councils' and Westonka School Board Meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 13, 1997, 7 A.M., MOUND CITY HALL. We will be discussing issues surrounding the proposed referendum, elements of a joint powers agreement and educational campaign issues touched upon at the last meeting. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS RESCHEDULED FROM OCTOBER 21 TO OCTOBER 20, 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL. SINGLE ITEM AGENDA - PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1998. PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR BUDGETS WITH YOU TO THE MEETING. Ho THE DEMOLITION OF PROPERTIES FOR THE NEW AUDITOR'S ROAD WILL BEGIN ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1997, 9 A.M. AT THE SITE. WE ARE SCHEDULING A "DEMO BREAKING" FOR THAT TIME AND ASK THAT YOU APPEAR FOR THE BRIEF CEREMONY AND PICTURES. PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDARS FOR THIS IMPORTANT EVENT AS IT IS THE FORMAL BEGINNING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MOUND VISIONS PROGRAM. Please note that the asbestos removal portion of the project will begin on October 16 and will be completed by October 23. The demolition contractor will demolish each building in the order that the asbestos is removed. The demolition will be completed by November 1, 1997. I. REMINDER: HRA Board Meeting, Tuesday, October 14, 7 p.m., Mound City Hall. J. I finally reached a representative of Toro who could answer some questions regarding whether their decision is final on leaving Mound. The decision is final and is based upon manufacturing. I offered to bring State, City and County officials in to meet with officials of Toro, but the representative said there is nothing that can be done at this point. Toro is making every effort to place displaced employees with the Toro Company or other companies who perform this type of manufacturing work. K. Response to the Woodland Point Summons is enclosed. This was sent to the attorneys representing the Petitioners by the October 3, 1997, due date ............................ 3722-3728 Notice from the MCWD of the next Rule B Task Force Meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, 1997, 1:00 - 3:30 P.M., Minnetonka Community Center, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd. Mayor Polston is a member of this committee ............ 3729 3445 Moumt City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, Septmber 23, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Mayor Polston was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Engineer John Cameron, and the following interested citizens: Tom Kelly, Linda and Scott Mack, Rita Pederson, Carol Pomeroy, Mike Pomeroy, Tom Reese, Amy Reese, Jim Krenik, Richard Meyer, Connie Meyer, Lorrie Ham, Patty Guttormson, Tom Stueve, John Beise, Kristin Hage, Olen Pederson, Cathy Bailey and Don Pedersen. The Acting Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. ~: .dH items listed under the Consent .dgenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discuxsion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent .dgenda and considered in normal sequence. 1.0 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO PATTY GUTI'ORMSON .APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the .dgenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. *1.1 CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda to be taken indivdually: *B, *C.c. and *E. The Council added the following on to the Consent Agenda: *Payment Request - Buffalo Bituminous, Sherwood Drive Improvement Project. *Set Bid Opening for Central Business District (CBD) Snow Removal - (Suggested Date: October 15, 1997. Moutut City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. · 1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1997, REGULAR MEETING, MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. · 1.3 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JOINT MOUND MINNETRISTA CITY COUNCILS' MEETING WITH WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD OF SEPTEMBEK 18, 1997. MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: (SUGGESTED DATE FOR THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS:OCTOBER 14, 1997) · 1.4 ~PECIAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. DELINOUENT UTILITY BILLS UNPAID MOWING CHARGES UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. · 1.5 b. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING PROGRAM PUBLIC.. MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. 2 '1.6 Mound City Council Minutes. September 23, 1997 SET PUBLIC HEARING: MA. IOR SUBDIVISION, M. E~ .MUELLER, 2240 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE~ KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-117-24 33 0073 & 13 117-24 33 0041 MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. *1.7 SET PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, AL & .ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, 5201 PIPER ORAD, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID//25-117-24 21 015~ MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. *1.8 SET PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LARSON PRINTING, 2316 COMMERCE BLVD., LOT 4, SOUTH 29 3/10 FT _.OF LOT 4, MCNAUGHT'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-117-2,! 33 0047 MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. · 1.9 .AFTER-THE-FACT PUBLIC LAND PERMIT, TOM STUEVE, 1737 CANARY LANE RESOLUTION//97-89 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AFTER-THE-FACT PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR DOCK SITE//13300, WIOTA COMMON, FOR TOM STUEVE, 1737 CANARY LANE Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. 3 Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, I997 *1.10 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE n SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR KOENIG & SCHWERT, 2305 RESOLUTION 7-90 RESOLUTION AUTHOriZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR KOENIG & SCHWERT, 2305 COMMERCE BLVD Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. *1.11 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER OR FINANCE DIRECTOR TO. EXECUTE AND SIGN SUB-GRANT AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOUND. (This is required by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Act) with regard to expenses incurred due to the July 17, 1997, storm damage.) RESOLUTION//97-91 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER OR FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND SIGN SUB-GRANT AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOUND Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. .1.12 RESOLUTION APPROVING REOUEST FOR STREET LIGHT FOR DUNDEE PAR_ K RESOLUTION//97-92 RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHT FOR DUNDEE PARK Jensen, Weycker, Unanimously. .1.13 PAYMENT OF BILI~. MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. 4 Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 The following items were pulled from the Consent Agenda and taken separately: 1.14 CASE//97-40: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DECK, TOM KELLY, 1733 .GULL .LANE, LOT 9, BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 13 0016 Councilmember Jensen raised a question regarding the intensity of the property and its relationship to the proposed variance for a deck. She questioned why a variance was even being considered due to this size of the property. Councilmember Hanus stated that he believed that other issues were being resolved with an approval of the variance. City Attorney John Dean was asked his opinion of the issue. He stated that the site was both unique and unusual and it may be a good idea to illustrate the lot size and hard cover issues as being unique which would be a good idea in terms of any action on this matter particularly for future reference. Councilmember Jensen then suggested that under the fourth "Whereas" of the proposed Resolution that after the word "criteria," the following could be added: "including minimum lot size, maximum allowable hard cover and setbacks detailed in the planning report." Further language i.e., "proposed deck is reasonable and is being placed on the side of the house to minimize some encroachment." Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution as amended above: RESOLUTION//97-93 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DECK, TOM KELLY, 1733 GULL LANE, LOT 9, BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 13 0016, CASE//97-40 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 SET PUBLIC HEARING: SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1997) City Manager Ed Shukle provided background information regarding this matter. John Cameron, City Engineer, provided some information relating to the upcoming assessment hearing to be held on October 14, 1997 regarding the Sherwood Drive Improvement. Mr. Cameron indicated that the project came in over the proposed assessment and suggested that the 5 3%o Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 City consider participating in the project to offset the increased costs from the proposed assessment. He stated that some problems occurred related to the quantifies of material needed for the project due to bad soils in the area particularly in the cul de sac. Construction cost ended up about $3,000 over what the contract amount was. In addition, other costs such as legal, engineering and administrative costs ended up over what was estimated earlier. This amounted to $3,000 to $4,000 over what was anticipated. Total overruns came to $6,000 to $7,000 over what was expected. Due to this fact, Mr. Cameron asked the Council to consider allowing the City to become a participant. He showed two different options-Option A indicates no participation while Option B proposed a City participation amount of 10%. The City Council agreed to Option B. Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #97-94 RESOLUTION TO DECLARE COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE SHERWOOD DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT USING OPTION B The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-95 RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 14, 1997, FOR THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF THE SHERWOOD DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.16 JAMES KRENIK "AFTER THE FACT" VARIANCE REQUEST 5240 PIKE ROAD, ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437 OF THE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DOCKS BY ADDING SECTION 437:16, EXCEPTIONS Councilmember Jensen questioned the proposed amendment language regarding "The City Code" granting exceptions rather than the "City Council." It appears that the ordinance amendment requires city code to be changed to City Council. Mound City Council Minutes - September 2.t, 1997 Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following: ORDINANCE #89-1997 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437 OF THE CITY CODE REPLATING TO DOCKS BY ADDING SECTION 437:16 EXCEPTIONS AS AMENDED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ADDITION TO SHIRLEY HILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS. (THIS HEARING SHOULD BE CONTINUED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 1997, DUE TO PROPOSED REFERENDUM ON RENOVATION OF THE WEgTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER.) City Manager Ed Shukle explained that it appears that a referendum will be scheduled for December 4, 1997 regarding the renovation of the existing Westonka Community Center and, therefore, it would make sense to continue the public hearing on the proposed addition to Shirley Hills to Tuesday, December 9, 1997. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to continue the public hearing to December 9, 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 .PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MEYER? .MOUND SERVICE, 2610 COMMERCE BLVD, LOTS 1-3, & S ~A OF47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID 23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050 Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner presented the staff report on this matter. Gordon explained that this Conditional Use Permit is before the Council due to the fact that it stated in the permit that a review of the permit would take place one year after its issuance. Gordon explained the issues of the permit that were not being followed. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended no changes to the original resolution passed in 1996 regarding the permit. Councilmember Hanus stated that he believed that items #5 and #6 appeared to be duplicated in the proposed resolution. Councilmember Jensen suggested that items #3 and//4 of the resolution were unnecessary. Acting Mayor Ahrens opened the public hearing. She asked if anyone wished to be heard in favor or against the proposed permit. 7 Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 Tom Reese, 5641 Bartlett Blvd., was concerned about the timing on the improvements that need to be made and that are proposed in the permit. He emphasized that the owner needs to be held to a date certain regarding these improvements. Dick Meyer, Meyer's Service, stated that he is trying to make his property better. He listed various reasons why the improvements proposed haven't been completed. Meyer said he is trying his best. He is concerned about the parking restriction that is in the permit. He said there are issues beyond his control in this regard. Connie Meyer, Meyer's Service, explained why cars are being parked on the Bartlett Blvd. side of the property. She stated that parking is needed in front of the building. She gave examples of other properties in Mound that are able to park in front of their buildings. She also discussed the fees that were paid towards the conditional use permit process. Mrs. Meyer explained that the permit should be revised to allow parking in front of the building. Councilmember Hanus explained that the parking restriction refers only to overnight parking. Tom Reese stated that the intersection at Bartlett Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. is dangerous due to the parking of vehicles. Dick Meyer commented further on the parking issue. He further defended that parking is not a problem on the Bartlett Blvd. side of the building or where the gasoline pumps were formerly located. Councilmember Hanus asked about the primary problem regarding the parking problem. Dick Meyer explained that some customers will drop off vehicles late in the evening and thus they are there overnight. Hanus asked about locating signs on the property indicating no parking overnight. Meyer explained that signs are ignored. Meyer continued to state that parking should be allowed on his property and should not be restricted. Councilmember Jensen was concerned about the number of vehicles being parked on the property. Allowing this gives persons the idea that this area is a used car lot. She discussed other properties in Mound who do have parking restrictions and restrictions on the number of vehicles parked on the properties. Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-96 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION 96-69, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PF_aXUVHT TO ALLOW A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS FOR MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE LOCATED IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS 8 Moumt City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 DISTRICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3 & S1/2 OF 47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID'S 23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050 AS AMENDED DELETING ITEMS//3-//6 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Hanus indicated that it is not his intention to be reviewing conditional use permits year after year on a regular basis. Once issues are cleared up, it would be his intention to remove the annual review provision from the permit. 1.19 CASE //96-62: VARIANCE REQUEST, SCOTT AND LINDA MACK, 4657 .ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, LOT 15 BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 Loren Gordon provided a staff report. He indicated that Scott and Linda Mack are proposing to build a detached garage. He pointed out various issues related to the variance that were conditions to receiving variance approval. John Cameron indicated that he reviewed, with the Public Works Superintendent, storm sewer issues which included the outlet at the lake and the catch basin in Island View Drive. The capability of the catch basin was discussed and the need for it to be monitored for cleaning. Cameron mentioned that there are erosion control measures that could be taken but there would be costs related to those measures and the question as to who would pay for these improvements. Cameron believes that the garage could be constructed and won't cause any additional problems and said the storm sewer system will likely handle most storms but if a major rainfall occurs, the catch basin and the outlet may not be able to handle the rain particularly if the system is undersized. At this point in time, he did not know the actual size of the storm sewer and cannot make a judgment on the system. There is uncertainty as to whether the storm sewer pipe is in the easement area. Councilmember Hanus asked the Planner about the new portion of deck requested and why this request has not been brought before the Planning Commission previously. The City Attorney stated that his recommendation would be to deal with the deck which is before the City Council and that the Council not deal with the new portion of the deck as part of the action before them this evening. 9 Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 Hanus stated his concern regarding a fence in the easement area and the maintenance of the stormwater pipe that runs down the one side of the property. More discussion was held on the possible location of the storm sewer pipe. It appears that there is not enough information to make a decision on this application at this time. Scott Mack, applicant, stated that the fence on the easement was approved and he received a permit for the fence. Hanus stated that there were two different fences, one that was removable and one was more permanent. Mack stated that Jon Sutherland, Building Official, had the opinion that the new portion of the deck was allowable since the Planning Commission recommended that the deck had already been approved by the Commission which said that the deck could be located 10' into the 50' setback and staying off the encroachments of the other easements. Acting Mayor Ahrens explained the City's concern regarding the easement in relationship to a garage being located on the easement and that if the City needed to dig up the storm sewer pipe, it would affect the floor of the garage since it would have to be torn up. John Cameron suggested that Mark Gronberg, surveyor for Mr. Mack, attempt to locate the storm sewer pipe and place it on the survey. Hanus expressed his concern over the storm sewer and the drainage.He wants to be comfortable with the solution regarding the diverting of the stormwater. Ahrens expressed concern regarding the hardcover calculations since it appears the hardcover is in excess of 40 %. Gordon explained that the permit cannot be issued if the hardcover is more than 40%. Ahrens stated that more hardcover is going to increase the drainage issues. Hanus suggested that staff establish where the storm sewer pipe is located. He also asked that an easement be established to service that pipe. In addition, the matter should be sent back to Planning Commission regarding the storm sewer pipe, the easement and the new deck issues. Further, right of way should be investigated in the area of the catch basin to reduce the drainage problem. The Planning Commission will probably need to review the zoning ordinance and fences as it relates to this matter. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to follow Mr. Hanus' suggestions so that the Planning Commission can hear the matter on October 13, 1997 and that the matter could be turned over to the City Council at the October 14, 1997 regular meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 10 Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were no comments and suggestions. At this point a five minute break was taken. Acting Mayor Ahrens asked the City Manager to explain the need for an Executive Session related to a condemnation action regarding the Richard Johnson property and the response to the Woodland Point Summons. Councilmember Weycker indicated she would not participate in the Woodland Point Summons discussion. City Attorney John Dean suggested that the condemnation matter be handled first. The Council then went into executive session on these matters. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 1.20 CONDEMNATION AWARD - RICHARD JOHNSON PROPERTY (AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) The Council reconvened the regular meeting within a short period of time. Ed Shukle indicated that Bob Lindall, Kennedy and Graven, met with the City Council in executive session. He reviewed the outcome of the Condemnation award and recommended that the City file an appeal in District Court. The Council agreed to do so. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to authorize the City Attorney to file an appeal and to report back at the next City Council meeting with any new information. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.21 RESPONSE TO WOODLAND POINT SUMMONS Attorney John Dean indicated that a draft of a response was reviewed in executive session regarding the Woodland Point Summons and that suggestions were made as to modifications to the draft. Modifications would be incorporated into the draft prior to submittal on October 3, 1997 which is the date that the response was due. Upon the filing of the document, it will be made public and will be available to members of the public. 11 Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 1.22 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A REFERENDUM ON THE PROPOSED RENOVATION OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER. Ed Shukle, City Manager presented the background on this matter. He reviewed the work of the joint committee representing the cities of Minnetrista and Mound and the Westonka School Board. He indicated that a preliminary design and cost estimate were developed on the renovation of the existing Westonka Community Center. He explained that a professional survey was conducted to gauge the level of interest in the area regarding a possible referendum and he stated that a positive response resulted. He explained that the resolution before the Council was to formally accept the results of the survey as presented by Decision Resources, Inc., and to support a referendum on the proposed renovation of Westonka Community Center in conjunction with the City of Minnetrista and the Westonka School Board. In addition, the Council would be supporting a promotional and marketing campaign to educate the public on the proposed project and head towards the referendum. Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-97 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY PERFORMED BY DECISION RESOURCES, INC., AND SUPPORTING A REFERENDUM TO OBTAIN VOTER APPROVAL IN THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSES OF RENOVATING THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER AND WORKING WITH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD TO JOINTLY PROMOTE AND MARKET A REFERENDUM TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH A PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.23 DISCUSSION: 612 AREA CODE CHANGES Ed Shukle, City Manager presented the background on this item. The City Council had asked for input from the Economic Development Commission. The EDC had no input on how to respond. The City Council did not like the overlay proposal currently under review by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. They prefer the geographical approach as opposed to the overlay approach. 12 MouM City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 The City Manager will communicate the Council's discussion to the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA). INFORMATION & MISCELLANEOUS A. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of September 11, 1997. B. Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 1997. Economic Development Commission Minutes of August 21, 1997. Financial Report for August 1997, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Notice of Rule B Task Force Meeting for Mayor Polston which is scheduled to Tuesday, September 23, 1997, 3:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. at MCWD Offices. F. REMINDER: G. REMINDER: Congressman Jim Ramstad will be holding a Town Meeting, Monday, September 22, 1997, at Mound City Hall, 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, September 30, 1997, 7:30 P.M., City Hall. Notice of Meeting with State Board of Innovation & Cooperation, Monday, September 28, 1997, Shorewood City Hall, 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Note regarding donation to Sorbo Park by Kathy Arbogast Letter from Toro RE: Closing of Mound facility. I have left messages with Toro representatives, Senator Gen Olson and Commissioner Penny Steele. I don't know if there is anything we can do, but I thought we should try to see if the State, County or City should intervene in some way. I will keep you posted. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weyckeer to adjourn at 11:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 13 MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Weycker. Also Present: John Cameron, City Engineer; Tom Reese, LMCD Representative; Steve Erickson, Fire Chief; Mike Palm, Fire Inspector; Ed Shukle, City Manager; Rita Pederson and Pam Amidon. LMCD Representative Report Tom Reese, LMCD Representative, was present to update the Council on the activities of the LMCD. He discussed the need to deal with his reappointment to the LMCD or a new appointment to the Board. Reese has served as the City of Mound' representative for 9 years and wishes to continue for one year. After that, he would not ask for reappointment to a three year term. Mayor Polston indicated that he supports having the Mayor or a councilmember serve as the LMCD representative. Councilmember Jensen believes Reese is doing a good job and indicated she wishes to reappoint him to the one year term. Councilmember Hanus emphasized the need for a direct link from the LMCD to the City Council. It was suggested that this matter be put on the regular meeting agenda for October 14, 1997. Reese discussed a number of other items i.e., videotaping LMCD meetings, the Hawks boathouse issue, zebra mussels, milfoil, number of boats on the lake, personal watercraft, limiting charter boat sizes, permitting for fishing contests, etc. Proposed Recreational Fire Ordinance Ed Shukle reviewed the history of the matter. Steve Erickson, Fire Chief, commented on the need for an ordinance dealing with this issue. Para Amidon, a resident, supported Erickson's statements regarding the need for an ordinance. Examples from other cities were cited and focus was placed on the Maple Grove ordinance. The City Manager was directed to draft an ordinance similar to Maple Grove's for the City Council to review and consider. Stormwater Management Utili~ Fund Ed Shukle gave the background on this matter. He stated that by having a stormwater management utility fund, many projects relating to stormwater would be addressed that are not currently getting any attention. John Cameron, City Engineer affirmed Shukle's statements and reviewed some other cities examples. The consensus was to draft an ordinance based upon the best of the three examples shown and to bring the draft back for further Council review. Asbestos Removal from Auditor's Road Improvement Proiect Properties Committee of the Whole Minutes September 30, 1997 Page 2 Ed Shukle indicated that some of the properties have asbestos in them which will require separate abatement and removal. He stated that the contractor is unwilling to bear the expense of this abatement even though the specifications on the demolition project indicated that the contractor would be responsible for any abatement. The City expended $2,000 to identify if there was asbestos and believes that the contractor is responsible for the asbestos removal. Shukle suggested to Cameron prior to tonight's meeting that the $10,100 to do the removal be split between the contractor and the City. The contractor called Cameron prior to tonight's meeting and indicated that he would agree to this. Therefore, the Council was being asked if they would approve this cost split. The consensus was to direct the staff to draft a change order for approval at the October 14, 1997 meeting. Naming of Parks, Streets or other Public Properties after Individual,: Ed Shukle briefed the Council on this matter. He indicated that he had been called by a former resident of Mound who wished to have some park area named after a resident of Mound. Shukle had brought this request to the City Council previously and was directed to see if a policy could be developed on this issue. Shukle had contacted the League of Minnesota Cities but was not able to find another city who had a policy on this type of request. He suggested that perhaps some type of recognition could be done. Staff was further directed to look into another form of recognition. Minnesota Court of Appeals Ruling on State of Minnesota (City_ of Mound) v. Leo M, Thibodeau (Coddon Manufactured Home Park) Ed Shukle briefed the Council on this matter. The Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the City of Mound except that we could not force Mr. Thibodeau to obtain a building permit for the illegal expansions that he made to his property. Shukle stated that Thibodeau could appeal the ruling to the State Supreme Court but that it was unlikely. Farewell to Linda Stron~ Ed Shukle announced that a reception will be held on Friday, October 10, 1997, 2:30 p.m., City Hall for Linda Strong who has resigned and is moving to northern Minnesota. .City Council Photograph The Council wishes to have a picture taken and agreed to have it done on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, 6:30 p.m., City Hall. Annual Christmas Party_ The Council agreed to holding the annual Christmas Party on Sunday, December 14, 1997. Location Committee of the Whole Minutes September 30, 1997 Page 3 will be determined and announced later. Annual Meeting of City Council and Advisory Commissions A brief discussion was held. The item will be brought back at a future meeting. Reminders Shukle noted that a joint City Councils' meeting with the School Board was scheduled for Thursday, October 2, 1997, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Shukle noted that Leaf/Brush Pickups will be held October 11 & 12, 18 & 19 and 25 & 26 at the Lost Lake site. Other Business Mayor Polston discussed the need for emergency funding on the HRA building. Councilmember Leah Weycker discussed a case of encephalitis caused by a mosquito bite to a child from St. Boni but who was at a day care in Mound. Weycker asked that a letter be written to the Department of Health on the need for better notification and communication when such cases occur. Shukle reported on the latest information he had on the Toro plant leaving Mound. There being no other business, it was noted that the next meeting of the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for MONDAY, OCTOBER 20,1997 INSTEAD OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21,1997. THE ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE 1998 PROPOSED BUDGET. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager :, MINUTES-JOINT CITY COUNCILS' AND WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD OCTOBER 2, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. at Mound City Hall. Members Present: Mound- Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker and Ed Shukle. Minnetrista-Cheryl Fischer. School Board-Bill Pinegar, Bruce Charon, Jan DeMatteo, Bob Bittle and Dr. Pam Myers. Others-Bil Hawks, Cathy Bailey and Bert Haglund. Bill Pinegar introduced City Manager Ed Shukle who reviewed a number of documents with the group present. First, Shukle reviewed the City of Mound's resolution regarding the acceptance of the Decision Resources, Inc. survey and support for a referendum on the renovation of the existing Westonka Community Center. He indicated that the City of Minnetrista would be considering a similar resolution at its meeting of October 6. Second, Shukle distributed a checklist from the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning complying with Minnesota Statutes 121.15. He explained that when school districts undertake capital projects in excess of $400,000, the state department needs to provide review and comment on the project. Bert Haglund explained the document that needs to be submitted to the state department and that he, along with Dr. Pam Myers and Ed Shukle, were putting the necessary responses to the checklist together for submittal to the state by Monday, October 6. Third, Shukle distributed a letter from David Kennedy, Attorney for the City of Mound, regarding bonding concerns and joint powers agreement elements for the project. Shukle highlighted the need for the School District's attorney and bond counsel to review provisions related to the Recreation Act which restricts the use of school district monies towards non-school curriculum programs i.e., gymnasium, theater and senior center facilities, etc. This could have an impact on the School District financing and operating such a project. The group then reviewed a sample ballot question for the referendum which Kennedy had prepared. The question was modified and it was directed to be reviewed by bond counsel for both the City of Mound and the Westonka School District. The group then reviewed the elements of a possible joint powers agreement and suggested that a subcommittee meet to define this document further. Fourth, Shukle then distributed information prepared by Springsted on tax impacts of a $7.7 million bond issue. This information was reviewed and further clarification is needed prior to the referendum being held. Finally, the idea of a Steering Committee to educate the public on the renovation project and the referendum was discussed. There were varying opinions on the purpose of the committee and what was legally possible to do. It was suggested that there not be a Steering Committee but that the education on the project be conducted by this group. Minutes of Joint Councils' and Westonka School Board October 2, 1997 Page 2 There being no other business, it was suggested that the next meeting of this group be held on Monday, October 13, 1997, 7:00 a.m., Mound City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. City Manager McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 5544%4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors October 7, 1997 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Auditors Road Building Demolition MSAP 145-108-04 MFRA #9968 Dear Ed: Enclosed are three copies of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $5,050.00 for asbestos removal on the above mentioned project. Please include this item on your consent agenda for the October 14, 1997 Council meeting. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosure e:\main:\9968\shuk 10-7 An Equal Opportunity Employer CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CITY OF MOUND AUDITORS ROAD BUILDING DEMOLITION MSAP 145-108-04 MFRA #9968 Asbestos Abatement TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 (ADD) ADD $ 5,050.00 $ 5,050.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 47,815.00 $ 5,050.00 $ 52,865.00 APPROVED: JME of Monticello BY: ,~ ~-~,-~~ DATE: /o .- ~ - e '7 ACCEPTED: City of Mound BY: DATE: RECOMMENDED: McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. BY: ~j //~-~:~'7~ W'~./~' J / DATE: ~'.~~-?"-- '~, / ~7 e:'anain:\9968\chord# 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #87-16 ADDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN THE PELICAN POINT SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, Chapter VII of the Mound Code provides that the City Council may from time to time, by resolution, establish rules and regulations relating to the use of streets within the City, and WHEREAS, in 1987 the City Council adopted Resolution #87-16, entitled "Resolution Designating No Parking Zones"; and WHEREAS, a request has been received from the developer of Pelican Point, John Boyer, to designate certain sides of the streets in the development as "no parking"; and WHEREAS, the Police Dept. and Public Works have reviewed this request and found that the multidirectional signage could impede the movement of emergency vehicles, snow removal equipment and be very confusing; and WHEREAS, Staff is recommending that no parking signs be uniformly placed on the right hand side of the road, or the outer ring of the circle on this roadway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby amends Resolution #87-16, adding #82 & #83,, to read as follows "#82. No parking anytime on the outer ring of Pelican Point Circle." "#83. /No parking anytime on both sides of Pelican Point Court. To: From: Date: Subject: G. Skinner Sgt. T.M. Truax Saturday, October 4, 1997 Pelican Point Parking Greg, Reference the direction of no parking signs for Pelican Point subdivision, I have the following opinion. Most areas of the city have no parking signs on one side of the street, while the other side is seasonal restrictions for snow removal. It is my opinion that uniformity is the best policy to pursue, to avoid confusion and enforcement problems with the motoring public. A second concern I have with regard to the diagrams you submitted for our consideration, reference the multidirectional approach, has to do with movement of emergency vehicles into the area. inevitably there will be an overlap of parking on both sides of the roadway near the curves, which will result in congesting an already narrow roadway. This could result in problems with the movement of fire trucks and, or ambulances. For these reasons I suggest that no parking signs be uniformly placed on the right hand side of the road, or the outer ring of the circle on this roadway. The entrance of the area has a natural flow to the right, following the roadway around (westbound, to eastbound). The Boyer Construction plan is confusing and not uniform it seems to me, with what is represented in the rest of the city. If Sgt. McKinley or myself can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, Todd Sept. ernbe, r 2'9., I ~ havs yec::ei,,..,ed a request and diagram From John Boyer relating to the placement of the no pa~"king signs in Pelican S~t I"'icKil~iey and Sgt Truax of: the police department ~e have come to Lhe same C:OnCZL].SiOrl t. hat Hr. Bo>'er's request Zs not consistent k~th the cities pZacement of no pa~'kZng sZgns and ~.,,iii be confusing to d'rive~'s k, ishin9 to pa~'k in Pelican Point. I have drafted a dFa~ing that ~e feel ~iii bes~ serve the 'r'esidents of Pelican Point and the drivers ttnat ~ill park here. I have informed HF. Boyer that them use a difEerent type of s&gn post than t~e use and ar','r additional cost t~ould be their responsibility. The cit'y's cost is $8.00 per post. Nould y'ou please d~aft a resolution for this. W~ODgNIOqlRE~3AOE 8S:~I ~6. 80 October 14, 1997 RESOLUTION g97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS ALTERATION PERMIT FOR MR. RALPH BAUER AT 1774 HERON LANE LOT 3, BLOCK 3, LINDEN HEIGHTS ADDITION, PID//13-117-24 11 0005, PUBLIC LANDS CASE g97- WHEREAS, the applicant, Ralph Bauer, is seeking an after the fact Public Lands Alteration Permit to alter and improve the landscape and replace trees cut without prior authorization by the city, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is a portion of Heron lane and Crescent Park adjacent to the above address and as noted on the attached survey. According to City Code section 320 a Public lands Permit is required to do the proposed modifications to the Public Lands, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the plan with the intent of using as many native plants, because there are enough selections there, in area A and as proposed in Area B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a Public Lands Alteration Permit as described above and in the application and the applicant shall follow the plans as submitted reviewed and approved by the City Staff, with the recommendations of the Park and Open Space Commission as follows; The plan is approved with the iment that the applicant shall use as many native plants, because there are enough selections there, in Area A and as proposed in Area B. The replacement plantings and related work shall be subject to the review and approval of the Parks Director. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved as agreed within one year of the date of the city council resolution, the Parks Director shall refer the matter back to the City Attorney for prosecution. October 14, 1997 P. 2 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affn'mative: and The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1997 Present were= Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Rite Pederson, Tom Casey, City Council Representative Leah Weycker, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Clare Link. Those absent and excused were: Marilyn Byrnes Also in attendance were: Mot£on ma~e b~ Me~er~ secon~e~ by Botko to approve the minutes of the September 11, 1997 Park and Open space Co~ss~on meeting as amen~e~l Motion, page 3t -recommen~ approval of all native plants..-. Motion carr~e~ unanimously. DRAFT- PO$C Minutes 9-11-97 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES September 11, 1997 Present were: Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Rita Pederson, Tom Casey, city Council Representative Leah Weycker, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Clare Link. Those absent and excused were: Marilyn Byrnes. The following interested citizens were present: Ralph Bauer, Stacy & Sue Cathers. MINUTES Motion made by Botko, seconded by Pederson to approve the minutes of the July 10, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES There were no changes to the agenda. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT: RALPH BAUER, 1774 HERON LANE Fackler stated the applicant is seeking an after-the-fact permit to alter and improve the existing landscape after the removal of trees by the City. He reviewed the proposed landscaping plan. The City will provide mulch for the tree planting area. He recommended approval of the permit with certain conditions as noted in report. Casey asked what was actually cut in violation of the ordinance. Fackler stated there were about six maple and basswood trees cut. Meyer stated he is concerned whether the area near Sparrow Road will be too steep for wood chips. Fackler stated it is not too steep for wood chips and they were to be placed only around the trees. Bauer stated he could put in edging if required. Casey asked if the wood chips would serve a function or if the area should be allowed to reseed itself. Fackler stated undergrowth would eventually dominate and the woodchips were only to help retain water. Ralph Bauer, 1774 Heron Lane gave a background on the permit request. He reviewed pictures of the site. He stated he would like to be allowed to prune and maintain the existing wild plum trees between Area A and Area B. Casey asked where the trees removed were located in Area A. Bauer showed a photograph which noted the location of the trees. In response to a question from Casey, Bauer explained why native plants are proposed for Area B. He stated woodland plants would be much more labor intensive. Meyer stated he was concerned about the urbanization of the area. Casey was concerned about the kind of landscaping proposed. DRAFT- POSC Minutes 9-11-97 Meyer agreed with staff's recommendation but was not in favor of the wood chips. Fackler stated they are only proposed around the trees. Weycker asked if wood chips are proposed for Area B. Bauer replied they are not. He proposed Area B as a prototype for the reintroduction of prairie areas in the city. Motion by Weycker, seconded by Pederson to extend discussion of this item. Motion carried unanimously. Bauer discussed recommendations. proposed plantings but was open to any Casey stated efforts should be made to the restore the area to woodland native plants. Pederson agreed but stated the overall plan should not be ignored. Motion by Weycker, seconded by Botko to recommend approval of the plan with the intent of using as many native plants, because there are enough selections there, in Area A and as proposed in Area B. Motion carried unanimously. SUE CATHERS AND YOUTH GROUP CONCESSION SALES AT MOUND BAY PARK Sue Cathers discussed concession sales at Mound Bay Park. They would like to try it again in 1998. She stated staffing was a problem and will be discussed. Weycker asked what the profits were. Signage was discussed for next year. food on the beach. Cathers stated it was $25. Casey suggested selling the FUTURE USE OF ISLAND PARK HALL Commissioners discussed repairs needed at Island Park Hall and the lack of parking. Other uses for the hall were suggested. Fackler noted the park vehicles are located at this site, salt is,at times, stored in the winter, and the impounded vehicles are located here as well. Weycker was concerned why the building can remain in its current condition. Casey asked if it is a high maintenance building. Fackler stated the heating system is not good, and it is only used for elections. He stated there is water damage inside the building. Weycker suggested the Building official take a look at the building and identify what needs to be done. Motion by Weycker, seconded by Meyer to recommend the Building Official view the building and give the POSC an estimate of what needs to be done to bring the building up to par. Motion carried unanimously. Casey suggested residents be surveyed to suggest uses for the CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: MEETING DATES: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT September 3, 1997 _ September 11, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission September 23, 1997 City Council Park and Open Space Commission, City Council, and Applicant Jori Sutherland, Building Official -~kk~, After the Fact Public Lands Land Alteration Permit Application from Ralph S. Bauer 1774 Heron Lane Site Location: Heron Lane and Crescent Park adjacent to the above address Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking an after the fact permit as described in the attached application and letter from the City Attorney. The applicant is seeking approval to alter and improve the existing landscape in order to replace trees cut and removed without authorization by the city. The applicant has chosen the option of an alternative plan as described by Mr. Mertz, and it does not include any hazelnut trees. As discussed with Mr. Bauer, the proposed landscape plan noted as area A, involves the removal of all of the existing growth of weeds and brush (not including the maple trees), the placement of mulch (to be provided by the city) and then the planting of the following flowers, shrubs, and perennials. Area A Plantings * 12 Astilbe, a Iow growing perennial flower. * 3 "Carol Macke" Daphnie, a flowering shrub approximately 24 inches in height. * 2 Euonymus, a 3-6 foot shrub approximately 42 inches in diameter at maturity. Mr. Bauer proposes to cut down the area B as noted on the survey that is currently overgrown with weeds, tall grass, and small tree seedlings. He would like to replant this area with wildflowers. Area B starts at the southwest property corner and continues up the hill to the north about 60 feet +-. Mr. Bauer is not planning any changes to the existing walking path. Mr. Bauer has a small garden in his back yard that he is planning to enlarge and this area now gets printed on recycled paper Parks and Open Space Commission Memo Bauer Page 2 good sunlight, by maintaining area B with wildflowers and as a low growing green space, he will ensure the garden gets plenty of sun in the future. Mr. Bauer proposes that he be able to maintain areas A and B under a 5 year adopt a green space agreement. Mr. Bauer had a rather small plan on site that detailed his proposal, and it was not suitable for the packet. He stated he would provide a to scale drawing on his survey and also a blow up of each area that he will present at the Park commission meeting. Recommendation. Staff recommends the Park and Open Space Commission recommends approval of a permit to landscape the areas A and B as noted within this report and the survey and plan as provided by Mr. Bauer with the following conditions: The replacement plantings and related work shall be subject to the review and approval of the Parks Director. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved as agreed within one year of the date of the city council resolution, the Parks Director shall refer the matter back to the City Attorney for prosecution. JS:kl The abutting property owners have been notified of this request. .Rev. 4/97 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APP AT! N CITY OF MOUND, §3~4~ Maywoo~ Road, Mound, MN Phone.' 4/2-0~D0, Fax: 472-0620 DI~/TRIBUTION. · / UILDING OFFICIAL DNR MCWD PUBLIC WORKS II, , it 55361 DATE RECEIVED DOCK MEETLNG DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE I CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LA.ND PERMIT. ~w BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCT]ON OF BOAT HOUSES GR OTHER cam~c;iou. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL S~'~ion 320, Su~. !). BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Co~e PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing sm;emro (City Cod~ Section 320, $ul~. 3). CONT~CUATION OF STRUCTL;~.:. to allcw an :xisting =ncroacbanem to remain iv. ~ 'as is" ¢on:titicn (City Code Seztion 320, $a~d. 3). Abu~=ing Legal ,Description Public , Property Contractor LAND ALTERATION. c,".ang:/,- shoreline, drainage, mope, u'e~s, vegetatiom filI, etc. (City Code Section 320. Subd. 4). The structure or work you are req,,esting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all tht~e uses into conformance which means that those strucrar~ will at some Lime In the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and are non-u'ansferable. StaL,-way ¢ortstruction must meet the Slate Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit ts applied for due to change in dock site holder. Name~ ~,o= _.~ Black __~ Subd. Name Dock Site Name Address Phone # Shcreline Type VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (rNCLUD{NG LABOR & MATER/ALS): .this Js a t~ue and correct representation of a ~u~veY of lights Addtt:ion, an¢':he ]ocatlon'~of'an.extsting--ho~ tmpro~ements .or encroachmen:s. COFFIN e~J~tmd CRAIG M. MI;RTZ LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 652 / 600 W. 79th St., Suite 210 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 934-0419 Fax: (612) 975-9963 July 14, 1997 Mr. Ralph Bauer 1774 Heron Lane Mound, MN 55364 Re: Mound City Ordinance Violations Dear Mr. Bauer: I am writing to you in my capacity as prosecutor for the City of Mound. This letter is intended as a Memorandum of the conclusions which were reached at our meeting which was held at Mound City Hall on June 30, 1997. The attendees at that meeting were you, Mr. Fackler (Parks Director), and me. It was agreed that you would apply for an "after-the-fact" public land permit and that application would provide for the planting of five replacement trees on the unimproved portion of Heron Lane adjacent to your home. These trees would be planted sometime late in September, 1997 and would be trees of a trunk diameter of approximately 1 1/4 inches to 1 V= inches. Mr. Fackler indicated that the City would provide you with a load of wood chips which would be used as mulch under the proposed replacement trees. It was agreed that the application would be filed no later than August 7, 1997, that it would be put before the Dock and Commons Commission at its August 21, 1997 meeting and that it would come before the City Council at its September 9, 1997 meeting. It was also agreed that you would have the option of presenting an alternative plan. This alternate plan Mr. Ralph Bauer Page 2 July 14, 1997 would include hazelnuts or other smaller trees, shrubs. You indicated that you would probably be seeking the advise of the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. Mr. Fackler indicated that he would be willing to meet with you and assist in marking the proposed location of any replacement trees. Regarding the brush and plant materials stored on Crescent Park, you indicated that the bulk of the material had already been removed, and that the balance of the material would be removed by mid-July, 1997. If this letter does not correctly reflect our discussions, please contact me as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Craig M. Mertz CMM/vjc acer\criminal\\bauer2.1tr CCi Ed Shukle, City Manager James Fackler, Parks Director ~'Jon Sutherland, Building Official BILLS ~October 14, 1997 BATCH 7093 BATCH 7094 Total Bills $ 93,650.65 250,347.39 $343,998.04 ,?,??,?,,? ~ ~°°~ I I Ii I I Ii I I Ii I I I: I I If I o~ -4'-4' ! ,4' 4' 0 c~ ? ? e I I ?? ,,.q~ IIIIII IIIIII I I ~ Z · J '* / CD _J LU O, C) Z 0 >- I October 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1997 DELINQUENT SEWER & WATER ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $ TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY//14120 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: 1997 DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER BILL IIN THE AMOUNT OF $ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in one annual installment as follows: INTe LEVY// IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS 14120 DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER BILLS 8% (SEE LIST ATTACHED FOR PID NUMBERS AND AMOUNTS) Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 14, 1997) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 15, 1997), interest will be charged to December 31, 1997. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 15, 1997 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1997, and all of 1998). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. October 14, 1997 The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required t/me per/od is eight percent (8~). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 2 October 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID MOWING ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $180.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY//14122 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: UNPAID MOWING CHARGES NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in one annual installment as follows: INT. PID # IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY # 13-117-24 32 0069 UNPAID MOWING CHARGES $ 180.00 1 8% 14122 Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 14, 1997) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 15, 1997), interest will be charged to December 31, 1997. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 15, 1997 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1997, and all of 1998). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. e October 14, 1997 The rote of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepa/d within the required time period is eight percent (8%). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 2 October I4, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL CHARGES ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,810.50 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY//14123 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: UNPAID HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL CHARGES NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in one annual installment as follows: PID// IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT INT. YEARS RATE LEVY 13-117-24 22 0011 UNPAID HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL CHARGES $1,810.00 1 8% 14123 Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 14, 1997) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 15, 1997), interest will be charged to December 31, 1997. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 15, 1997 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1997, and all of 1998). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. ....... 4~ , IJll t I I ~1, ,il J, ,i, ,, October 14, 1997 e The rote of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period is eight percent (8 %). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 2 0 0 0 CHRIS PALM 1772 LAFAYETTE LN MOUND, MN. 55364 612-472-6534 C OCTOBER 10, 1997 DEAR MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM PROTESTING THE THE BILL OF $1800.00 FOR THE REMOVAL OF A TREE THAT PARTIALLY CAME DOWN IN THE JULY STORM AND CONDEMND BY THE CITY TO DOWN AUGUST 8TH, AND THE FACT THAT I HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AS A SINGLE WOMEN. I HAD NEGOTIATED WITH RANDYS TREE SERVICE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE AND STUMP FOR A PRICE OF $1500. WITH JIM FACKLE APROVEL TO BE REMOVED ON AUGUST 12TH, ONE WEEK DAY AFTER CITY DEADLINE. RANDY DID NOT SHOW UP ON THE 12TH NOR DID HE ANSWER ANY OF MY NUMEROUS PHONE MESSAGES I EITHER LEFT ON HIS RECORDER OR WITH HIS WIFE KNOWING THAT HE KNEW HOW THE CITY (JIM) FELT ABOUT THE DEAD LINE. I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH JIM FALKNER THAT HE AND RANDY WHERE GOOD FRIENDS AND PERHAPS HE COULD GET RANDY TO RESPOND AND GET THE TREE DOWN WHEN I WOULD BE AT HOME. THE DISCRIMINATION COMES INTO PLAY. MUST CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH JIM FACKLER, HE SEEMED TO BE ANGRY AND THREATING ME. I DON'T KNOW WHY HE HAD THIS BEHAVIOR TOWARDS ME OTHER THEN CRIAG GOODRICH WAS CHEWING ON HIM EVEN THOUGH WE WE'RE ALL TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING TO GET THE TREE DOWN, THE CONVERSATION ALWAYS ENDED UP IN AN ARGUMENT. IT WAS AS IF I HAD PURPOSELY BLEW THE TREE DOWN AND REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING THING ABOUT IT. WHICH WAS QUITE THE CONTRARY. THE DAY AFTER THE STORM MY BEING VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE STABILITY OF THE TREE LEANING OVER MY NEIGHBORS PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH I WAS QUIT SHAKEN FROM THE STORM AND HAD NO ELECTRICITY FOR TWO DAYS, I CALLED THE CITY AND MY iNSURANCE AGENT HOW TO HANDLE THE PROBLEM. THE AGENT SAID THEY WHERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THE CITY GAVE ME A LIST OF LICENSED TREE SERVICES TO CALL. I CALLING EVERY NAME ON THE LIST AT LEAST TWICE TO LITTLE AVAIL. APPARENTLY WITHOUT CONSULTING ME, MY NEIGHBOR MR.GOODRICH WAS ALSO MAKING INQUIRIES LEADING TO MUCH CONFUSION. WHEN I DID GET THROUGH TO SOMEONE THEY I{AD ALREADY BEEN OUT AND GIVEN THE INFORMATION TO GOODRICH WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE. IN CONFRONTING HIS WIFE, SHE GAVE ME NAMES AND BIDS THEY HAD GOTTEN FROM THERE OWN SOURCE. I HAD ALREADY TALKED TO SEVERAL TREE PEOPLE INCLUDING RANDY WHO WANTED TO COME IN WITH CRANES AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT THAT DIDEN'T REALLY FIT TEARING UP YARDS AND CHARGING EXORBITANT PRICES. SO WHEN MRS GOODRICH GAVE ME JIM ECKLUND NAME AND THAT HE WOULD ONLY PAGE 2 CHARGE $700 TO $800 AND WHO HAD 50 YEARS OF EXPERIANCE AND DID NOT NEED TO TEAR UP THE YARDS I WAS VERY ENCOURAGED. HE ALSO ASSURED ME THAT THE TREE WAS SECURE AND WOULD NOT COME DOWN IN ANOTHER STORM WHICH I'M SURE GOODRICH'S WHERE CONCERNED ABOUT. I FELT VERY CONFIDENT WITH HIM. HE SCHEDULED TO TAKE IT DOWN ABOUT THE 30TH. I DIDEN'T TALK TO GOODRICH'S ABOUT IT SENSE THEY HAD SHOWN ECKLUND THE TREE IN THE FIRST PLACE. PEHAPS THAT WAS A MISTAKE. AGAIN WITHOUT CONSULTING ME, FACKLER HAD BEEN OUT AND CONDEMED THE TREE. I GOT A NOTICE IN THE MAIL ABOUT A WEEK LATER TO HAVE IT DOWN BY AUGUST 8TH. I WAS NOT CONCERNED SENSE IT WAS TO BE BY ECKLUHD DOWN BEFORE THAT. IT TURNED OUT THAT ECKLUND HAD WORKED FOR THE CITY AND KNEW FACKLER AND HAD TRAINED RANDY AND SOLD HIS TREE BUSINESS TO HIM. AT SOME POINT I TALKED TO FACKLER FOR THE FIRST TIME ABOUT ECKLUND NOT BEING LICENCED BUT HE COULD GET A LICENSE. THE DAY THAT ECKLUND WAS TO COME'AND TAKE THE TREE DOWN WITH HIS CREW HE CAME TO TELL ME HE COULDEN'T DO IT BECAUSE THIS RAND~ WOULDEN'T LET HIM WITH THE BUY OUT AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, HE RECOMMENDED THAT I HAVE RANDY TAKE IT DOWN . I TALKED TO FACKLER AND RANDY SEVERAL TIMES AFTER THIS. RANDY CAME TO MY HOUSE AGAIN BUT NEVER TO MY DOOR AND ASSURED ME THAT HE WOULD REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO THE YARD AND EVEN BRING IN SOME CLEAN FILL THAT THE SIDE OF MY HOUSE AND HILL AS NEEDED. WE DISCUSSED THE PRICE OF $1500. AND REMOVING THE STUMP THAT HE WOULD TALK TO FACKLER. I WENT OFF ON MY VACATION THINKING IT WAS SETTLED. I DID COME HOME EARLY BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE THERE WHEN THEY TORE UP THE YARD TO TAKE THE TREE DOWN AND THE FOLLOWING WEEK I STARTED THE 14 HOUR DAYS AT THE STATE FAIR. SO OF COURSE I WAS QUITE SHOCKED WHEN RANDY DIDEN'T SHOW UP OR CALL TO LET ME KNOW WHY. I CALLED THE CITY, FACKLER TO INQUIRE IF HE KNEW WHY RANDY DID NOT ANSWER MY PHONE CALLS. SHOCKED AGAIN WHEN FACKLER WAS SO UPSET WITH ME TELLING ME THE CITY WAS GOING TO CHARGE ME EXTRA FOR ALL THE DAMAGE RANDY WAS GOING TO DO TO BOTH YARDS AND THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO ABOUT IT. WHEN RANDY FINELY CALLED TO TELL ME WHEN HE WAS COMING IT WAS ALMOST TWO WEEKS AFTER OUT SCHEDULED TIME AND THAT HE REALLY DIDEN'T HAVE TIME THEN BUT GOODRICHE'S WHERE GOING TO HAVE A PARTY AND HE HAD TO GET IT DOWN FOR THEM. WHEN I OBJECTED TO THE TIME HE JUST CALLED FACKLER. THE GOODRECH'S HAD THERE PARTY ALL HOURS INTO THE NIGHT UNDER THE DAMAGED TREE THE NIGHT BEFORE RANDY TOOK IT DOWN. PAGE 3 I 'M SURE YOU CAN SEE WHY I FEEL' THAT I WAS RAILRO/4I)~D BY THE THESE THREE MEN. I REALLY THINK IF I HAD BEEN A MAN ! WOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED DIFFERENT OR THERE WAS GRAFF INVOLVED. SENSE I WAS PAYING FOR THE REMOVAL AND FACKLER KNEW FROM ALL THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH HIM, THAT I WAS TRYING MY BEST TO GET THE TREE DOWN, THEY COULD HAVE WORKED AROUND MY SCHEDULE A LITTLE. EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE A SURPRISE WHEN THEY FINELY CAME ON AUGUST 22. I ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED A CHECK BUT HE SAID HE WOULD MAIL A BILL TO ME. I'M STILL WAITING. HE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE CITY BILLING ME. THE DAY THEY CALVE TO MY SURPRISE, THEY TOOK THE TREE DOWN WITH ROPES AS ECKLUND WAS GOING TO DO. RANDY HAD A BIG CREW BUT MUST OF THEM INCLUDING HIMSELF JUST STOOD AROUND. RANDY WAS WAS ON HIS PORTABLE PHONE ALL DAY. WHY COULDN'T HE HAVE USED THIS TO CALL ME THE WEEKS BEFORE W-HEN I NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON? WHY DIDEN'T HE TELL ME HE WASEN'T GOING USE HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND NOT TAKE THE STUMP OUT? I HAD STAYED HOME FROM WORK TO OVERSEA WHAT THEY WHERE GOING TO DO TO MY YARD. I LOST HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS NOT BEING AT THE FAIR BOOTH MYSELF AND HIRING SOMEONE TO RUN IT. THE CONCERN OF DANGER OF THE TREE, THE STRESS OF NOT KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON, THE HARAZMENT FROM THE CITY HAS BEEN VERY HARI~FUL TO MY HEALTH AND LOSE OF INCOME NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. I PREFER NOT TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION, BUT I DO WANT TO BE COMPENSATED. I HOPE THAT I HAVE MADE MY CASE CLEAR AND NOT RAMBLEING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HOPE WE TREE DOESEN'T FALL IN YOUR YARD. CHRIS PALM CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 October 7, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARK DIRECTOR SUBJECT: FORCED TREE REMOVAL AT 1772 LAFAYETTE LANE Below is listed the chronological dates of how I proceeded on the removal of the tree at 1772 Lafayette Lane; July 17, 1997 Date of storm that damaged the tree. July 22, 1997 I received a report from a neighbor at 1776 Lafayette Lane of a hazardous tree at 1772 Lafayette Lane. ( See attached ) July 22, 1997 I inspected the site and found a tree, with about a 36" base, blown over due to the root system being saturated by water. The tree was being supported above the ground by the adjacent tree limbs. If the supporting limbs broke the damaged tree would come down on the deck and gazebo of 1776 Lafayette. This would cause allot of property damage and possible physical injury if someone was in the area. July 22, 1997 A certified notice was sent to Ms. Palm as required by Mound City Code Section 1010. A re-inspection date of August 6, 1997 was noted. ( See attached ) July 23, 1997 The Certified letter was delivered to Ms. Palm by the U.S. Post Office and signed for by her. ( See attached ) July 23, 1997 thru August 5,1997 I worked with Ms. Palm on the removal of the tree. She had contracted for its removal with an individual, John Ecklund, who was not a license~ tree remover in Mound. I instructed her he had to be licensed and would work with Mr. Ecklund to become licensed. From two discussions with Mr. Ecklund he decided he was retired and did not want to go to the expense of purchasing insurance to become licensed. He said he had told Ms. Palm when she first contacted him that he did not have insurance and that having been a licensed tree service in Mound in the past that this maybe a problem. A list of all contractors that were licensed in Mound was given to Ms. Palm and she contracted Shorewood Tree Service. August 6, 1997 I inspected the tree for the removal deadline, it was not removed. I called Ms. Palm and she said a date of August 12th was scheduled with Shorewood Tree Service for its removal. I gave her an extension for the tree removal based on her having a licensed contractor scheduled and I verified it with Shorewood and was assured that they would have it down on August 12th. August 8, 1997 thru August 17, 1997 I was out of the state and on my return had expected the tree to be removed. August 15,1997 Home owner of 1776 Lafayette called left me a message about the tree not being removed on August 12th and was concerned about the delay. August 18, 1997 I inspected the tree and found it not removed. I contacted Shorewood Tree Service, they said it would be down that week. August 19, 1997 I contacted Shorewood Tree Service to see what the exact date was for the removal. I was told that a date was not set and that Ms. Palm would not allow the tree to be removed unless she was present. She had conflicts in her schedule for that week. I told Shorewood to contact Ms. Palm again and set a day and that I would call her and stress the importance of removing the tree, which I did. August 20, 1997 Shorewood Tree Service called me and said they had contacted Ms. Palm and noted that they were having problems in meeting Ms. Palm's schedule. She wanted to be present and the only time available for Shorewood was August 22nd. She would not agree to that date because she was busy with work. Shorewood expressed to me that the July 17th storm created a backlog in tree removals for them and they had one opening on August 22nd and could not offer another in the near future. I told Shorewood to schedule the tree as a forced removal and to do the work as a contractor for the city of Mound on August 22nd. August 21, 1997 I called Ms. Palm and informed her that the city had contracted Shorewood Tree Service to remove the tree on August 22nd at 7:30 am as a forced removal, and that all cost would be forward to her as noted in the original notice. ( See attached ) August 22, 1997 The tree was removed. Please keep in mind that during this process I had received calls from the neighbor at 1776 Lafayette Lane, (see attached letter) in which direction this tree would fall, looking for help. They were aware of the City's responsibility to see the tree removed and its ability to do a forced removal. I extended Ms. Palm every possible consideration based on her low estimate for its removal but I could not overlook a contractor who did not have the proper insurance coverage in event something went wrong. I worked with her contractor to become licensed but he did not want to meet the requirements. I also allowed more time for her to find another contractor because tree removal companies were busy due to the storm. I felt I had to resolve this on the date of August 22nd to allow relief for the neighbor and to remove any liability the City may have in making sure this hazardous tree was removed in a timely manner. One of Ms. Palm's concerns is the final cost, she told me she had gotten estimates from $750 to $3000.00. The original contractor, John Ecklund, was the lowest but could not meet the requirements. Shorewood had come in around $2000.00 then reduced the estimate to about $1500.00. The final cost to the city under a forced removal was $1810.50, (see attached letter). COMYL~ FORM Date Received 7-~ ~ 7 ADDRESS, 177 ~ /~_ .~~'/~ PID ~ PHONE: home wo~, <~ ~~..' NAME ~ ADDRESS PID $ PHONE: home work DETAILS OF COMPLAINT INSPECTION DATE: /'~ ,FINDINGS .~' SCHEDULED FOR REMOVAL REMOVAL DATE STUMP REMOVED? yes. no CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 472-0600 NOTICE TO REMOVE HAZARDOUS TREE(S) oo// Recently a representative from the City of Mound inspected trees on your property for the possibility of a hazardous condition. The field diagnosis by the Tree Inspector is that the tree(s) constitutes a hazard. City Code Section /~/0 specifies that any diseased or dead tree must be removed within ten (~.0)' days' after notification by the City Tree Inspector. Reinspection date for your property is .~_Ot )q~ ~ Iq~ · · / If the tree(s) are not removed by this date, the City shall proceed to remove such tree(s) and assess the total cost against the , p~ty. · Complete items 1. and/or 2 for additional ~en4ces. · Complete items 3, 4a, and 4h. · P~nt your name and address on the reverse of this fon~ so that we can tatum this card to you. .Attach thi~. fon~ to the front of the maitplece, or on the back it space d°es n°t · W~e'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailplece below the article number. · The Return Receipt will show to w'nom the a~tide was delivered and the date delivered. ~ Addressed to: Jane P. Palm 1772 t. afayette Mound, MN 55364 also wish to receive following services (for an extra fee): 1. [] Addressee's Address 2. [] Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee._._...:.__. 6Number 115 258 14b. Service Type " I1"] Registered ~ Certified ICI Express Mail I-I Insured I [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] COD ~. Date of Dali/~ery / and fee is paid) Invoice BILL TO CI1Y OF MOUND ATTN: JIM 5341 MAYWOOD RD MOUND, MN 55364 SHOREWOOD.TREE SERVICE 9715 FENNER AVE SE DELANO, MN 55328 612-972-2441 (Office) DATE 8/25/97 INVOICE # 342 Service Address KRIS ?ALM 1772 LAFAYETTE LANE MOUND C PHONE # TERMS PO~ Net 60 KRIS PALM JOB DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 8/22/97 STORM DAMAGE-REMOVAL OF TREE 1,700.00T NO LAWN KEPAIR-NO DAMAGE .MN SALES TAX 110.50 Thank you for your business. Total $1,810.50 N RECEIPT. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 1/2% PEK MONTH WILL APPLY TO UNPAID BALANCE. ,d CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX 1612) 472.0620 REQUEST FOR BILLING SEND BILL TO: DATE WORK WAS PERFORMED: TYPE OF WORK PERFORMED: cost oF won To SE SZ,.~.ED .... S I~10. '5'0 co~. p.~..~ ~o: ......... ~3 40' 5il 0 printed on recycled paper 0CT--88--97 81:28 PM COHTRACT RESOURCE SERV. 612 $61 6264 P.81 October 8, 1997 TO: Jim Fackler CO: City ot Mound FAX: 472-0620 FROM' Craig & Karolee Goodrich 1776 Lafayette Lane Dear Jim, This letter is to confirm some of the events that took place with our neighbor Chris Palm and her tree falling into our tree's during a storm. I'm sorry I do not have dates to confirm this. If I recall right the storm hit on a Thursday in the middle of the night. Our neighbor, Chris Palm's tree fell into our trees a result, The next clay when everyone was looking at the damage I went to Chris to see what she thought. She hadn't realized the tree had gone down so we discussed it and she said she would have to call someone. After the weekend I called her to see if she had found anyone to give her an estimate, She said no that she couldn't get anyone to call her back. i then asked her if she wanted me to help her get quotes as i was not that busy and could take the time to call and get some. (the reason I did this is she said that she's alone and can't get everything done) So Craig and I opened up the phone book and called several places. We had people coming out right away - some could do it right away, and others were a week to three weeks out. We gathered the bids and if she was home we asked them to also go to her house to tell her when and how much they would charge, The bids ranged from $700.00 to $3000.00. We discussed they would have to be licensed and bonded, Chris said this herself. About a week and a half after the tree had initially fallen I called Chris to find out it she had hired anyone yet, as we could not safely go out in our back yard, Especially our three year old as huge branches on four different occasion's had fallen down with no warning and who was to say the whole tree wouldn't come down as it wac sinking7 as it settled. She again told me she hadn't gotten any Oecent bids and didn't feel it was an 0CT-08-97 81:29 PM COHTRACT RESOURCE SERV. 612 561 6264 P.02 2of2 emergency. I told her to us It was as this could fall and hurt someone in our yard or house if it fell that way or unto unto our boat. She said she couldn't get anyone out there anyway, I again reminded her of people we had spoken to that could do it in a timely manner. She said she wasn't in a hurry. Tills is when I called the city in a frantic as I did not want this tree to fall and cause damage or worse yet hurt someone in the process. It seems to me this was about two to three weeks after the storm. This is when it went into the city's hands. If this is not detailed enough or further information is needed please call us. Respectfully, Craig & Karolee Goodrich 10-9-97 Shorewood Tree Service worked unsuccessfully with Chris Palm: 1772 Lafayette Lane, to remove a storm damaged tree. She wanted the work performed, while she was present. Due to her work and vacation schedule and our back log of pending work from the July storm we could not find a agreeable date. The earliest open removal date was August 22, 1997. This was offered to her and was not acceptable to her due to a work commitment- Jim Fackler with the City of Mound instructed us to keep the date of August 22nd for the removal and if Chris Palm had a conflict with it the tree would be removed as forced removal for the City of Mound and all bi!li~ Woul~ ~9 to'the City of Mound. This tree was removed at a cost'based on actual manpower,. machinery and tree size. Sincerely, Schwe~in S. horewood'Tree Service 14015 Co. Rd. 122 Watertown, MN 55388 October 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1997 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,534.49 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY #14121 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: 1997 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FROM JULY 1, 1996 TO JUNE 30, 1997 IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,534.49. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in one annual installment as follows: INT. LEVY # IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS 14121 1997 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE 8% (SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR PID NUMBERS AND AMOUNTS) Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 14, 1997) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. o If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 15, 1997), interest will be charged to December 31, 1997. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 15, 1997 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1997, and all of 1998). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. w October 14, 1997 The ram of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period is eight percent (8%). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 2 o 0 u October 14, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1997 SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,402.41 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY//14124 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: 1997 SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,402.41. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in one annual installment as follows: INT. LEVY # IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS 14124 SHERWOOD DRIVE IMP. PROJECT 8% 15 (SEE LIST A'I'TACHED FOR PID NUMBERS AND AMOUNTS) Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 14, 1997) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 15, 1997), interest will be charged to December 31, 1997. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 15, 1997 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (15 years). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1997, and all of 1998). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. Ail payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. October 14, 1997 The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period is eight percent (8%). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · . ~ ....... ~ · . 0 0 ~0 ~:~ ~0 ~0 ~:~ ~0 ~0 0 0 ~-~ ~.~ tO 0 ~D O~ ~ ~0 ~-~ 0 0 U1 0 0 o October 14, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0156 PZ CASE g97-42 WHEREAS, the owners, Merrit and Darryl Geyen, have applied for a conditional use permit for an expansion of their restaurant; and, WHEREAS, the restaurant is defmed as a Class 1 (Traditional Restaurant) which is allowed in the B-3 district as a conditional use; and, WHEREAS, an update of the previous conditional use permit is required because of the nature of the proposed improvements; and, WHEREAS, the seating capacity will not change; and, WHEREAS, staff recommends approval the and planning commission unanimously recommend approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves an existing conditional use permit for A1 and Alma's Supper Club with the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. 5. Deliveries continue to be handled on-site and not on the street. The vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be allowed. Any landscaping removed with the improvements be replaced. All prior conditional use decisions be upheld. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year from the approval date at no cost to the applicant. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember, seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in favor: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: C PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Daryl and Meritt Geyen - 5201 Piper Road OWNER: Daryl and Meritt Geyen - 5201 Piper Road CASE NUMBER: 9742 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5y LOCATION: 5201 Piper Road EXISTING ZONING: Neighborhood Business (B-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business BACKGROUND: Daryl and Merritt Geyen, owners of A1 and Alma's Supper Club, have submitted an application for a conditional use permit for an expansion of their restaurant. The property is located at 5201 Piper Road on the corner of Piper and Tuxedo Road. The restaurant is defined as a Class I (Traditional Restaurant) which is allowed in the B-3 district as a conditional use. An update to the previous conditional use permit is required because of the nature of the proposed improvements. The owners are proposing to renovate the existing building to update a number of improvements which have been made over the years to make the building function more efficiently and give it a new face lift. The plans include a new foundation under the dining area facing the lake for more storage area, interior remodeling, a new side entry, and new facade to mimic a Cape Code style appearance. A narrative detailing these improvements is included with the submittal. Modifications to the footprint of the building will occur on the north and east sides of the building in the front dining area facing the lake. A separate application addresses the setback issues with this proposed addition. The owners indicate in their letter the improvements to the building are for cosmetic and functional concerns. There are no intentions on their pan to increase burden of the restaurant on the adjacent neighborhood by adding dining seats or parking spaces. An additional parcel of land south of the restaurant has been purchased by the owners to buffer the restaurant from the property. This parcel contains a portion of vacated Hanover Road and the lot directly south. The owners have indicated their intend to hold to the property for buffering purposes. COMMENTS: When considering a conditional use permit, there are a number of conditions which p. 2 Geyen Conditional Use o o 8. 9. 10. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that non of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. The property has been through a number of permit reviews over the past 25 years for various improvements. The most recent case dealing with the restaurant structure was the kitchen addition in 1985 which updated and increase its size. Other past permit reviews involved the commercial dock, its encroachment in the park lakeshore and commercial boat docking. The proposed building improvements will give the building a new look in the neighborhood. As stated by the owners, there will not be an increase in seating or parking. The existing parking around the building and parking lot across Tuxedo Road will continue to serve parking needs. No improvements are planned for these areas at this time. South of the building is a vacant lot which is owned by the Geyen's. They have indicated that this lot will remain in its current state as unimproved and that parking will not be allowed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. Deliveries continue to be handled on-site and not on the street. The vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be allowed. Any landscaping removed with the improvements be replaced. All prior conditional use review decisions be upheld. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 #97-42: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 5201 PIPER ROAD, AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0156 #97-43: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR REMODELLING, 5201 PIPER ROAD, AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117- 24 21 01.56 The Geyen's have a applied for a conditional use permit for an expansion of their restaurant. The restaurant is defined as a Class I (Traditional Restaurant) which is allowed in the B-3 district as a conditional use. An update to the previous conditional use permit is required because of the nature of the proposed improvements. The seating area size will not change. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: o Council Deliveries continue to be handled on-site and not on the street. The vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be allowed. Any landscaping removed with the improvements be replaced. All prior conditional use review decisions be upheld. The Geyen's have also applied for a variance to construct an addition to the existing restaurant. They are requesting the following: existing proposed required variance Front Yard - 0.35' 1.7' 30' 28.3' into ROW Side Yard 20' 16.5' 30' 13.5' (Tuxedo Blvd) Side Yard 40' 50' 10' Staff recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. The building has existed in the neighborhood for a number of years with the current setbacks and will continue to function well into the future with the planned improvements. Requiring the building to meet the required setbacks would result in a practical difficu..Ity. Planning Commission IVlinutes September 8, 1997 Commissioners Questions: Reifschneider questioned if the area above the restaurant would be adding more seating. Merritt Geyen said that there no extra seating for the proposed plan. It was just the new design. The Building Official referred the Commission to the cross section in the packet and confirmed there is no additional seating on the second floor. Hanus questioned if there were any restrictions to cover the issue of no seating going into that area. Sutherland stated that if the permit was approved, the Conditional Use Permit would be granted on the plans submitted. No changes could be made without an amended conditional Use Permit. Mueller questioned the access doors on the lower level on Piper Road. Sid Levin, Lake Country Builders explained how the access doors would be positioned. They would not be on Piper Road, it would be between Piper Road and Tuxedo Blvd. The deliveries would remain [he same as they are currently. They are done on the premises. Chair Michael open the floor to the public. Ron DeVinney, 3214 Tuxedo Blvd, Understands that they want to improve their looks. He has a probl~m with parking issues. He feels the City needs to take a better look at the parking issues. On Drummond, traffic comes up and turns around in his driveway and many of the neighbors driveways too. Cars are constantly parking on the streets that are posted "No Parking" Bill Johnson, 5300 Piper Road, The restaurant is a positive in the community. He also feels that the ~raffic and parking is a significant load. Merritt Geyen, Owner of Al & Alma's stated that there are "no parking" signs posted on all the stre~ts around the restaurant. Mueller stated Mr DeVinney has been there longer than the boat business started. There has been more traffic created since the boats have started. Voss stated that if there is a problem with the parking, the police department needs to be notified of the problem. Mark Berglund, 5138 Hanover Road, Expressed concern with the parking issues. At one time, there were 15 cars parked on the sidewalk and the police didn't do anything. The Conditional Use Permits are not being followed by the applicant. The public beach is overrun by the charter boat people. He stated that his children cannot play at the park because there are too many drunk people. I~lannin£ Commission Minutes Sel~ternber 8, 1997 Chair Michael questioned how many complaints have been made. Sutherland stated that the Planning department has received very few, but the Police department may have received complaints. Weiland questioned the ownership of the property just to the south. Merritt Geyen stated they purchased the property two years ago. Weiland questioned if Al & Alma's had adequate parking for their charter boat business and their regular business. Peter Jacobs, Lake Country Builders, stated he hardly heard any public complaints regarding the remodelling of the building. It seems to be that the parking situation is a city issue not Al & Alma's issue. Al & Alma's is not changing the use of the space nor will the seating space be changed. Loren Gordon stated that previous Conditional Use Permits will need to be reviewed for the parking issues. Chair Michael stated that the city and the Geyens need to work together on the parking issues. Sutherland stated that a Conditional Use Permit can have a condition to be reviewed in one year. Chair Michael stated that they are trying to negotiate a favorable solution for the Geyen's, the City, and the area residents. Hanus explained how if a condition was put on a Conditional Use Permit how it would be reviewed. Voss suggested if the business has grown, the Conditional Use Permit could be modified so that a security person could be added to help regulate parking. Reifschneider questioned why they could not turn the property to the south into a parking lot. Gordon stated that they were try to have a balance between green space and buildings and be sensitive to the residential neighborhood. The lot south of the restaurant is vacant and acts as a buffer zone between uses. This lot will remain vacant because it does not meet the lot area requirements. It could however be combined with another property or considered for a variance if it were to be built upon. Burma stated that even if the applicant is not putting an addition on the building, there is still the issue of parking space. Possibly the Geyen's need to add security. He suggested a meeting with the neighborhood and the Geyens to discuss the parking issues. Merritt Geyen stated they purchased Al & Alma's 15 years ago and parking spaces have been taken away since that time due to concerns of the neighbors. Now parking is not allowed on the streets. They do try to get people to come out to Al & Alma's Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 in buses and try to eliminate or reduce traffic. They are not asking for anything more and have given up alot. They do not want a outdoor porch. Many of the area residents use the park. They have no intention of adding seating to the restaurant. Mark Berglund, stated the reason why the neighborhoods have gone to no parking streets is because of Al & Alma's Chair Michael closed public hearing. Discussion: Hanus recommended a traffic study of the area. Voss feels that the parking situation is a policing issue. Citizens should go to the police department. Chief Harrell should be aware of the concerns of the neighbors to Al & Alma's regarding parking. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation with a one year review of the Conditional Use Permit. The motion carried 6-0. Variance: Case #97-43 MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff recommendation. The motion carried 6-0. Staff suggested these two cases go to City Council on October 14, 1997 and the applicant agreed. LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS- L A K E C O U N T R y B U 339 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR,MN 55331 I L D E' R S', I N ( 612, 474. )'!21 612. 474. 7957 4 September 1997 Mr. Jon Sutherland, Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 CI Dear Mr. Sutherland, Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to speak with Loren Gordon, who was referred to me by Mark Koegler. I was calling, per your suggestion, to set up a meeting between you and me, Mark Koegler, and the Guyens regarding their applications for variance and conditional use permits. At this meeting, we were to all get familiar with the applications, tie up any loose ends, understand any issues that Mark may have regarding the application, and generally make sure that in obtaining your staff assistance, there was nothing else that needed to be addressed. When I spoke to Loren, he told me that he and Mark understood the application thoroughly, there was nothing missing, and that they had no issues with the application architecturally or otherwise. He stated that any issues relating to the conditional use permit we are applying for now are the same issues that they have always had to deal with A1 & Alma's. Therefore, he told me that this meeting was not necessary, and that everything could be taken care of at the scheduled meetings with the planning commission and city council. As I explained to you, and again to Loren, as the architectural designer, these ongoing issues that the city has with A1 & Alma's are not something that I can address. Daryl and Merritt can do so at the official meetings. The conditions existing now at the restaurant, in regards to noise, parking, traffic congestion, etc. are not being altered by the extent of the current remodeling plans and would remain the same after the proposed project is completed. To a different issue, thank you for your insight into the idea of a fire door and/or loading/ receiving door to the new front storage room. Daryl and Merritt do want that in the plans, so I have revised the site plan, basement plan, and an elevation to address this change. Enclosed you will find two full scale revised plans, two reduced revised plans, and 5 sets of the three pages that were changed. Please add these to the planning and council members applications if possible. If you need additional copies, please let me know. And, if you cannot do this, can you bring these revised plans to the meeting on Monday, or let me know that you did not get them added, so that I can make other arrangements? Again, thank you for all your help. I have greatly appreciated all of you assistance and insight into this entire project. My best regards, LrILDERS, INC. ~uid~.n,XDesign Encl: 2 reduced revised full blueprints 2 revised full blueprints - 5 sets of the 3 altered pages RECEIVED SEP - 8 1997 ~l'O~ ~ANNING & INS?. SITE PLAN RECEIVED SEP - 8 )UND PLANNING & INSP. ,/' Ri MOUND ~.IVED 8 15~7 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-42 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING RESTAURANT DESCRIBED AS RENOVATION WITH ADDITIONAL 825 SQ FT OF BASEMENT STORAGE LOCATED WITHIN THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5201 PIPER ROAD LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8 & LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE PID 25-117-24 21 0156, P&Z 97-42 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 14, 1997 to consider the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for modification of existing restaurant described as renovation with additional 825 square feet of basement storage located within the B-3 Business Zoning District. This business is allowable within the B-3 Business Zone through Conditional Use Permit. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed [o property owners within 350 feet of affected property by October 3, 1997. Published in the Laker Sepetember 30, 1997. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE NO. 97-42 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO .ALLOW FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING RESTAURANT DESCRIBED AS RENOVATION WITH ADDITIONAL 825 SQ FT OF BASEMENT STORAGE LOCATED WITHIN THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5201 PIPER ROAD LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8 & LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE PID 25-117-24 21 0156, P&Z 97-42 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, Sevtember 8, 1997 to consider the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for modification of existing restaurant described as renovation with additional 825 square feet of basement storage located within the B-3 Business Zoning District. This business is allowable within the B-3 Business Zone through Conditional Use Permit. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by August 28, 1997. ~ prinledonrecycledpaper 35~ Rev. 1-29-97 Planning Commission Date: Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364~ Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PJ ~ So,o° Case No. City Council Date: PAID AUG 2 I 199i' CiTY OF MOUND Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 IDist_____ribution________i City Planner: City Engineer: Other: Fire Dept. followin information: Flease type or print fac IOSJUWIll~ PROPERTY Subject Address ~.P~ INFORMATION Name of Business DESCRIPTION _ APPLICANT The applicant is: ~wner . other: Name b~ Address ~O~ Phone (H) ~'~~w~ 47Z- 1~o5 (M) Name OWNER (if other than Address applicant) Phone (H) (W) (M) ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR Address ~ ~ ENGINEER ..o.e ~,~ ~W~ ~1~ -~1~ _~M~ ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 DISTRICT CHAN~E OF FROM: ~ ~ffl~ Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a _development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ ~.o0t OttO. ao 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 application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date Print Owner's Name Owner~s~e ~ Date Print Owner's Name Rev. 1/29/97 ' Owner's Signature Date V CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULAT1ON~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA .~ 6B~) SQ. FT. X 30% = LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = LOT AREA SQ. FT, X 15% = (for detached'buildings only) . . (for all lots) .............. ] ~/~.O J (for Lots of Record*) ....... I~J I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a X TOTAL DETACHED BL:~G. oS ~,v~. ......... '~'d~ .... TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ~C .................. pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER' W'~LL TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER x = Zo5 X = 4./=0 /~ Z 7/zq I TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ' PREPARED BY DATE '~/~" ;"~" ' A-' ~ ,2. ,' ~'," -~' / ,.',-' · ~ · . fl-o ' .,.'vs; ./--'g.5,..,- /,."/f,c'oc,c.,.-g-.,,, if /~f~. 21 August 1997 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 ADDENDUM TO: Application for Conditional Use Permit for Daryl or Merritt Geyen Al & Alma's Supper Club 5201 Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 Description of Proposed Use and Renovation Narrative The owners of A1 & Alma's Supper Club, Daryl and Merritt Geyen have expressed the desire to address several concerns and issues they have with their restaurant. Most importantly, they wish to address the safety and energy loss issues within their building's front eating area: · The small step between the front and back dining sections needs to be removed, by raising the height of the front dining area. · The foundation, or lack thereof, supporting the front exterior walls requires replacement if any new construction is to be built above it. · The windows along the lake side are leaky and in poor condition, and need to be replaced with high efficiency windows. Knowing that a new foundation is necessary, the Geyens are interested in further imporvements to the building, both cosmetically and functionally. · Due to the unique nature of the building, having been remodeled at several different times by several different owners, the building has a disjointed feel to the exterior. The Geyens would like to bring the visible exterior facades together with a Nantucket / Cape Cod architype. · Likewise, on the interior, the Geyens wish to update the interior in a similar manner. · With this interior remodeling and new front lakeside walls, we would like to build a new roof system over the front dining room that will allow for a balcony from the upper eating area to look down upon the lower level, as well as maintain its view to the lake. · Functionally, the Geyens are looking for more storage space, and would like to build a storage basement under the front dining area, as long as the foundation is being rebuilt. Finally, the Geyens would like to add a covered entry to the side facade for architectural appeal as well as the desire to provide shelter from the elements at the main entry to the restaurant. The entry would be relocated to a point roughly 14 feet to the south. RENOVATION NARRATIVE · We would like to tear offthe front eating area of the building and build a full basement under the new area for storage along approximately the same footprint as the existing front area. · The higher (proposed 10'-4") walls will permit lots of windows facing the lake. · Directly above the curved section of the eating area will be a fiat roof with a roof deck above for aesthetic purposes only (no access or seating will be provided). · The front gable of the second floor will be extended approximately 11 feet to allow it to vault down upon the eating area from above. · A balcony will be created at the second floor to allow for a visual connection between the two floors, making the dining experience on both levels an enjoyable one. · The front entry will be relocated to the main dining area, with a double door, 6'-0" entry system and thermal break. · This will allow for an improved view to more diners while not adding any additional seating. · Finally, the curved facade of the front dining room will continue along as a covered entry "porch" added to the Tuxedo Road side, the two main facades &the building will be resided, detailed and re-roofed to bring in a unifying exterior feel similar to a Nantucket architype. Effects of the Proposed Use The Geyens wish to assure the City of Mound and all of their neighbors that they in no way wish to add any additional occupancy load or seating, nor any additional parking spaces as part of this remodeling project. Moreover, the intentions of this renovation project shall not create any additional traffic, noise, smoke or odors. It is a project that we feel will add to the overall beauty of the site and building, increase the functional aspects of the building, remove the safety hazards, and upgrade the energy efficiency of the windows and walls along the front facade of the restaurant. This remodeling and updating should be a terdffic improvement to their establishment as well as to the City of Mound. 21 August 1997 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 ADDENDUM TO: Application for Conditional Use Permit for Daryl or Merritt Geyen A! & Alma's Supper Club 5201 Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 Development Schedule August 21, 1997 September 1997 October 1997 November 1, 1997 March 1, 1998 Submittal of Applications for Conditional Use Permit and Variance Further detailing of blueprints and specifications Anticipated acceptance of Variance and Grant of conditional use permit Final blueprint and specification modifications Project let-out to contractor for bid Submittal for Application for Building Permit Anticipated construction start-up Anticipated "Grand Re-Opening" Anticipated overall development cost: $200,000.00 / 70. a ?,'~ I i.q [/ ',°'. i~ 69)i 40 }-40 i ! . '- PROJECT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR AL & ALMA' S rgnmdeUn$ de~ns ~,~ql and ~qlma's Suppe~ 5201 Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 .r ~ ~ ,- . ~ ~' ~'~ 5201 Piper Road, Mo~d, ~ 55364 r~node~ng de, gm for ~ll a~d ~llma% ~u~, ~lu~ 5201 Piper Road, Mo~d, ~ 55364 5201 Piver Road, Mound, MN 55364 Piper Road, IV[or,nd, ~ 55364 ~4t d ~4t ' 5201 'Pier Road, Mo~ ~ 55364 ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: I~Xi$'i'INO LOT SIZE: RI 10,000/60 B1 7, ~00/0 ~' _ RIA 6,000/40 R2 6~ 000/40 J / ~ n2 14,000/80 Lot UEl'llh "~ SR, O.,. Zl 30.000/100 }~O' ~ I AI':F Illl' (ir Ill IIFF I AKI~ N S F. W SO' 'llll' IIF III IIFF I0' t)R 30' lite City of Mound Zoning Ordlnnnce. For further information, eontnct the City of Mound RESOLUTION #97 - RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-117-24-33 0073 &13-117-24-33 0041 P&Z CASE #97-37 WHEREAS, Mueller/Lansing Properties, owner of 2240 Commerce Blvd., have submitted a request for a Major Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 330 and Minnesota State Statue Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within a B-1 Central Business District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet, a 35 feet maximum building height, no minimum yard setbacks, and; WHEREAS, after subdivision, the 41,110 square feet parcel will have two lots with approximately equal areas. Both of these lots conform to the B-1 minimum lot size requirements, and; WHEREAS, the existing building on the eastern parcel will encroach into the westem parcel, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: ~"~" - ~-" ' .~e.e a~licant 1. The western parcel remain in th~ ownership/Qftla pp until the building on the eastern parcel is removed by the County Road 15 project or by the undertaking of the owners. ~ox) 2. A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined indicating the removal of the building on parcel B, the easement can be removed from the property. An encroachment easement be placed over that portion of the building encroaching onto the western parcel. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. All required documentation be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney for approval. 14 October 1997 TO: Mound City Council Resolution to Approve a Major Subdivision 2240 Commerce Blvd., Mound FROM: Michael Mueller - Applicant The owners agree to the intent of the resolution as stated, however if we could have the council review the following specific language under the BE IT RESOLVED portion of the resolution, then everybody will be in concurrence. The resolution has some language that we wish to be reviewed as it limits the owners ability to effectively utilize their property during the transition period. The western portion remain under the same ownership as the eastern portion until such time as the realignment of County Road 15 occur(or a sale of the easterly property to a governmental unit occurs or the building is removed. A parking easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its current function is maintained. An access easement 60 foot in width extending from the front of the building westerly from the north property line to the south property line to maintain access to the balance of the parking lots and the building to the south. When Hennepin County determines the rerouting of County Road 15 indicates the removal of the building on the eastern parcel, or the removal of the building by other means, the easements shall be removed from the property. No change. No change. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this manner. Sincerely, Michael Mueller The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and seconded by Mayor Attest: City Manager Resolution adopted: C PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-tH TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 25, 1997 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision APPLICANT: Michael Mueller, Mueller/Lansing Properties - Owner - 5910 Ridgewood Road CASE NUMBER: 97-37 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5v LOCATION: 2240 Commerce Blvd. EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-I) COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN: Business BACKGROUND: The property owners have submitted an application to combine Lots 41 through 46 and a portion of 40 of "Koehler's Addition to Mound" and split them into two parcels. The subdivision is a major subdivision because it involves more than three commercial lots. There are no public improvements associated with this subdivision. The property is located at the corner of Lynwood and Commerce Boulevard and is zoned B-1 Central Business district. As indicated in the application, the subject property contains approximately 41,110 square feet (0.944 acres) which is split into two parcels. Uses on the property include Brickley's, Scotty B's Restaurant, Willette's Laundry, a jewelry manufacture which are located on the eastern parcel and a surface parking lot on the western parcel. The parking area serves the described uses as well as other adjacent business such as the Coast-to-Coast store to the south. The intent of the owner's subdivision request is to anticipate the future County Road 15 relocation which will cut through the northern portion of the two parcels. In conversations with the owners, their intent to combine and subdivide is to preserve a portion of the eastern parcel for development after the relocation is complete. At this time, the new County Road 15 alignment has not been finalized although a preliminary alignment indicates the eastern parcel will probably be undevelopable. The centerline of the new alignment will match Lynwood Boulevard west of Commerce Boulevard, veering slightly to the south as it continues east through the two parcels. Because of the timing of this request and the status of the roadway project, right-of-way dedication was not applicable. COMMENTS: During discussions with the applicant, a couple issues where identified which need to be resolved. The first issue is parking requirements for the existing building. Currently, the area in front of the building serves as the parking area. When the plat is recorded, the parking area and 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 a, a~ t l , Ill t P. 2 Mueller Major Subdivision the building will be separated and identified with two tax identification numbers. According to code, the parking requirements must be satisfied on site. The owner owns both of the proposed parcels currently so parking requirements are satisfied. The parking area in front of the building will need to continue to provide parking until the roadway project causes the building to be demolished. If the western parcel ownership was transferred, parking requirements of the building could not be satisfied. The second issue involves the encroachment of the building onto the western parcel. This encroachment was the result of the need to provide access to both parcels and to facilitate efficient traffic movement with the driveway on the north side of Lynwood Boulevard. From a zoning standpoint, both parcels comply with the yard area and setback requirements. The B-1 zoning regulations allow building up to the property lines. Although the same building crosses the common property line, the encroachment issue is not of concern to zoning or building codes unless the property ownership of one of the parcels changes. Keeping the parcels tied together will keep the development functioning as a single parcel until redevelopment options can be addressed. This will depend on how the roadway alignment affects the two parcels and what options are present to develop them as separate independent parcels. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision as requested with the following conditions: o The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the building on the eastern parcel is removed by the County Road 15 project or by the undertaking of the owners. The western parcel remain undeveloped and used for parking as long as the building is standing. A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. An encroachment easement be placed over that portion of the building encroaching onto the western parcel. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. All required documentation be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney for approval. C 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, Gerald Reifschneider and Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent and excused: Becky Glister and Jerry Clapsaddle. Also present: Building Official Jon Sutherland, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Public Attendance: Mitch Knutson, Merritt Geyen, Peter Jacobson, Tom Kelly, Richard & Connie Meyer, Bill Johnsen, Nancy Cambell, Eric Berglund, Ron DeVinney, Dorothy Netka, William Netka, Paul Larson, Sid Levin. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 25, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Reifschneider had one change, on page 1, change Burma to Reifschneider. MOTION. by Weiland, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the August 25, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: Chairman Michael stated procedures for the three public hearing cases. Mueller excused himself from the commission panel. #97-37: PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, 2240 COMMERCE BLVD, ME MUELLER, LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-117- 24-33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041. Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon reviewed the case. Mueller/Lansing Properties have request to combine lots 41 through 46 and a portion of 40 of "Koehler's Addition to Mound" and then split them into two parcels. The property is located at the corner of Lynwood and Commerce Blvd and is in the B-1 Central Business District. Planning Commission Minutes Sel:)tember 8, 1997 Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision as requested with the following conditions: 1. The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the building the eastern parcel is removed bye the County Road 1 5 project or by the undertaking of the owners. The western parcel remain undeveloped and used for parking as long as the building is standing. e A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. An encroachment easement be placed over that portion of the building encroaching onto the western parcel. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. All required documentation be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney for approval. Commissioners Comments/Questions: Weiland questioned if the building would be taken down or just a portion of it if the County Road 15 realignment went through. Mueller stated that the building would be condemned and demolished if the project progressed. There was discussion on where the proposed new road access would be if the construction of County Road 15 There was also discussion on if a easement was needed. ' Hanus questioned the legality of item #1. Gordon explained that if the parcels were divided, the parcel would not be able to meet the zoning requirements for parking spaces. Chairman Michael opened the public hearing. Applicant to speak, Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, lived in Mound all of his life. Has been on the planning commission for 7 years. They want to be able to maintain ownership of their property in the downtown area. They want to combine the north 40 feet with the rest of parcel b then subdivide parcel a and b. In order to maintain ownership of their land, the applicants need to do something before they lose their ownership of the property. They feel that the redevelopment plan is inevitable Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 and want to be a part of it. They don't know where the access road is going to be. They want to work with the city to make this project a successful one. Addressing item//1, applicant stated they would be willing to agree not to sell the two parcels to separate people. This could be done through a deed restriction. They feel they have good tenants and don't want to keep it that way. They expressed concerns with items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Item//1 could be dealt with by using the deed restriction. Item //2, 3, 4 deals with the not allowing building on parcel A as long as parcel b has a building on it. There would be a problem with that because there would be no place to put their tenants if the current building would be condemned and demolished. The business could not afford to be out of business that long. They would like to be able to build a building on parcel A so they have someplace to move if the existing building does get demolished. Item //2 could be left undeveloped until the County Road 15 project is decided and the access road is decided upon. Item #3 There are many business in Mound that don't have adequate parking. They feel it is unjust to require this building to have parking while other business in town don't. Item//4 They don't have a problem with an easement. On parcel A there would be a building encroachment. Reifschneider asked applicant why they wanted to do all of this before they know what is going to happen with the downtown development because it would mean that parcel a would have a variance on it. Applicant stated that if the property was condemned they could no longer subdivide their property and they want to maintain ownership. The applicant will be willing to work with different options of where an easement should go. Gordon stated that B-1 doesn't have a lot setback requirement. There would be no need for a variance at this time. Mueller explained what an encroachment easement was. Sutherland and Gordon commented an easement would be needed for building code compliance. Mueller stated that the property meets all the requirements except for the encroachment. Chairman Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendations as stated. Discussion: Hanus discussed the conditions listed and would like some other options. Plannin£ Comm/$$ion Minutes Discussion was made to what would happen to the current business during the transition period. Gordon stated its a tough issue on the transition of old business going along with the new business building going in. The planners intent was to maintain parking for the area businesses. There was concern that there would be a lag time where the current businesses would not have a place for their businesses. Burma suggested a rewording for item# 3. It should read, "A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined indicating the removal of building on parcel B, the easement can be removed from the property." MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendation with the exception of removing item #2, revision of item #3 to read, "A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined indicating the removal of building on parcel B, the easement can be removed from the property." The motion carried 6-0. This case will go to City Council October 14, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-37 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND, MUELLER/LANSING PROPERTIES, LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2240 COMMERCE BOULEVARD SHORELINE DRIVE PID# 13-117-24-33-0073 & 13-117-24-33-0041, P&Z 97-37 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 14, 1997 to consider the approval of a major subdivision of 2240 Commerce Blvd., located within the B-1 Business Zoning District. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by October 3, 1997 Published in the Laker September 30, 1997. prJnted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-06O0 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-37 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND, MUELLER/LANSING PROPERTIES, LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2240 COMMERCE BOULEVARD SHORELINE DRIVE PID# 13-117-24-33-0073 & 13-117-24-33-0041, P&Z 97-37 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, _September 8, 1997 to consider the approval of a major subdivision of 2240 Commerce Blvd., located within the B-1 Business Zoning District. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. C Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by August 2~, 1997 Published in the Laker August 23, 1997. prmted on recycled paper Application for MAJOR SUBDIVISION, City of Mound AUG 2 0 1997 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 CITy OF MOUND ASENO. ~ q"aZ~ TYpE OF APPLICATION FEE SKETH PLAN REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT $ 200 FINAL PLAT $ 150 $10/LOT OVER 2 LOTS CONDITIONAL USE PEKlvirr: PDA ~ ESCROW DEPOSIT $1,000 VARIANCE ~ TOTAL_~..~ $ /99q ! · CITY COUNC,LD^TE: . //-//99q DISTRIBUTION DATE cITY ~NO,NEER . ~'BZ-9 7 PUBLIC WO~S · ~~ 7 DNR , OTHER: the followin information: ['lease type or pn.l~ Ul~ ,,,..v .... ~, ................ pROPERTY Sub~ect Address NFORMATION Name of Proposed Plat EXISTING Lot LOTS GO LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-1A R-2 R-3 B-2 B-3 Name~/~ t ~L Phone (H)~ (W) OWNER (if other than Address applicant} (H)~ (W) (M) Phone ENGINEER Address ~ Phone (~(W) { Major Subdivision Application F~ge 2 Description of Proposed Use: EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. t O C, /U E "- t5 --D If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ ~) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: [¥ / 4 Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: sq. ft. Total Lot Area: sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~)~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. C This application must be signed by al__~l owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print Applicant's Name Print O~er~s ~ame · ? .. ~p#icant s ~ignat~re Owner's Signature D~te Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date RD 57 ~90.86 ...... .... 493 ± .... 277 '" ,(10) 400 *- 17 i ~6 } -" ~ 144.'3 ) 165.?1 ~ 25.0 sz~45'7''~ '::- .? DoG NO 46~ ~6 --,--- ' ,, .,~. · ~ 79. O~ 2 '" (34) ' ' ( (~5) ; DOC 56) ! PA~K' I UU .-II !.o. 67 ~8 !26. j9~4;.8 ~50.8 AUD 8-27-82 285. 46 2!4. 176 (78) - ~:.~ _~ (i68) 4 Iv !33. 21 (79) ~(80)~ .;lo ~ ~.HuRCH (FILED 7-29-68~-7'~ .C:~ DOC NO:~- -'~---DOC NO "%'"'" I O- ~ .:."'..~,,-ZO 5109236_ 17~3~_0 L 5 (4) (3) (76) 837. = .', lO .... ,58.67 '., '\ \ j,/ / 1t "- CITY OF MOUND .HARDCOVER CALCULATIONg (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) c/4 m LOT AREA_ L~I) II0 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I I LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I I 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 C'. I(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 SQFT X TOTAL HOUSE X X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS X = X = X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X = X = X TOTALDECK X = X = TOTAL OTHER NDER / OVER (indicate difference) .......... ~ .................... PREPARED BY ~tC~A~I ~ NO~~ DATE [PROPERTY ADDRESS: II OWNER'S NAME: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) !_01 LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided .that techniques-are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH SQ H-'r' DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I ,I LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND # IRDCO.VER CULA TION$ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) __SQ. I-r, x 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I I 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. 6.13.1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X - X = TOTAL DETACHED t~LDGS ................. X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X TOTAL OTHER ......................... C' TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~ t~ q7~2 t-"O_.~~t~~ ', J,/tr- / · I UNDER / OVER (indicate_ ,,~ ~ /? ,,~difference) ................... .ri..~.. ...... I I PRE_PARED B'~, 23 July 1997 Subdivision of Mueller/Lansing Lot Downtown Mound TO: Mayor Polston City Council Planning Commission Planning Staff The following is an explanation of the request for subdivision within the Central Business District for the property which has been owned by Mike Mueller and Phil Lansing for quite a few years. Phil & Mike have been business and property owners in the downtown Mound area for over 80 years collectively and they wish this to continue as they have set up their retirement plans to include real estate in the town they have served most of their adult lives. The changes that are occurring in downtown are very exciting and both Mike & Phil have supported and look forward to the revitalization being completed. Currently, Mike & Phil (Mueller/Lansing Properties) own the building occupied by Brickley's market and drive-thru, Scotty B's Restaurant, Willette's Laundry, and the jewelry manufacturer to the rear. This is a separate building from that which houses the Coast-to-Coast and barbershop. Redevelopment and the relocation of County Road 15 in the near future will mean the eventual demolition of their current building. We know that final drawings of this northern tier of the redevelopment plan and the path of the future roadway have yet to be completed. However, in order to maintain space for their current tenants or future businesses and to maintain private ownership within the downtown area, Mike & Phil would like to prepare for the eventual change. The draft drawings of the northern tier of the redevelopment include a proposed access drive directly across from the existing entrance drive to the Commerce Place parking lot along the Co Rd 15 right-of-way into the area south which will be redeveloped. Essentially, what Phil & Mike are looking to do is to separate their current structure from the privately held parking lot to the west. When originally purchased, these were separate lots and were combined for tax purposes when the City realigned Lynwood Blvd. and removed the old Anderson furniture building and the bakery. Obviously, it has always been a goal to have the corner of Lynwood (new Co Rd 15) and Commerce be part of the downtown area and this was the thought when purchased by Phil & Mike. Until the recent decision by the Council to have ownership of parking lots under City rule and therefore'not require a designated amount of stalls in the Central Business District, this property has been used to meet and exceed the parking required for their tenants. Page2 The subdivision request is to have the current lot divided (north to south) at the center line extension of the Commerce Place access road to the north. This is per the draft drawings of the planning staff. We realize that this line runs through the westerly portion of the current building, and there will need to be an encroachment easement drafted for the westerly lot and restrictions preventing the change of ownership without notice of such, to any prospective purchaser. There are no plans to sell any portion of either parcel to anyone at this time, and as stated earlier, for more than 40 years each, Phil & Mike have maintained ownership of property downtown. When the demolition of the current structure happens, this easement is moot and will no longer be a restriction. If modification of this subdivision line is required in the future, either through county requirements or development plan modifications, we are sure this can be handled easily as it will not radically change the intent of this subdivision. Private ownership and private development have been the cornerstone of our democratic society. If there will be TIF funding available to help with improvements to the property or to the streetscapes in the future, then we will address that when the time comes. Phil & Mike plan to develop this property in the future, meeting the expected requirements of the new pedestrian district zoning that the Planning Commission and Planning Staff.have reviewed. Again, there are no current plans for change or building, however Mike and Phil want to be assured that should the redevelopment and realignment of Co Rd 15 come to fruition, they will have the opportunity to maintain ownership in the community to which they have contributed throughout their lifetimes. Sincerely, Michael Mueller Agent for Mueller/Lansing Properties Page 3 Regarding the submission of information for the subdivision: At the request of the surveyor, the center line of the access road for the property to the north was not shown on the survey as the surveyor felt Mound Planning Staff may want something different. At the recommendation of Staff, the surveyor would either show: 1) a single north/south subdivision line at the approximate extension of the center line to the north with an easement for the current structure and a possible future access road easement; or 2) a subdivision to include an outlot for the access road. Please let me know ASAP which option (1 or 2 above) Staffwould prefer, so we can calculate area totals, hardcover, etc. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Mueller CITY 6F /VI~UND~-' ZONING INFORMATI~)Ni'' SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO J~OT OF RECORD? YES I NO HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, STIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER DIRECTION N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W DETACHED BUILDINGS N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: RI 10,000/60~ R1A 6,000/40 '"-~ ~U,OOO~O~ R2 6,000/40 ~3 ~0,000/60o R2 14,000/80 R~ gEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED~~X~-~G/PROPOSED 10' OR 30' 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: · LOT W/D'iH: LOT DEPTH: -- VARIANCE .... j · YES / NO ? Ti,is Zoning Inform,,tion Sheet ~ a portion of the requirements outlined Jn thc CJly of Mound ZollJng Ordinance. For fur~er information, contact the CJly Of MOUIld Planning Department at 472.-0600. (?8) -~- October 14, I997 PROPOSED RF~OLUTION//9% RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PRINTING BUSINESS IN THE B-l, LARSON PRINTING, 2316 COMMERCE BLVD., LOT 4, & SO. 29 3/10 FEET OF LOT 4, PID 13-117-24 33 0047 PZ CASE g97-44 WHEREAS, the applicants, Paula and John Larson, have submitted a request for a conditional use permit to relocate their printing and copying operations from the Shoreline Shopping Center to 2316 Commerce Blvd., and; WHEREAS, the property meets the 7500 square foot lot size and is under the hardcover surface requirements for businesses, and; WHEREAS, the property is zoned B-1 which allows for newspaper printing and publishing shops as a conditional use, and; WHEREAS, a minimum of 6 parking spaces would be provided which meets the Zoning Code parking requirements, and; WHEREAS, the staff and Planning Commission unanimously recommend approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit to Larson Printing to relocate their printing business to 2316 Commerce Boulevard with the following condition: 1. Delivery trucks park along Auditor's Road or in the parking area behind the building. The foregoing resolution was moved by Counciimember, and seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in favor: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Paula and John Larson - 5713 Lynwood Blvd. OWNER: Helene Borg - P.O. Box 5, Mound, MN 55364 CASE NUMBER: 97-44 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5aa LOCATION: 2316 Commerce Blvd. EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B- 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business BACKGROUND: The applicant, Paula and John Larson, have submitted a request for a conditional use permit for the property located at 2316 Commerce Blvd. The site is located on the comer of Commerce Blvd. and Auditors Road and encompasses 7500 square feet of lot area. The request is to relocate the printing and copying operations from the Jubilee Shopping Center on Shoreline Drive into this building. The proposed office space was previously operated as a dentist office and is currently vacant. The property is zoned B- 1 which allow newspaper printing or publishing shops as a conditional use. The property meets the 7500 square feet lot size for the B-1 District and is under the hardcover surface requirements for businesses. As noted on the site plan, the parking for the building is located in the rear of the building. A minimum of 6 spaces would be provided which meets code parking requirements. Additional on-street parking is located on Auditors Road which serves as a service road to business located on the block. Alterations to the building to accommodate the print shop would be internal. At this time, the applicants have a contract on the property pending a decision on the application. The petitioner is aware of the plans for downtown Mound and the effect they could potentially have on this and surrounding properties. COMMENTS: Public education facilities are permitted in the B-1 district as a conditional use providing conditions are satisfied. These conditions which may be considered include but are not limited to the following: P. 2 Larson Conditional Use Permit 8. 9. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that non of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. There are a few minor issues staff would like to address with this conditional use request. The nature of the business requires delivery of paper and related printing product for operations. Ideally, loading and unloading of materials and product should occur in an area which is away from street traffic on Commerce and close to building entrances. By requiring delivery trucks to park along Auditors Road or in the parking area at the rear places them in close proximity to the building entry and storage room in the rear of the building while avoiding traffic along Commerce. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following condition: 1) Delivery tracks park along Auditors Road or in the parking area behind the building. Planning Cornmi$$/on Minutes SelTternber 8, in buses and try to eliminate or reduce traffic. They are not asking for anything more and have given up alot. They do not want a outdoor porch. Many of the area residents use the park. They have no intention of adding seating to the restaurant. Mark Berglund, stated the reason why the neighborhoods have gone to no parking streets is because of Al & Alma's Chair Michael closed public hearing. Discussion: Hanus recommended a traffic study of the area. Voss feels that the parking situation is a policing issue. Citizens should go to the police department. Chief Harrell should be aware of the concerns of the neighbors to Al & Alma's regarding parking. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation with a one year review of the Conditional Use Permit. The motion carried 6-0. Variance: Case #97-43 MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff recommendation. The motion carried 6-0. Staff suggested-these two cases go to City Council on October 14, 1997 and the applicant agreed. #97-44: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 2316 COMMERCE BLVD, LARSON PRINTING, LOT 4, SOUTH 29 3/10 FT OF LOT 4, MCNAUGHT'S ADD. TO MOUND, PID 13-117-24 33 0047 Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon reviewed this case. Larson Printing has submitted a request for a conditional use permit. The request is to relocate the printing and copying operations from their existing place of business, Jubilee Shopping Center on Shoreline Drive, to this new location on Commerce Blvd. The property is zoned B-1 which allows newspaper printing or publishing shops as conditional use. A minimum of 6 parking spaces would be provided which meets Zoning Code parking requirements. Planning Commission Minu~es September 8, 1997 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend i approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following condition: 1. Delivery trucks park along Auditors Road or in the parking area behind the building. Comments/Questions: Hanus questioned the accessibility for trucks to travel on Auditors Road after the construction has started. Gordon stated that could not be answered at this time. The situation would have to be evaluated as the construction process proceeds. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chair Michael closed open the public hearing. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff recommendation. The motion carried 6-0. This case will go to City Council on October 14, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-44 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A PRINTING & COPY SHOP LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2316 COMMERCE BLVD LOT 4, 29 3/10 FT S OF LOT 4 PID 13-117-24 33 0047, P&Z 97-44 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 14, 1997 to consider the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a Printing & Copy Shop located within the B-1 Business Zoning District. This business is allowable within the B-1 Business Zone through Conditional Use Permit. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. // ! · Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by October 3, 1997. Published in the Laker September 30, 1997. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-44 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A PRINTING & COPY SHOP LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2316 COMMERCE BLVD LOT 4, 29 3/10 FT S OF LOT 4 PID 13-117-24 33 0047, P&Z 97-44 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 199.7. to consider the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a Printing & Copy Shop located within the B-1 Business Zoning District. This business is allowable within the B-1 Business Zone through Conditional Use Permit. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by August 28, 1997 printed on recycled paper Rev. 1-29-97 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 1997 CITY OF MOUND Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address INFORMATION DESCRIPTION su ,v,s,o APPLICANT The applicant is: Name OWNER ' (if other than Address applicant) Name ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H). ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA DISTRICT USE Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reason/able guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ t .! [/I 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. r>o no4 7 This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Rev. 1/29/97 ' DETACHED BLDGS C"!(GARAGE/SHED) CITY OF MOUND HARD'COVER CALCULATIONE (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA_~-~C[5 SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record') LOTAREA SQ. FT. X' 5% 'Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ~ x X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... IS,tiP X X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS 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 x /G,$ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER X TO,,,TAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I. ~VER (indicate difference) ............................... (REV. 8/29194) summary of hardcover rules Excerpts from the Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:310. Definitions. Impervious Cover. Any surface impervious or resistant 'to the free flow of water or surface moisture. Impervious cover shall include, but not be limited to all driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios, and swimming pools. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards) shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. Section 350:645. General Requirements Applicable to All Residential Districts.. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. Accessory buildings shall not exceed 15% of the total lot area. Section 350:1 ?_25, Subd. 6. Shoreland Manaqement. 1. Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable. a. Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the use of crowns on driveways, direction downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas, etc. b. Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or sand allowing infiltration. c. Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater. d. Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing soil absorption. Impervious surface coverage in lots in the business and industrial zones, shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. In business and industrial zones that are included within areas covered by an approved stormwater management plan, impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 75 percent of the total lot area. RECEIVED OF the sum Of One Thousancl JO{-ll~. LP~RSON Date: COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT This form approved by the Minnesota Association of REALTORS~, which disclaims any liability arising out of use ut misuse of ~is form. ~u=ust 0k. 199'7 p~UL~ M. LARSON ($1.ooo ) DOLLARS at County of LOt 004, Blk ~neek as earnest money and in part payment for the purchase of property 2~$6 C.~...~..eree Roulevnrfl situated in the Henneuin , SUre of Minneso~ and legacy described as f0l]0wsz PID # 1311724330047 000, McN&u.qh=,s A~i=ion =o "Moun~~ - The S 29.3 FT of Lo= 4. together with the f0Uowing pers0nalpr0perty: AIl r~m~inine~ uersonal ~ropert? not r~mnveel by_ Owner prior to the Date of Closing. :r for the sum ut ¢ which the Buyer agrees to pay in the following manner: Earnest money :'~asa, on , the date of closing and the inancing as shown on the attached addendum. 1, DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Subject to performance by the Buyer, the Seller agrees to execute and deliver ant Deed convc in marketable title to said premises subject only to the following exceptions: Wart y Y g · · ' ' relatin to use or im rovement of the (a) BuQding and zoning laws, ordinances, State and Federal reculauons. (b) Restncuons g P premises without effective forfeiture provision. (c) Reservation~ of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota. Utility and drainage easements which do not interfere with present improvements. (e) Rights of tenants as follows: REAL ESTATE TAXES. Real estate taxes due and payable in the year of closing shall be prorated between Seller and Buyer on a calendar year basis to the actual date of closing unless otherwise provided in this Agreement. Real estate taxes payable in the years prior to closing shall be paid by Seller. Real estate taxes payable in the years subsequent to closing shall be paid by Buyer. SPECIAL A ESSMENTS. ,Check one.] .~] B.U'YE.R.A.ND ,,SE.L?_,E,R___S.~l:l~_jL.L_..:P~?~TxmEcntAsScc~[effololoI~r-'rnaDvAmlnEt CLOSING ~'~ SELLER SHALL PAY on me mae o~ ClOSing al msta,lmcat~ ui ~pg~.,.,, ~a,-o~,~ v a the real estate taxes due and payable in the year of closing. [Check one.] [] BI.P/ER SHALL ASSUME [] SELLER SHALL PAY ON DATE OF CLOSING all other special assessments levied as of the date of this Agreement. [Check one.] [] BUYER SHALL ASSUME [] SELLER SHALL PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF special assessments pending as of the date of this Agreement for improvements that have been ordered by the City Council or other governmental assessing authorities. (Seller's provision for payment shall be by payment into escrow of 1 1/2 times the estimated amount of the ecial assessment becomes pending after the date of this Agreement and before the date of closing, Buyer may, at Buyer's l,,f,,,a;,,? a~ ~,m~me navment of the uendinll special assessment without adjusUn. Cnt t.o ~..e t?urcha:s, e price; .or~ (b! v . ' ment of same a sum c ual to 1 1/2 trines me p ~ p . . pay the pen.dm..g spemal assessmen! (.or escr_o_w.._f.o,_r.p_a.y._,, .... ,4,,, ~,f the ,,ro~qert,, which increase shall be the same as the esumate an3 Buyer. s.nan pay a commen, m3, r~e ¢cre~._e_ m, ~?.V_~L~.~&,T2 y~,;~ ~,,5 n [ficgqo Seller, and earnest money shall be refunded to amount o~ me assessment; or [c) DeClare mis t~g~cgmcm nun ~uu .,,.~ u.y. er.. .......... : ..... .~-,'-,-,-,,,' real estate taxes or snecial assessments payment of which is required as a result of citer snail pay on oate oi ClU:~LUg iluy u~u r the closin of this sale. All aems customarily nrorated and adjusted in connection with the closine of the sale of the property herein PRORATIONS. ' ' ~ · · vJ shall be rorated as o? the date of all be assumed that the buyer will own me p p y closim,. It sh . wen the date hereof and the date of 5. DAMXGES TO REAL PROPERTY. If there u any loss or damage to the p.roperty bet e . , . on. the risk of loss shall be on the Seller If the property ~s destroyed or substantially damaeed before the closing_ fo.r any Leas .. -- ' ' ' fion Bu er shall have the right to'terminate tl closing, this Purchase .A. gre~me, nt shall become ri.al}. __and vmd, at Buyer sop . Yd termination, the earnest money snail Purchase Agreement w~mm ~0 oays after Seller notifie~ Buyer of such damage. Upon sm refunded to Buyer and Buyer and Seller agree to sign a cancellation of Purchase Agreement. MNCI:PA-1 (11193) ~ ~los~ h ~t a ~ of ~ ~d ~ ~e Se~er(s) or ~ Ag~s) OF ~ PRO~ ~ ~ PRO~E ~R ~PROP~ PROTONS buye~ ~ ~ly on ~ ~fion ~ ~g whe~er ~d on w~ e~ ~ p~ ~e abj~ ~. ~e ~e~s) a~o~ ~ Agmt(s) ~ fo~ ~ ~p~n~fiom ~de bv ~e ~er(s) ~ ~e ~nt of ~e ~er(s) a~ ~wl~ ~ ~o~a~on ~ a ~l~ (1) ~en ~d you p~e or b~d ~e s~c~? (2) H~ ~ere ~n ~y fl~ or o~er ~mr(s) at ~e pm~? y~, No ~ yes, ~ve de~s of what hap~n~ ~d when: (3) Has the structure ever been~ered? (For example, additions, altered roof lines, changes to load beating walls.) Yes. . No ,~ If yes, please specify what bas done, when and by whom (owner or contractor): x.._:a~ve aetatls to any question answered yes".) (1) The roof (Give details to any question answered" es") (a) What is the age of the roofing material?~ Comments: '~/~t~'$ 7'~,,~ ~ (b) Has there ever been interior damage from ice buildup? Yes No. v/ - ' (c) Has there ever been any leakage or other problems? Yes No ~ (d) Have there ever been'any repairs or replacement made to the roof?. Yes~ No Give details to any question answered "yes": ~ (2) Are them any known problems with the foundation or a wet basement or flooding? If yes, give details of what happened and when: Yes No. ~ (3) Are them any known problems with the heating system? If yes, giv~hen: (4) Are them any known problems sslffil.the plumbing .sys-'te]~'? No ? Yes ? No (5) Are them any known problems with the electrical system? If yes, give details of what happened and when: (6) Are them any known problems with the mechank, al s3~em? If yes, give derails of what happe~ and when:" ' No, / Yes No TRA~S~q~ DISCLOSURE (7) Unused Well: Is there a well on the property which is no longer in use? Yes _ (a) .If yes, has it been sealed according to state law? Yes No Comments: O/~ (8) Contaminated Well: IS there a well on the property containing contaminated water? Date well water last tested for contaminants: Comments: No LAND USE AND PROPERTY COXDmO.X: (1) Are you aware of any of the following existing: Encroachments? Yes No c,'/ Soil problems? Yes No Diseased Trees? Yes No ~ Podent Infestation? Yes ~ No ,_/ Insect Infestation? (2) Restrictions or Reservations on the use of the property.? Yes No ~ . (3) Easements other than utility or drainage easements which do not interfere with present improvemetits?. Yes . (4) Is the property located in a designated flood plain? Yes No (5) Hazardous waste? Yes .No Underground storage tanks? Yes ~/' No Above ground storage tanks? Yes _-----No ~: If yes, to any of above, give de_taiLs of w~t-h~ippen~-~d when: Yes~ Not~/ No INSULATION DISCLOSURE: Does the insulation in the property contain ~ formaldehyde foam? Yes Date insulation installed: ~)~, tr, . Type: Comments: No Company: - OTHER KNOWN DEFECTS: Are there any other known defects in or on the property.? If yes, give details of what happened and when: Yes No t.~ E SELLER'S STATFI~rENT: (To be signed at time of listing) We/I, owner(s) of the property at "L% i (,, 0;,~-n acknowledge the above Real Estate Transfer f)iscl~sure ~;tatement and give permission to Listing Broker to disclose this information to the ~p[ospective buyers. G. BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: (To be si ed at time of purchase agreement) We/I, the Buyer(s) of the property at do acknowledge receipt of the Real Es. tam Transfer Disclostre~ Staaement and agree that no representations re~kvarding the condition of the property have been made, other than those made abcs'e. LISTING BROKF, R .AND AG'~WS MAKE NO .~ ~NSIBLE FOR ANY CONDmONs EXISTING IN. THE-PROPERTY. ~ ~ - ~ I~_~ · · - '.--~' ' r-"~. '"' - ~... '~" H. SEI.I.ER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: (To be sig~ed at lime of purchase agreement) ~'~---- '\ .... AS OF THE DATE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, We/I, the Seller(s) of the above property. agree that the condition of the property is the same as noted abox~ and will be in proper ,~rking order on dam of closing, except for the changes indica~-.cJ above and dated: COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT o ,..~. ~lX'YINATION OF TITLE. WiO3Jn a reasonable rime after acccp~nce of rids Agrcemcm, Seller shall furnish Buyer wi~h an ',,~..~4tract of Title or a Registered Property Abstract certified to date including proper searches covering bankruptcies and State and Federal judgments, lines, and levied and pending special assessments. Buyer shall have 10 business days after receipt of the Abstract of Tire or Registered Property Abstract either t.o. have B~uycr's a. ttomcy examine the doe and provide Seller with written objections or, at Buyer's own expense, to make an appucadon rot a tiHe insurance policy and no{fly Seller of the application. Buyer shall have 10 business days after receipt of thc commiUncnt for tire insurance to provide Seller with a copy of the commiu~cnt and written objections. Buyer shall be deemed to have waived any d[lc objections not made with.in the applicable 10 day period set forth above, except that this shall not operate as a waiver of Seller's covenant {o deliver a Warranty Deed, unless a Warranty Deed is not specified above. If any objection is so made, Seller shall have 10 business days from receipt of Buyer's written title objccQons to notify Buyer of Seller's intention to make tklc marketable within 120 days from Seller receipt of such written objection. If notice is given, paymen~ hereunder required shall bc postponed pending correction of 0tlc, but upon correction of title and within 10 days after written notice to Buyer the parties shall perform tiffs Purchase Agreement according to its terms. If no such notice is given or if notice is eiven but' title is not corrected within the time provided for, this Purchase Agreement shall be null and void, at option of Buyer:'neither party shall be liable for damaees hereunder to the other and earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer; Buyer and Seller agree to sien cancellation of Purchase Agreement. If title to the property be found marketable or be so made within said time. and-Buyer st~all default in any of the agreements and continue in default for a period of 10 days, then and in that case the SeLler may terminate this contract and on such termination all the payments made upon this contract shall be retained by SeLler as Liquidated'damages, time being of the essence. This provision shall not deprive either party of the right to enforce the specific performance of this contract provided this contract has not been terminated and provided action to enforce such specific performance shall be commenced within six months after such right of action shall arise. POSSESSION. Seller shall deliver possession of the property on the date of closing. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. S~ attached' addendum. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE FOR ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS CONTRACT. WELL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Buyer has received the well disclosure statement required by Minnesota Statutes Sec. 1031.235. - BUYER AND SELLER INITIAL: Buyer(s).)~k~~ Seller(s) ADDENDA. Attached are (number) One '¢ 1 ~ a~denda which are mad~ a part of this Aereement. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. (a) Survival. All of the warranties, representations, and covenants of this ~,closing. Agreement shall survive and be enforceable after the ~ Entire Agreement; Modification. This Aerc , ' ~"~"~ prior oral or written . eme.m const]~tes .the complete aereement between the parties and supercedes any aereements between the parues regart]me me property. =fhere are no verbal agreements that chance this Agreement and no wai~,er of any of its terms wii3 be effective unless in a writing executed by the parties. (c) Successors and Assigns. If this Aereement is assiened, all provisions of this Agreement shall be bindine on successors and assigns. - - 13. ACCEPTANCE DEADLINE. This offer to purchase, unless accepted sooner, shall be null and void at 11:59 P.M. and in such event all earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer. Roman Roos (Agent) (Asent} NOTICE Re/Ma~ Results ( C~mp~r/Name~ (Ccmp~ Name} Represents Seller Represents __ THIS IS A LEGALLY BIN"DING CONTRACT. SELLER~ SELLER IF NOT UNDERSTOOD, SEEK COMPETENT ADVICE. Dated: 5' q' 7 BUYER BUTER SELLING A( MNCI:PA-2 (11/93) ,3.01 .I 1-0001 08-02-1997 Re/Max Results RESIDENTIAL COVER SHEET 2316 Commerce Boulevard i John ~.. Ln~son First Buyer Name 469-64-8T98 Social Security Number paula M. Lawson Second Buyer Name Social Secu~ Number ~271 ~horel{n~ Boulev~ S~cct Address City State Zip Code 472- Home Phone No. 472-5646 Business Phone No. Fax Phone No. l~el~ne L. Borq 472-24-6168 Social Security Number S~ond Seller Nme 4~R-~0-42A1 Social Secud~ Number po Box ~ Street Add~m Ci~ S~ Zip C~e 472-2674 Home Phone N0. Business Phone No. Fax Phone No. 9206655 MLS Number 2316 Commerce Boulevard Mound MN~ 55364 StrectAddress Ci~ State ZipCodc Henne~in Towush~ County isting Date 1. 000 ~ Purchase Price j Closing Date Comments: Selling Broker Firm Name Sales Agent's Name Street Address City Telephone Number Zip Code Fax Phone No. Sales Agent's Phone Number Re/Max Results Listing Broker Firm Name Sales Agent's Name 11200 west 78th Street Street Address Eden prni~ie Mn 55344 City Sure Zip Code 829-2900 942-3185 Telephone Number Fax Phone No. 829-3848 Sales Agent's Phone Number I I:ILS Number I '-' I MOUND PLANNING ~ IN$R SURVEY ON FILE? YES ~ ~rOT OF RECORD? YES I NO I ~, I, CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET VnRD '-r mRs. c~on ]- N S E W HOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W DETACHED BUILDINGS N S E W N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: n~ lo,ooo/so~9 RZA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R~ 6,000/40 S~ z0,000/60. 14,000/00 ~RE ORD. Il 30,000/100 N S E W N S E W N S E W FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GAdOkGE, SHED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE R2 REQUIRED 15' I0' OR 30' 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4t EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: .- N S E W ~ TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' --------'-- tARDCOVER 30% OR 40~=~.~_~ '--'--'--'='=- ---==---==-.-= !~O? YE.q / NO ? _J. BY: ' DATED: -- C~ ~ This Zoning Information Sheet ~ a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Pblnnl~ Department al 472-0600. 20202 J ' 2"' '~ ~' (2o) ~) (~2) ','i'o~--- ~ ........ ( I October 14, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR REMODELING, 5201 PIPER ROAD, AL AND ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0156 PZ CASE//97-43 WHEREAS, the owners, Merrit and Darryl Geyen have applied for a variance to construct an addition to the existing restaurant, and; WHEREAS, the addition would increase the yard encroachment along Tuxedo Road, decrease the front yard encroachment along Piper Road, and all other setbacks remain the same, and; WHEREAS, the applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Front Yard Side Yard (Tuxedo Blvd) Side Yard Existing Proposed Required Variance -0.35' 1.7' 30' 28.3' 20' 16.5' 30' 13.5' 40' 50' 10' WHEREAS, the property is located in a B-3 zone situated in a residential neighborhood, WHEREAS, a kitchen addition to the rear of the building in 1985 has been the only structural addition to the building in the past 25 years, and; WHEREAS, the proposed variances would reduce the setback along Piper Road by 2 feet and increase the setback along Tuxedo Blvd. by 3.5 feet, and; WHEREAS, the addition will update the appearance of the building, provide a storage area in the basement, and allow better building efficiency, and; WHEREAS, improvements to the building will not decrease parking spaces or increase the number of seats in the restaurant, and; WHEREAS, these improvements will increase the aesthetics of the neighborhood and not create any negative impacts, and; WHEREAS, staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval. URV£Y ON FILE? OF,ECG,D, , HOUSE ......... SIDE SIDE ~ a~, ,a~ I 1,, I, CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 lO,OOO/6O~ RiA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60. R2 14,000/B0 R3 ~EE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: · VARIANCE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, $IIED ..... FRONT N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W DETACHED BUILDINGS 15' 50' 10' OR 30' N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ,~HARDCOVER N S E W 30% OR 40% ( ,]ON'OR'lNG? YE., /NO ? ] BY: 2o2o_~ ~ 50' 10' OR 30' DATED: Tiffs Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Pla .nnln8 Depa_rtment at 472-0600. ? ~ (12) ( '~'i'ob'--; ..................... , 10 '"~ . I .~ (20) October 14, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//9% RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR REMODELING, 5201 PIPER ROAD, AL AND ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0156 PZ CASE g97-43 WHEREAS, the owners, Merrit and Darryl Geyen have applied for a variance to construct an addition to the existing restaurant, and; WHEREAS, the addition would increase the yard encroachment along Tuxedo Road, decrease the front yard encroachment along Piper Road, and all other setbacks remain the same, and; WHEREAS, Front Yard Side Yard (Tuxedo Blvd) Side Yard the applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: /Existing : Proposed Required Variance -0.35' / 1.7' 30' 28.3' 20' / 16.5' 30' 13.5' 40' 't 50' 10' WHEREAS, the property is located in a B-3 zone situated in a residential neighborhood, WHEREAS, a kitchen addition to the rear of the building in 1985 has been the only structural addition to the building in the past 25 years, and; ' WHEREAS, the proposed variances would reduce the setback along Piper Road and iac-eease the setback along Tuxedo Blvd. by 3.5 feet, and; ,~'~o WHEREAS, the addition will update the appearance of the building, provide a storage area in the basement, and allow better building efficiency, and; WHEREAS, improvements to the building will not decrease parking spaces or increase the number of seats in the restaurant, and; WHEREAS, these improvements will increase the aesthetics of the neighborhood and not create any negative impacts, and; WHEREAS, staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval. Proposed Resolution Al & Alma's Variance October 14, 1997 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to approve a setback variance for A1 and Alma's Supper Club as follows: E,,xistin~g Proposed Required Variance Front Yard -0X357 1.7' 30' 28.3' Side Yard ~ 16.5' 30' 13.5' (Tuxedo Blvd) Side Yard 50' 10' The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember, seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in favor: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. lllla l ln TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Setback Variance APPLICANT: Daryl and Merritt Geyen - 5201 Piper Road CASE NUMBER: 97-43 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5z LOCATION: 5201 Piper Road EXISTING ZONING: Neighborhood Business District (B-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business BACKGROUND: The property owner at 5201 Piper Road has submitted a variance application to construct an addition to the existing restaurant. The addition would increase the yard encroachment along Tuxedo Road, decrease the front yard encroachment along Piper Road, and maintain the other existing side yard encroachment. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Existing Proposed Required Variance Front Yard - 0.35' 1.7' 30' 28.3' into ROW Side Yard 20' 16.5' 30' 13.5' (Tuxedo Rd) Side Yard 40' 50' 10' The property is located in a B-3 zone situated in a residential neighborhood. The existing restaurant has maintained the existing setbacks on the property for a long period of time. A kitchen addition to the rear of the building in 1985 has been the only structural addition in the past 25 years. The proposed variances would reduce the setback along Piper Road by 2 feet and increase the setback along Tuxedo by 3.5 feet. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 P. 2 Geyen mo Setback Variance Exceptional 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 the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Co That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Attached in the packet is a narrative from the owners, detailing the improvements planned for the restaurant. The addition plans will update the appearance of the building, provide a storage area in the basement, and allow better building efficiency. Improvements to the building will not decrease parking spaces or increase the number of seats in the restaurant. The owners also site the planned improvements will increase the aesthetics of the neighborhood and not create any negative impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. The building has existed in the neighborhood for a number of years with the current setbacks and will continue to function well into the future with the planned improvements. Requiring the building to meet code setbacks would result in a practical difficulty. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 #97-42: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 5201 PIPER ROAD, AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0156 #97-43: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR REMODELLING, 5201 PIPER ROAD, AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117- 24 2! 01.56 The Geyen's have a applied for a conditional use permit for an expansion of their restaurant, The restaurant is defined as a Class I (Traditional Restaurant) which is allowed in the B-3 district as a conditional use, An update to the previous conditional use permit is required because of the nature of the proposed improvements, The seating area size will not change, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: Deliveries continue to be handled on-site and not on the street, The vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be allowed, Any landscaping removed with the improvements be replaced, All prior conditional use review decisions be upheld, The Geyen's have also applied for a variance to construct an addition to the existing restaurant, They are requesting the following: existing proposed required variance Front Yard - 0,35' 1,7' 30' 28,3' into ROW Side Yard 20' 16,5' 30' 13,5' (Tuxedo Blvd) Side Yard 40' 50' 1 O' Staff recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested, The building has existed in the neighborhood for a number of years with the current setbacks and will continue to function well into the future with the planned improvements, Requiring the building to meet the required setbacks would result in a.practical difficu..Ity, Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 Commissioners Questions: Reifschneider questioned if the area above the restaurant would be adding more seating. Merritt Geyen said that there no extra seating for the proposed plan. It was just the new design. The Building Official referred the Commission to the cross section in the packet and confirmed there is no additional seating on the second floor. Hanus questioned if there were any restrictions to cover the issue of no seating going into that area. Sutherland stated that if the permit was approved, the Conditional Use Permit would be granted on the plans submitted. No changes could be made without an amended Conditional Use Permit. Mueller questioned the access doors on the lower level on Piper Road. Sid Levin, Lake Country Builders explained how the access doors would be positioned. They would not be on Piper Road, it would be between Piper Road and Tuxedo Blvd. The deliveries would remain the same as they are currently. They are done on the premises. Chair Michael open the floor to the public. Ron DeVinney, 3214 Tuxedo Blvd, Understands that they want to improve their looks. He has a probl~,'m with parking issues. He feels the City needs to take a better look at the parking issues. On Drummond, traffic comes up and turns around in his driveway and many of the neighbors driveways too. Cars are constantly parking on the streets that are posted "No Parking" Bill Johnson, 5300 Piper Road, The restaurant is a positive in the community. He also feels that the traffic and parking is a significant load. Merritt Geyen, Owner of Al & Alma's stated that there are "no parking" signs posted on all the stre,ts around the restaurant. Mueller stated Mr DeVinney has been there longer than the boat business started. There has been more traffic created since the boats have started. Voss stated that if there is a problem with the parking, the police department needs to be notified of the problem. Mark Berglund, 5138 Hanover Road, Expressed concern with the parking issues. At one time, there were 15 cars parked on the sidewalk and the police didn't do anything. The Conditional Use Permits are not being followed by the applicant. The public beach i~J overrun by the charter boat people. He stated that his children cannot play at the park because there are too many drunk people. Planning Comm/s$ion Minutes September 8, 1997 Chair Michael questioned how many complaints have been made. Sutherland stated that the Planning department has received very few, but the Police department may have received complaints. Weiland questioned the ownership of the property just to the south. Merritt Geyen stated they purchased the property two years ago. Weiland questioned if Al & Alma's had adequate parking for their charter boat business and their regular business. Peter Jacobs, Lake Country Builders, stated he hardly heard any public complaints regarding the remodelling of the building. It seems to be that the parking situation is a city issue not Al & Alma's issue. Al & Alma's is not changing the use of the space nor will the seating space be changed. Loren Gordon stated that previous Conditional Use Permits will need to be reviewed for the parking issues. Chair Michael stated that the city and the Geyens need to work together on the parking issues. Sutherland stated that a Conditional Use Permit can have a condition to be reviewed in one year. Chair Michael stated that they are trying to negotiate a favorable solution for the Geyen's, the City, and the area residents. Hanus explained how if a condition was put on a Conditional Use Permit how it would be reviewed. Voss suggested if the business has grown, the Conditional Use Permit could be modified so that a security person could be added to help regulate parking. Reifschneider questioned why they could not turn the property to the south into a parking lot. Gordon stated that they were try to have a balance between green space and buildings and be sensitive to the residential neighborhood. The lot south of the restaurant is vacant and acts as a buffer zone between uses. This lot will remain vacant because it does not meet the lot area requirements. It could however be combined with another property or considered for a variance if it were to be built upon. Burma stated that even if the applicant is not putting an addition on the building, there is still the issue of parking space. Possibly the Geyen's need to add security. He suggested a meeting with the neighborhood and the Geyens to discuss the parking issues. Merritt Geyen stated they purchased Al & Alma's 15 years ago and parking spaces have been taken away since that time due to concerns of the neighbors. Now parking is not allowed on the streets. They do try to get people to come out to Al & Alma's Planning Commission Minutes Se131~ernber 8, 1997 in buses and try to eliminate or reduce traffic. They are not asking for anything more and have given up alot. They do not want a outdoor porch Many of the area residents use the park. ' They have no intention of adding seating to the restaurant. Mark Berglund, stated the reason why the neighborhoods have gone to no parking streets is because of Al & Alma's Chair Michael closed public hearing. Discussion: Hanus recommended a traffic study of the area. Voss feels that the parking situation is a policing issue. Citizens should go to the police department. Chief Harrell should be aware of the concerns of the neighbors to Al & Alma's regarding parking. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation with a one year review of the Conditional Use Permit. The motion carried 6-0. Variance: Case #97-43 MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff recommendation The motion carried 6-0. ' Staff suggested these two cases go to City Council on October 14, 1997 and the applicant agreed. LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS' 4 September 1997 Mr. Jon Suthefland, Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 L A K E C O U N T R Y 339 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR,MN 55331 I U I L D E' R S", I N C 612. 474. 7121 612.474.7957 Dear Mr. Sutherland, Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to speak with Loren Gordon, who was referred to me by Mark Koegler. I was calling, per your suggestion, to set up a meeting between you and me, Mark Koegler, and the Guyens regarding their applications for variance and conditional use permits. At this meeting, we were to all get familiar with the applications, tie up any loose ends, understand any issues that Mark may have regarding the application, and generally make sure that in obtaining your staff assistance, there was nothing else that needed to be addressed. When I spoke to Loren, he told me that he and Mark understood the application thoroughly, there was nothing missing, and that they had no issues with the application architecturally or otherwise. He stated that any issues relating to the conditional use permit we are applying for now are the same issues that they have always had to deal with A1 8: Alma's. Therefore, he told me that this meeting was not necessary, and that everything could be taken care of at the scheduled meetings with the planning commission and city council. As I explained to you, and again to Loren, as the architectural designer, these ongoing issues that the city has with A1 & Alma's are not something that I can address. Daryl and Merritt can do so at the official meetings. The conditions existing now at the restaurant, in regards to noise, parking, traffic congestion, etc. are not being altered by the extent of the current remodeling plans and would remain the same after the proposed project is completed. To a different issue, thank you for your insight into the idea of a fire door and/or loading/ receiving door to the new front storage room. Daryl and Merritt do want that in the plans, so I have revised the site plan, basement plan, and an elevation to address this change. Enclosed you will find two full scale revised plans, two reduced revised plans, and 5 sets of the three pages that were changed. Please add these to the planning and council members applications if possible. If you need additional copies, please let me know. And, if you cannot do this, can you bring these revised plans to the meeting on Monday, or let me know that you did not get them added, so that I can make other arrangements? Again, thank you for all your help. I have greatly appreciated all o£you hssistance and insight into this entire project. My best regards, UN~DERS, INC. ~oio~evin,~Design Encl: 2 reduced revised full blueprints 2 revised full blueprints - 5 sets of the 3 altered pages RECEIVED SEP - 8 1997 ~O~IJND FLANNING & INSP. SITE PLAN /RECEIVED RI MOUND VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 AUG 2 I 1997 ApplS~t~rl~FeMOL~0.00 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) ?lanning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner ~"City Engineer Public Works DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Lot [~Zm~ ~ g ~l~fC~ Block Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 ~ Address ~'7,,O1 ~}t~E~- lq-o0cO MPI,,'N9 Nlq ~c~;)(o~' Phone (H). ~"!'l--~}~, .(W). z~"'12,- 1,~>'~ (M). Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever beep ~ade for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? [~K[~yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 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 (), NoV. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED ~9~!sfing) , Front Yard: ((~ S E W ) ~ 0 ft. o.~ I.~ ff. Side Yard: ( N S~W ) ~' ~. ~o · I~. Side Yard: ( N S E ~) ~' ~. Rear Yard: ( N~E W ) ~O' ~. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ~. · (NSEW) ~. ff. Street Frontage: ft. Lot Size: IOt~Oo sq ff Hardcover: ~ sq ~ 'ZT~IZq sq Z7, VARIANCE ft. ff. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft (~o Does the present use ~f½he property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), Nofi~. 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 ~>q[ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 3~ .(Rdv. ]/']4197) Ill ~ & .L, , I, , I,~ Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. 5/ 7- ~~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No-x/x),. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No 'fyi,. If yes, explain: Yes (), o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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/~4797) Date HARDCOVER CALCULATIONR (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA ,~ ~9 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ' LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I 2._/_~,,,~~1 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. LENGTH WIDTH SQ ~ ~ ~ ~- X = X = x = TOTAL HOUSE (GARAGE/SHED) X = TOTAL DETACHED DRIVEWAY, PARKING ~ 5~5 = /o~ AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ~s~X sTe~ = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. X opening be~een boards) with a X pe~ious surface under are X = not counted as hardcover TOTAL DECK OTHER· ~bC X = ~°c~/~L~ TOTAL OTHER ~80 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) .................... ; .......... PREPARED BY DATE 21 August 1997 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 ADDENDUM TO: Application for Conditional Use Permit for Daryl or Merritt Geyen Al & Alma's Supper Club 5201 Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 Description of Proposed Use and Renovation Narrative The owners of Al & Alma's Supper Club, Daryl and Men-iR Geyen have expressed the desire to address several concerns and issues they have with their restaurant. Most importantly, they wish to address the safety and energy loss issues within their building's front eating area: · The small step between the front and back dining sections needs to be removed, by raising the height of the front dining area. · The foundation, or lack thereof, supporting the front exterior walls requires replacement if any new construction is to be built above it. · The windows along the lake side are leaky and in poor condition, and need to be replaced with high efficiency windows. Knowing that a new foundation is necessary, the Geyens are interested in further imporvements to the building, both cosmetically and functionally. · Due to the unique nature of the building, having been remodeled at several different times by several different owners, the building has a disjointed feel to the exterior. The Geyens would like to bring the visible exterior facades together with a Nantucket / Cape Cod architype. · Likewise, on the interior, the Geyens wish to update the interior in a similar manner. · With this interior remodeling and new front lakeside walls, we would like to build a new roof system over the front dining room that will allow for a balcony from the upper eating area to look down upon the lower level, as well as maintain its view to the lake. · Functionally, the Geyens are looking for more storage space, and would like to build a storage basement under the front dining area, as long as the foundation is being rebuilt. · Finally, the Geyens would like to add a covered entry to the side facade for architectural appeal as well as the desire to provide shelter from the elements at the main entry to the restaurant. The entry would be relocated to a point roughly 14 feet to the south. RENOVATION NARRATIVE · We would like to tear off the front eating area of the building and build a full basement under the new area for storage along approximately the same footprint as the existing front area. · The higher (proposed 10'-4") walls will permit lots of windows facing the lake. · Directly above the curved section of the eating area will be a flat roof with a roof deck above for aesthetic purposes only (no access or seating will be provided). · The front gable of the second floor will be extended approximately 11 feet to allow it to vault down upon the eating area from above. · A balcony will be created at the second floor to allow for a visual connection between the two floors, making the dining experience on both levels an enjoyable one. · The front entry will be relocated to the main dining area, with a double door, 6'-0" entry system and thermal break. · This will allow for an improved view to more diners while not adding any additional seating. · Finally, the curved facade of the front dining room will continue along as a covered entry "porch" added to the Tuxedo Road side, the two main facades of the building will be resided, detailed and re-roofed to bring in a unifying exterior feel similar to a Nantucket architype. Effects of the Proposed Use The Geyens wish to assure the City of Mound and all of their neighbors that they in no way wish to add any additional occupancy load or seating, nor any additional parking spaces as part of this remodeling project. Moreover, the intentions of this renovation project shall not create any additional traffic, noise, smoke or odors. It is a project that we feel will add to the overall beauty of the site and building, increase the functional aspects of the building, remove the safety hazards, and upgrade the energy efficiency of the windows and walls along the front facade of the restaurant. This remodeling and updating should be a terfiffic improvement to their establishment as well as to the City of Mound. 21 August 1997 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 ADDENDUM TO: Application for Conditional Use Permit for Daryl or Men-itt Geyen A! & Alma's Supper Club 5201 Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 Development Schedule August 21, 1997 September 1997 October 1997 November 1, 1997 March 1, 1998 Submittal of Applications for Conditional Use Permit and Variance Further detailing of blueprints and specifications Anticipated acceptance of Variance and Grant of conditional use permit Final blueprint and specification modifications Project let-out to contractor for bid Submittal for Application for Building Permit Anticipated construction start-up Anticipated "Grand Re-Opening" Anticipated overall developmem cost: $200,000.00 ~Z.'. -. h ' ' ~' -: :"}:¢; ~. *' : TUXEDo ': :~.':;.' © r"- > PROJECT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR AL & ALMA'S Clvl Enamels, Lm~ Swveyers, Lind ~ Ii I 0 ? T ~ X ~ D 0 remodelin~ desitin for ~. ~ ~4! and ~4~ma's Suppr,~' '- ' ~ ~'~ -' 5201 Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 Z © Z © © ~'t and ~'tma'~ Suppe~ 5201- Pier Road, Mo~ ~ 55364 lift J I i, ,BI, ,i~ i ~, .q r~'nodeling desi~z~s for !1 _i .o -. . , . 5201. Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 ~lt a.~ 5201 Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 I I · ~- - 5201 Piper Road, Mound, MN 55364 5201 Piper Road. Mound. M'N 55364 ' CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE: R2 14,000/80 LOf DEI'I Ih IU H I~;F ........ ~II)F RI:AP 1()1' ()F tll III:F liARI)('OVFR ,.,,~, )R 40% ... .~ ~ ',,_ ~- / ('ONFoRI'.IIN('J? YES ! NO ~ / ';' J BY 4 ~ r- I I,i.: Z.,Hnr J.fiwmnlion Sit.et only mmtmnrizes n portion of the tequiremenl~ o.llined i. Ihe City of Mound Zoning Ordinate. For ~r/ber information, cofllRct the City of Mound rlnn,,i.~ l)epmtme.l nt 472 O6~. Cl1Y COU;'ICl 9-21-7~1 ~ H, October 14, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO BUILD A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID # 30-117-23 22 0086 P&Z CASE//96-62 WHEREAS, the applicants, Scott and Linda Mack are requesting a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-IA zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 40 feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, a side yard setback of 6 feet for lots or record, a lakeshore setback of 50 feet and a minimum lot dept of 80 feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed 22'x 24' garage is conforming to required setbacks and other related sections of the ordinance and is a reasonable use of the property; and, WHEREAS, the existing deck on the south side was built without obtaining a building permit and it is currently encroaching into the lakeshore setback and utility easement; and, WHEREAS, there is an excess of impervious surface on this lot and the applicant has agreed to reduce the impervious surface to 40% as permitted for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the existing split rail fence in the west yard and front yard was erected without obtaining a building permit and is located in the drainage and utility easement and, WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: Block 1, Lot 15, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 WHEREAS, there are special concerns with this property related to stormwater drainage and the in place city storm sewer has required additional design consideration review and additional conditions by the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, the existing lower deck on the south side has no permit history, is nonconforming to the Building and Zoning code, and the consensus of the planning commission is that the lower deck should be removed; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to obtain after the fact permits for the fence and deck and has agreed to revise the proposal to remove the portion of the deck that is constructed OctoOer 14, 1997 within the easement. The applicant has agreed to reduce the size of the lower deck to 4'x8' and this will provide a landing for the existing patio door; and, WHEREAS, after considerable review by the city staff, planning commission and including public comment, it has been determined that the proposed upper deck be limited to a maximum of 10 feet wide where it does not conform to the required 50 foot setback and this is a reasonable use of the property; and, WHEREAS, staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 8-0 vote, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby approves a variance of 10 feet to the required 50 foot lakeshore setback for the upper deck in order to allow the construction of a conforming detached garage with the following conditions: Only one elevated above grade deck within the 50 foot setback with the 10 foot allotment. o o The at grade determination needs to be made by the Building Official and be approved by the City Council. Drainage from the garage be retained within the parcel itself so it does not increase any runoff into neighboring properties. It is determined that the liveability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming~-.~e o~he property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: sSc~m-~'-cx;,. Reconstruction of a nonconforming decks and construction of a conforming detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 15, Block 1, Devon This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City October 14, 1997 Clerk. Additional recommendations by Staff: The location of the city easements shall be staked in the field to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Building Official and all portions of the encroaching deck shall be removed from the easements prior to building permit issuance for the detached garage. Double fees will be assessed for all after the fact construction as is the normal process (including the fence). Bo The building permits and grading plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. The lower deck shall be reduced to a maximum of 4'x8' prior to permit issuance for the detached garage. D. The hardcover be limited to a maximum of 40 %. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1997 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Gerald Reifschneider, Mike Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent and excused: Becky Glister. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, Planning Secretary Kris Linquist. Case # 96-62: Variance Request regarding the Encroachment of Deck in order to construct a conforming garage, Scott Mack, 4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed this case which was referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council to review a number of issues as follows: Updated survey is attached and an additional memorandum from the City Engineer dated October 9, 1997 and staffs response to the Council concerns. 1. The applicants modified deck; The applicant has modified the location and size of the deck to remove the portion that encroaches into the easement. This modification is consistent with the Planning Commissions recommendation to allow a maximum of a 10 foot wide deck in the area that is setback less than 50 feet to the lake. 2. The split rail fence in the easement adjacent on the street and along the west property line; The fence may or may not be considered an encroachment. It has been found to be a normal practice for other cities that fences are not prohibited from being in an easement. Staff recommends an after the fact permit be issued for the fence. 3. The storm sewer pipe has been located on the survey, it is located within the easement, and this issue has been addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Storm water drainage; The issue of storm water has been addressed by the applicants engineer, and the City Engineer in his previous memorandum. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1997 Page 2 5. Hardcover; The applicants proposal is now limited to a maximum of 40% and is conforming to the code. In addition, there is the adjacent green space on the commons that improves the filtration of storm water from this and adjacent sites. The Staff Recommendation is for approval as stated in the previous reports. Discussion: Mueller stated that the deck is different than in previous surveys. Sutherland agreed and his understanding of the previous planning commission recommendation was that the deck could be up to 10 foot wide deck wherever it was less than 50 feet from the lakeshore. The new deck is not going to be wider than 10 feet at any point. The applicant has revised his plan so the lower deck will be taken out of the easement, the existing deck will be cut back. Hanus confirmed that there would be new construction on the deck. Weiland stated that an agreement needs to be written up regarding the fence and easement. Sutherland stated there is an agreement in the packet, however, staff recommendation is to allow the fence without the agreement. A homeowner putting up an fence in the easement is doing it at their own risk, and the City may remove the fence if need be. Scott Mack stated that the portion of the non conforming deck is only going to be about 70 square feet. Hanus suggested that the upper deck not exceed the lower deck. Mueller inquired on how steep are the stairs coming down off that deck. Mack stated that they are basically the way they are now and they are going to be pushed back so they will be losing deck space. Mr. Smith, 4665 Island View Drive, stated that they would like to have a line of sight through the lower deck. They had concerns on how to have the Storm Sewer easement on their property vacated. Sutherland stating that 1) Request for a Sewer vacation of the easement would be required. 2) Responded that we do not have a line of sight ordinance. 3) The Staff is aware of the lower deck encroachment and that staff recommendation is the easement is to be staked by the surveyor and anything that encroaches into the easement will be removed. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1997 Page 3 Hanus stated that the drainage from the roof of the garage, is directed so that it passes the neighorbors house toward the lake. Reifschneider questioned why the Planning Commission should allow two nonconforming decks. He stated he would like to see one of the decks removed. There was discussion related to the zoning code exceptions for a detached deck less than 30" from grade that does not have to meet the normal 50 foot setback. Motion by Mueller to accept staff recommendation with the following alterations: 1. only one elevated above grade deck within the 50 foot setback with the 10 foot allotment. 2. The at grade determination needs to be made by the Building Official and be approved by the City Council. 3. Drainage from the garage be retained within the parcel itself, so it does not increase any runoff into neighboring property. Staff discussed the difficulty in the modifying the existing drainage pattern. Mueller withdrew his motion. Motion by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma, to accept staff recommendation with the following alterations: 1. only one elevated above grade deck within the 50 foot setback with the 10 foot allotment. 2. The at grade determination needs to be made by the Building Official and be approved by the City Council. 3. Drainage from the garage be retained within the parcel itself, so it does not increase any runoff into neighboring property. Discussion: Voss questioned page 107 regarding the drainage. The motion carried 8-0. This case will go to the City Council Meeting on October 14, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1997 Page 4 Information' City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 Weiland stated that it payed to bring Meyer's case back. The property is really starting to look nice. The retaining wall is now in place. Motion by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 pm. There was additional discussion related to what staff considered an on grade deck. The conclusion of this discussion was that there is a conflict between zoning code sections relating to the required 50 foot setback. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: Planning Commission Agenda of 10-13-97 City Council Agenda of 10-14-97 City Council, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official JO~J~ ~, Variance Request, Case #96-62 4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 Attached are the City Council minutes from the meeting of 9-23-97 at which the Council referred this case back to the commission for additional input. Also attached is another updated survey and an additional memorandum from the City Engineer dated October 9, 1997 and staffs response to the Councils concerns. 1. The applicants modified deck; The applicant has modified the location and size of the deck to remove the portion that encroaches into the easement. This modification is consistent with the Planning Commissions recommendation to allow a maximum of a 10 foot wide deck in the area that is setback less than 50 feet to the lake. 2. The split rail fence in the easement adjacent o the street and along the west property line; The fence may or may not be considered an encroachment. It has been found to be a normal practice for other cities that fences are not prohibited from being in an easement. Staff recommends an after the fact permit be issued for the fence. 3. The storm sewer pipe has been located on the survey, it is located within the easement, and this issue has been addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Storm water drainage; The issue of storm water has been addressed by the applicants engineer, and the City Engineer in his previous memorandum. 5. Hardcover; The applicants proposal is now limited to a maximum of 40% and is conforming to the code. In addition there is the adjacent green space on the commons that improves the filtration of storm water from this and adjacent sites. The Staff Recommendation is for approval as stat.ed in the previous reports. The abutting neighbors have been notified of th/s request. This case/s scheduled to be heard by the City Counc/I on October 14, 1997. Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 D/STRICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3 & S1/2 OF 47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID'S 23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050 AS AMENDED DELETING ITEMS//3-#6 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Hanus indicated that it is not his intention to be reviewing conditional use permits year after year on a regular basis. Once issues are cleared up, it would be his intention to remove the annual review provision from the permit. 1.19 CASE //96-62: VARIANCE REQUEST, SCOTT AND LIN'DA MACK, 4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, LOT 15~ BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID 30-11%23 22 0086 Loren Gordon provided a staff report. He indicated that Scott and Linda Mack are proposing to build a detached garage. He pointed out various issues related to the variance that were conditions to receiving variance approval. John Cameron indicated that he reviewed, with the Public Works Superintendent, storm sewer issues which included the outlet at the lake and the catch basin in Island View Drive. The capability of the catch basin was discussed and the need for it to be monitored for cleaning. Cameron mentioned that there are erosion control measures that could be taken but there would be costs related to those measures and the question as to who would pay for these improvements. Cameron believes that the garage could be constructed and won't cause any additional problems and said the storm sewer system will likely handle most storms but if a major rainfall occurs, the catch basin and the outlet may not be able to handle the rain particularly if the system is undersized. At this point in time, he did not know the actual size of the storm sewer and cannot make a judgment on the system. There is uncertainty as to whether the storm sewer pipe is in the easement area. Councilmember Hanus asked the Planner about the new portion of deck requested and why this request has not been brought before the Planning Commission previously. The City Attorney stated that his recommendation would be to deal with the deck which is before the City Council and that the Council not deal with the new portion of the deck as part of the action before them this evening. Mound City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 Hanus stated his concern regarding a fence in the easement area and the maintenance of the stormwater pipe that runs down the one side of the property. More discussion was held on the possible location of the storm sewer pipe. It appears that there is not enough information to make a decision on this application at this time. Scott Mack, applicant, stated that the fence on the easement was approved and he received a permit for the fence. Hanus stated that there were two different fences, one that was removable and one was more permanent. Mack stated that Jon Sutherland, Building Official, had the opinion that the new portion of the deck was allowable since the Planning Commission recommended that the deck had already been approved by the Commission which said that the deck could be located 10' into the 50' setback and staying off the encroachments of the other easements. Acting Mayor Ahrens explained the City's concern regarding the easement in relationship to a garage being located on the easement and that if the City needed to dig up the storm sewer pipe, it would affect the floor of the garage since it would have to be torn up. John Cameron suggested that Mark Gronberg, surveyor for Mr. Mack, attempt to locate the storm sewer pipe and place it on the survey. Hanus expressed his concern over the storm sewer and the drainage. He wants to be comfortable with the solution regarding the diverting of the stormwater. Ahrens expressed concern regarding the hardcover calculations since it appears the hardcover is in excess of 40%. Gordon explained that the permit cannot be issued if the hardcover is more than 40%. Ahrens stated that more hardcover is going to increase the drainage issues. Hanus suggested that staff establish where the storm sewer pipe is located. He also asked that an easement be established to service that pipe. In addition, the matter should be sent back to Planning Commission regarding the storm sewer pipe, the easement and the new deck issues. Further, right of way should be investigated in the area of the catch basin to reduce the drainage problem. The Planning Commission will probably need to review the zoning ordinance and fences as it relates to this matter. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to follow Mr. Hanus' suggestions so that the Planning Commission can hear the matter on October 13, 1997 and that the matter could be turned over to the City Council at the October 14, 1997 regular meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 10 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Jon Sutherland Cameron, City Engineer FROM: John DATE: October 9, 1997 SUBJECT: City of Mound Variance Request Scot and Linda Mack Case No. 96-62 FILE: MFRA #11782 I have reviewed the most recent updated survey for the subject property which shows the location of the existing storm sewer and underground electrical service and have the following comments and recommendations: The in-place storm sewer, as located by public works to best of their ability without exposing the pipe or contracting an outside service, shows the pipe to be within the existing easements. It is also far enough away from the proposed garage to not cause any concerns during construction of the garage or future replacement of the pipe. The existing underground electrical however is a difference matter. The service was installed for the City when the lift station was remodeled and as the survey indicates, it is located right at the edge of the 5 foot wide easement rather then in the center as normally installed. This may have been done to avoid any conflict with the existing storm sewer line. The proposed garage is only one foot off the easement line and probably could be constructed without disturbing the underground electric. However, if the line ever needed to be repaired, it would be very difficult to expose this line by machine with the garage so close. Most likely, if there is ever a failure of this underground line, a new service would be installed from the source at the power pole to the lift station control center. For this reason, we would recommend that nothing be done at this time with the underground services, as long as the garage can be constructed without disturbing it. An Equal Opportunity Employer Jon Sutherland October 9, 1997 Page 2 The situation of the power pole and the first 20'+ of underground service not being located in an easement is probable not that unusual in Mound where we do not have utility and drainage easements adjacent to street right-of-ways. The City could request additional easements to cover this area but I am not sure this is absolutely necessary. 3. The question of ownership of the property eroding along the north side of Island View Drive in the area of the catch basin was raised at the last Council meeting. We have checked City records and find that this is all private property. The only City owned parcel is Lot 13, Block 3 at the southwesterly comer of Hanover and Island View Drive. e:~main:\l 1782ksuth10-8 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY~ SCOTT MACK OF LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ogl - B ~997 I (94.3.6) ..... I:-; .-- (940.~) .. t,a)'a -~ ~.c/~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lot 15, Block t, DEVON o : denotes iron morker (939.4): denotes existing spot elevotion, meon seo level dotum ~: denotes proposed spot elevotion, meon seo level dotum ' : denotes distonce os shown on the plot of DEVON Beorings shown ore hosed upon on ossumed dotum. I I I This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, the Io'cotion of on existing house, ond the proposed {ocotion of o proposed goroge thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochments. - ~26 * ..... Wli J , ' FR,~NI{ ROOS No, 8766 P, 2/2 Mc-Combs Frank Boos Associates, lnc, 15050 23rd Avenue Nor[h, Plymouth, Minnesot~ 554474739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Ptanners Surveyors SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mound City Council FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer DATE: September 18, 1997 SUBJECT: City of Mound Variance Request - Scott and Linda Mack Cast #96-62 MFRA #11782 At the request of the City Manager and adjacent property owners, I revisited the subject property on September 17, 1997 accompanied by Crreg Skinner. We specifically looked at the City street, Island View Drive and the storm sewer system. I also visited with the new resident at 4649 Island View Drive (Lot 14), because she had called me on Tuesday, September 16, 1997 fo[lowing a fairly hard rainstorm. She was concerned that most of the runoff from the common driveway was ending up in their yard and did not drain sufficiently to the lake and that the garage construction would add to the problem. We discussed some options they had that possibly could help the situation. The increased hard cover area resulting from the garage construction that will drain towards Lot 14 is approximately 160 square feet, which should not appreciably increase the runoff. Oreg and I also looked at the condition of the existing storm sewer system and street. The outlet at the lake was not visible and needs to be exposed to make sure it is not restricted. The catch basin in Island View Drive appears to be functioning properly. There was quite a bit of silt that had washed down the street and was deposited at the inlet. This particular catch basin may need more frequent maintenance than other locations in the City. The City Building Inspector and Planner were at this location near the end of the rainstorm on Tuesday and indicated they thought the storm sewer was functioning adequately. There is no curb along the high side opposite the catch basin which could allow the sU'eet to overflow quicker in a larger rainstorm. This is not to say that this street could not use work as most City streets of this age need constant maintenance. Without doing a complete study of this drainage area, it is virtually impossible to determine the capacity required in a system such as this for a normal 5 or l0 year storm. Sep. 18, 1997 2'O?PM Mound City Council September 18, 1997 MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No. 8768 The neighbor on Lot 16, Mr. Mark Smith, has expressed concerns abou! the survey and proposed design of the swale not being adequate. If and when an application is submitted for a building permit for the garage, the City would normally add conditions requiring items such as; silt fence, bale ditch check, tuff restoration, etc. He also asked about a drawing (cross section) of the proposed swale. Since this swale is only one foot deep, we did not feel it was necessary to provide a detailed drawing but this could also be a condition of the permit. e:~nain:\] l ?g2\memog-] [ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: City Council Agenda of 9-9-97 City Council, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~. Variance Request, Case//96-62 4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 This case was heard for the second time at the June 9, 1997 Planning Commission (PC) Meeting where Staff had again recommended approval of a variance to construct a garage that is conforming to setbacks, the PC also recommended approval with the conditions as listed below. The staff report, PC recommendation, and the related miniutes are attached. 1. The revised survey and a revised drainage plan that would be submitted to the City Engineer for review and comments. Cogent: The revised survey has been submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer who recommending approval with conditions, note the attached memo dated August 21, 1997. 2. Impervious surface is to be limited to 40 %. Cogent.' The applicant is willing to remove some of the existing poly under the landscaping and meet the 40 % limit, a new calculation sheet has also been submitted by the contractor and is included in the packet. There is also the adjacent commons green space that reduces the impact of hardcover on the site, the site is considered conforming at 40 %. 3. The deck be modified to 10 feet where it does not meet the 50 foot setback to the lake. Comment: The applicant has submitted a permit application to modify the deck as suggested, and will completly remove all portions from the easement, note the revised survey dated 6-19-97. printed on recycled paper Mack Report SepTember 17, Page 2 1997 4. Slightly modify the easement. Comment: The easement does not need to be modified due to the modification of the proposed modification of the deck. 5. The fence is not permitted to be in the easement, it needs to be reviewed. Comment: After reviewing the policy of numerous other cities, it was found to be the normal practice that fences are permitted within an easement and are not considered an encroachment. The split rail fence has a minimal impact to the easement and can easely be removed if the need arises. If the commission or council feel an agreement is necessary, one has been prepared and is included your packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with the conditions as listed below; 1) The encroaching deck be removed from the easement. Double fees will be assessed for all after the fact construction as is the normal process (including the fence). 2) The building permits and grading plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 12, 1996. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND o 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone' 4,72-0600 Fax' 472-0620 The applicant is: ~__.owner __contractor __tenant LEGAL Lot / ~ Block J Plat./ DESCRIPTION Subdivision I1~"'t~0 N PIO~ CONTRACTOR Company Name D ~K~ E/~ License ~ Address Phone (H) (W) (M) ARCHITECT Name · /OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) {W) (M~ CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: lVALUATION OF WORK VALUE APPROVED BY INSPECTOR SEPARATE ~RMI. ~ ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING. HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR "0NDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK ~ -'01'JETRuCT:C.',Z TIME L;M~T3 ON ~UIL=ING COMPL~ION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR N~N CON.RUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, &NC ALTERAT.CNS , ~ , ~= :.~, :~m~ ~r ANt =~IL~IN~ OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DI~RICT SHA~ ~E ;CMPL~ED WITHIN ONE [1) Y~R FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT TSS~A~;C~. THE =~SCN NOT LE~5 THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS OAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-Y~R PERIC0. ~ROVISiCN5 OF ANY GTHER STATE'~R LOCAL ~W NEGU~TING CONSTRUCtIOn'OR ~ANCE TRUCT N. DATE (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS: DDNSTALJCT~GN TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / OIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · COPIED I APPROVE2 I ZONING · UN~TS YES I NO I PUBUC WORKS ~ECEIVED ~Y .' DATE: ~NS CHECKED BY: ~ROVED BY / DATE:~ ASSESSING CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY~ SCOTT MACK OF LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVON HENNEPIN .COUNT' ~INNESOT. A ~,. '- ,~, % ~'".... ~ %, '//~ / '0/.% ,' ' ". LE6AL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ~0~~ Lot ~5, Block ~, DEVON ~ : d~pt~ ir~n m~r~r ~: denot~s propo~d ~pot ~l~wtion, mean s~ I~v~l datum * : denotes distance as shown on the plot of DEVON " Beorlngs shown ore based upon on assumed datum. ' ' This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described p~(~perty. the location of on existing house, and the proposed location of o proposed goroge thereon. I, does not purport to show any other improvement~ or encroachme~s.S~J'T~Z~--/4 Iii ~ I I ii, il~ IL ~,~ I, , IJ BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND ~ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 The apl31icant is: _L~wne~''~ __contractor __tenant LEGAL Lot / ~ Block I Plat DESCRIPTION Subdivision O~V'O~ PID~ CONTRACTOR Company Name License ~ Contact Person Address Phone (H) (W) (M) ARCHITECT Name &IOR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M) OHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: l VALUATION VALUE APPROVED OF WORK BY INSPECTOR SEPARATE ==-RMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. ~LUMBING. HEATING. VENTILATING OR AIR ~'.ONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK CR ~'.ONSTRUCT!ON AUT~.C;iTE" :S NCT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, 0R IF C0N~RUCTION 0R WORK ;S $USP~DED 0R ABANDONED FOR A P~RIOD 0F 180 OAYS AT ANY TIME A~ WGRK ;S TIME L;MIT$ ON BUrLDrNG COMPL~ION. A~ WORK TO ~[ PERFORMED PURSUANT T0 A BUIL~ING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR N~N CON.RUCTION, R~AIRS, REMODELING. AN~ ALTERATIONS ~ ~[ ~.~, =~ ~ ANY gUiL~IN~ OR ~RUCTURE IN ANY ZONING OlSTRIC. SHA~ ~E COMPLIED WITHIN ONE (1) Y~R PROM THE DATE OF P~MIT ISSUA~:C[. THE ~ERSCN CBTAININ~ THE =ERMIT ANO THE OWNER OF THE PROP~TY $HA~ 8[ RESPON$ BLE FCR C0MPL~ION. A VIO~TION 0F THIS 0R01NANC[ I$ A MISDEMEANCR CFF[NSE. THE CiTY C0UNC:L MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPL~ION UPON WRI~EN REQUEST 0F ~E PE~MI~E[. E~ABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE C~Tv C0UNC:L THAT NCT ~E[S -NAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ~D OF THE ONE-Y~R PERICD. [ HE~ESv :[RTiFV THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APP~CATION AND KNOW TH~ SAME T0 ~ETRUE AND CORR~ A~ eROV SONS OF ~WS AND 0RD NANTES GOVERNING THIS ,Y~[ :F WORK WI~ BE COMPLIED WITH WHINER SP~IFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE ~R~TIN~0F A P~MIT OO~ PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIO~TE 0R CANCE. THE (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS: CCNST~[UCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · COPIED ARPRCVE0 I ZDNING BL"3G $;7E lSD FT) · STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? ~ C~ ~GINEER I U~TS YES / NOm PUBIC WORKS I RECEIVED SY ,' DATE: ~NS CHECKED BY: A~OVED BY / DATE: ~$ESSING M~ COUNC'~SAC ~ AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of the 1997 by and between the CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, corporation ("Grantor") and Scott and Linda Mack ("Grantees"). __ day of , a Minnesota municipal BACKGROUND 1. Grantees are the owners of real property ("Property") located in the City of Mound having a street address of 4657 Island View Drive and legally described as follows, to wit: Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. The Property is subject to an easement in favor of the City over, under, across and through the westerly 5.0 feet of the Property; and recorded on July 21, 1987 as document 1852901 in the office of the Registrar of Titles. 3. The Grantees are desirous of maintaining a fence on the area of the property which is subject to the easement; and the Grantor is willing to permit a fence to be maintained thereon provided the Grantees enter into this agreement. RECITALS NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: 1. Consent. The City hereby consents to allow the Grantee to maintain, install and reinstall the fence within the easement area. 2. Right to Remove. Grantees hereby agree that Grantor shall have the right to remove the fence located in the easement areas in order to construct, reconstruct, maintain or repair utilities installed or to be installed within the easement area. Grantee hereby releases Grantor, its officers, agents and employees from any claim or cause of action arising out of or occasioned by removal of or damage or destruction to the fence by Grantor pursuant to its rights hereunder. 3. No Other Approvals Presumed. The Grantor's consent hereunder shall not be deemed to relieve Grantee from complying with all governmental regulations relating to the installation, location and maintenance of fences. 4. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties herein and to their respective successors and assigns. Agreement Page 2 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. GRANTEES CITY OF MOUND BY: Its: BY: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of 1997, by Bob Polston and Edward J. Shukle, Jr., the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, on behalf of the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was ,1997, by Grantees named above. acknowledged before me this and day of Notary Public 82/83/1994 86:81 G129410197 du~ebllt DURABILT ASSOC lNG Name Phone:H_ q?~--,-?Sq~ PAGE 7343 ANN COURT o EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA .~5348 · 93893~3 Scale 81 Zip Code _w Date McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors ME M 0 R A ND UM TO: FROM: Mound City Council John Cameron, City Engineer DATE: August21,1997 SUBJECT: City of Mound Variance Request - Scott & Linda Mark Case #96-62 MFRA # 11782 I have reviewed the most recent survey dated June 19, 1997 as well as the Planning Commission minutes and conditions contained in their motion of approval from the June 9, 1997 meeting and have the following comments and recommendations regarding conditions 1 and 4: Item # 1: The revised grading plan shows a swale to be constructed between the proposed garage and the westerly lot line. This swale should carry the normal runoff from the northerly portion of lot 15 and the area of the proposed garage to a point approximately half way to the existing house, which is past the home on Lot 16. At this location, the natural drainageway swings westerly onto the adjacent property (lot 16) and continues southerly to the lake. Most of this drainageway on lot 16 is covered by an easement for the storm sewer pipe which runs from the catchbasin in Island View Drive to the lake. (Document #915553.) This easement is not shown on the survey for lot 15 because it evidently was only recorded against lot 16. The 5 foot wide utility easement shown on lot 15 as document #1852901 was recorded in 1987, evidently when the house was built. Field observation indicates that the in-place storm sewer pipe on lot 16, may not be located within the recorded easement. We are recommending approval of the grading plan. Item #4: As originally recommended, the 15 foot wide easement for access to the lift station needs to be expanded southerly, approximately 5 feet. This will not solve the problem of the existing deck and stairs encroaching into the present easement. To correct that situation, a portion of the existing easement would need to be vacated, which will require further action by the City. It would be in the best interest of both the City and homeowner to correct the encroachment problem. e:'a'nain:\l 1782\m-emo821 An Equal Opportunity Employer Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 Eo CASE #96-62: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, SCOTT & LINDA MACK, 4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID #30-117-23 22 0086. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, passed out photos he had received from the neighbors to the west, as the neighbor was concerned about the water runoff. Sutherland reviewed his report. On October 28, 1996 the Planning Commission tabled this case requesting the applicant to provide the specific information as listed below. The applicant has submitted the requested information and the staff comments are listed after each item. He referred to the original staff report dated 10-28-96 for further reference. An updated survey including: All existing and proposed structures including decks, the joint driveway shall be delineated, existing and proposed elevations, and a drainage and grading plan. Staff Comments: The survey has been updated and now shows the lakeside deck is set back 43 feet to the lake. A 50 foot setback is required and this results in a 7 foot variance request. The deck is also encroaching onto the city easements. The encroachment can be resolved by expanding the easement to the south as required by the City Public Works Director and the City Engineer. Both the Engineer and the Public Works Director have reviewed the case, visited the site, and are comfortable with a simple 5-6 foot expansion of the easement. The applicant must prepare the easement document for review and approval by the City Engineer and Attorney, and the document must be recorded prior to 82 Minutes. Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 building permit issuance. The joint driveway, existing and proposed elevations and a drainage plan are noted on the revised survey. One option discussed with the owner and contractor is to move the proposed garage to the north (about three feet away from the entry stairway), in order to save the existing clump of birch trees. This issue can be accomplished prior to the building permit issuance, and has a positive impact on drainage with the additional green space between the garage and the lake. 2. The floor elevation of the proposed garage in relation to the driveway shall be clarified. Staff Comments: The floor elevation has been clarified and could be modified slightly if the garage is moved further to the north as suggested by staff. Three feet was discussed 3. Location of off-site easements on adjacent properties shall be clarified. Staff Comments: The location of the easements has been clarified and is not affected by the proposal. (Note: the applicants proposed garage and the adjacent owners garage are about equal distances to the property line and both will have about the same difficulty with access). They will both have the same issue. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: The proposed garage will have a minor effect and slightly increase the runoff/drainage on this and the adjacent properties. Directing stormwater around the west side is preferred due to the additional green space on this side. The commons property between this site and the lake minimizes the excess of impervious surface and improves the stormwater infiltration. The impervious surface is conforming at less than 40 %. The pictures handed out show and exceptional occasion with the storm runoff, this is not a normal rainfall runoff. The catch basin could have been blocked. The catch basin could not handle a 50 year rainfall. The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck, however, is located over the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the lift station on the southwest comer of the property. Sutherland stated this is not the perfect situation, but it is manageable. Comments from the city engineer stated the applicant should propose a drainage plan prepared by a registered land surveyor. The City Engineer and the building official could meet with the owner on site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to allow the existing nonconforming deck (after the fact) in 83 Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 order to allow the construction of a detached garage that is conforming to the setbacks. The proposed garage will enhance the use and function of the property. The deck has a minimal encroachment and is a reasonable use of the riparian property. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1) The encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved by expanding the easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent. 2) The building permit for the garage and deck shall not be issued until proof of the recording of the easement document has been filed with the City Clerk. 3) The survey to be submitted with the building permit is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the Building Official. Staff feels the garage is a reasonable use of the property. The site is limited due to the utility easements on the lakeside. That has been an issue on other variance requests. The deck is not conforming and no permit was taken. This can be corrected, by sliding the easement down. He emphasized condition//3, to get additional and total review. Hanus stated he was concerned with expanding the easement, he would rather see moving of the easement. The expansion doesn't remove the encroachment into the easement, whereas moving it would. Also, with the expansion to the south, there is big tree where the two easements intersect. By expanding to the south, the tree is in the middle and it looks like a truck could get between the easement and the tree. The easement might have to stay in the area. Hanus commented about the fence on the west side. What had staff found? Sutherland stated he did not think the fence on the west was permitted. Staff will check. Hanus commented on the stairway by the south side of the house and there is landscaping that is going on there. There has been a tree planted in the mining radius for a truck. He also mentioned looking at the hardcover calculation, and it is in error. He calculated from the survey and came up with over 40 %. There are many other areas that should be added to the hardcover calculation. The house is 1228, not 1196 square feet. The driveway itself came up to about 1740 square feet. Also, a large area missed in the hardcover calculation is all around the house where there is rock placed over plastic, which is exposed, to about 780 +/- feet and that was on the east, west and south side. Hanus had not calculated the patio and areas on the north side. He calculated 4284 square feet and he felt it more than that, instead of 3440. The permissable amount is 4167 sq. ft. Sutherland stated the poly under the rock could be modified. Hanus commented regarding the deck on the lakeside. This deck needs to be viewed as new proposed construction. He wondered if a deck permit would have been issued that is more 84 Minutes- Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 than 10 feet wide and encroaching onto the easement, if a permit could be obtained. He didn't think it would have happened. He also commented that there are two decks encroaching the easement. Chair Michael commented on the required drainage plan. Sutherland stated the drainage on the neighbors property to the west and the east is going to be worse based on the proposal. Drainage could be better if the applicant could create other options. However, the site topography is difficult. The hardcover could be modified and held at 40 %, and the garage could be conforming, the drainage could be more natural to the contour. Burma stated a previous issue of the shared driveways, and with a new garage, could the property to the east have good use of the driveways. Sutherland stated the neighbor has the same distance issue and the new garage would be the same. If a conflict were to arise, it would be up to the neighbors to negotiate a solution. The new garage could be guttered and runoff could be more directional towards the catch basin. Hanus commented on the pitch of the roof of the proposed garage. Sutherland stated if the roof gable is running north and south, then half of the water would go to the east and half to the west, and it could be guttered. The area to the east is hardcover. It would be better to be guttered over green space. Runoff goes from the applicant's property to the west slightly and then wraps around a large tree. The elevations are less than the neighbor's house. Jon stated that the Commission could ask for more specific review comments by the City Engineer if they were concerned with the drainage issues. This information could either be provided by the applicant or further review by the engineer. Burma commented on the door on the second story of the garage that did not have stairs or sky rail to the house. Sutherland stated there were no plans at this time to connect to the house, or the applicant would have provided them. Often there is storage space above, accessed by a ladder. Weiland asked if the garage could be attached to the house by way of catwalk. Sutherland stated it could, it is conforming. Weiland commented on the foundation, Sutherland stated it was a building permit issue. Mack stated he had no plans to connect the garage to the house. Chair Michael commented about the deck on the lakeside, had it been there when the house was built? Mack stated it was supposed to be arranged by the contractor. Sutherland stated there was no permit for the decks. Mack stated the lower deck was added onto the house as it was built. Hanus stated that by the drawing of the original house, in the packet, the lower deck was not drawn in at all, only the upper deck was drawn on. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 Weiland asked about what the law is when something has been built without a permit, do we make them remove it? Sutherland stated if they cannot get a building permit, it can be removed. He stated that if it does not get a building permit, it will be removed. Weiland suggested that this could be talked about at a workshop meeting. Hanus stated they were being asked to recognize the non-permitted decks to approve the garage. Sutherland stated the request for the garage raises the issue of the decks that are not conforming and do not have a permit history. A permit could be issued, or the deck removed. Part of the application is to approve the decks as they are, and that would allow an after the fact permit to be issued according to the current code. Hanus stated the intention to approve the permitting of the decks. Sutherland stated if the Council does not approve the after the fact permits, the decks would be removed. Weiland was opposed to approving the variance for the garage by including approval of the decks as part of the agreement. If this happened, the non conforming decks could then remain as is. Chair Michael stated his major concern is the drainage. But, he doesn't want to see the applicant not be able to build a garage. He would like to see some plan from the city engineer or someone to assure him that this will not flood out the neighbors. Sutherland referred to the Staff report, kem #3, and that a survey is to be submitted with the building permit application subject to the review and approval of City Engineer and Building Official. If the Commission would like a revised survey prior, or, if the Commission is not satisfied, this could be requested of the applicant. The City Engineer technically rejected this survey, but said it is close. We could request the applicant to revise the survey. A drainage tile system could be dug in the applicant's property could be required, it was an option. It would have negative affects on the trees. A drain tile on the east side would have to go through concrete. Sutherland continued stating this plan is not consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance, as the SMO doesn't want drainage to run over drain tile, it wants the runoff to be filtered over green space. Perhaps, the solution would be to table this item until the applicant revises the survey. Hanus mentioned a small swail at the west end of the garage. With the swail, would it improve the runoff, what would that envision? Ill ~ I I, ~ll, ,ll~ l, ,I , , Mimae$ - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 Sutherland stated the review process from the city included both properties, the neighbors need to work together to accommodate the drainage. The runoff issue in the photos is not a normal event. These two properties get the drainage from the whole neighborhood. The City could build a new costly storm sewer and assess the neighbors, or we could encourage the neighbors to work together. Mr. Smith's property could have his house foundation built up more. The area of the property is uphill and the drainage from Mr. Smith's house only goes to one side. There is no existing drainage easement that extends on both sides of the property. Sutherland referred to new housing developments, that are designed with drainage easements on both sides of the property. Mr. Smith, by virtue of topography, gets most of the water. Glister commented on the 50 year rainfall calculation. This rain fall issue could happen any time. Mark Smith, 4665 Island View Drive. He is the neighbor to the applicant and stated he had no problem with the new garage. He wanted a tangible plan regarding runoff. Engineers and specialists were not willing to put anything in writing what would happen. Maybe, the other residents in the neighborhood need to be directed to maintain their yards so there is not as much runoff and erosion that plugs the storm drain. Joyce Agnew, 4649 Island View Drive. She asked how far the garage was going to be set back, would there be a turn around? She stated the Mack's currently have a two car garage right now. Chair Michael stated when anyone in Mound wants to construct something, they should call the city and inquire as to a building permit. Jon Sutherland was requested to measure the distance of the garage from driveway. Sutherland again stated the Commission could direct the applicant to submit a revised and more complete survey for review by the engineer to address the concerns of the issue. This revised survey could show the impervious surface limited to 40%, have the revised survey clarify specifically all of the issues discussed. Also, submit the information to the abutting neighbors and give them a chance to respond. Weiland stated they had still not addressed the decks. Sutherland stated the deck is 43 feet to the lot line, the dimension of the deck is 8' on the west end, with a 12' bubble. Typically a 10' deck has been acceptable. Perhaps the deck does not need to encroach into the easement. However, it would still be an encroachment into the easement. This has been done before. Sutherland suggested meeting Mr. Hanus, Greg Skinner and himself at the site to discuss the easement. Sutherland stated that changing the easement and eliminating part of it, would require a public hearing. Hanus stated granting a permit for the deck and stairway in the easement would not get approval either as it would set a precedence. 87 Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 Chair Michael asked for a motion to extend the work rules. An extension is needed to continue the meeting beyond 11 pm. Agreement was to extend until 11:15 pm MOTION by Burma, seconded by Weiland, and carried unanimously to extend the meeting until 11:15 PM. Mark Smith stated he would like it in writing and be able to understand the stormwater runoff situation. Chair Michael assured him that the drainage report that would be prepared by the city engineer would be the one that the City will follow, if it is legal, it will be approved. Hanus asked Smith if he would be willing to share the property where the swail is now? Smith commented that it is shared now. Sutherland stated changing the easement issue was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The easement proposal, revised survey, revised drainage plan, accurate hardcover specifications, needs to come from the applicant then the city will review it. The engineer and attorney will comment. The applicant, Scott Mack, thought the issues were provided in October. Sutherland stated the information he provided, is not enough. The survey does not show where the water is going, there is no documented evidence on the plan where the water is going. Maybe, you could get a different surveyor. We have worked hard on this issue. The survey is still lacking much needed information. The hardcover sheet is inaccurate, it needs to be addressed and corrected. Sutherland further stated that the neighbor, Smith, could raise the grade of his property. However, that would be much to ask of the neighbor to raise his grade to accommodate you. Mr. Mack did not understand what to do for a plan. Mark Koegler, City Planner, stated he could work with a civil engineer for example to do some calculations and come up with the amount of stormwater that is coming through there now, the amount that is coming off of the new roof, depending which way it is directed. That plan could contain existing and proposed spot elevations and contours that would show the drainage pattern and where it is going. John Cameron, City Engineer, may want to look at some of their computations as to how much water is coming through there. That is the only way they can assess how much is going into Mr. Smith's property and how much will go on your property. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 Chair Michael made the following motion to approve the variance request pending the satisfactory completion by the applicant of the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. 5. The revised survey and a revised drainage plan that would be submitted to the City Engineer for review and comments. There would be an impervious surface limit to 40% The deck would be modified to 10' where it did not meet the 50' setback fromthe-~nm L~Y--~ fl?~o~ Slightly modify the easement The fence is not permitted to be in the easement, it needs to be reviewed. Chair Michael moved, seconded by Glister. Hanus questioned the motion as to it was to table the item until the issues are dealt with, or the motion to approve subject to those conditions being corrected? Michael would like motion be approve subject to the conditions. If the reports come to the Building Official and Engineer and they approve them, it is fine with Michael. Weiland, asked if the conditions were not met, it would come back to the Planning Commission? Koegler stated yes. Burma asked if they approve the request, are they revising the deck, to the 10'. Hanus stated yes, but it still encroaches. The vote was called, the vote carried 5-0. This goes to the Council on June 24, 1997. Sutherland said if the information gets to staff in time, and approved by staff, copies will go to the neighbors also. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister and carried by all to adjourn. The vote was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 pm Chair Attest Au§u$'c ~ ~ 5 View from N.E. corner of our home. Island View Dr. located behind fence. Water run-off coming from storm drain/street area. WATER View from East side of our house. Fence is located on propert~v line. August 1995 View from East side of house. Fence is located on property line. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364~1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 UPDATED STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of 6-9-97 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~,,~, Variance Request (after the fact nonconforming lake setback) Scott and Linda Mack 96-62 4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 R-1A Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: On October 28, 1996 the Planning Commission tabled this case requesting the applicant to provide the specific information as listed below. The applicant has submitted the requested information and the staff comments are listed after each item. Please refer to the original staff report dated 10-28-96 for further reference. 1. An updated survey including: all existing and proposed structures including decks, the joint driveway shall be delineated, existing and proposed elevations, and a drainage and grading plan. STAFF COMMENTS: The survey has been updated and now shows the lakeside deck is setback 43 feet to the lake. A 50 foot setback is required and this results in a 7 foot variance request. The deck is also encroaching onto the city easements. The encroachment can be resolved by expanding the easement to the south as required by the City Public Works Director and the City Engineer. Both the Engineer and the Public Works Director have reviewed the case, visited the site, and are comfortable with a simple 5-6 foot expansion of the easement. The applicant must prepare the easement document for review and approval by the City Engineer and Attorney, and the document must be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The joint driveway, existing and proposed elevations and a drainage plan are noted on the printed on recycled paper iii ~ I L ,JJ, ,IJ~ & ~ · revised survey. One option discussed with the owner and contractor is to move the proposed garage to the north (about three feet away from the entry stairway), in order to save the existing clump of birch trees. This issue can be accomplished prior to the building permit issuance, and has a positive impact on drainage with the additional green space between the garage and the lake. The floor elevation of the proposed garage in relation to the driveway shall be clarified. STAFF COMMENTS: The floor elevation has been clarified and could be modified slightly if the garage is moved further to the north as suggested by staff. 3. Location of off-site easements on adjacent properties shall be clarified. STAFF COMMENTS: The location of the easements has been clarified and is not affected by the proposal. (Note: the applicants proposed garage and the adjacent owners garage are about equal distances to the property line and both will have about the same difficulty with access) IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: The proposed garage will have a minor effect and slightly increase the runoff/drainage on this and the adjacent properties. Directing stormwater around the west side is preferred due to the additional green space on this side. The commons property between this site and the lake minimizes the excess of impervious surface and improves the stormwater infiltration. The impervious surface is conforming at less than 40%. The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck, however, is located over the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the lift station on the southwest corner of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to allow the existing nonconforming deck (after the fact) in order to allow the construction of a detached garage that is conforming to setbacks. The proposed garage will enhance the use and function of the property. The deck has a minimal encroachment and is a reasonable use of the riparian property. Approval is subject to the following conditions. 1) The encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved by expanding the easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent. 2) The building permit for the garage and deck shall not be issued until proof of recording of the easement document has been filed with the City Clerk 3) js The survey to be submitted with the building permit is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and Building Official. FLRGSHIP MEMBERSHIP Fax:612-829-2651 ]un 4 '97 2:27 P. 02/06 F~hip. Salon by CAPELLt' MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 1996 CASE 96-62: FARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGEr SCOTT & LINDA MACKr 4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr LOT 15t BLOCK lr DEVONt 30-117-23 22 0086 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This property is located in the R-lA zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, 6 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback to the commons, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a conforming 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey. This property is conforming with the exception of the deck on the lakeside of the dwelling that was apparently constructed without a permit. The deck is setback about 45 feet to the ordinary high water resulting in a variance request of 5 feet. The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck however is located over the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the lift station on the southwest corner of the property. The City Engineer has requested a copy of easement documents for this property. Sutherland, reviewed the easements surrounding the subject property and adjacent properties. The Engineer wants to verify if the easements are also for drainage purposes. Sutherland confirmed that a double fee for the building permit for the existing deck will apply. Sutherland reviewed a letter received from the applicant's neighbor, Mark Smith, and how each concern can be addressed, as follows: "Drainage. We moved into our house June of 1995; in August of '95 Mound experienced a substantial storm. The storm drain on Island View Drive could not handle rain run-off as it should have, which caused a river of water to flow between our house and the Mack's house. During that episode we took photos to document this drainage flow problem. This situation causes me some concern if left as is. Moreover, when a new structure is proposed to be built in that natural run-off area, it causes me some very real concern. I see th, run-off being redirected toward my house." 3 Plannin9 Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 Sutherland commented, the City will need a grading and drainage plan in order to address the drainage concerns. "Culvert. Looking lakeside, I can see a Culvert coming out from the rip-rapped shoreline. Where is the origin of that culvert? Is this culvert coming from the storm drain on Island View Drive if so how could this proposed structure impact that? Is there an easement to facilitate the maintenance of this culvert?" Sutherland, commented there are easements to facilitate the maintenance of the culvert. The proposed garage has a conforming setback and should not affect the operation or maintenance of the culvert. ,Power/Telephone Lines. In front of my house there is a sewer lift station. This equipment requires both power and telephone line connections. Where is that in reference to this structure? Is there an easement to facilitate the maintenance of this equipment?" Sutherland commented there is an easement to facilitate the maintenance of this equipment. City staff is working to maintain the easements and remove encroachments. "Survey. Are you looking at a current survey of the property as it is today or a proposed survey for a house to be built?" Sutherland confirmed the survey submitted is not a current survey and he has discussed this with the applicant who is getting a revised survey that will show the existing structures and setbacks and a grading and drainage plan with elevations. "Commons Area. How does the City plan to access on a timely manner the commons area in front of our home with heavy equipment to maintain the sewer station, trees or shoreline?" Sutherland noted the options in the staff report which suggests that it is possible the easement could be expanded to the south around the deck in order to accommodate access to the sewer station, or the encroachments into the easement could be removed. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with the condition that the encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved, this encroachment could be resolved by one of the following options. 1) The encroaching portion of the deck could be removed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the garage. 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 20, I996 2) The easement could be expanded to the south to allow for vehicle access, as approved by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. If approval is recommended, it is recommended by staff that the survey be revised to show all utility easements and all existing structures. Weiland stated that the decks are not shown properly on the survey and asked who drew them on the survey. The secretary indicated that the applicant's contractor, Tom from Durabilt, drew the decks on the survey. Gina Anderson, neighbor at 4665 Island View, handed out copies of photographs taken of their property during the storm of 1995 and stated they moved in their house in June and have drainage concerns. She stated she is submitting the photos to document how substantial the run-off is between their two property lines when the storm drain backs-up. She indicated you can see from the photos that the garage will redirect the run-off towards their basement and there are two windows in that location. Hanus commented he would like to specifically see the following items addressed if this request is tabled. - All easements be shown on the survey. Ail buildings/structures be shown, including the deck to the north of the house. Elevations need to be corrected and clarified. He is concerned about the slope of the driveway as it comes into the proposed garage. Hanus highlighted a concern of Commissioner Mueller's which was received in writing (he was not present) regarding the turning radius and if they will have to cross onto the neighbors property in order to exit from the garage. Hanus noted there are fences located in the easements and asked if there were permits issued. Joyce Agnew neighbor at 4649 Island View Drive stated that they share their driveway with the Macks in that the pavement meets at the property line, and she does have concern with how he will be able to turn out of the driveway without continually crossing over the line. Mr. Mack stated that the Agnew's use his driveway when they exit their property. Sutherland stated that the fence along the east side does have a permit. The applicant confirmed that the fence on the west side does belong to him. Sutherland stated that staff will verify if a permit was obtained for the fence on the west line. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 Clapsaddle suggested that the two neighbors cooDerate and work together and do some grading to solve the drainage issue. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the request pending the receipt of further information from the applicant, including: An updated survey including: all existing and proposed structures including decks, the joint driveway shall be delineated, existing and proposed elevations, and a drainage and grading plan. The floor elevation of the proposed garage in relation to the driveway shall be clarified. Location of off-site easements on adjacent properties shall be clarified. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair Michael requested the secretary include Commissioner Mueller's comments which were received in writing, as follows: "The applicant already has a garage. Drainage from Island View Drive is terrible and therefore how will this property contain and divert water so as not to affect the adjacent property owners with snow melt run-off and heavy rains. Putting a building up definitely changes current water flow. Huge need for a drainage plan which shows there is no detrimental affect on the adjacent neighbors. If there is no agreement with the property owner to the east, it is nearly impossible to access this garage without infringing on the neighbors rights of quiet enjoyment of their property. I also understand the applicant has a concern with snow plowing the driveway to the east. Get an agreement or show its possible to put the garage in and turning an 18' vehicle into the garage without encroaching on the neighbor., CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of 10-28-96 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Scott and Linda Mack 96-62 4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: This property is located in the R-lA zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, 6 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback to the commons, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a conforming 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey. This property is conforming with exception of the deck on the lakeside of the dwelling that was apparently constructed without a permit. The deck is setback 45 feet to the ordinary high water resulting in a variance request of 5 feet. The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck however is located over the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the lift station on the southwest corner of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with the condition that the encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved, this encroachment could be resolved by one of the following options. printed on rec¥cled paper Staff Report Mack P. 2 1) The encroaching portion of the deck could be removed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the garage. 2) The easement could be expanded to the south to allow for vehicle access, as approved by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. If approval is recommended, it is recommended by staff that the survey be revised to show the utility easement that is located along the west side property line from the road to the City's lift station. This easement accommodates the electrical service for the lift station. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 12, 1996. ~ich~el & ~o ~uel le~ 612 4T24596 P.81 To the Planning Commission from Michael Mueller RE: Meeting of October 28, 1996 Comments &: Concerns with cases. 96-61: Everyone needs a garage - this one is a small one! 96-62: Items that need to be resolved: The applicant already has a garage - Drainage from Islandview Drive is terrible and therefore how will this property contain and divert water so as not to affect the adjacent property owners with snow melt rtua-off and heavy rains. Putting a building up definitely changes current water flow. Huge need for a drainage plan which shows thare is no detrimental affect on the adjacent neighbors. If there is no agreement with the property owner to the east, it is nearly impossible to access this garage without infringing on the neighbors rights of quiet enjoyment of her property. I also understand the applicant has a concern with snowplowing the driveway to thc cast. Get an agreement or show its possible to put the garage in and tunfing an 18' vehicle into the garage without encroaching on the neighbor. 96-63: I agree with staff report that this issue needs to be resolved in total and not piece-meal fixes. I regret that I will not be able to attend this evening's meeting about downtown redevelopmcnt. Let's not forget that the conununity center may not be there soon and we need to include this area in our downtown plan. Thanks for allowing me this input, Sincerely, Michael Mueller VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 4724600, Fax: 4724620 Application Fee: $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Lot Subdivision ZONING DIST~CT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 Address Block / Plat # B-2 B-3 (M) Address"~ ~ b ~Y'~ (00 (4- / Phone (H) (W) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ~0' ft. · (NSEW) ft. ~" ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft VARIANCE fto ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), 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: Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)9 Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No (). If yes, explain: /5/o Yes (), o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized offal of the Cit.~f Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing suc~/fi//fffi~s ~V~(required by law. Owner's Signature l Applicant's Signature -. '218/95) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) ADDRESS: ]OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA .%-'. c<-)-r-r ,~ 4 rk' ' I! SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I I SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I ~ /O-~. CO I SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . I I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be'submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQFT DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Ol3ening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTALHOUSE TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .......... x '-- x : Z~'O TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = 5'2 ~ TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UND~~E~ OVER (indicate di,f,~rence) ...~ ........ /."'"~ . ................. k,____._... . .... __~,_,..::.; .,:/ ~ / I 3c~kO --7. 'z-V ~ 3~ Cerlificateof Survey for Scott J. Mack of Lot 15, B~ock l; Devon Hennepin County, Minnesota Is, ~'I 7 9 ..Oq 0... q 0% ,3o I hereby certify that thi~ is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 15, Block I, Devon, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of lilies in and for said County, the location of an existing encroaching driveway and tim proposed location of a proposed house. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Date : 6-22-87 Mark S. Gronberg Mn. Li~.. No. 12755 Scale: l" = 20' Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners ql,lj o : Iron marker Long Lake, Minnesota ..~ . Spot elevation ml Mean Sea Level, CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET LOT OF R~.CORD7 Y~ES~ NO }lOUSE FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF E W GARAGE, S}IED ..... FRONT FRONT ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: B1 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 "A2 ~000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. 11 30,000/100 LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: REQUIRED { EXIS'IING/PROPOSED VARIANCE SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE OR OTIIER DETACttED tr~EW N S E W N S E~) N $ E W N S E W ,I z)5, -+o BUILDINGS '20 ' 4' OR 6' 4! N $ E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' HARDCOVER Planning Department at 472-O600. ~ -~-' % ,-- vIEW DR This Zoning Information Sheet only sun~marizes a portion of the r outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound CIIY Of UOUND CHARTERED 470 Pil~bury C. enzer 200 South Six& (612) }i7-9~ t~hon= (612) ~7.9310 ~: a~k~n~y~a~com I~OBEItT J. LI~DALL' Dir~ ~ ($~2) ~37.9219 October I0, 1997 Mr. Edward J. Shulde, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 'MayW0od Road Mound. MN 55364-1687 VIA FACSIlVflI.E & U.S. MAIL 472-0620 RE: Ci~ of Mound v. Richard E. Johnson and Janet Johnson, as Trustees, et al. Court File CD-2430 Parcel 1 - Johnson Enclosed herewith is a proposed form of Settlement concerning th~ above-referenced matter. Please submit it to the City Council for approval at its mee~g of October 14, 1997. cc: John Dean Very waly yours, "ff Rol:~n I. Lindall K~Ll~1549 HU200-$g AC3HNNHM'NO~=I ~Sz II STATE OF MINNESOTA cOUNTY OF HENNEPIN Ca~ Type: Condemnation DISTRICT COURT FOURTH .RJDICIAL DISTRICT City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corpora- tion, Petitioner, VS. Richard E. Johnson and Janet Johnso~ as trustees or their successor trustccs, u~der the P,.JJ LIVING TRUST dat~cl February g, 1995, ~ al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. CD-2430 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Parcel 1 This agreement is entered into this day of October, 1997, by and between the City of Mound ("City"), Petitioner herein, by and through its attorney, Robert J. Lindall, and Richard E. Johnson, as Trustee, and Janet Johnson, as Trustee, ("Trustccs"), Respondents hcrcin, by and through their attorney, Stephanie Young. RECITALS 1.1. The City commenced this proceeding by filing its condemnation petition in ~ 1996. 1.2. Trustees are owners, as trustees, of the real estate described as Parcel I in the above matter and which is described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 1.3. The court-appointed commissioners herein issued their award of damages with 2.3. Adminish'aor on September 1.4. The City and respecx to Parcel 1 dated September ,1997, and fried in the office of the District Court ,1997, in the amount of $56,500. Trustees each have the right to appeal the amount of the commissioners' award to district court within 40 days following the date of filing of the award. 1.5. The City has represented to Trustees that it is preparcd to appeal thc award unless Trustees agree to settle the Trustees' claim of damages commissioners' award. 1.6. The City has previously de-posited $ for Parcel 1 in the office of the District Court .administrator. since the date of said principal mount. for an mount less than the as its approved appraisal of value Said deposit has accrued interest 1.7. Thc City named other parti~ as potential parties in interest with respect to Parcel 1 because they have claims against l~rsons having thc same name or similar names to the names of Trustees herein. Trustees represent that none of thc claims referred to in the Petition as being against people by the same names as Trustees are claims against Trustees themselves and agree to execum recordable affidavits in form acceptable to counsel for City as an additional inducement to persuade City to accept the settlement described herein and otherwise to assist City in recovering amounts on deposit with the District Court Administrator in relation to Parcel 1. AGREEMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES AND THEIK MUTUAL PROMISES, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 2.1. This Agreement is contingent upon City Council approval. 2.2. The City, agrees to pay Trustees in the mount of $50,000.00 within ten days following the date of City Council approval of this Agreement. The City agrees to present this Agreement to City Council for approval on or 2 $IC6/.CCEI8'ClI N~A~I~ ~ ACI~NNiIM,14Ot/--v OPt,E! before October 14, 1997. 2.4. Trustees a~ree to accept $50,000.00 as payment in full of all claims for compensation,, interest, appraisal fees, and other items of damage which Trustees may claim herein. 2.5. City and Trustees each agree to waive their rights to appeal the award of commissioners herein and accept the provisions of this Agreement in lieu of any and all other proceedings. 2.6. Trustees hereby agree that effective upon delivery of the City's check in thc amount of $50,000.00, thc), hereby assign to City all right, title and interest in and to the funds on deposit with the District Court Administrator with respect to Parcel 1 as previously deposited by the City, together with all accrued interest. 2.7. Trustees also agree to execute such further documents as may be necessary to support their representation that no other party has a valid claim against them as described in the condemnation Petition with respect to Parcel 1 and, therefore, no other party has a valid claim against said funds. Dated: October ,1997. REED & POND, LTD. KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHAKTERED By: By: Stephanie Young Atty. Reg. No. 5424 Shoreline Drive P.O. Box 91 Mound, MN 55364-0009 (612) 472-2222 ATTORNEY FOR TRUSTEES Robert J. Lindall Atty. Reg. No. 63277 470 Pillsbury C~nter 200 South Sixth Street }vfumeapoli%. MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER,. CITY OF MOUND ~D~d N~/%~D ~ AO~ZNN~Z:~'i40:~& OO'~I CITY OF MOUND By: Its: Edward J. Shulde, Jr. City Manager By: Richard E. Johnson, Trustee By: Janet Johnson, Trustee ~o~oo-~.8 4 Parcel No. 1 (Abstract)(PID No. 13 117 24 33 0013} Pro~ Address: ~ AMkor's Road, Mo~ Mi~eso~ Des~rip~on ~ Sabie~ ~e Sou~ ~0 f~a of Lot 7, Au~wr's Sub~sion No. ~e~ Inte~ Berg Acqu~ed: 170, Henne'pin County, lq'mile Stephanie Young, Esq. Nature of Interest Attorney for Richard E. Johnson and Janet Johnson, as Trustees Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General Attorney for the United States of America Uni*~l States Attorney, District of Attorney for the U.S. of America, District Minnesota of Minnesota Steven Cmnn, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for the State of Minnesota Peter M. Jirik, Esq. Attorney for FCC National Bank, DBA First Card Services, Inc. Fee owner Richard E. Johnson and Janet Johnson, as ~us~-~s or their successor trustees, under the RJJ LIVING TRUST dated February, 8, 1995 Chargo Printing, Inc., flea Possible Holder of an Interest Copy-Right, Inc., a Minnesota corporation Superpaintem, Inc., a Minnesota corporation Possible Holder of an Interest Source Incorporat_~l, a Minnesota Possible Holder of an Interest corporation Carlson - Breese Inc., a Minnesota Possible Hold,r of an Interest corporation United States of America Possible Holder of an Interest pursuant to U.S. District Court Case No. $8 07086, cop)' of sa/d lien attached hereto. Matthew Soucek Possible Holder of an Interest Lang Nelson Associates Incorporated, a Possible Holder of an Interest Minnesota corporation David J. Goldman Daniel Gephart and Kenneth Heinz, individ, mlly and DBA Lake Associates United Homes Corporation, a Minnesota corporation Imexnal Revenue Service Ahmed Noures Sadate Warchol Berndt 8; Hajek PA,. a Minnesota professional corporation State of Minnesota, Dc-pax'anent of Possible Holder of an Interest Possible Holder of an Int=rest Possible Holder of an Interest Possible Holder of an Interest pursuant to Document Nos. 5206965 and 6267707 attached hereto. Possible Holder of an Interest Possible Holder of an Interest Possible Holder of an Interest pursuant to Revenue, ATTN: Kicl~rd Walzer FCC National Bank DBA First Card Ser,,ices, Inc. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., a Delawar~ corporation City of Mound County of Hennepin Ail other.paxties unknown, together with unknown heirs or dc~-isees and spouses, if any Document No. 6400120 attached hereto. Possible Holder of an Interest Possible Holder of an Inter~t Special assessments Real estate taxes All fight, title or interest in Subject Property ~lU~oo_-ss 6 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-16@7 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM October 9, 1997 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: LMCD APPOINTMENTfREAPPOINTMENT As discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 30, 1997, the City Council needs to decide if they wish to reappoint Tom Reese to the LMCD Board of Directors for a one year term with the idea that after that one year, the term will go back to a three year term to coincide with other three year terms on the LMCD Board. Mayor Polston has expressed the need to have an elected official represent the City of Mound on the Board. Councilmember Jensen has expressed satisfaction with Mr. Reese and Councilmember Hanus has indicated a direct link to the Board from the City is important. The LMCD staff is waiting for your decision. If you have any questions, please contact me. printed on recycled paper TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Balance: Bought: September 1, 1997 $4,121,486 Money Market 4M Plus 232,493 Money Market First Bank 75,135 CP Dain Bosworth 5.40% 424,147 CP First Bank 5.67% 574,901 CP First Bank 5.70% 364,959 Matured: Money Market First Bank (20,000) CP Dain Bosworth 5.55% (455,519) CP First Bank 5.65% (566,878) CP First Bank 5.60% (359,890) CP Norwest Bank 5.54% (475,418) September 30, 1997 Balance: $3,915,415 The month of September was a routine but busy month for the Finance Department. These were some of the non-routine events: On September 5th I attended the preliminary meeting presented by FEMA. At that meeting forms were distributed and information was given on how to proceed with requests for federal and state grants to cover for part of the cost of cleaning up after the July 17, 1997 storm. Subsequently all the required information was filed and now we are waiting for the necessary approvals. - On September 9th the City Manager presented the proposed budget and the proposed levy for adoption by the council. That was the culmination of many hours of work that the two of us spent to prepare the document submitted. - On September 17-19 the Minnesota Government Finance Officers held the 1997 Annual Conference in Alexandria. The conference was well prepared and allowed me to attend highly informative presentations. The State Auditor Office reviewed the reporting requirements for TIF. Professor Paul Glick spoke on "Evaluating Government Finance Conditions and Costing Government Services". Former County Commissioner Donald Salverda made two presentations on "Leadership is Everybody's Business." On September 23rd Ed, Gayle and I attended the annual Logis Health Care Group meeting. Presentations were made in the area of Life Insurance, Health Insurance, and new laws relating to employees' benefits. The meeting dealt with specific issues that have direct implications for all employees of the city of Mound. ! CitY Of MoUnd i Monthly Report [Utilities I Month of: September 1997 10/02/97 Utility-97 Residential Commercial Total No. of Customers: Water 1,094 123 1,217 Sewer 1,091 123 1,214 Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) 21,529 2,809 24,338 Billing: Water $34,593 $5,531 $40,124 Sewer $72,392 $15,458 $87,850 Recycle $5,026 $106 $5,132 Total $112,011 $21,095 $133,106 Payments: Water $33,153 $6,764 $39,917 Sewer $56,680 $17,193 $73,873 Recycle $5,209 $92 $5,301 Total $95,042 $24,049 $119,091 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER ~' SEPTEMBER 1997 MONTHLY REPORT OCTOBER 6, 1997 As I expected, give us some decent weather and sales will improve. Here is what happened. Sales for the month of September were $130,770. Last year's September sales were $126,670. Customer count for September this year was 9367. Last year's count in September was 9123. The better weather brings in more customers. With an average sale of around $14.00, the extra 244 customers pretty much explains the difference between September of 97 versus September of 96. With September concluding, I have taken off the sales floor all displays that pertain to the summer season. In their place, I have put up merchandise that coincides more with the fall season, such as red wine, brandy and bourbon displays. Some of these will stay up till next spring and others will be taken down for holiday displays. Yes, it is hard to believe but the holidays will soon be approaching. All the liquor and wine companies in the next two weeks are already holding their holiday shows for the purpose of previewing the new seasonal products, and pre-selling them. Soon we will be like the clothing industry, seeing items six months before selling them. JK:ls pr~nted on recycled paper MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT MON~ MON']]{ %'0 DATE TO DATE ~).~-~ OF cCPTm~BE~ ] 997 ~O. OS C.~LS 70 54 593 594 ~ o u I~ D FIRE 20 14 170 144 ~RGI~ 17 16 171 205 ~i ~'SiTONKA BEACH FI~ 2 3 17 6 .- ~G~ 1 O 3 11 ~l S'XEI l I STA FI~ 5 2 39 42 ~~ 2 2 3~ ~9 DROSO FI~ 8 5 49 46 ~G~ 7 4 25 24 SHOREWOOD FI~ 0 0 4 0 ~~ 0 0 2 3 SFiiSG PARK ~I~ 1 2 16 22 ~'~ 6 3 5 55 ~'1UTUAL AID F~ O 1 6 5 .. ~~ 1 2 4 3 TOTAL FIRE CALLS 36 27 301 264 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 34 27 292 330 ~CI~ 1 0 2 9 P~SZD~ 6 4 38 28 ~U~'~ 0 0 0 1 ~S & ~~S 14 12 147 107 AL~ 1 0 7 18 F;~E ;~ / FIRE ~ 13 8 99 96 hC. SF H~ ~I~ 385 259 3836 3322 MOUND '~~ 345 229 3184 4158 ~ 730 488 7020 7480 FI~ 25 7~ ~8 ~ 88 - MTKA BEACH ~~ ]7 Q ~O 233 ~ 42 76 42~ 321 !!~ 85 2~ 94~ 920 b~' TR I STA n.~ 51 27 658 554 ~ 136 55 1603 1474 FI~ 198 72 1225 997 - 0RONO ~G~ 137 59 423 494 ~ 335 131 1~8 1491 FI~ 0 0 81 0 - SHOREWOOD R~G~. 0 0 38 68 ~ 0 0 119 68 FI~ 18 19 350 386 - gP. PARK ~G~ 103 45 998 1077 ~ 121 64 1~8 1463 F~ 0 12 196 116 - ~ ~D ~G~ 18 42 80 ~ T~ 18 54 276 2~ IOTAL DRILL HOURS 175 162.5 1527.5 1572.5 TOTAL FIRE HOURS 711 466 6981 5829 ~$~L ~ .~. EMERGENCY HOURS 671 402 5461 , 6668 ?iL FIRE & ~G~ ~ 382 868 12,442 12,497 ~UVUAL AID RECEIVED 1 0 5 0 ~-~U~UAL AID ~IVZN 1 3 10 ~ MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF ~PTm~CP ~qq7 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 9/15 9/20 R~ H:LIRS HIMS : RA%E 1 L~FF A~DE'P~E~ X X 2 19.00 2.5 56 6.50 364.00 2 G~F~ A~,,-DF'~,~O~.~ X X 2 19.00 2.5 54 6.50 351.00 3 PA~ B~R,B X X 2 19.00 2 52 6.50 338.00 4 DAVID POYD X X 2 19.00 2 34 6.50 221.00 5 SCOTT BRYCE X X 2 19. O0 1.5 32 6.50 208. O0 _.6 JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 O 26 6.50 169.00 --7 STEVE~ COLLINS X X 2 19.O0 0 23 6.50 149.50 8 BOB CRAWFORD X X 2 19.00 5 36 6.50 234.00 9.. RANDY 5YGP3_~,T X X 2 19.00 6.5 21 6.50 136.50 .1.p 5'£~:VE ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 O 57 7.00 399. O0 11 DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 O 51 6.50 331.50 .1.2 KEVIi,7 GRADY X X 2 19.00 2.5 42 6.50 273.00 .13 BRtTC~ ~ST~SON X X 2 19.6)0 2 31 6.5Q 201.50 1~' CP~.IG MTK~ ~ERS~w X X 2 19.00 2 42 6.50 273.00 15 PAr~., ._.w~. ,y, X X 2 19. O0 2 31 6.50 201.50 16 IIATT Ht~rfGES × X 2 19.00 2.~ 40 6.50 260.00 .17 ROGER KRYCK X × 2 19.00 2 38 6.50 247.00 18 ,JO,HN LARSON X X 2 19.00 2.5 42 6.~0 273.00 .19 ,JASON ~.iAAS X X 2 19.00 2 36 6.50 234.00 20 JOI-IN NAFUS X X 2 19.00 2 46 6.50 299. O0 21 3Ai,fcS NELSON X X 2 19.00 0 29' 6.50 188.50 22 BRET NICCUI,! X X 2 19.00 2.5 40 6.50 260.00 23 GREG PAI2.! X X 2 19.00 0 40 6.50 260.00 24 I]IKE PAI2.] X X 2 19.00 2.5 43 6.50 279.50 25 TI~,] PAI2~ X X 2 19.00 2 43 6.50 279.50 26 G_______~G PEDERSON X X 2 19.00 0 43 6.75 290.25 27 CHRIS POUNDER ~ w 2 19_00 ~.5 41 6 50 266.50 -- 28 RICHARD ROGERS ' X × 2 lg. OO 2 ~7 6.50 240.50 29 MIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 12 36 6.50 234.00 30 KEVIN SIPPR.~,I, ~ )[ 1 ~.~0 2 26 6.50 169.00 ._31 RON STALI2i~N X ('-'E~ 1 9.50 2 22 6.50 143. OO J2 BRUCE SVOBOD% X X 2 19.00 2.5 34 6.50 221.00 33 ED V~IIECEK X X 2 19.00 2 46 6.50 299. OO 34 RICK I'IILLIAMS X X 2 19.00 20~.__5 ~.. 39 6.50 253.50 ~ TIM UILLIAM$ X X 2 19.00 2 34 6.50 221.00 36 DENNIS WOYTCKE X X 2 19.00 2.5 39 6.50 253.50 37 6.50 35 35 70 "l~ 87. ~ 87.5 175 665.00 99.5 1382 FiRE 9,022.25 175 I~.~ 665.00 99.5 ~ ,1,250.00 _ ~D~AL 10,937.25 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 September 1997 The police department responded to 1,192 calls for service during the month of September. There were 34 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 criminal sexual conducts, 1 burglary, 3 aggravated assaults, 23 larcenies, 1 vehicle theft, and 2 arsons. There were 85 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 child abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF checks, 6 narcotics, 16 damage to property, 1 liquor law violation, 6 DUI's, 2 simple assaults, 7 domestics (1 with an assault), 4 harassment's, 22 juvenile status offenses, and 17 other offenses. The patrol division issued 135 adult citations and 2 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 19 tickets. Warnings were issued to 81 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 8 adults and 1 juvenile arrested for felonies. adults and 39 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. additional 11 warrant arrests. There were 20 There were an The department assisted in 8 vehicle accidents, 4 with injuries. There were 31 medical emergencies and 66 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 27 occasions in September and requested assistance 6 times. Property valued at $12,040 was stolen in September. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1997 II. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 4 criminal sexual conduct cases, 3 child protection issues, and 2 assaults that required over 121 hours of investigative time for the month. Other cases included burglary, adult protection, theft, damage to property, stalking, illegal dumping, trapping, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for 1 st degree criminal sexual conduct, 1 st degree assault, theft of a motor vehicle, felony assault, terroristic threats, illegal dumping, theft, DWI, violation of an order for protection, underage consumption, disorderly conduct, worthless check, exterior storage, and driving after cancellation. III. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 98 hours of overtime during the month of September. Officers used 80 hours of comp-time, 171 hours of vacation, 73 hours of sick time, and 13 holidays. Officers earned 57 hours of comp time. Officers attended the FATS situational firearms training in September. Several officers attended the PTAC course for yearly mandatory training requirements as well as EMT refresher school. The reserves donated 155 hours during the month of September. VI. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS Officers Packard and Piper addressed 47 animal complaints, 38 ordinance violations, and 155 miscellaneous calls for service. 12 citations and 31 warnings were given in September. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 1997 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED REPORTED D]4FOUNDED CLEARED ;tRREST ADULT J~JV PART I CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 4 0 0 2 2 Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 3 0 0 2 3 Burglary i 0 0 0 0 Larceny 23 I 1 I 2 Vehicle Theft i 0 0 0 1 Arson 2 0 1 0 0 TOTAL 34 i 2 5 8 I Child Abuse/Neglect 3 I 2 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks i 0 0 i 1 Criminal Damage to Property 16 0 1 0 0 Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 6 0 0 6 2 Liquor Laws i 0 0 1 1 DWI 6 0 0 6 5 Simple Assault 2 0 0 i 0 Domestic Assault 1 0 0 1 1 Domestic (No Assault) 6 0 0 0 0 Harassment 4 0 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 22 0 2 18 0 Public Peace 4 0 0 2 2 Trespassing 1 0 1 0 0 All Other Offenses 12 0 2 9 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 3O 2 0 1 TOTA~ 85 i 8 45 20 39 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 4 4 0 31 66 27 897 1,029 HCCP Inspections 6 38 TOTAL 1,192 10 5O 28 4O MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1997 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 55 72 13 26 102 19 6 4 4 4 0 9 26 1 43 34 85 31 66 38 897 YEAR TO DATE 737 607 193 519 736 468 77 64 64 33 0 38 343 30 158 216 631 231 474 255 6,609 LAST YEAR TO DATE 693 411 223 544 8O4 45O 53 4O 5O 15 0 32 307 51 148 242 615 273 454 205 6,429 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mural Aid Requested 1,535 5O 74 6 27 6 12,483 547 911 30 138 77 12,039 629 295 43 141 78 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 1997 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 Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 6 4 1 4 2 38 2 1 28 7 1 0 4 1 14 0 2 19 0 13 0 2 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT SEPTES~BER 1997 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRAITT ~LRREST$ Felony Misdemeanor 31 15 15 1 1 12 0 0 0 4 79 1 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Run: 6 -0ct- 97 8: 54 PR003 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 W~'~tivity codes: All .,iiperty Status: All Property Types: All Property Descs: All Brands: All Models: All Officers/Badges: Ail Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen 2 Prop type Totals: 9 Prop type Totals: B Prop type Totals: D Prop type Totals: E Prop type Totals: J Prop type Totals: 0,/~..~% Prop type Totals: P "" Prop type Totals: R Prop type Totals: S Prop type Totals: T Prop type Totals: W Prop type Totals: Y Prop type Totals: **** Report Totals: MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT EnforB Proper~¥ Repor~ STOL4~N/P. ECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Page Stolen Date Recov'd Value Recov'd Value Quantity Act Brand Model Off~l Off-2 Code Assnd Assnd 50 0 1.000 5 0 1.000 250 0 2.000 75 75 1.000 200 0 0.000 1,900 0 1.000 1,385 0 5.000 46 46 1.000 1,752 0 146.000 3,320 0 1.000 1,752 0 4.000 60 0 1.000 1,245 0 5.000 12,040 121 169.000 Run: 8-0ct-97 9:08 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: Ail 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 NI3MBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 38 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 2 9004 RESTRICTED D/L 1 9012 OPEN BOTTLE 2 9014 STOP SIGN 1 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 4 9019 J-EQIPMENT VIOLATION 1 9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 1 9023 J-EXHIBITION DRIVING 1 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 2 9031 J-CROSSWALK VIOLATION 1 9034 STOP ARM VIOLATION 7 9040 NO SEATBELT 2 9050 ALLOWING INCOMPETENT TO DRIVE 1 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 19 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 4 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 28 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 14 9240 CT{ANGE OF DOMICILE 2 9301 LOST PERSONS 1 9309 FOUND/RUNAWAY 2 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 2 Page Run: 8-Oct-97 9:08 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 T~W-'~range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ! {NOW Received: All A6~ivity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: Ail Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 9314 FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 9561 DOG BITE 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS ~b,,, i DANGEROUS DOG 9710 MEDI CAL/ASU 9730 MEDIC-ALS 9731 MEDI CALS/DX 9732 MEDI CALS/CI 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 9834 STOP ARM VIOLATION/NO CHARGE 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 9945 SUSPICIOUS PERSON %~"~, ~o/~NT 9951 SEX OFFENDERS 9980 WARRANTS MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 18 4 1 4 4 1 13 1 1 26 1 3 4 6 1 6 1 7 1 4 1 11 Page Run: 8-Oct-97 9:08 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:S9 How Received: All Activity Resulted: Ail Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: Ail 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 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 1 9992 MU173ALAID/8100 14 9993 MUlTJALAID/6500 9 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 2 9996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS 2 Al155 ASLT 1-GREAT BODILY HARM-HANDS ETC-CHLD-ACQ 1 A3245 ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-0TH WEAP-CHLD-ACQ 1 A5345 ASLT 5-INFLT BODILY HARM-OTH WEAP-CHLD-ACQ 1 A5502 ASLT 5-TI{RT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1 A9502 TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1 AL552 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ 1 AL554 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-HANDS-CE-FAN 2 B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COMTHEFT 1 D8540 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSESSION 2 DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 1 DA548 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-NOT APP 1 DCS00 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPB-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 2 F223C ARSON 2-UNINHB-NO WEA-STORAGE-$299 OR LESS 1 F4005 ARSON 3-MS-UNK COND-OT PRoP-s299 LESS 1 I3060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 1 J2501 TP. AFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNKVEH 1 J2E01 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV I Page Iii J I I, .il, ,li~ J ~.. Run: 8-0ct-97 9:08 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 Ti~W~nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ~,,,,~i~ow Received: J~l. 1 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 INCID~ ~YSIS BY AC~IVI%~Y CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS ACCIDENT-MS-FAIL STOP-DRVR CAUSED-UNK INJ-MV TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE TRAF-ACC-MS-DRIVE UNqDER INFL TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV TRAFFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV CSC 1-UNKACT-PARENT-b-ND 13-F J3301 J3501 J3601 J3E01 J3R01 L1021 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 2 11 3 1 4 13 1 1 1 1 L107~.~CSC 1-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F L70;L' CSC 4-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-16-17-F L7205 CSC 4-FEAR GRT BOD ~M-UNKASSAIL-16-17-F M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO M4199 LIQUOR - 0T~IER M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT N3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT P33~w*~ffRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT TB029 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUiLDING-OTH PROP Page Run: 8-Oct-97 9:08 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 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 Calle For Service INCIDENT Alk~tLYSIS BY ACTIVI~"f CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-201-500-GM-YARDS-0TH PROP THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY TC159 TF059 TF159 TG021 TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONq~Y THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER FRAUD-FE-FINAN EXPLOIT VULN ADULT-UN-K THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS THEFT- MS- SHOPLIFTING- 35000- OR MORE THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS FRAUD-MS-FIN-TRAN-CARD-NO CONSENT 501-2500 VEl{ - UN]fNOWN - MS - TAMPER WI~- ENTER-AUTO CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-GIVE FLSE NAM POL CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-VIOL HARRASS REST ORDER TG059 TG151 TG159 U!700 U3028 U3289 U3498 U3553 V0081 X3200 X3250 X3360 **** Report Totals: 396 Page Run: 8-0ct-R7 8:28 0FF01 Primary ISN's only: No Da~e Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 TiP~---~ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ~ !Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING Page ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED Al155 A3245 A5345 A5502 A9502 AL552 AL554 B3434 ASLT 1-GREAT BODILY HARM-HANDS ETC-C"n'LD-ACQ ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJTJRY-OTH WEAP-CJ{LD-ACQ ASLT 5-INFLT BODILY HARM-OTH WEAP-CHLD-ACQ ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-~ANDS-CH-FAM BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COMTHEFT B34~ ,~ BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT D8540 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSESSION DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DA548 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-NOT APP DCS00 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH- POSSESS - UNK- UNK F223C ARSON 2-UNINHB-NO WEA-STOP. AGE-$299 OR LESS F4005 ARSON 3-MS-UNK COND-OT PROP-S299 LESS 13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR~UNK INJ-UNK VEH J2E01 TRAP-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-LINK INJ-MV J3301 ACCIDENT-MS-FAIL STOP-DRVR CAUSED-LTNK INJ-MV J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3~~'~., TRAF-ACC-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFL J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV J3R01 TRAFFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 ! 0 1 5 0 5 I 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 0 2 2 100.0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 i 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 I 1 0 2 100,0 0 0 i 0 1 100.0 0 0 I 0 I 100.0 0 i i 0 2 100.0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 0 0 i 100.0 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 5 0 0 5 100.0 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 Run: 8-0ct-97 8:28 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 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 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- CODE DESCRIPTION PERCENT ..................... REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED L1021 CSC 1-UNK ACT-PARENT-UND 13-F I 0 I 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 L1077 CSC 1-UNK ACT~ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F i 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0.0 L7075 CSC 4-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-16-17-F I 0 i 0 0 I 0 I 100.0 L7205 CSC 4-FEAR GRT ROD }~4-UNK ASSAIL-16-17-F 1 0 i I 0 0 0 0 0.0 M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 8 0 8 0 0 8 0 8 100.0 M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER i 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 11 0 11 I 0 8 2 10 9 N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 3 0 3 i I 1 0 2 66.6 N3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE I 0 i I 0 0 0 0 0.0 N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COM~g3NICATIONS 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 13 0 13 12 0 0 1 I 7.6 P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT I 0 i I 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 P3310 TRESPASS ~ MS - PRIVATE- UNK INTENT 1 0 i 0 0 0 1 I 100.0 TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP I 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0 TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR %~EH-OT~ PROP 3 0 3 2 I 0 0 1 33.3 TF059 THEFT- 201- 500-GM- YARDS-OTH PROP I 0 i I 0 0 0 0 0.0 TF159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OT~ PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG021 T~EFT- LESS 200-MS- BUI LDING-MONEY 1 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG029 T~EFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP I 0 I 0 0 0 i i 10t TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OT~R PROP i 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 Run: 8-0ct-97 8:28 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 08/26/97 - 09/25/97 T~"'"--"'%nge each day: 00:O0 - 23:59 ~ 'Dispositions: Ail Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVIT"I DISPOSITIONS ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES TG159 U1700 U3028 U3289 U3498 U3553 X3200 THEFT-LESS 200~MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER FRAUD-FE-FINAN EXPLOIT VULNADULT-UNK THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS FRAUD-MS-FIN-TRA-N-CARD-NO CONSENT 501-2500 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-GIVE FLSE NAM POL X32~.~CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION X336V" CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-VIOL HARRA~S REST ORDER PENDING **** Repor~ Totals: 4 0 4 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 i 0 1 0 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 1 109 2 107 47 Page 3 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT AR_REST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 . 0 100.0 50.0 23 27 10 60 56.0 CITY OF MOUND OCTOBER 9, 1997 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~~/ FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR / SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 1997 MONTHLY REPORT PARKS; September is always one of the months that the summer the Parks crew can begin making repairs. This month brought some repairs to the vandalism that three of our play structures had during the last few weeks of the summer. This consisted of replacing a potion of a slide and a crawl tunnel. I like to repair these as soon as I can to discourage more vandalism and personal injury. The Summer Recreation and Beach program will be reviewed at the October P&OSC meeting. This information will be coming to you in the minutes at your next meeting. CEMETERY; The cemetery had one burial. TREE REMOVAL; There were one hazardous tree that were marked on private property and we were working with the home owner for the removal. We are still working on some of the storm damaged trees on city property, we should be caught up in October. great deal of damage to city trees. The cost of all the tree removal has been given to the City Finance Director is looking into some funds from FEMA to help in the cost. DOCKS; The dock inspector has begun to be busy inspecting dock site locations for adherences to code for storage of docks and lifts. We have scheduled the removal of the city own docks for the 15th of October. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 9, 1997 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official SEPTEMBER 1997 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 69 building permits issued in September for a construction value of $ 836,746. We issued 34 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits for a total of 103 this month, and 624 permits year-to-date. Total valuation now stands at $5,553,402. There was 1 streamling application. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed seven cases and sent on three variances, one major subdivision case, and three conditional use permit cases to the City Council. One variance and minor subdivision case were withdrawn. kl City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY ILEPORT Month: SEPTEMBER Year: 1997 THIS MONTH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1 1 108,477 15 2 ~ 218 ~ 747 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) 2 558 r 458 TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX 2 2 240 t 000 2 240,000 MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS I MOTELS) SUSTOtAL 3 3 348,477 19 3,017,205 NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC I SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 5 , , 158, 164 33 622, 172 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 8 92,491 16 206,536 DECKS ].1 45,872 43 143,351 SWIMMING POOLS 2 17 t 499 REMODEL - MISC RESIDENTIAL 41 , . 191,742 223 1,032,174 REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS SUBtOtaL 65, , 488,269 317 2,021,732 NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL IRETAILIRESTAURANT) i 100 OFFICE I PROFESSIONAL 4 86,365 INDUSTRIAL i 1 , 000 PUBLIC /SCHOOLS , 4 427,000 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL 10 514,465 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 5 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS i 3 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS I 8 # PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION 19 TOTAL . 1354 5)553t402 PERMIT COUNTiTHIS MONTH I YEAR-TO-DATE , · BUILDING 6 9 3 5 4 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 4 25 SIGNS 0 9 PLUMBING 10 105 MECHANICAL 14 98 GRADING ]. 4 S&W0 STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 5 29 ,,tOtaL I 10 3 [ 6 2 4 1997 BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY £H YEAR DAY PERMIT ADDRESS OWNER CONTRACTOR TYPE OF CONST VALUTION SAC_%rNIT SEPT 97 8 11761 2125 CEDAR LJ~ TOM STOKES FINE LINE DESIGN SINGLE FAMILY HOME 108,477 950 .~ SEPT 97 3 12058 4466 DEN-BIGH ROAD RODNEY BEYSTROM DECK 2,660 SEPT 97 4 12060 1720 DOVE LANE TOM & BONNIE MENKEN DUSE CONTRACTING DECK SEPT 97 2 12061 2470 FAIRVIEW LANE JEFF METZGER GAP. AGE 10,072 SEPT 97 2 12062 2760 HALSTED LANE THOMAS GOOD HOUSE TO HOME REROOF 3,400 SEPT 97 2 12063 3147 ALEXA~ER LANE SHAWN BUR/rE REROOF 12 1,200 SEPT 97 4 12064 4811 HANOVER ROAD GREGG BORER SEPT 97 4 12065 1672 AVOCET LANE DAVID EMERY S'~PT 97 4 12066 6000 EVERGREEN ROAD LEE LUNDGREN SEPT 97 5 12067 6001 RIDGEWOOD ROAD ED BRIDGE SEPT 97 5 12068 5275 BARTLETT BLVD CRAIG SEIVERT SEPT 97 5 12069 5275 BARTLETT BLVD CRAIG SEIVERT REROOF 1,800 GUY JENKS REROOF 3,200 WINDOWS 1,200 SELA ROOFING REROOF 31 5,400 SELA REMODELLING DECK, RESIDE 15,000 SEPT 97 5 12070 4456 RADNOR ROAD PATRICK BUFFINGTON PAUL PAINE MASONARY ATTACHED GARAGE SEPT 97 8 12071 1599 BLUEBIRD LANE MICHAEL GARDNER LYCKI-K/LM CONST FOOTINGS, SLAB ,I 4,770 I t SEPT 97 8 12073 VOID SEPT 97 5 12074 97 8 12075 6056 BARTLETT BLVD 5444 SPRUCE ROAD VOID VOID VOID VOID CHARLES KOERNER DANA M TERPSTRA BOB BERGEMANN DANA M TERPSTRA REROOF REMODEL HOUSE 2,000 2,000 1997 BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY MONTE YEAR DAY PERMIT ADDRESS OWNER CONTRACTOR TYPE OF CONST VALUTION SAC UNIT SEPT 97 9 12076 5100 EDGEWATER CRAIG ROSE WINDOW REPLACEMENT 2,000 I~ SEPT 97 15 12077 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD NANCY ANN RIGELHOF SEPT 97 10 12078 2001 BELLAIRE LANE DAVE STEINMETZ REMODEL UPPER LEVEL 3,500 REROOF 1,200 SEPT 97 12 12079 5224 WATERBURY ROAD JIM CRAWFORD SEPT 97 10 12080 4785 RICI-D4OND ROAD TOM PIAMMALAY SEPT 97 11 12081 4628 CARLOW ROi~ TIM WILKINSON SEPT 97 12 12082 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE STAN MIERZEJEWSKI DAVE O'DONNELL CONST DECK DECK DECK SAWHORSE BLDRS INTERIOR REMODEL .w'~, 1,600 c/ 56,000 SEPT 97 11 12083 5901 HAWTHORNE ROAD GERA/~ PAULY TONY EBERT BLDRS REPLACE WINDOW 1,900 SEPT 97 12 12084 4773 ABERDEEN ROAD TIM HENDRICKSON DAVE OROZCO SEPT 97 11 12085 3008 HIGHVIEW LAiqE STEVE CATHERS SEPT 97 11 12086 2001 LAKESIDE LANE HAROLD VANZANTEN SEPT 97 12 12087 2028 GR. ANDVIEW BLVD ROGER OLSEN ADDITION, RESIDE, WIND 16,164 DECK REROOF REROOF 1,512 4,000 1,200 SEPT 97 12 12088 4968 AFTON ROAD RAMONA THARA~SON SEPT 97 12 12089 1731 RESTI{AVEN LANE GREG GRUMAN BLDRS & REMODELERS RESIDE REROOF 11,983 1,000 SEPT 97 12 12090 2391 FAIRVIEW LANE DAVID LAUBE ROGER KLICK REROOF 2,000 SEPT 97 12 12091 2600 TYRONE LANE FRED RIDLER FENCE SEPT 97 15 12092 2307 FAIRVIEW LANE ~SON WF SMITH CONSTRUCT REROOF Gi~GE 1997 BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT ADDRESS OWNER CONTRACTOR TYPE OF CONST VALUTION SAC UNIT SEPT 97 15 12093 3002 BLUFFS LANE BEN BENTERIA BOB'S CONSTRUCTION REROOF 3,500 SEPT 97 16 12094 2509 AVON DRIVE MIKE & MICHELLE BAME DAVE O'DONNELL ADDITION SEPT 97 17 12095 4813 TUXEDO BLVD CAROLINE ERICKSON FENCE SEPT 97 16 12096 4937 BRUNSWICK ROAD ~TJLIE SANDBERG FENCE 97 18 12097 2069 IRONWOOD LANE JACK SCHEPERS BART ROEGLIN BLDG DECK SEPT 97 24 12098 5574 SHERWOOD DRIVE TOM ELLIOTT PARSLEY BUILDERS GAR. AGE SEPT 97 18 12099 4617 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE BUD LARSON COUNTRYSIDE HTG SEPT 97 18 12100 1741 BLUEBIRD LANE BOB PIERCE WOODLAND STORES FIREPLACE INSERT FIREPLACE INSERT SEPT 97 19 12101 2933 CAMBRIDGE LANE BEV COOPER REMODEL SEPT 97 18 12102 5346 PIPER ROAD LARRY MCCALL COUNTRYSIDE HTG FIREPLACE INSERT 2,100 3,000 1,ooo 2,153 SEPT 97 18 12103 5115 BARTLETT BLVD DIANE ROSENSCR3%NTZ REMODEL SEPT 97 19 12104 4458 DENBIGH ROAD BRUCE JOHNSON SEPT 97 19 12105 2137 GP. ANDVIEW DRIVE DAVID N'YBERG ,, ,,i T 97 17 12106 5504 SPRUCE ROAD RICH GJERSTAD SEPT 97 17 12107 4812 LANARK ROAD K O'NEIL LEIN MEC~ DEMO GAP. AGE & GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE FIREPLACE INSERT 4,000 13,312 15,975 11,537 1,200 SEPT 97 17 12108 3084 TUXEDO BLVD REBECCA JANSSEN GA/~AGE 14,200 SEPT 97 18 12110 4354 WILSHIRE BLVD FRED CLARK LAKEWOOD JOINERY REROOF 3,100 1997 BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT ADDRESS OWNER CONTRACTOR TYPE OF C~NST VALUTION SAC_UNIT SEPT 97 18 12111 1904 SHOREWOOD LANE WAYNE BURKHALTER REROOF 1 700 ~ SEPT 97 30 12112 6547 BARTLETT BLVD MITCH KIgUTSEN DANBERRY CO SEPT 97 19 12113 6001 RIDGEWOOD ROAD SEPT 97 23 12114 2562 LOST LAFdE ROAD 4668 MA/~CHESTER ROAD SEPT 97 19 12115 SEPT 97 19 12116 2122 BELMONT LANE SEPT 97 19 12117 4446 DENBIGH ROA2D SEPT 97 22 12118 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE SEPT 97 22 12119 6090 BARTLETT BLVD SEPT 97 23 12120 4925 CRESTVIEW ROAD ADDITION, ATTCH GARAGE 90,000 ED BRIDGE CONCRETE W/tLKWAY 2,150 ROBERT DOPPELHAMMER DRS HOME REPAIR 4 SEASON PORCH 16,000 DC KASIN DC KASIN GRADING CHRIS LARSEN PANE LCP. AFT WI NDOW REPLACEMENT 8,026 MARK HANUS FIREPLACE INSERT 2,000 MARVIN NELSON ROGER KRYCK REROOF 1,000 RI CHARD JOLI COEUR LEGACY CONST REROOF 3,000 DOROTHY GEYEN PANELCRAFT RESIDING 12,640 SEPT 97 23 12121 4387 WILSHIRE BLVD D306 ZIMMERMAN REVOC TRST RICK'S MILLWORK REMODEL, KIT CAB 11,800 SEPT 97 23 12122 6308 LINDEN LA~ ~Y LANG WF SMITH REROOF 750 SEPT 97 2'3 1212'3 1956 SHOREWOOD LANE CONNIE SZARKE FENCE SEPT 97 23 12124 1611 MAPLE MANORS COURT WATERS EDgE INVEST WATERS EDgE ~I~qIN HOME 120, 000 950 ~'"~T 97 23 12125 1609 MAPLE ~k~NORS COLTRT WATERS EI~E INVEST WATERS EDGE TWIN HOME 120 000 950~ SEPT 97 23 12126 4908 EDGEWATER LANE STEVE BOXTER TOPSIDE INC RER00F 4 090 SEPT 97 24 12127 2146 CEDAR LANE JACKIE FROE~iLE LAKE STATE REMODEL REROOF, REPAIR SIDING 2,900 1997 BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT ADDRESS OWNER CONTRACTOR TYPE OF CONST VALUTION SAC_UNIT SEPT 97 24 12128 3101 ALEXANDER LANE RICK JORGENSEN REROOF 1,500 ~ T 97 30 12129 1583 BLUEBIRD I~ BOB LIEN DANBERRY CO GARAGE 12,425 SEPT 97 30 12130 5033 AVON DRIVE TED AASO INCLINE ENTERPRISES REROOF 3,000 SEPT 97 30 12131 2016 SYCAMORE LANE KEVIN GRAY DECK 800 SEPT 97 30 12132 4608 CARLOW ROAD SCOTT SIDWELL DECKS UNLIMITED DECK 9,000 SEPT 97 30 12133 5996 LYNWOOD BLVD JILL BOTKO LINDSTROMS REPAIR ROOF 11, 000 SEPT 97 9 12221 2127 CENTERVIEW DI CHEN KAT~IR3%DE W/S CONNECT REC# tMONTH IYEAR IDAY IPERMIT_# IADDRESS CONTRACTOR PERMIT TYPE 1 ISEDT 197 Ill 13753 2127 CENTERVIEW LANE STEINF. RAUS PLUMB IPLU~ -~ 2 ISEPT 3 ISEPT 4 ISEPT 5 ]SEPT 6 ISEPT 7 }SEPT 8 ISEPT 9 ISEPT 10 ISEPT 11 ISEPT 12 /SEPT 13 ISEPT 14 ISEPT 15 iSEPT 16 tSEPT ~7 ISEPT 18 I SEPT 19 ]SEPT 2o ISEPT 21 ISEDT 22 ISEPT 23 ISEPT 24 iSEPT 25 ISEPT 26 ISEPT 27 ISEPT ]97 197 197 197 197 !97 t97 !97 197 197 I97 197 i97 i97 197 197 197 197 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 I97 }3755 13757 13758 18 13760 t10 13761 t10 13762 110 13763 123 13765 Ill {3767 118 i3768 118 13769 117 f3770 19 13771 19 13772 23 13773 23 13774 18 13775 18 13776 18 13777 19 13778 26 13780 30 13781 3025 BRIGHTON BLVI) 5966 LY'NWOOD BLVD 12153 LANGDON LANE 15574 SHERWOOD DRIVE 12127 CENTERVIEW LANE 16240 LYNWOOD BLVD 11853 SHOREWOOD LANE IG;kRY BLIX CULLIC~WATER CULLIGAN WATER CULLIGAN WATER MIDWEST HEATING/AC IJOM/g LUND KINGSWAY 14833 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE IGLENN & A~ HLrRD 15070 WINDSOR ROD 11609 GULL LANE 12900 OAKLAWN LANE 1664 EAGLE L~ IFLARE HEATING & AC IK & K IRON'S MECH I LARRY OLSON PLUMB 4956 THREE POINTS BLVDILARRY OLSON PLU~ 14705 CAVA-N ROAD I MN WATER TREATMENT 13036 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE ICOUNTRYSIDE HTG 14812 LDdgARK ROAD 15717 LYNWOOD BLVD 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE 4724 F~O%;ER ROAD 6058 LYNWOOD BLVD 5070 WINDSOR ROAD 5060 WINDSOR ROAD 2125 SOUTHVIEW LANE 5717 LYNWOOD BLVD 4948 THREE POINTS BLVDITRIPLE D HEATING/AC I MECH ILIEN MECH ITHE FIREPLACE CENTERIMECH ?/ IFREDRICKSON HTG/AC IMECH .7 COPPIN PLUMBING IW/S CONNECT/~ COPPIN PLUMBING IW/S CONNECT COPPIN PLUMBING ISEWER INSP PRACTICAL SYSTEM IPIPING 6017 RIDGEWOOD ROAD MERIT HVAC INC IMECH ~J Steve Smith State Representative District 43A Hennepin County Minnesota House of Representatives COMMITTEES: GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. PENSIONS SUBCOMMITTEE; JUDICIARY, FAMILY LAW SUBCOMMITTEE, CIVIL LAW SUBCOMMITTEE; LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND METRO AFFAIRS, TRANSIT SUBCOMMITTEE September 25, 1997 RECEIVED SEP 2 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City Hall - 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I wrote to Mayor Polston regarding emergency funds for the Mound Housing Redevelopment. If I can assist you further, please give me a call. Steve Smitl ' State Representative 2710 Clare Lane, Mound. Minnesota 55364 State Office Building, St. Paul. Minnesota 55155 IR FAX (612) 296-3949 (612) 472-7664 (612) 296-918u Steve Smith State Representative District 34A Hennepin and Wright Counties Minnesota House of Representatives Committees: Judiciary; Capital Investment; Civil and Family Law Division - Judiciary Representing: Mound, Minnetrista, St. Bonifacius, Spring Park, Independence, Greenfield, Hanover, Rockford, Deiano, Rockford Township, Franklin Township September 23, 1997 Bob Polston, Mayor 202 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Polston: In response to your letter regarding emergency funds for the Mound Housing Redevelopment Authority (I-IRA). Regarding your questions about the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP), my office contacted Deb Kravik, fi:om the Minneapolis Housing and Urban Development (HUD) office. Ms. Kravik stated that their office is required to follow the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) guidelines according to the Federal Register. As you know, NOFA specifies that an omitted narrative statement is not a correctable deficiency, therefore the HUD office could not proceed with your application. We contacted the Office of Capital Improvements in Washington, D.C. to discuss why the nan'ative statement is not a correctable deficiency. Items that would change an HRA's competitiveness for CIAP grant money, cannot, according to th_.~e federal government, be accepted after the deadline date. They said allowing the Mound HRA to submit their narrative statement after the deadline would change their standing in the competition and would put other HRA's at a disadvantage since they did not receive the same amount of time to complete the application as the Mound HRA. I realize the Mound HRA is frustrated for not being informed of their incomplete application until the deadline had past. If you choose to pursue other possible revenue sources, CIAP has emergency reserve funding available to HRA's that qualify. 2710 Clare Lane, Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-7664 State Office Buildin. g; 100 Constitution Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1298 FAX (612) 296-8803 (612) 296-9188 To apply for this aid, you need to gather the following information: ClAP budget, board resolution, drug free certification, certification for contract grants, loans, and cooperative agreements, disclosure of lobbying activities, and applicant/recipient update/disclosure report. Also you should contact the Minneapolis HUD office at (612) 370-3204 for any other items you need to include in your application. Again, this funding is competitive based. Consequently, HRA's are not guaranteed they will receive money. Again, thank you for writing. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, .. Steve Smith State Representative RECEIVED SEP 2 The Steering Committee of the Cities of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is announcing the nomination process for positions on the Board of Managers of the MCWD. Cities are urged to do one or both of the following: Submit nominations to their County (Hennepin or Carver) Send a letter from the mayor or administrator to the Steering Committee asking the Committee to serve as the coordinator/endorsement body for MCWD nominations to the County Board (most cities recently passed resolutions urging this inter-city cooperation). The Steering Committee recommends the nominees have the following qualities: · Knowledge of and/or interest in surface water environmental and flooding impacts. · Knowledge of public financing. · Knowledge of and/or past experience in local government. · Knowledge of and/or past experience in land development. If possible, have nominations and letters to the Steering Committee by October 17, 1997. Let the Committee know if you cannot make the deadline. The names of nominees must be submitted to the County by the end of the year. Steering Committee of the Cities of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District HOWARD BENNIS, MAYOR CITY OF DEEPHAVEN 20225 COTTAGEWOOD ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1877 474-4755 fax: 474-1274 TERRY SCHWALBE PROJECT COORDINATOR 600 EAST RICE STREET WAYZATA MN 55391-1799 473-0234 fax: 404-5318 ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MN 55364-1687 472-0600 fax: 474-0620 PHIL ZIETLOW, COUNCIL MEMBER 2052 COUNTY ROAD 24 MEDINA MN 55340 473-4643 fax: 473-9359 FRED RICHARDS 7225 FLEETWOOD DRIVE EDINA MN 55435 (he, me) 941-7626 Se.ptem. ber 18, 1997 MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIR. 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH 'RICHFIELD MN 55423 861-9792 fax: 861-9749 CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-maih attys@kennedy-graven.com RECEIVED OCT JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA City Managers/Administrators/Board Members and Alternates James M. Strommen, Kennedy & Graven October 3, 1997 NOTICE OF QUARTERLY MEETING The meeting of the SRA will be on October 15, 1997, at 4 p.m. at the Bloomington City Hall at 2215 West Old Shakopee Road. (Map enclosed). There are a number of important issues to be discussed. (See attached Agenda). Please make every effort to attend. Please give your R.S.V.P. to Shannon at 337-9279 by October 10, 1997. We look forward to seeing you there. JMS:sms JM$130884 J7/0 0CT-83-1997 08:13 CITY C I TY OF BLOOM I NGTON OF BLOOMINGTON oIr $~,~00~. ,~? CITY I-IAI.I.. AT THE INTEI~ECTION OF WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD AND PENN AVENUE CJ~C~( SCALE 1"= 800' TOTClL P. 02 AGENDA FOR THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF THE, SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY Bloomington City Hall, City of Bloomington October 15, 1997 4 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: 4. REPORT OF OFFICERS: 5. COMMUNICATIONS: m OLD BUSINESS: - 612 Area Code Proceeding (See Memo 1) US West Generic Cost Proceeding (See memo 2). ROW Task Force Proceeding (See memo 3). Minnegasco Rates (See memo 4). Gas Deregulation (See memo 5). - PUC Investigation - EAS Agreement (See memo 6). LOCATION, GUEST AND TIME OF ANNUAL MEETING: 8. CLAIMS 9. ADJOURNMENT 3M$130884 3U160-3 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 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA City Manager/Administrator/Board Member/Altemate James M. Strommen October 3, 1997 612 AREA CODE PROCEEDING MEMO 1 The PUC has narrowed its decision on the 612 area code changes to an overlay method and one of two types of geographic splits along wire center boundaries. (Maps available on request). The PUC is currently gathering additional information about calling patterns and number availability and is expected to make its decision some time in late October or early November. The SRA has previously received a memorandum explaining the PUC deliberations on this issue and the issue of area code boundaries being drawn along municipal boundaries instead of wire centers. SRA Action Since August. The SRA, with the assistance of the Department of Public Service CDPS"), has been obtaining information from US West regarding the cost and feasibility of altering wire center boundaries to coincide with municipal boundaries. The DPS has indicated its willingness to consider revising its geographic split proposal to coincide with municipal boundaries, primarily along Minneapolis and St. Paul. The material that US West has provided thus far takes the position that a shifting to municipal boundaries would be prohibitively expensive because of an alleged overhaul necessary to the wire center switching locations. The DPS agrees that physical facility changes would cost so many millions of dollars that it would not be a viable option. A possibility remains, however, of a shift to municipal boundaries using the concept of number portability or related adjustments to a customer's area code along boundaries within JMS130~68 SU160-3 Current Status. Some SRA cities have passed resolutions proposing the area code split within municipal boundaries. We have not received a great deal of feedback from cities, however. At the time this memo was prepared, the above option has not yet been fully considered by the DPS for ultimate recommendation to the PUC. The DPS awaits some additional information from U S West. Only if the DPS decides to support a modification along municipal boundaries to its proposal, will the PUC consider municipal boundaries for a geographic area code split. The SRA has already advanced the argument that cities oppose splitting municipalities due to loss of community. Unless a viable, reasonable-cost option along municipal boundaries is presented to the PUC by one of the existing proponents, the PUC clearly will use existing wire center boundaries. I recently had a further conversation with the staff member at the PUC responsible for evaluating area code options. I emphasized the need for the PUC to consider the possibility of making a geographic split along municipal boundaries. The staff members was receptive to that possibility and clearly aware of the SRA concern. In the end, it will come down to whether, all other things being equal, a geographic split can technically be drawn along municipal boundaries without great additional cost and customer confusion. The overlay remains a viable option. The new member of the PUC will provide the swing vote for or against overlay. JMS/sms JMS130868 SU160-3 CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: at ,tys@kennedy-graven.com JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Di~ct Dial (612) 337-9233 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA City Manager/Administrator/Board Member/Alternate James M. Strommen October 3, 1997 US WEST GENERIC COST PROCEEDING MEMO 2 In this proceeding, the PUC is determining the actual cost of service to US West customers, based on the numerous components in the physical delivery of telephone service to businesses and residences throughout the state. Included in this proceeding is the determination of cost differences by geographic location or population density. This proceeding has been marked by high complexity and constant wrangling between US West and AT&T over the completeness of their respective models and the provision of information on them. There have been several delays. As a result, the hearings will not be held until the winter of 1998. A geographic deaveraging task force has also commenced. This involves an analysis of the effect of deaveraging on Minnesota customers. The task force has met a couple of times and helpful information has been derived based on certain cost of service assumptions. From this task force, the legislature will develop policy regarding the issue of whether to change rates based on geographic location and, if so, by how much. Because of the status of this case and other more pressing matters (612 area code and ROW Task Force), we have pared back on the level of participation. Though the outcome remains important to the SRA, the SRA now monitors this case only now. JMS/sms JMS130571 $U160-3 CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) .337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: atrys@kennedy-graven.com JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA City Manager/Administrator/Board Member/Alternate James M. Strommen, Kennedy & Graven October 3, 1997 RIGHT-OF-WAY TASK FORCE MEMO 3 During the 1997 legislative session, comprehensive right-of-way (ROW) legislation was passed regarding use of ROW by telecommunications providers. Part of that legislation included the formation of a task force to advise the PUC on a wide range of issues relating to use of the ROW and possible state-wide uniform standards. The SRA has representation on that task force. Current Status of Task Force The SRA has been actively participating in the task force through the presence of myself and John Flora, as well as Fred Moore of Plymouth as an alternate. As of the date of this memo, the task force has been meeting for one month. It is clear at this point that there are significant differences in the policy approach and statutory interpretation between the industry and cities. The task force will attempt to prepare a report to the PUC by November 1, 1997. Following that report, the PUC will conduct a rule-making proceeding to establish rules for state-wide standards "where appropriate". Ma, ior Issues. The following are issues between local government and the industry: 1. The scope of uniformity required by the statute. The local government group JMS130872 SU160-3 4. 5. 6. 7. believes that the statute does not requires only certain matters (e.g. restoration standards, degradation costs, indemnification) should be reduced to a uniform statewide standard. The industry is taking the position that most if not all issues may be. The model ordinance is advisory only. The industry argues it is state wide and mandatory. The scope of indemnity of local governments and security for the indemnity. The scope and standard of street repair requirements by telecoms. Line and Facility undergrounding requirements and authority of cities. Abandonment procedures and cost recovery for removal. Authority of the city engineer or supervisor to deny or revoke permits. After the task force makes its recommendations to the PUC, the PUC will commence a mlemaking proceeding. If rules are not adopted by March 1, 1998, local units of government can adopt their own ordinances consistent with the legislation. It is clear that there will be significant issues to be decided between now and the end of the rulemaking proceeding and the next legislative session. JMS/sms 3M$1308~2 SU160-3 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 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA City Managers/Administrators/Board Members/Alternatives James Strommen, Kennedy & Graven October 3, 1997 MINNEGASCO RATES MEMO 4 Customers of Minnegasco have been paying the interim rates in place since 1995 when Minnesgasco last sought a rate increase from the PUC. The delay in rate change has been the result of an appeal by Minnegasco regarding recovery of 1.5 million dollars in gas a leak checking cost at issue in an appeal involving Minnegasco and Minnesota Alliance of Consumers. Originally, the PUC had deducted a good-will component the benefit Minnegaso derived from Minnegasco's recovery from regulated ratepayers. The good-will component related to its competitive activities by providing regulated gas services, including such services as gas leak checks. Attached is a graph of increases from the new tariff sheet. Minnegasco intends to send out notices on November I, 1997. JMS:sms JMS131169 SU160-3 Rate class Average Average Average (usage shown in monthly monthly monthly Therms) usage in bill: bill: new Therms old rates rates Residential 101 $ 52 $ 54 Commercial/ Industrial up to 1,500/yr 77 $ 43 $ 44 1,500-5,000/yr 246 $ 125 $ 128 5,000 or more/yr 1,288 $ 610 $ 626 Small Volume Dual Fuel up to 120,000/yr 3,163 $ 903 $ 926 120,000 or more/yr 16,372 $ 4,408 $ 4,514 Large Volume Firm 25,000 $ 9,915 $10,190 Large Volume Dual 100,000 $24,095 $24,467 Fuel Monthly Basic Charge The prices shown in the chart above do not include the monthly Basic Charge that appears on your Minnegasco bill every month. The Basic Charge covers a portion of the costs, sometimes called "fixed costs," that do not change with the amount of gas you use. These costs include maintenance of gas service lines and regulators, the gas meter for your home or business, postage and envelopes, reading your meter and vehicles and equipment. Even though the Basic Charge covers only a portion of these fixed costs, and despite increases in some of these costs such as postage, Minnegasco is not changing the Basic Charge at this time. State law allowed Minnegasco to collect an interim rate increase while the MPUC considered 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 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA City Manager/Administrator/Board Member/Alternates MEMO 5 James Strommen, Kennedy & Graven October 3, 1997 POSSIBLE RULEMAKING REGARDING NATURAL GAS CONSUMER CHOICE On August 28, 1997, a large gas aggregator known as Em'on and Trade Resources Corp., among others, filed for rulemaking to establish rules regarding natural gas consumer choice. On September 3, 1997, the PUC issued a notice requesting comments on the petition. Large business customers have favored the rulemaking. Consumer groups and large franchise providers, such as NSP Gas, have issued comments opposing the rulemaking. Those opposing the rulemaking are stating that this is premature until the gas unbundling investigation by the PUC is completed. NSP and consumer advocates do not believe that Enron has established the assurance that residential consumers will be protected. This request is similar to legislation and interest group pressured to establish competition in the gas, as well as electric and telecommunications industries. The PUC will issue a response in late October. The SRA is on the mailing list and will monitor this proceeding. JMS:sms JMS131170 SU160 - 3 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 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 TO: FROM: DATE: RE:' MEMORANDUM SRA City Managers/Administrators/Board Members/Alternates Dan Greensweig, Kennedy & Graven October 3, 1997 EAS AGREEMENTS MEMO 6 This docket was triggered when U S WEST notified a number of local exchange carriers ("Local Exchange Carriers") that it believed that its EAS agreements with them were required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to be filed with the PUC and that the terms of those agreements be made available to competitive local exchange carriers. In addition, U S WEST requested renegotiation of these agreements. In response, a number of the carriers with EAS agreements with U S WEST, including Frontier which serves certain SRA Cities, asked the PUC to find that the agreements were not subject to filing or renegotiation. The PUC then requested comments on the issue. U S WEST requests that existing EAS agreements should be renegotiated at the time an ILEC seeks to move into an area served by U S WEST or when U S WEST seeks to move into an area served by another ILEC. It also believes a task force should be created to bring other EAS routes into compliance with the Telecommunications Act. MCI and AT&T urge that all EAS agreements be provided to the PUC for review and approval. The Local Exchange Carders recommend deferral to the second phase of local competition rulemaking. DPS believes that EAS agreements should be filed and reviewed, but believes the generic cost and universal service proceedings should first be completed in order to expedite those matters. The SRA filed comments that cautioned that policy and economic considerations should be paramount in any reconsideration of existing EAS agreements. The SRA remains on the service list and continues to monitor the situation. DJG131165 SU160-32 RECEIVED OCT § 1997 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Blaine Bailey and Molly Bailey, et al., Petitioners, Vo Robert M. Lien and Carol L. Lien, et al., Respondents. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Court File No. MC97-15540 ANSWER OF RESPONDENT CITY OF MOUND Respondent City of Mound (the "City") for its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, states that: FIRST DEFENSE 1. Respondent City admits the allegations of the following paragraphs of the Complaint: 3, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22. 2. Respondent City lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of the Complaint: 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 15,' 19. 3. No response is needed to the following paragraphs of the Complaint because the documents cited in these paragraphs speak for themselves: 4, 5, 10, 14, 4. No response is necessary as to the following paragraph of the Complaint: 20. 5. In response to Paragraph 13, Respondent City admits that the case of Flack, et al. v. City of Mound et al., Hennepin County District Court File No. 93-15728 ("the Flack Case") was referred to the Examiner of Titles, Richard Edblom. Respondent City further states in response to Paragraph 13 that the report of Referee Edblom speaks for itself. KRC129672 BE295-34 granted. o 10. 11. Stat. § 466.05. SECOND DEFENSE Petitioners' Complaint fails to state a claim or claims upon which relief may be THIRD DEFENSE Petitioners have waived any claims they may have had against Respondent City. FOURTH DEFENSE Petitioners' claims are ban'ed by the doctrine of laches. FIFTH DEFENSE Petitioners are estopped from asserting their claims. SIXTH DEFENSE Petitioners' claims are barred by applicable limitation periods. SEVENTH DEFENSE Petitioners' claims are barred for failure to give timely notice as required by Minn. EIGHTH DEFENSE 12. Respondent City is entitled to discretionary, official and legislative immunity as to all claims. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subds. 5 and 6, Respondent City is immune from liability for Petitioners' claims to the extent they are based upon discretionary acts or based upon an act or omission of an officer or employee who was exercising due care in the execution of a statute or rule. NINTH DEFENSE 13. If Respondent is found liable to Petitioners under state law, Respondent's liability for compensatory damages is limited pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 8 and § 466.04, subd. l(a). KRC1296~2 BE295-34 2 COUNTERCLAIM For and as its Counterclaim, the Respondent City of Mound states and alleges as follows: Declaratory Judgment 1. Respondent City of Mound is a Minnesota municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 2. Respondent City of Mound states on information and belief that at the time of the platting of Woodland Point, the underlying real estate was located in the Township of Minnetrista. 3. In 1959, the land encompassed within Woodland Point was annexed to the City of Mound. 4. A common law dedication of property in Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons to the public use occurred and the dedication has been accepted by the public. 5. Respondent City of Mound states on information and belief that the City over the years has expended public monies for improvement of Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons including, but not limited to, expenditures made for rip rap work, fill work, seeding work, stair construction, brush cutting, brush removal, tree removal, tree stump removal, tree limb trimming, removal of floating debris, and storm drainage control measures. 6. Historically, Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common have been treated as publicly owned non-taxable property and have not been assigned any tax parcel identification number and have been treated as public exempt property for tax purposes. 7. Respondent City of Mound states on information and belief that prior to litigation none of the landowners in Woodland Point paid any real estate taxes levied or assessed against Wawonaissa Common or Waurika Common. BE295-34 8. Respondent City of Mound upon acceptance of the common law dedication of property in Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons became the trustee of property in Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons in question for the benefit of all of the citizens in general. 9. City ordinances have prohibited maintaining a dock or boat house on or abutting any commons in the City without first obtaining a license or permit from the City. City ordinances have in addition prohibited construction on or alteration of the commons without obtaining a permit from the City. 10. On information and belief, prior to litigation, landowners in Woodland Point and their predecessors in title have voluntarily paid dock license fees, have benefited from public expenditures on the commons and have in effect acknowledged the common law dedication Of property in Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common to the public. 11. Respondent City of Mound is entitled to a judgment of the Court that property in Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common has been dedicated to the public use forever as public property, a public commons, a public park, and a public street and public right of way, and that as trustee for the public, the City of Mound is entitled to regulate usage of Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common. 12. Alternatively, Respondent City of Mound states and alleges that under its inherent police power it is entitled to regulate access to and usage of Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common for the benefit of the public for the purpose of maintaining public safety, maintaining the integrity of the lake environment, controlling boat density, and containing potential private conflicts over dock rights on property in Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common and that therefore Respondent City of Mound is entitled to a judgment of the Court that the City of Mound is entitled to regulate the usage of property in Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common. KRC129672 BE295-34 13. Alternatively, the Respondent City of Mound itself is the owner of certain lots in Woodland Point and therefore the public is entitled to access to and usage of property in Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common. 14. The City notes that it does not intend by its Answer to relitigate issues previously litigated and resolved by the Flack case. WHEREFORE, Respondent Mound prays for judgment of the Court as follows: 1. Determining that Respondent City of Mound is entitled to a judgment of the Court that property in Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common was dedicated to the public use forever, and is public property, public commons, public park land, and public street and public right of way. 2. Alternatively, determining that Respondent City of Mound, as an owner of lots located within the plat of Woodland Point, is entitled to a judgment of the Court that property in Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common was dedicated to the owners of lots within said plat and that the members of the public are entitled to access to and usage of property in Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common by virtue of the City's ownership of lots within said Woodland Point. 3. Alternatively, determining that Respondent City of Mound is entitled to a Judgment of the Court that the City, under its police powers is entitled to regulate Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common and specifically is authorized and empowered to regulate construction upon Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common, maintenance of structures upon Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common and any alteration of Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common by changes in shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, tree cover, removal of fill, or placement of fill. KRC129672 ~ BE295-34 4. For an order awarding Respondent City of Mound its costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney fees, as allowed by law. 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Dated: October .~ , 1997. Respectfully submitted, KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED Karen R. Cole, #174245 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 KRC129672 BE295-34 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 549.21, Subd. 2 to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted. Karen R. Cole, #174245 KRC129672 BE295-34 7 OCT-OB-1997 15:41 M INNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124710682 Minnehaha Creek 0 Watershed District Improving Quali7 of Water, Quality o/Life P.01/01 Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19. Navarre Mail: 2500 SMd)wood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: admin~mlnnehahaereek.org Web Site: www. minnehahecreek.org Board of Managers: John E. Thomas President C. Woodrow Love Vice President Pamela G. alixt Treasurer 'Mortice Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Mt]colin Reid District Office: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator MEMORANDUM DATE: October 9, 1997 TO: FROM: RE: Mayors City Administrators Public Works Directors of the MCWD Diane Lynch, District Administrator Meeting Notice At the last meeting of the Stormwater Task Force, a group formed to revise Rule B, MCWD's Stormwater Management Rule, it was determined that our next meeting should be like our first one--all- inclusive and it will be co-chaired by Lee Gustafson, Public Works Director for Minnetonka. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 21 from 1:00-3:30 p.m. at the Minnetonka Community Center, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd.. The meeting will be held in the Boards and Commission Room. The purpose of the meeting is to go through changes recommended by the MCWD at the last Stormwater Task Force meeting. A meeting notice and attachments will be mailed out later next week. TOTAL P.01 MINUTES-JOINT CITY COUNCILS' AND WESTONKA SCHOOL OCTOBER 13, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m., Mound City Hall. Members Present: City of Mound: Mayor Bob Polston; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus and Liz Jensen; City Manager Ed Shukle. Minnetrista: Mayor Ed Gale; Councilmembers Cheryl Fischer and Delores Jeanetta. Westonka School Board: Chair Bill Pinegar; Board Members: Bruce Charon and Bob Bittle; Superintendent Dr. Pam Myers. Others Present: Bert Haglund, TSP/EOS and Bil Hawks. Cit-v of Mound Resolution Regarding Acceptance of Survey Results and Support for. Referendum on Renovation Pro!ect Ed Shukle, City Manager, reviewed previous Mound City Council action regarding approval of the survey results and unanimous support of a resolution regarding the referendum. City of Minnetrista Resolution Re ardin Acce tance of Surve Results and Su ort for Referendum on Renovation Proiect. Mayor Ed Gale described the discussion at the Minnetrista City Council meeting regarding this matter. He indicated that a similar resolution to Mound's was adopted but that the Council struck the "promoting and marketing" provision of one of the Whereas' and struck the reference to $50.00 per year increase in property taxes. The vote on the resolution was 4-1 in favor. Results of Review and Comment from Department of Children, Families and Learnin~ Bert Haglund, TSP/EOS, informed the committee that a document had been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the Department of Children, Families and Learning. A visitation has been made by a representative of the State Department and that representative has stated that a positive review and comment will be issued. Haglund stated that a positive review and comment will result in a simple majority to pass the referendum. If an unfavorable review and comment were received, 60% passage would be required. If a negative review and comment were received, the referendum would not be allowed. It appears that we have met the requirements as outlined by the State Department of Children, Families and Learning. Review b Bond Counsels Re ardin Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.15-471.191 and its Impact on the Renovation Project Ed Shukle indicated that the bond counsel for the Westonka School District and the bond counsel of the City of Mound have reviewed the project and its relationship to Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.15-471.191. This section of state law refers to school districts financing projects on a capital and operational basis. The law indicates that projects are permissible to finance community, type projects when the focus is on school district curriculum and the community aspect is secondary. Based upon the proposed makeup of the facility, it would appear that the facility will consist of a Joint City Councils' and Westonka School Board Minutes October 13, 1997 Page 2 majority of community oriented functions rather than school district functions. It is based upon this review, that bond counsels have stated that financing cannot take place. Bond counsels have indicated that special legislation allowing a waiver of this law is necessary in order for the school district to go forward with financing this project with the community focus that has been discussed. Dr. Para Myers, Superintendent of Schools, Westonka, indicated that the school district could finance the project alone but with a joint powers agreement as proposed, it is illegal to do. The group reemphasized that this is a joint project with 3 entities involved and that the legislature should look favorably upon waiving the requirement under Section 471.15-471.191. Both Shukle and Myers are pursuing having Senator Gen Olson and Representative Steve Smith introduce special legislation to remove this latest roadblock in the project. In the meantime, direction was given by the committee to proceed with the referendum. The School Board will be meeting this evening to approve a resolution of support and approving the actual ballot question to be put before the voters. Informational meetings were scheduled for Tuesday, November 4,1997, 7:30 p.m., Minnetrista City Hall and Wednesday, November 19, 1997, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Discussion was held on the type of educational information that will be published on the proposed renovation project. Consensus was to have Bert Haglund, TSP/EOS and the communications director for the Westonka School District, Kristin Dodge Narjes, work on developing a brochure that can be reviewed by the committee at its next meeting. The information will be brief but will address some of the common questions that will be asked by voters. Joint Powers Agreement Elements Ed Shukle reviewed elements that should be included in a joint powers agreement. The consensus was to have the joint powers agreement subcommittee meet this week to further develop these key elements and report back at the next committee meeting. The next meeting of this committee was scheduled for Monday, October 20, 1997, 7:00 a.m., Mound City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 a.m. ~tfully submitted, City Manager CHRIS PALM 1772 LAFAYETTE LN MOUND, MN. 55364 612-471-6534 OCTOBER 10, 1997 DEAR MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM PROTESTING THE THE BILL OF $1800.00 FOR THE REMOVAL OF A TREE THAT PARTIALLY CAME DOWN IN THE JULY STORM AND CONDEMND BY THE CITY TO DOWN AUGUST 8TH, AND THE FACT THAT I HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AS A SINGLE WOMEN. I HAD NEGOTIATED WITH RANDYS TREE SERVICE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE AND STUMP FOR A PRICE OF $1500. WITH JIM FACKLE APROVEL TO BE REMOVED ON AUGUST 12TH, ONE WEEK DAY AFTER CITY DEADLINE- RANDY DID NOT SHOW UP ON THE 12TH NOR DID HE ANSWER ANY OF MY NUMEROUS PHONE MESSAGES I EITHER LEFT ON HIS RECORDER OR WITH HIS WIFE KNOWING THAT HE KNEW HOW THE CITY (JIM) FELT ABOUT THE DEAD LINE. I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH JIM FALKNER THAT HE AND RANDY WHERE GOOD FRIENDS AND PERHAPS HE COULD GET RANDY TO RESPOND AND GET THE TREE DOWN WHEN I WOULD BE AT HOME. NTO PLAY. MUST CONVERSATIONS I HAD HE DISCRIMINATION CO~S I E ANGRY AND THREATING ME. I DON'T T ER HE 5~EMED TO B HER THEN WITH JIM FAC~_ i.,,~ m~HAVIOR TOWARDS ME OT KNOW WHY HE H~%U ~n~ --- HIM EVEN THOUGH WE WE'RE ALL TRYING CRIAG GOODRICH WAS CHEWING ON TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING TO GET THE TREE DOWN, THE CONVERSATION ALWAYS ENDED UP IN AN ARGUMENT. IT WAS AS IF I HAD PURPOSELY BLEW THE TREE DOWN AND REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING THING ABOUT IT. WHICH WAS QUITE THE CONTRARY- THE DAY AFTER THE STORMMY BEING VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE STABILITY OF THE TREE LEANING OVER MY NEIGHBORS PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH I WAS QUIT SHAKEN FROM THE STORM AND HAD NO ELECTRICITY FOR TWO DAYS, I CALLED THE CITY AND MY iNSURANCE AGENT HOW TO HANDLE THE PROBLEM. THE AGENT SAID THEY WHERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THE CITY GAVE ME A LIST OF LICENSED TREE SERVICES TO CALL. CALLING EVERY NAME ON THE LIST AT LEAST TWICE TO LITTLE AVAIL. AppARENTLY WITHOUT CONSULTING ME, MY NEIGHBOR MR.GOODRICH WAS ALSO MAKING INQUIRIES LEADING TO MUCH CONFUSION. WHEN I DID GET THROUGH TO SOMEONE THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN OUT AND GIVEN THE INFORMATION TO GOODRICH WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE. IN CONFRONTING HIS WIFE, SHE GAVE ME NAMES AND BIDS THEY HAD GOTTEN FROM THERE OWN SOURCE. I HAD ALREADY TALKED TO SEVERAL TREE PEOPLE INCLUDING RANDY WHO WANTED TO COME IN WITH CRANES AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT THAT DIDEN'~NLY REALLY FIT TEARING UP YARDS AND CI{ARGING EXORBITANT PRICES. SO WHEN MRS GOODRICH GAVE ME JIM ECKLUND NAME AND THAT HE WOULD PAGE 2 C~ARGE $700 TO $800 AND WHO HAD 50 YEARS OF EXPERIANCE AND DID NOT NEED TO TEAR UP THE YARDS I WAS VERY ENCOURAGED. HE ALSO ASSURED ME THAT THE TREE WAS SECURE ANOTHER STORM WHICH I'M SURE GOODRICH'S WHERE CONCERNED ABOUT. FELT VERY CONFIDENT WITH HIM. HE SCHEDULED TO TAKE IT DOWN ABOUT THE 30TH. I DIDEN'T TALK TO GOODRICH'S ABOUT IT SENSE THEY HAD SHOWN ECKLUND THE TREE IN THE FIRST PLACE. PEHAPS THAT WAS A MISTAKE. AGAIN WITHOUT CONSULTING ME, FACKLER HAD BEEN OUT AND CONDEMED THE TREE. I GOT A NOTICE IN THE MAIL ABOUT A WEEK LATER TO HAVE IT DOWN BY AUGUST 8TH. I WAS NOT CONCERNED SENSE IT WAS TO BE BY ECKLUND DOWN BEFORE THAT. IT TURNED OUT THAT ECKLUND HAD WORKED FOR THE CITY AND KNEW FACKLER AND HAD TRAINED RANDY AND SOLD HIS TREE BUSINESS TO HIM. AT SOME POINT I TALKED TO FACKLER FOR THE FIRST TIME ABOUT ECKLUND NOT BEING LICENCED BUT HE COULD GET A LICENSE. THE DAY THAT ECKLUND WAS TO COME'AND TAKE THE TREE DOWN WITH HIS CREW HE CAME TO TELL ME HE COULDEN'T DO IT BECAUSE THIS RANDY WOULDEN'T LET HIM WITH THE BUY OUT AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, HE RECOMMENDED THAT I HAVE RANDY TAKE IT DOWN . I TALKED TO FACKLER AND RANDY SEVERAL TIMES AFTER THIS. RANDY CAME TO MY HOUSE AGAIN BUT NEVER TO MY DOOR AND ASSURED ME THAT HE WOULD REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO THE YARD AND EVEN BRING IN SOME CLEAN FILL THAT THE SIDE OF MY HOUSE AND HILL AS NEEDED. WE DISCUSSED THE PRICE OF $1500. AND REMOVING THE STUMP THAT HE WOULD TALK TO FACKLER. I WENT OFF ON MY VACATION THINKING IT WAS SETTLED. I DID COME HOME EARLY BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE THERE WHEN THEY TORE UP THE YARD TO TAKE THE TREE DOWN AND THE FOLLOWING WEEK I STARTED THE 14 HOUR DAYS AT THE STATE FAIR. SO OF COURSE I WAS QUITE SHOCKED WHEN RANDY DIDEN'T SHOW UP OR CALL TO LET ME KNOW WHY. I CALLED THE CITY, FACKLER TO INQUIRE IF HE KNEW WHY RANDY DID NOT ANSWER MY PHONE CALLS. SHOCKED AGAIN WHEN FACKLER WAS SO UPSET WITH ME TELLING ME THE CITY WAS GOING TO CHARGE ME EXTRA FOR ALL THE DAMAGE RANDY WAS GOING TO DO TO BOTH YARDS AND THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO ABOUT IT. WHEN RANDY FINELY CALLED TO TELL ME WHEN HE WAS COMING IT WAS ALMOST TWO WEEKS AFTER OUT SCHEDULED TIME AND THAT HE REALLY DIDEN'T HAVE TIME THEN BUT GOODRICHE'S WHERE GOING TO HAVE A PARTY AND HE HAD TO GET IT DOWN FOR THEM. WHEN I OBJECTED TO THE TIME HE JUST CALLED FACKLER. THE GOODRECH'S HAD. THERE PARTY ALL HOURS INTO THE NIGHT UNDER THE DAMAGED TREE THE NIGHT BEFORE RANDY TOOK IT DOWN. PAGE 3 I'M SURE YOu CAN SEE WHY I FEEL' THAT I WAS RAILROADED BY THE THESE THREE MEN. I REALLY THINK IF I HAD BEEN A MAN I WOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED DIFFERENT OR THERE WAS GRAFF INVOLVED. SENSE I WAS PAYING FOR THE REMOVAL AND FACKLER KNEW FROM ALL THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH HIM, THAT I WAS TRYING MY BEST TO GET THE TREE DOWN, THEY COULD HAVE WORKED AROUND MY SCHEDULE A LITTLE. EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE A SURPRISE WHEN THEY FINELY CAME ON M IF HE WANTED A CHECK BUT HE SAID HE WOULD AUGUST 22. I ASKED H~ - - ID NOTHING ABOUT THE A BILL TO ME. I'M STIL~ WAITING. HE SA E- THEY TOOK THE CITY BILLING ME. E-gAL CwAs GOING TO DO HANDY HAD A BIG TREE DOWN WITH ROPE~ Az __ ,~,~w ~UST STOOD AROUND. RANDY ~=,., ~uw ~tST OF THEM INCLUDING ~.' ..... LiJ. ~,,,n~'~ HE HAVE USED ~ ....... L DAY. Wnx ~uu~ .... WAS WAS ON HIS PORTABLE PHO~_~ .... N I NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT WAS . THE WEEKS BE¥QR~ ~m~ THIS TO CALL ME .......... "'T GOING USE HEAVY GOING ON? WHY DIDEN'T HE TELL ME M~ wa~, HOME FROM WORK EQUIPMENT AND NOT TAKE THE STUMP OUT? I HAD STAYED TO OVERSEA WHAT THEY WHERE GOING TO DO TO MY YARD. I LOST HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS NOT BEING AT THE FAIR BOOTH MYSELF AND HIRING SOMEONE TO RUN IT. THE CONCERN OF DANGER OF THE TREE, THE STRESS OF NOT KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON, THE HARAZMENT FROM THE CITY HAS BEEN VERY HARMFUL TO MY HEALTH AND LOSE OF INCOME NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. I PREFER NOT TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION, BUT I DO WANT TO BE COMPENSATED. I HOPE THAT I HAVE MADE MY CASE CLEAR AND NOT RAMBLEING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HOPE WE TREE DOESEN'T FALL IN YOUR YARD. CHRIS PALM DENNY & SHELLY STEIN 5156 TUXEDO BLVD. MOUND, MN. 55364 CITY OF MOUND HAND DELIVERED TO MERIT FOR DELIVERY TO CITY COUNCIL 10/08/97 RENOVATION HEARING LADLES & GENTLEMEN: We are in receipt of your "Notice of Public Hearing", (copy attached), and offer the following comments regarding this issue. We are close neighbors of the proposed renovation site and are fully supportive of thek plan to improve the appearance of the Supper Club. We have seen the plans and the changes would make a great improvement to the neighborhood. The current owners have always responded to concerns of their neighbors from noise levels to the general up-keep and appearance of their property. We feel this is just one more positive step on their part. Please accept this letter as our support for this project. Respectfully Submitted: DENNY & SHELLY STEIN dps October 14, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION g97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO BUILD A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID # 30-117-23 22 0086 P&Z CASE #96-62 WHEREAS, the applicants, Scott and Linda Mack are requesting a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-IA zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 40 feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, a side yard setback of 6 feet for lots or record, a lakeshore setback of 50 feet and a minimum lot dept of 80 feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed 22'x 24' garage is conforming to required setbacks and other related sections of the ordinance and is a reasonable use of the property; and, WHEREAS, the existing deck on the south side was built without obtaining a building permit and it is currently encroaching into the lakeshore setback and utility easement; and, WHEREAS, there is an excess of impervious surface on this lot and the applicant has agreed to reduce the impervious surface to 40% as permitted for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the existing split rail fence in the west yard and front yard was erected without obtaining a building permit and is located in the drainage and utility easement and, WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: Block 1, Lot 15, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 WHEREAS, there are special concerns with this property related to stormwater drainage and the in place city storm sewer has required additional design consideration review and additional conditions by the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, the existing lower deck on the south side has no permit history, is nonconforming to the Building and Zoning code, and the consensus of the planning commission is that the lower deck should be removed; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to obtain after the fact permits for the fence and deck and has agreed to revise the proposal to remove the portion of the deck that is constructed Octot~er 14, 1997 within the easement. The applicant has agreed to reduce the size of the lower deck to 4'x8' and this will provide a landing for the existing patio door; and, WHEREAS, after considerable review by the city staff, planning commission and including public comment, it has been determined that the proposed upper deck be limited to a maximum of 10 feet wide where it does not conform to the required 50 foot setback and this is a reasonable use of the property; and, WHEREAS, staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 8-0 vote, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby approves a variance of 10 feet to the required 50 foot lakeshore setback for the upper deck in order to allow the construction of a conforming detached garage with the following conditions: o ° Only one elevated above grade deck within the 50 foot setback with the 10 foot allotment. The at grade determination needs to be made by the Building Official and be approved by the City Council. Drainage from the garage be retained within the parcel itself so it does not increase any runoff into neighboring properties. It is determined that the liveability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Reconstruction of a nonconforming decks and construction of a conforming detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 15, Block 1, Devon This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Ill I I J J, October 14, 1997 Clerk. Additional recommendations by Staff: A. The location of the city easements shall be staked in the field to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Building Official and all portions of the encroaching deck shall be removed from the easements prior to building permit issuance for the detached garage. Double fees will be assessed for all after the fact construction as is the normal process (including the fence). B. The building permits and grading plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. C. The lower deck shall be reduced to a maximum of 4'x8' prior to permit issuance for the detached garage. D. The hardcover be limited to a maximum of 40 %. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1997 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Gerald Reifschneider, Mike Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent and excused' Becky Glister. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, Planning Secretary Kris Linquist. Case # 96-62: Variance Request regarding the Encroachment of Deck in order to construct a conforming garage, Scott Mack, 4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed this case which was referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council to review a number of issues as follows: Updated survey is attached and an additional memorandum from the City Engineer dated October 9, 1997 and staffs response to the Council concerns. 1. The applicants modified deck; The applicant has modified the location and size of the deck to remove the portion that encroaches into the easement. This modification is consistent with the Planning Commissions recommendation to allow a maximum of a 10 foot wide deck in the area that is setback less than 50 feet to the lake. 2. The split rail fence in the easement adjacent on the street and along the west property line; The fence may or may not be considered an encroachment. It has been found to be a normal practice for other cities that fences are not prohibited from being in an easement. Staff recommends an after the fact permit be issued for the fence. 3. The storm sewer pipe has been located on the survey, it is located within the easement, and this issue has been addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Storm water drainage; The issue of storm water has been addressed by the applicants engineer, and the City Engineer in his previous memorandum. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1997 Page 2 5. Hardcover; The applicants proposal is now limited to a maximum of 40% and is conforming to the code. In addition, there is the adjacent green space on the commons that improves the filtration of storm water from this and adjacent sites. The Staff Recommendation is for approval as stated in the previous reports. Discussion: Mueller stated that the deck is different than in previous surveys. Sutherland agreed and his understanding of the previous planning commission recommendation was that the deck could be up to 10 foot wide deck wherever it was less than 50 feet from the lakeshore. The new deck is not going to be wider than 10 feet at any point. The applicant has revised his plan so the lower deck will be taken out of the easement, the existing deck will be cut back. Hanus confirmed that there would be new construction on the deck. Weiland stated that an agreement needs to be written up regarding the fence and easement. Sutherland stated there is an agreement in the packet, however, staff recommendation is to allow the fence without the agreement. A homeowner putting up an fence in the easement is doing it at their own risk, and the City may remove the fence if need be. Scott Mack stated that the portion of the non conforming deck is only going to be about 70 square feet. Hanus suggested that the upper deck not exceed the lower deck. Mueller inquired on how steep are the stairs coming down off that deck. Mack stated that they are basically the way they are now and they are going to be pushed back so they will be losing deck space. Mr. Smith, 4665 Island View Drive, stated that they would like to have a line of sight through the lower deck. They had concerns on how to have the Storm Sewer easement on their property vacated. Sutherland stating that 1) Request for a Sewer vacation of the easement would be required. 2) Responded that we do not have a line of sight ordinance. 3) The Staff is aware of the lower deck encroachment and that staff recommendation is the easement is to be staked by the surveyor and anything that encroaches into the easement will be removed. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1997 Page 3 Hanus stated that the drainage from the roof of the garage, is directed so that it passes the neighorbors house toward the lake. Reifschneider questioned why the Planning Commission should allow two nonconforming decks. He stated he would like to see one of the decks removed. There was discussion related to the zoning code exceptions for a detached deck less than 30" from grade that does not have to meet the normal 50 foot setback. Motion by Mueller to accept staff recommendation with the following alterations: 1. only one elevated above grade deck within the 50 foot setback with the 10 foot allotment. 2. The at grade determination needs to be made by the Building Official and be approved by the City Council. 3. Drainage from the garage be retained within the parcel itself, so it does not increase any runoff into neighboring property. Staff discussed the difficulty in the modifying the existing drainage pattern. Mueller withdrew his motion. Motion by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma, to accept staff recommendation with the following alterations: 1. only one elevated above grade deck within the 50 foot setback with the 10 foot allotment. 2. The at grade determination needs to be made by the Building Official and be approved by the City Council. 3. Drainage from the garage be retained within the parcel itself, so it does not increase any runoff into neighboring property. Discussion: Voss questioned page 107 regarding the drainage. The motion carried 8-0. This case will go to the City Council Meeting on October 14, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1997 Page 4 Information' City Council Minutes - September 23, 1997 Weiland stated that it payed to bring Meyer's case back. The property is really starting to look nice. The retaining wall is now in place. Motion by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 pm. There was additional discussion related to what staff considered an on grade deck. The conclusion of this discussion was that there is a conflict between zoning code sections relating to the required 50 foot setback. · Fo PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 9. 1997 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1997 Present were: Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Rita Pederson, Tom Casey, City Council Representative Leah Weycker, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Clare Link. Those absent and excused were: Marilyn Byrnes. Also in attendance were: no one members of the public were in attendance. MINUTES Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Botko to approve the minutes of the September 11, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission meeting as amended: Motion, page 3: ,,recommend approval of all native plants..". Motion carried unanimously. No changes to the agenda. 1997 PARKS SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS AND BEACH PROGRAM Tim Piepkorn, Westonka Community Education & Services the parks and beaches program activity in 1997. He discussed communication problems when there are safety concerns and the relocation of manholes in Highland Park. Commissioners and staff discussed the manhole issue. Fackler will check into what can be done. Piepkorn discussed the need for fencing along sideline benches on all ball fields and increased shelter and storage in parks. Additional storage would allow the expansion of programs in the future. Pederson asked which parks shelters would be at. Piepkorn suggested Three Points and Swenson parks. Pederson asked if storage could be done at the Depot. Fackler stated it is more of a neighborhood program and needs to be close to where the kids live. Piepkorn stated future participation at Belmont Park needs to be investigated. There was very little participation this season. He discussed the beaches and lifeguards program. He stated staff has PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1997 requested another lifeguard chair at Mound Bay. Piepkorn stated the budget will be finalized in mid-November. He reviewed weekly park attendance. He recommended more recreational opportunities for children in the future. Weycker asked if there are any adult programs such as a trails program. Piepkorn stated he does a limited number through community services. Pederson asked if there is a Halloween program. there isn't such a program in Mound. Piepkorn stated Meyer asked for an update on the skating rink. Piepkorn stated the school district will pay for the cost of a warminghouse attendant this year. Maintenance of the ice is a concern. He stated he would be the contact person for the skating rink. REOUEST FROM WESTONKAHISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR IMPROVemeNTS TO DEPOT Fackler reviewed a list of improvements the Westonka Historical Society has suggested for the Depot. Botko asked if these improvements would made over time or in the near future. Fackler stated he would be getting prices in December and would want the work done before spring. Casey asked what on the list would not be done. Fackler stated it can all be done except for the building expansion. Pederson asked if a microwave would be added. Fackler stated it is a possibility. Pederson asked if the phone would be improved. Fackler stated the phone company has determined it will not be replaced. FUTURE USE OF ISLAND PARK HAL?, Fackler reviewed the memo from the Building Official. He states a use has to be determined before he can state what needs to be done to the building. Weycker stated an architect would be able to check the building to see if it meets requirements. Pederson asked if the roof could be repaired if needed. Fackler stated you don't have to have a use to repair the roof, windows, and paint, but the expense has to be justified. Casey suggested a study be done and the building preserved through obvious repairs. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1997 Weycker suggested meeting the Building Official at the site to review the building and discuss needed repairs. She recommended meeting during the special meeting on the 23rd of October. PARK DEDICATION FE~ Commissioners reviewed a memo from the City Planner relating to park dedication fees. Casey suggested CDBG funding as a source. Pederson suggested using a percentage of lottery earnings as is done in Waconia. Casey suggested a park referendum. Weycker believed goals need to be in place before needed amounts can be determined. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Fackler stated the City Planner is creating a timeline for the Comprehensive Plan update. Portions will be going to the various commissions for their input. Casey stated he would like to see the entire plan as it is drafted to see how land uses impact parks and future parks. Pederson suggested a joint meeting be held with all the commissions to review the plan. Motion by Casey, seconded by Botko to recommend all the commissions and City Councll meet for the purpose of reviewing the Comprehensive Plan as initially proposed with the City Planner. Motion carried unanimously. NOVEMBER POSC AGENDA Fackler reviewed items for the November agenda. Pederson asked the park dedication fund balance be provided at every meeting. Motion by Pederson, seconded by Botko to request the City,s Finance Director provide a quarterly report (January, April, July, and October) on the park dedication fee balance. Motion carried unanimously. REPORTS A. City Council Representative Weycker updated commissioners on the community center. There will be a referendum. Meyers suggested the commission take an active role in public relations. Commissioners discussed what role they can take. B. Park Director 3 PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES- OCTOBER 9, 1997 Fackler stated the Park Department is getting ready for winter and putting picnic tables, etc. away. Equipment is being readied for winter. ADJOUR~ Motion by Botko, seconded by Weycker to adjourn the Park and Open Space Co~mlssion Meeting at 9=15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.