1997-10-28AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 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 OCTOBER 14, 1997,
REGULAR MEETING ................................... 3733-3743
*B. APPROVE THE MINUTF3 OF THE OCTOBER 20,1997,
COMM1TrF. R OF THE WHOLE M'F. FTFING ..................... 3744-3745
*C APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 20, 1997,
JOINT MOUND & MINNETRISTA CITY COUNCILS' AND
WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD MF. RTING ........................ 3746
*D. APPROVE THE MINUTF3 OF THE OCTOBER 23, 1997,
JOINT MOUND & MINNETRISTA CITY COUNCILS' AND
WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ........................ 3747
*E. CASE 97-47: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A SIDEYARD
SETBACK TO REPLACE DECK, BARBARA CASEY,
4704 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6,
DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0042 ........................... 3748-3761
*F. CASE 97-4~[; VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION, GAYLE I.RA PERSON,
1933 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 9, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID 18-117-23 23 0055 .................................. 3762-3781
3730
m
*G.
*H.
*I.
*J.
*K.
*L.
~ VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT SIZE TO
CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, LAURIE RUB~,
2213 CHATEAU LANE, LOT 17, BLOCK 1, CREVIER'S
SUBDMSION OF PART OF LOT 36, LAFAYETI'E PARK,
PID 13-117-24 43 0058. (PLF~SE NOTE: PLANNING COMMISSION
WILL BE REVIEWING THIS AT TI-~JR OCTOBER 27, 1997
MF. RTING. MINUTES AND RF-,CO~~ATION WILL BE
HANDED OUT AT TUESDAY'S M~-~G.) ................... 3782-3794
-C-~i~..~7_~5.~- ' REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDMSION,
ANDY GEARHART, 2075 GRANDVIEW BLVD.,
LOTS 47, 48 AND 49 MOUND SHORES, PID 14-117-24 42 0084 ....... 3795-3804
~ VARIANCE FOR LOT SIZE AND FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION,
BRIAN AND DEg. SKALBECK, 5341 FRANKLIN ROAD,
W-P/LOT 46 WHIPPLE SHORES, PIX) 25-117-24 21 0115 ............ 3805-3816
_C,~F.e_,~- 2' VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FRONT
YARD AND SIDEYARD TO CONSTRUCT THREg. SEASON
PORCH, BOB AND CATHY BERGEMANN, 3054 BRIGHTON BLVD.,
LOTS 12 & 13 AND 15' VACATED STREET, BLOCK 14, ARDEN,
PID 24-117-24 44 0168 & 0169 ..........
................... 3817-3828
~ MINOR SUBDIVISION, BALBOA CENTER
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE,
PID 13-117-24 34 0096 AND PID 13-117-24 34 0015 ............... 3829-3850
~ CENTRAL BUSINF. fS DISTRICT
(CBD) SNOWPLOWING, 1997-98.
.......................... 3851-3853
*M. PUBLIC LANDS PERM1T - ALTERATION/TRIMMING ON COMMONS -
*M. THOMAS R. MF~, 1720 DOVE LANE
PAYMENT OF BILLS .......... ' ................... 3854-3858
......................... 3859-3871
CONTINI. IF.D PUBLIC I~.ARING: UNPAID TRRg.
REMOVAL ASSESSMENT, CHRIS PALM, 1772 LAFAYETTE LANE ........ 3872-3890
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMF. NT RF_,GARDING
RECREATIONAL FIRES.
.................................... 3891-3894
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
RESOLUTION 97- RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY
TO CONDUCT A FEASIBIIJTY STUDY REGARDING A STOPLIGHT
TO BE LOCATED AT SHORELINE DRIVE AND WILSHIRE BLVD ............ 3895
INFORMATIQN/MI,~CEi,!ANEOUS;
Financial Report for September, 1997 as prepared by
Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
............................ 3896-3897
3731
Bo
De
Fo
Go
He
LMCDMailings ....................................... 3898-3910
Update from Hermepin County Regarding Affordable Housing
and Maintaining Quality Communities ....... 3911-3916
Dock & Commons Advisory Corem/ss/on M~utes of
October 16, 1997 ...................................... 3917-3920
Correspondence from Karen Cole, Kennedy & Graven, RE: Woodland Point
Summons. Correspondence includes: (1) Answer to Certain Respondents
Abutting Wawonaissa Common, Notice filed by two landowners abutting
Wawonaissa Common (James and Lisa Prom) seeking to intervene as
respondents, along with an answer similar to that filed by the other
respondents; and (2) Additional answer filed by Elizabeth A.
Vucinovich-$ohnson and Keith O. Johnson ......................
3921+3946
~ dedication of treedplaque at Centerview Beach for
Frank Weiland, Saturday, October 25, 1997, 1 a.m.
l~]~[]~.,t~. Committee meeting regarding the Westonka Community
Center, Wednesday, October 29, 1997, 7:30 P.M., Westonka
Community Center.
]]~.,~I]~]D.~RI Annual Christmas Party, Sunday, December 14, 2997/
Location to be determined.
~ Only City Council Meeting in November will be on
Tuesday, November 18, 1997. No meetings on November 11
(Veterans Day) and November 25.
3732
Mound Cit~ Council
Mound Ci~ ~u~l Mi~ - ~o~ 14, 1~7
~ - MO~ C~ CO~C~ - OCTOB~ 14,
~e Ci~ Co~ of ~e Ci~ of Mo~d, H~ Co~, ~~, met ~ ~g~ ~ion
on ~e~y, ~r 14, 1~7, at 7:~ PM, ~ ~e Co~ C~rs at 5~1 Ma~ R~,
~d Ci~.
~o~ print were: ~yor ~ Polsmn, Co~cfimem~rs ~dr~ ~ens, ~k
~ Weyc~r. Counc~mcm~r L~ J~n w~ ~t ~d cxcu~. ~ ~ a~n~ were:
Ci~ M~er ~w~d L ShOe, Jr., Ci~ A~mcy ~ ~, Bufi~g Offic~ ~ Su~er~d,
Ci~ Clerk F~ C~k, Ci~ P~er ~r~ ~rdon ~d ~e fo~o~g ~res~ ~ns:
~ Mayor ~ ~c m~g ~d wcl~m~ ~c ~lc ~ a~n~. ~ Pl~gc of
~egi~ w~ ~i~.
*Co~e~ A~e~: All ite~ l~t~ ~r
~ Co~il~ ~ll ~ e~ ~ a mil ~l wte. ~re ~ll ~ ~ separ~e dis~sion of t~se
ite~ u~ss a ~i~r or ~n so re~sts, in WMch eve~ t~ item ~ll ~ re,vd
~om t~ ~e~ Age~ ~ co~r~ in ~ seq~e.
OP~ ~G - PL~GE OF ~~CE.
APPRO~ AG~A. ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ Age~ t~ are ~t list~ ~/or
ite~ c~ ~ re~ ~om t~ ~e~ Age~
been approve.
'1.0 CONSENT AGENDA:
The City Manager stated that he would like to add one item to the Consent Agenda. It is the
Minutes from the October 23, 1997, loint City Councils of Mound and Minnetrista and
Westonka Schools Meeting.
The City Clerk stated that the Public Hearing on Unpaid Mowing Charge should be deleted from
the Agenda because the person paid the bill.
The Council agreed.
MOTION made by Itanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda
as presented and smended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion c_n_rried.
*1.1 AP1-ROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEFFF3~ER 23. 1997 REGULAR
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
Mound City Coundl Minutes. October 14, 1997
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to continue this Public Hearln~
to October 28, 1997, to allow Ms. Palm to meet with the City Manager and the Parer
Director regarding the removal of the hazardous tree. The vote was 3 in favor with Mayor
PoL~ton voting nay. Motion carried.
1.11 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING PROGRAM.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was no response. The Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Ahrens moved and Weycker seconded the following resolUtion:
RF_~OL~ON ~97-102
RK.qOLUTION ADOPTING 1997 CBD PARKING
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL IN ~
AMOUNT OF $9,$34..0 TO BE CERTIFI~I~ TO ~
COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST - LEVY
#14121
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMF~NT PROJECT.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was no reztxmse. The Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOL~ON ~7-103
~LLrFION ADOPTING 1997 SHERWOOD DRIVE
IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $45,402.41 TO BE CERTIFIF~D TO THE
COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST - LEVY
#14124
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13
PUBLIC HEARING;
CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATION OF
EXISTING RESTAURANT DESCRIBED
RENOVATION WITH ADDITIONAL 825 SO. Fr. OF
BASEME~ STORAGE LOCATED WITHIN THE B-3
ZONING DISTRICT AT ~201 PIPER ROAD. LOTS 1-
3. BLOCK 8 & LOTS 20-23. BLOCK 9, WHIPPLF~
PID 25-117-24 21 0156. P & Z 97-42. AL & ALMA',~.
The Planner asked that the Council consider the variance ca~//97-43 at the same time they
consider the CUP modification application. The Council agreed.
Mound City Council Minutes - October 14, 1997
The Planner reported that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
CUP and the variance request.
The Mayor open the Public Hearing.
STEVE BEDELL, 4801 Shoreline Drive, stated that he is not for or against this project. He
is for A1 & Alma's. He stated he feels he had to go through a much more lengthy process for
his CUP than what A1 & Alma's has.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION/D7-104
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXIgTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AL & ALaMA'S
SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23,
BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0156, PZ
CASE ~97-42
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14
CASE 97-43: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR R .g:MODELING. 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
Councilmember IIanus suggested the following be changed in the proposed resolution:
The 6th Whereas to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, the proposed variances would r~-ac~ increase the setback along Piper Road by
g 2.05 feet, and removine an encroachment into the ri~ht-of-way, and haer-ease decrease the
setback along Tuxedo Blvd. by 3.5 feet, and;"
Councilmember Hanus also suggested deleting the existing column in the NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED.
The City Planner stated he agreed that the suggested changes are the intent of Staff
recommendations and what the Planning Commission intended.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution as amended above:
RESOLUTION g97 - 105
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR REMODEI.ING, 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
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Mound C~y Councff Minute~ - October 14, 1997
1.15
PI. rBLIC ItEARING:
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 & J3-117-24-33 0041. P & Z 97-37.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
MICHAEL MEULLER, 5910 Ridgewood Road, stated he is the applicant and son of one of
the owners of the property. Since he is the applicant and not the owner, he asked that some of
the language in the proposed resolution be changed as follows: "Both parcels must remain in
the same ownership." That would not mean in the same ownership as it is today, but that it
must remain in the same ownership. He is proposing the following language for items 1 and
2 of the proposed resolution:
The western portion remain under the same ownership as the eastern portion until such
time as the realignment of County Road 15 occurs 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 feet 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.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
The Planner stated the suggested changes and intent are in keeping with Items 1 and 2 under
the Planning Commission's recommendation.
The City Attorney suggested that Item 1 read as follows:
1. "The western portion remain under the same ownership as the eastern portion until such
time as the building is removed as a result of the County Road 15 realignment or a sale
of the easterly property to a governmental unit occurs or the building is removed."
Item fi2 to read as the Mr. Mueller has suggested.
The Council agreed to amending Items 1 and 2 in the proposed resolution.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution as amended.
RESOLUTION ~r/-106
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MAJOR
SUBDIVISION FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS
40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHI.ER'S ADDITION TO
MOUND, PID 13-117-24-33 0073 & 13-11%24-33 0041,
P&Z CASE 49%37
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.16
Mound City Council Minutes - October 14, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDERATION OF A CONDmONAL US~.
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A PRINTING & COPY
SHOP LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING
DISTRICT AT 2316 COMM'F-RCE BLVD.. LOT 4.
29 3/10 Fr. s. OF LOT 4. PID 13-117-24 33 0047. P
& Z 97-44 - LARSON PRINTING
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing. There was no response. The Mayor closed the
Public Hearing.
Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLWFION//97-107
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO AIJOW A PRINTING BUSINESS
IN ~ B-l, LARSON PRINTING, 2316
COMMF~RCE BLVD., LOT 4, & SO. 29 3/10 FF~ET
OF LOT 4, PID 13-117-24 33 0047, PZ CASE i~97-44
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.17
CASE 96-62: VARIANCE REOUF~ST. SCOFF & LINDA MACK. 4657 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE. VARIANCE FOR A DETACRI~I~ GARAGE. LOT 15. BLO(~K
1. DEVON. PID 30-117-23 22 0086.
The Building Official reported that this item was referred back to the Planning Commission
for additional comment. Staff prepared an additional memo with Council concerns that was
presented to the Planning Commission last night. The Planning Commission and staff are
recommending approval and the proposed resolution was handed out this evening.
Councilmember Hanus suggested the following lang,_nge change:
Only one elevated above grade deck with a variance of up to 10 feet and in no case
more than 10 feet where it does not meet the 50 foot setback.
It is determined that the iiveability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming ~ structurg of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Reconstruction of a nonconforming decks and construction of a conforming detached
garage.
The Council asked if the applicant agreed with the proposed resolution. The applicant stated,
yes.
Weycker moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution with the changes to Items 1
and 4:
RESOLUTION g9'/-108
RESOIAYTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE
7
Mound City Council Minutes - October 14, 1997
SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO BUi~.r~ A
CONFORMING DETACHi~I~ GARAGE AT 4657
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1S, BLOCK 1,
DEVON, PID # 30-117-23 22 0086, P&Z CASE g96-62
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.18 APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT. RICHARD JOHNSON PROPERTY -
AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPRO~ PROJECT.
The City Manager explained the background. This parcel ~ended up being condemned for the
Auditor's Road Project. The Condemnation Panel awarded $56,800. The City's appraisal
was $34, 900 and was subsequently reduced to $33,000, due to 60% of the property being in
the wetland. The City Council reviewed this at the last meeting with legal counsel and
authorized the attorney to appeal the award because it was significantly higher than our
appraisal. In the meantime, the attorney representing the City on the condemnation
negotiated with the owner's attorney and they have arrived at $50,000 for a final price on the
property. The Attorney and City Manager are recommending approval of the $50,000
payment for the property.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOL~ON #97-109
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A STIPULATION OF
SETTLEMENT ON ~ RICHARD JOHNSON
PROPERTY AND PAY $.~0,000 FOR THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY- AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPRO~
PROJECT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.19 APPOINTMENT OF LM(~D REPRESENTATIVE FOR ONE YEAR TERM
BEGINNING 1/1/98.
The City Manager explained that Mr. Reese's term expires at the end of this year, December
31, 1997. The appointment would be for a 1 year term beginning January 1, 1998. After
this one year term, it will go back to a three year term to coincide with other three year
terms on the Board. Mr. Reese has indicated that he would serve this one year term if the
Council wished or he would be available to aid in the transition if the Council would like to
appoint someone else. At the September COW meeting there was discussion about having an
elected official represent the City of Mound on the LMCD.
The Council commended Mr. Reese for being an outstanding member of the LMCD and
representing the City of Mound. They further thanked him for the years he has served so
admirably.
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION/D7-110
RF.~OLUTION TO APPOINT ANDREA AHRENS AS
MOUND'S REPI~F-qENTATIVE TO THE L.M.C.D.
Mound Cioj Council Minutes - ~ 14, 19~7
FOR A ONE YEAR TERM, BF_~INNING JANUARY
1, 1,,9~
The vote was 3 in favor, with Ahrens abstaining. Motion carried.
1.20 RESCHF. DULE NOVEMBER 11. 1997. REGULAR CITY COUNCIl'.
MEETING.
The City Manager stated the Council needs to reschedule the November 11, 1997, City
Council Meeting because it is a legal holiday (Veterans Day). He suggested either
November 12 or November 18, 1997. After discussion, the Council took the following
action:
MOTION made by Ahmns, seconded by Polston to resehedule the November 11,
1997, Regular Meeting to November 18, 1997, and cancel the regular meeting
that was scheduled for November 25, 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
The City Manager stated that there will be a City Council photo taken at 6:30 P.M.,
November 18, 1997, before the HRA Meeting.
COMMENTS AND SUGGKqTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRF. qENT.
Mike Mueller encouraged the Council to do more promotion on the downtown redevelopment
so people know it is moving forward.
1.21 INFORMATION/MIgCEIJ.ANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for September 1997.
Be
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.
Ce
Letter with enclosures dated September 25, 1997 from Representative Steve Smith on
emergency funding for the HRA
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 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
9
Mound C~y Council Minutes - October 14~ 1~7
for the MCWD nominations. What do you think? Please give this consideration for
some discussion Tuesday evening.
The City Manager
have the following
* Knowledge
impacts.
* Knowledge
* Knowledge
* Knowledge
explained
qualities:
of and/or
that the Steering Committee recommends that nominees
interest in surface water environmental and flooding
of public financing.
of and/or past experience in local government.
of and/or past experience in land development.
Mate~ for the next meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority (SPA). Councilmember
Hanus is the City's delegate to the SPA.
Fe
~ 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.
The City Manager reported that there will be another meeting on Monday, October 20,
1997, 7 A.M., Mound City Hall, to discuss the informational piece that will be used for
the brochure on the referendum on the Westonka Community Center. He stated he spoke
with Senator Gen Olson and she will look over the information from the bond counsel's on the
waiver of that law.
Gt
]gEMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting is re. scheduled 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.
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 asbe~s is removed. The demolition will
be completed by November 1, 1997.
~ I-IRA Board Meeting, Tuesday, October 14, 7 p.m., Mound City
Ball.
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 {:an 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.
Response to the Wooil_l_and Point Summons is enclosed. This was sent to the attorneys
representing the Petitioners by the October 3, 1997, due date. The City Manager
reported that the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust will be representing the
Le
Mound City Council Minutes - October' 14, 1997
City in its defense of its position.
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.
The City Manager informed the Council that there will be a tree planted in the
Centerview Beach area to honor Frank Weiland who has in excess of 25 years of service
as a member of the Planning Commission. There will be a formal presentation ceremony
on Saturday, October 25, at 11:00 A.M. A plaque will be placed beside the tree, noting
this honor.
The City Manager stated that the School District has called for a Special Election for
December 4, 1997, and approved the question to be placed on the ballot.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Poiston to adjourn at 9:20 P.M. The vote
WaS unanimously ill favor. Motion carried.
Attest:
City Clerk
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING-OCTOBER 20, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus,
Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Absent and excused: Bob Polston. Also Present: Gino
Businaro, Finance Director and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
The only item on the agenda was the proposed 1998 Budget. Councilmembers asked a variety of
questions concerning the proposed budget. Those questions included the following:
2.
3.
4.
o
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Capital Outlay-Why the Lift Station Upgrade in the Sewer Fund?
Proposed rate increases in the Sewer Fund and why?
Possible improvements to the Island Park Hall.
Depot Improvements-need to increase fees once the improvements to the interior are
made. Also need to look at damage penalties.
Why more weed whips for the Parks Department?
Legal Budget-Why the decrease in the civil line item?
Recycling Fund-Do we need to keep the recyclotto program going?
Can we add non-corrugated cardboard to the recycling program?
Proposed increase in recycling charge-why? Should we go to $1.75 rather than $2?
Possibly setting aside monies for retaining walls-out of liquor fund, etc.
Proposed cemetery fees-increasing the fees more than what has been proposed.
Fund Balance as a percentage of expenditures-reduce from 40% to 37%.
Proposed levy-what is the appropriate increase?
The discussion focused on the possibility of not levying the proposed 5.5% and reducing the general
fund balance as a percentage of expenditures to 37%. Ed Shukle, City Manager and Gino Businaro,
Finance Director emphasized the need to increase the levy since the levy was 0% in 1997. They
stressed that the proposed levy is 5.5% of the 1996 levy. Explaining that to constituents is really
important in terms of communicating the tax implications. Shukle and Businaro stated that they
understood the Council's goal but did not agree with reducing the fund balance. If you utilize this
approach on a continual basis in the years to come, the fund balance will gradually diminish. We
have worked very hard to fiscally manage the city to the point that there is a "healthy" fund balance.
Let's be conscious of that as we plan for the future. Budgeting is both short term and long term and
we can't lose sight of that as we consider the tax levy. Also important to remember, said Shukle and
Businaro, is the fact that previously, capital outlay was purchased from Fund #30 offsetting some
of the burden that would have been placed on the general fund. The 1998 Budget shifts capital
outlay expenditures to the general fund which puts further demands on that fund for goods and
services.
Staff was directed to present options at the Truth in Taxation Hearing on December 11, 1997
showing what a reduced levy would be reducing the fund balance as a percentage of expenditures
at the 37% level.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 10:08 p.m.
Committee of the Whole Minutes
October 20, 1997
Page 2
City Manager
MINUTES-JOINT CITYCOUNCILS' OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND AND THE
WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD-OCTOBER 20, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m., Mound City Hall. Members Present: City of
Mound: Hanus, Jensen and Weycker; City Manager Ed Shukle. City of Minnetrista:Mayor
Ed Gale;
Councilmembers Fischer and Jeanetta. Westonka School Board: Chair Bill Pinegar and
DeMatteo. Others present: Kristin Dodge Narjes and Bert Haglund.
Update on Impact of Minnesota Statutes 471.15-471.191:
City Manager Ed Shukle reported on his conversation he had with Senator Gen Olson. Olson is
pursuing a review by Senate Counsel and possibly an Attorney Generals' opinion regarding the
school district being able to obtain a waiver of this statute or possibly having to pursue special
legislation to allow a waiver to be granted.
Draft of Information Brochure:
Kristin Dodge Narjes, Westonka Schools and Bert Haglund, TSP/EOS reviewed a draft of an
informational brochure that could be used for educating the public on the referendum scheduled for
December 4, 1997. Following the dissection of the brochure, it was agreed that another meeting be
held on Thursday, October 23, 1997 to review a final draft.
Joint Powers Agreement Elements:
No discussion took place on this item since there was no time remaining. This is continued until the
October 23 meeting.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
MINUTES-JOINT CITY COUNCILS' OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND AND THE
WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD-OCTOBER 23, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m., at Mound City Hall. Members Present:
City of Mound: Mayor Bob Polston and Councilmembers Jensen and Weycker; Ed Shukle,
City Manager. City of Minnetrista: Mayor Ed Gale. Westonka School
Board: Chair Bill Pinegar and Dr. Pam Myers, Superintendent of Schools. Others: Kristin Dodge
Narjes and Bert Haglund.
Mayor Ed Gale began with an explanation of events that took place at the Minnetrista City Council
meeting on Monday evening, October 20, 1997. He explained that two actions were taken: (1)
Withdraw participation in the joint committee and (2) Rescind a previous resolution to support the
referendum. In other words, Minnetrista is no longer a participant in the Westonka Community
Center Renovation project. Gale stated that there was a lack of support among the Minnetrista City
Council for the project for several reasons including that the facility is not located in Minnetrista,
uncertainties with regard to financing the project from both a capital and operating expense
standpoint.
Gale indicated that the vote was unanimous. Other members of the committee questioned why
Minnetrista took this action at this time and not earlier. Concerns regarding the upcoming
referendum, ballot printing, legal notices, informational brochure and a variety of expenses that have
been incurred, were discussed. Members were "appalled" and offended by Minnetrista's actions.
Discussion focused on what to do i.e., cancel the referendum, pursue it with the City of Mound and
the Westonka School Board only, etc. After some discussion, it was agreed that the School Board
Chair talk to the other School Board members to find out how they felt about it and whether they
would be willing to work with Mound only on the project. Pinegar is to get back to Ed Shukle by
Friday, October 24 with an answer so that if the school board is amenable to this revised
arrangement, new ballots can be printed in time for the election.
Another meeting was scheduled of this committee for Wednesday, October 29, 1997, 7:30 p.m.,
Westonka Community Center regarding joint powers discussion and preparation for the
informational meetings that have been previously scheduled.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 a.m.
City Manager
October 28, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION//9%
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO REPLACE EXISTING DECK
AT 4704 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, DEVON,
PID 30-117-23 22 0042,
P & Z CASE//97-47
WHEREAS, the applicant, Barbara Casey, has applied for a side yard setback
variance to replace an existing deck that is deteriorating to the point of being unsafe, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet, and 40 feet of lot frontage, and;
WHEREAS, the deck was along the rear and sides of the home with a portion
along the side encroaching into the side yard setback, and:
WHEREAS, all of the deck has been removed, and;
WHEREAS, the request is for a 5 feet side yard variance to allow the portion
of the deck along Roanoke to be built to the same dimensions as the previous, and;
WHEREAS, the property is located on a corner lot with 3 street frontages along
Island View Drive, Roanoke Lane, and Hanover Road, and;
WHEREAS, the lot is conforming to the district standards but the home is
considered nonconforming due to the 19 feet side yard setback along Roanoke Lane, and;
WHEREAS, the rear deck is conforming to the rear setback requirements, and;
.~/-~I~REAS, to allojy~-olff~h'~.r yard deck to~.e,~l~l~a~..~ith an 5. ~
~Canhnrnd.e, nt into th 'de'de~th n° rec°nstm~de yard deck ~e °f tl~e
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of a side yard setback variance of 5 feet to allow the deck to encroach
5 feet into the side yard for that portion of the rear deck not to exceed 16 feet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a side yard setback variance of 5 feet to allow the deck to
encroach 5 feet into the side yard for that portion of the rear deck not to exceed 16 feet.
IIi J I
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1997
Case # 97-47: Variance, Sideyard Setback to replace deck,
Barbara Casey, 4704 Island View Drive, Lots 1 & 2, Block 6, Devon,
PID 30-117-23 22 0042
Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
The applicant is in the process of replacing a deck that was deteriorating to the
point of being unsafe. The deck was along the rear and sides of the home with the
portion along the side encroaching into the side yard setback. All of the deck has
been removed. The request is for a 5 feet sideyard variance to allow the portion of
the deck along Roanoke to be built to the same dimensions as the previous. The
setback and proposed variance is listed below.
Existing Proposed_ Required_ Variance
Side Yard 19' 15' 20' 5'
The property is located on a corner lot with 3 street frontages along Island View
Drive, Roanoke Lane, and Hanover Road. The lot is conforming to the district
standards but the home is considered nonconforming due to the 19 feet sideyard
setback along Roanoke Lane.
As indicated in the application, the existing deck had deteriorated and was unsafe.
The proposal is to reconstruct the deck to the original dimensions and use footings
for support instead of a cantilever design that was used previously. This project
also includes a portion of the deck on the rear of the home facing Hanover Road is
also being replaced but does not require a variance. The design is asymmetrical
with outer dimensions of 26.5 feet by 16 feet.
The home has a width of 42 feet is setback 54 feet from the rear lot line. This
provides adequate amount of room in the rear yard for a large deck. The proposed
setback of the deck is 38 feet. Although the side yard deck would provide a view
of the lake, it is only 4 feet wide. At this width the deck becomes more cosmetic
than functional.
Staff would like for the Commission to pursue the possibility reducing the impact of
the encroachment. This would entail not replacing the portion of deck along the
side of the house but allowing the portion of deck in the rear yard to encroach 5
feet into the side yard. This alternative could still afford a view of the lake without
the impact of the additional side yard deck.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the variance request with the following conditions, if Planning
Commission agrees with the suggestion to not rebuild the side yard deck the
motion would be as follows.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1997
1. Allow the deck to encroach 5 feet into the side yard for that portion in the
rear yard.
2. Recognize the 1 foot side yard encroachment of the existing house.
If the Planning Commission finds there is a practical difficulty or hardship present,
it could find there are reasons to allow the deck to be rebuilt to the original
dimensions.
Discussion:
Weiland questioned how high off the ground was the deck.
Doug Ward representing applicant stated that the elevation of the deck on the side
of the house is about 1- 1/2 feet.
Reifschneider asked if there is there a door out the back. Gordon stated that there
is a sliding door out the back.
Hanus asked the reason for allowing the nonconformity was for the sole use of the
limited lake view. Gordon stated that was correct. Weiland stated that she does
have restricted view of the lake.
Mueller questioned the applicant. Can you tell us why the applicant wants the 4
foot walkway. Ward stated that the applicant wants to keep the deck in its original
state. She likes the ability to observe her pets in the front yard from the deck. She
has owned the house for 10 years.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend Staff
recommendation.
Discussion:
Mueller questioned wording on item #1. Gordon stated the intent was to reflect the
building plans. The existin house already encroaches 1 foot so 4 feet needed to be
added to make the 5 foot variance.
Mueller stated that item # 1 needed to restated.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend Staff
Recommendation with item #1 stated as follows.
1. Allow the deck to encroach 5 feet into the side yard for that
portion of the rear deck not to exceed 16 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1997
Sutherland stated that the applicant can put a stairway in down to an on grade
deck and put a decking 4 feet wide but no more than 8 inches in height along side
the house.
The motion carried 7-1. Michael opposed.
This case will go to the City Council on October 28, 1997
October 27, 1997
Casey
Page 2
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Replacement of deteriorating 26.5 feet by 16 feet rear deck.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 1 & 2, Block 6, Devon
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hermepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember .
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
612-8S5-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 668 P02 OCT 89 '97 11:17
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Croup Inc.
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: October 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Sideyard setback variance
OWNER: Barbara Casey - 4704 Islandview Drive
CASE NUMBER: 96-47
I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5dd
LOCATION: 4704 Islandview Drive
EXISTING ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is in the process of replacing a deck that was deteriorating to the
point of being unsafe. The deck was along the rear and sides of the home with the portion along the
side encroaching into the side yard setback. All of the deck has been removed. The request is for a 5
feet sideyard variance to allow the portion of the deck along Roanoke to be built to the same
dimensions as the previous. The setback and proposed variance are listed below.
Existing Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard 19' 15' 20' 5'
The property is located on a corner lot with 3 street fxontages along Islandview Drive, Roanoke
Lane, and Hanover Road. The lot is conforming to the district standards but the home is considered
nonconforming due to the 19 feet sideyard setback along Roanoke Lane.
As indicated in the application, the existing deck had deteriorated and was unsafe. The proposal is
to reconstruct the deck to the original dimensions and use footings for support instead of a
cantilever design that was used previously. This project also includes a portion o1' the deck on the
rear of the home facing Hanover Road is also being replaced but does not require a variance. The
design is asymmetrical with outer dimensions of 26.5 feet by 16 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 wanted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0g00 lax (612) 338-6838
61~-8~5-~160
I ,I, ,,IL I ~. I, IA
HOISINGTON KOEGLER 668 P03 OCT 09 '97 11:18
p. 2
Casey Deck Variance
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
gener',flly 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.
C. That the special conditions' or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
Do
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Orctinance 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.
The home has a width of 42 feet is setback 54 feet from the rear lot line. This provides adequate
amount of room in the rear yard for a large deck. The proposed setback of the deck is 38 feet.
Although the side yard deck would provide a view of the lake, it is only 4 feet wide. At this width
the deck becomes more cosmetic than functional.
Staff would like for the Commission to pursue the possibility reducing the impact of the
encroachment. This would entail not replacing the portion of deck along the side of the house but
allowing the portion of deck in the rear yard to encroach 5 feet into the side yard. This alternative
could still afford a view of the lake without the impact of the additional side yard deck.
RECOiV~NDATION: If the Planning Commission agrees with the suggestion to not rebuild the
side yard deck the motion would be as follows.
1. Allow the deck to encroach 5 feet into the side yard for that portion in the rear yard.
2. Recognize the 1 foot side yard encroachment of the existing house.
If the Planning Commission finds there is a practical difficulty or hardship present, it could find
there are reasons to allow the deck to be rebuilt to the original dimensions.
123 North Third Sueet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
P 2 4 1997
GITY OF: MOUND
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
,Planning Commission Date: ]0-i~--q'U Case No. q~7- Z/7
City Council Date:
Distribution: O~--')-q'~ City Planner 0-oq~'-t~'~' DNR
~'-~75-Q'~ City Engineer Other
O-~b~-O'7 Public Works
SUBJECT Address 4734- !<~L~,MDqte~.?
PROPERTY Lot [ f ~. Block
LEGAL Subdivision
DESC. PID# ~.- it7 - Z% g2 D6~4-'2.. Plat #
ZONING
DISTRICT
R-1
PROPERTY Name ~/d~--~ .~. F~5~c//
OWNER Address ~-7G4- I~C4_.~i~t/l~.&./ ~
Phone (H) ~tT..~e.7L-~t~ (W) L, tZ. 4-7Z-~.~':~. (M)
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN
Phone (H) (W) (M).
OWNER)
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.):
% 7:5~Rev' 1/14/97)
Ii I i 1, i,
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 J~. If no, Specii~y each non--2conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: ( NOE W ) '~0 ft. ':~0 ft. M//~ ft.
Side Yard: ( N St~W ) 7,.0 ft. 15 ft. ~ ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E~ ) /,~ fi. Iq ft. ~a/3q ft.
Rear Yard: (~)S E W ) I~' ft. ~ ft. t,t/~ ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
· (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: r:=~r 8~,.~q ~'tl~e rz~.~, ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: ~c.,,. iOC. sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: ig"'~'5 sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ~) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No,j~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
No (). If yes, explain:
Yes,~,
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?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Applicant's Signature
Date
~ ~ ~ (Rev. 1~14~97)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
/
SCl. FT. X 30% - Ifor all Iotsl .............. I
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
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
~q x ul,'p = Ioo~,
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
TOTAL HOUSE
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
iq x ~o =
X =
X -
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
--
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DECK
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~/OVE~te ~/~2ce) ...............................
·
-&tJD --
325/,,
Plat of ~'
~ur~ey
for Peter M. Sorenson
of ~ots I and 2, Block 6, Devon
Henneptn County, ~.tnnesota
I
BLOC K
I
HANOVER
C - BO -- -
40 r .... 40
I
I
I
I
I
I
' 2
~ I
I
I
I
<cI
I
I
~~ Ldi
Certifiaate of Survey:
I hereby certify thst this is a
true and ccrrect reoresentation of a
I
i
ROAD
0
/-.-- co.n c r~
p~wn_q
1.G5' Norfh
of SE lot
~ corner
I
survey of the boundaries of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Devon. ' It does not
purport to show improvements or uncroach~,,ents other than an existing
concrete pavement. .'
Sca le:
Dute :
o :
l" =
~-2r~-?A L~.nd 3urveyor and Planner
~',r"; v' i,,jr~
Iron marker !~:gb ..... ;.,.~.~i~ ~: &,,+,-"' Long Lake, Minnesota
B L G
C K
HANOVER
i
I
,D
' ..... RECEIVE""
~?~o
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
YARD ] DIRECTION
HOUSE .........
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
Rz ~o,ooo/6o ~1 7,soo/o
c'~ 6,ooo/r~-~ B2 2o,ooo/eo
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60,
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W 15'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SHED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
HARDCOVER
30% OR 40%
CONFORMING? YES / NO ? ] BY:
DATED:
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirement~ outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Planning Deparm~nt at 472-0600.
ISLAND VIEW DR
October 28, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION
AT 1933 LAKESIDE LANE,
LOT 9, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID 18-117-23 23 0055,
P & Z CASE g97-48
WHEREAS, the applicant, Gayle Lea Person, has applied for a variance to
recognize an existing nonconforming lot to allow for construction of an addition to the home and
attached garage, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000
square feet, and 60 feet of lot frontage, and;
WHEREAS, the existing lot size is 7,856 and the existing lot width is 50 feet
which would require a 2144 feet and 10 feet variance, and:
WHEREAS, the existing detached garage would become an attached garage with
the new addition requiring a 17 foot variance for the new structure, and;
WHEREAS, the new garage will face the side yard providing more off street
parking, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request an recommend
approval with conditions, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance of 17 feet, a 2144 feet variance
for the non conforming lot, and a 10 foot variance for the non conforming lot width to
allow construction of an 11.5 x 28 two story addition with an attached garage with the
following conditions.
ao
The drainage along Lakeside Road, on the driveway apron, and along the lot lines
be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance to determine
necessary methods to address drainage and runoff concerns.
b. The existing driveway apron be removed and used as a planting area.
October 27, 1997
Person
Page 2
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
11.5 x 28 feet two-story addition to the front of the house.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 9, Block 11, Shadywood Point.
o
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
3
612-8~5-3168 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 668 P84 OCT 89 '97 11:18
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: October 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Sideyard setback variance
OWNER: Gayle Lea Person - 1933 Lakeside Lane
CASE NUMBER: 96-48
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5ee
LOCATION: 1933 Lakeside Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Gayle Lea Person, have applied for a variance to recognize an
existing nonconforming lot to allow for construction of an addition to the home and attached
garage. The additions will result in the following requests:
Existing Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 30' 3' 20' 17'
Lot Area 7856 10,000 2144
Lot Width 50' 60' 10'
The owner is proposing a 11.5 feet by 28 feet two-story addition to the front of the house. The
addition would attach a new side entry garage. The current garage entry faee~ the street and is
setback 3 feet from the property line. Code requires a 20 feet setback for front entry and eight
feet for side entry garages. The addition provides two stories of living space with lavatory and
wash rooms on the first level and bathroom, storage closets, and a den on the second level which
extend over the south stall of the garage.
The site drains from the road south across the property to the lake with the first floor of the house
siting lower than the street. Hardcover c',dculations for the proposed improvements are under
code requirements.
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):
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Planning Commission Minutes
Octol~er 13, 1997
Case # 97-48: Variance, Frontyard Setback for Addition,
Gayle Lea Person, 1933 Lakeside Lane, Lot 9, Block 11, Shadywood Foint,
PID 18-117-23 23 0055
Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
The applicant, Gayle Lea Person, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing
nonconforming lot to allow for construction of an addition to the home and
attached garage. The additions will result in the following requests:
Existinq Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 30' 3' 20' 17'
Lot Area 7856 10,000 2144
Lot Width 50' 60' 1 O'
The owner is proposing a 11.5 feet by 28 feet two-story addition to the front of
the house. The addition would attach a new side entry garage. The current garage
entry faces the street and is setback 3 feet from the property line. Code requires a
20 feet setback for front entry and eight feet for side entry garages. The addition
provides two stories of living space with lavatory and wash rooms on the first level
and bathroom, storage closets, and a den on the second level which extend over
the south stall of the garage.
The site drains from the road south across the property to the lake with the first
floor of the house siting lower than the street. Hardcover calculations for the
proposed improvements are under code requirements.
There are some tradeoffs with this case we should consider. Reorienting the garage
to a side entry will help remedy the lack of off-street parking and reduce safety
concerns of backing directly onto the street. The proposed addition creates a large
front yard variance for the home. Although the lot is undersized for the district, the
existing house does appear to be a viable structure in good condition. An addition
would increase its livability.
There are two encroachments that are indicated on the survey. The concrete
curbing on the home to the west is used to channel water along the property line.
The planting box on the east property line is an encroachment from the adjacent
property. Both of these encroachments are minor and probably do not need
attention.
Staff feels that gains in reorienting the garage to a side entry and increasing the
livable space of the home are appropriate reasons to grant the variance. The City
Engineer has reviewed the case and has some concerns about drainage along the
street by the existing concrete apron, along the lot lines and the proposed concrete
apron. These could be addressed at the time of building permit issuance so a
further detailed survey of the conditions can be made.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1997
Staff Recommendation' Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition.
The drainage along Lakeside Road, on the driveway apron, and along
the lot lines be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to building permit
issuance to determine necessary methods to address drainage and
runoff concerns.
2. The existing driveway apron be removed and used as a planting area.
Staff feels the proposed improvements will increase the livability of the house and
not detriment the character of the neighborhood. There are other homes that have
been designed in a similar manner and add to the character of the neighborhood.
Discussion.
Clapsaddle asked what is the space between the garage doors and the side
property line. Gordon stated that it is a little more than 20 feet.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff
Recommendation.
Hanus stated that there is significant amout of boulvard in the right of way. It
would appear that there is more room between the existing garage doors and the
street than is shown on the site plan.
Weiland stated that it was also a plus in gaining is off street parking.
The motion carried 8-0.
This case will go to the City council on October 28, 1997
612-895-3160
HO I S I NGTON KOEGLER
~,, I, , It ~
668 P05 OCT 09 '9? 11:19
p. 2
Per, on Addition Variance
Ae
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.
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.
There arc some tradeoffs with this case we should consider. Reorienting the garage to a side entry
will help remedy the lack of off-street parking and reduce safety concerns of backing directly
onto the street. The proposed addition creates a large front yard variance for the home. Although
the lot is undersized for the district, the existing house does appear to be a viable structure in
good condition. An addition would increase its livability.
There are two encroachments that are indicated on the survey. The concrete curbing on the home
to the west is used to channel water along the property line. The planting box on the east property
line is an encroachment from the adjacent property. Both of these encroachments are minor and
probably do not need attention,
Staff feels that gains in reorienting the garage to a side entry and increasing the livable space of
the home are appropriate masons to grant the variance. The City Engineer has reviewed the case
and has some concerns about drainage along the street by the existing concrete apron, along the
lot lines and the proposed concrete apron. These could be addressed at the time of building
permit issuance so a further detailed survey of the conditions can be made.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested with the following condition,
1. The drainage along Lakeside Road, on the driveway apron, and along the lot lines be
evaluated by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance to determine necessary
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(6'12) 338-0800 Fax (6'12) 338.6838
612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 668 P06 OCT 89 '97 11:19
P. 3
Person Addition Variance
methods to address drainage and nmoff concerns.
2. The existing driveway apron be r~moved and used as a planting area.
Staff feels the proposed improvements will increase the livability of the house and not detriment
the character of the neighborhood. There are other homes that have been designed in a similar
manner and add to the character of the neighborhood.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 [:ax (612) 338-6838
i(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
, I~
PAiD
SEP 2 4 1997
CITY OF MOUND
Application Fee: $100.00
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
¢¢
q-d:gq 7 city Planner
q',~ff' Y5 City Engineer
~ Public Works
Ca~...~"- .,¢"~ DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address ¢ ~-; - '--.
Lot ~
Subdivision ':
Block
ZONING DISTRICT
R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1
Plat#
B-2 B-3
Name
Address
Phone (H) ~ (W) L" : (M)__
Name
Address
Phone (H) (W)_ (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? Ct), 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.):
&fiance 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 V0. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: L-" REQUIRED
Front Yard: ( N S ~W ) -~ G ft.
Side Yard: (,~l~ S E W ) ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) , ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E '~) .:.~, ft.
· -(--N-S-E-W-) ..................... ft.
Street Frontage: - .. ft.
Lot Size: -,, ~ :-~, sq ft
Hardcover: fl ~- ':~'' ~ sq ft
~-,-~., ft. ,_~ ft.
sq ft ~:.-, sq ft
· ~ ~. sq ft ' ~ sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (.), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage (-;3- existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
describe:
', ! ,, / J
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No (,~). If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No q). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
j ) ,
"c~i that all of t~e aoove gtatemeht~ and't~e statements ~o~ifie~ in anf~hquired papers '0r'~lans
submitted herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to ~e entw m or upo~ the premises described ~n th~s
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for ~e pu~ose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
· (Rev. 1114197)
ate
Dat
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
SO. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. IS q (~,' c~--. ;:--'
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
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARA_GE/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 DETACHED BLDGS .................
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X ~
TOTALOTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE /,;"." ~-
/ OVER (indicate difference) ............................... [ ~'~ '-"< .
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA . SQ. FT. X 30%
= (for all lots) .............. I ~' ~' ':' ' .-,:9'
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.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
DETACHED BLDGS
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
(GARAGE/SHED)
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING X
AREAS, SIDEWALKS, .-~-' _~ X
ETC. X
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ................ . ~ .........
X =
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY
DATE
(REV. 8/29/94)
summary of hardcover rules
Excerpts from the Mound Zoning Ordinance
Section 350:310. Definitions.
I.mpervious 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 350:1225, Subd. 6. Shoreland Manaqement.
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.
ao
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.
bo
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.
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.
Councllmemb~r Polston moved the following resolution,
RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 378
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOHHENDATION OF
THE PLANNING COHMISSION TO APPROVE THE NON-CON-
FORMING USE AS REQUESTED
WHEREAS, Dave Thurston, of 1936'l'akes|de Lane, owner of property described as
Lot 9, Block 11, Shadywood. Point, plat 61980 Parcel 43/~0 with PID'No.
18-117-23 23 0055 has requested approval of a non-conforming use, and
WHE'REAS,. said.non-conform!ng use is the result of an undersized lo'tof2143.25
feet in an area zoned A-1 requiring 10,OO0'sc~ ft. and a garage that Is
too.close, to the front street thereby requiring a 17'feet s'treet front
variance, and '.
WHEREAS, said owner wished to expand his present structure upwards by adding a
second story and will .in no way expand on the dimensibns of the pre-'
sent structurems perimeter.
NO~/, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND, HOUND,
HINNESOTA:
That Council does hereby approve the request of a non-conforming
use In concurrance with the recommendation of the Planning Com-
mission. Said approval to allow the expansion of present structure
by adding a second story without expansion of o'ut§ide perimeter.
A motion for the adoption of the ~bove resolution was duly seconded by Council-
member Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted In favor
thereof; Lovaasen, Swenson, Polston, Withhart and Ulrlck, the foilowlng voted
against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted
signed by the Hayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk.
Attest:~CHC City Clerk
s/Tim_Lovaasen "
Hayor
70-216
8-11-70
RESOLUTION ~0. 70-216
RESOLUTION. GRANTING BIDE-YARD VARIANCE
(Lot 9, Block 11, Shadywood Point)
the owner of Lot 9, Block 11, Shad~wood Pointnhas requested
a side-yard variance of.~ from the requiredtB-foot side yard
in order to make an addition to his house, and
~S, the Planning Commission has recommended the variance be · granted,. ..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDBYTHEVILLAGE COUNCILOF MOUND~ MOUND,
MINNESOTA~
That a side-yard variance of 8" be grantedprovided all other
requirements are met and that.there iS no overhang, c~-c~Y,~
Adopted by.the Council this llth day of August, 1~70.
k
OF
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
GAYLE PERSON
LOT 9, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
POINT
CLUB WALL ',
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
Lot 9, Block 11, SHADYWOOD POINT
o : denotes iron morker
(950.7): denotes existing spot elevation, mean seo level datum
~¢~'~: denotes proposed spot elevotion, mean sea level dotum
Be<~rings shown ore based upon on assumed dotum
This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described
property, the Iocotion of on existing house ond garoge, <~nd the
location of oil visible "hordcover" thereon, it does not purport
to show ony other improvements or encroochments.
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO
YARD ] DIRECTION I
HOUSE .........
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
~ B1 ?,500/0
R2A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 20,000/6~
R2 24,000/80
R3 ~EE ORD. ~1 30,000/100
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE: ·
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
REAR N S E W 15'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SiIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
HARDCOVER
30% OR 40%
i CONFORMING? YES I NO ? I By: {DATED:
I
ThiSplanningZOningDepartmentlnformatiOnat 472-0600.Sheet only sunmtarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For f~rther information, contact thc City of Mound
~ ~ o'~ 0
.,
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
[il[[
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: October 27, 1997
SUBJECT: Supplemental Report - 2213 Chateau Lane
CASE NUMBER: 97-49
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5kk
COMMENT: This is a supplemental report to Case #97-49 that was tabled at the October 13, 199'/
Planning Commission meeting. As you recall, this item was tabled pending additional information
on the adjacent vacant lot located at 2217 Chateau Lane.
These are the current property records according to Hennepin County:
Property Address:
PID:
Owner:
Legal Description:
Assessed Value:
Delinquent Taxes:
2217 Chateau Lane
13-117-24-43-0059
Sunshine Parmers Limited Partnership, Dallas, TX
Lot 18 Block 1
$5000.00
None
The property is not a tax forfeiture property and the development intentions of the owner are unclear.
The property on the comer at 2221 Chateau Lane is also in separate ownership by James Bedel.
I discussed the case with the City Manager to explore if there was an opportunity for the City or
County to purchase property. In cases of a tax forfeiture property, the City's policy has been to
purchase lots on a case by case basis. This situation is much different in that the vacant parcel has
an owner who has kept the tax role current. The City has not pursued the purchase of individual lots
in residential neighborhoods under these conditions where there is little benefit to the public.
Funding for this type of transaction is not provided for in the City's budget. The City did request
dollars through CDBG funds from Hennepin County in years past for a similar use, but was denied
for some of the same reasons.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
, It [
October 28, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION/997-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION
AT 2213 CHATEAU LANE,
LOT 17, BLOCK 1,
CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK,
PID 13-117-24 43 0058,
P & Z CASE//97-49
WHEREAS, the applicant, Launie Rubineh, has applied for a lot size variance
to build a 12 x 14 bedroom addition, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet, and 40 feet of lot frontage, and;
and;
WHEREAS, the existing lot area is 4783 feet requiring a 1217 feet variance,
WHEREAS, the existing 10.5 x 12.3 shed sitting on a concrete slab located at
the rear of the property encroaches 1 foot into the side yard setback and 2 feet into the rear yard
setback, and;
WHEREAS, Staff feels the home is in good condition and the improvements will
increase the livability of the house and not detriment the character of the neighborhood, and;
WHEREAS, the existing house is 600 square feet, 768 with the proposed
addition, and will still be under the minimum 840 square footage that is required, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of a lot side variance and recognition of the 1 foot side yard setback and
the 2 feet rear yard setback variance to allow the addition of 12 x 14 to the rear of the property
with the stated conditions, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant the following variances to allow a conforming 12 x 14
addition:
Ao
Lot size variance of 1,217
A 1 foot side yard and a 2 foot rear yard setback variance for the existing shed.
October 28, 1997
Rubineh
Page 2
C.
A 72 square foot
requirement.
variance to the minimum 840 square feet dwelling size
Along with the following condition:
a. The City Engineer review and approve the drainage plan for the addition.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Addition of a 12 x 14 bedroom.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 17, Block 1, Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36 Lafayette Park.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 1997
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 27, 1997
Those present: Vice Chair Michael Mueller, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Gerald
Reifschneider, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent
and excused' Chair Geoff Michael, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Building Official Jon
Sutherland, Planning Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Bill Chenvert- Sawhorse, Wendy Maxheimer - Sawhorse
Temporary elect Chair Frank Weiland until Vice Chair Mueller joins the meeting.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 13, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Staff noted that on page 10 of the minutes, planners review was stated incorrectly
where the setback and proposed variance are listed below. It should read:
Existing Required Variance
Front Yard 15.7' 20' 4.3'
Side Yard 3.6' 10' 6.4'
Burma stated that on page 6 of the minutes - statement before the motion should
read'
Burma stated that the commission can strongly recommend that the applicant work
with the contractor before a permit is issued regarding the structural soundness.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the
October 13, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
Temporary Chair Weiland turned the meeting back over to Vice Chair Mueller.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 1997
Case # 97-49: Variance: Lot Size Variance to construct Addition,
Launie Rubineh, 2213 Chateau Lane, Lot 17, Block 1, Creiver's Subdivision
of part of Lot 36 Lafayette Park, PID 13-117-24 43 0058
This case was tabled from the October 13, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting
pending additional information on the adjacent vacant lot located at 2217 Chateau
Lane.
Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the Planners supplemental report.
These are the current property records according to Hennepin County:
Property Address:
PID:
Owner:
Legal Description:
Assessed Value:
Delinquent Taxes:
2217 Chateau Lane
13-117-24 43 0059
Sunshine Partners Limited Partnership, Dallas, TX
Lot 18 Block 1
$5000.00
None
The property is not a tax forfeiture property and the development intentions of the
owner are unclear. The property on the corner at 2221 Chateau Lane is also in
separate ownership by James Bedell.
I discussed the case with the City Manager to explore if there was an opportunity
for the City or County to purchase property. In cases of a tax forfeiture property,
the City's policy has been to purchase lots on a case by case basis. This situation
is much different in that the vacant parcel has an owner who has kept the tax role
current. The City has not pursued the purchase of individual lots in residential
neighborhoods under these conditions where there is little benefit to the public.
Funding for this type of transaction is not provided for in the City's budget. The
City did request dollars through CDBG funds from Hennepin County in years past
for a similar use, but was denied for some of the same reasons.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2?, 1997
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions:
1. The 1 foot side yard and 2 feet rear yard encroachment be recognized.
2. The City Engineer review and approve the drainage plan for the addition.
Discussion:
Weiland noted that nothing was mentioned about the other small shed that is
located in the rear of the property. Asked staff what would be the minimum size
of garage that could be placed on this property.
Sutherland stated that a typical single car garage would be ten to twelve feet wide
by twenty to twenty-two feet deep.
There was more discussion on the smaller shed. Staff determined that the smaller
shed was not an encroachment. A lot smaller than 10,000 square feet is allowed
2 sheds on the property.
There was discussion on the structural soundness on the foundation. Sutherland
stated if the Council approves this case, staff will work with the contractor on the
issue.
Sawhorse stated that they had looked at the foundation and had an engineer
working on it. The footing currently goes down 28 inches. Sawhorse plans to
match that footing for the new addition. They are only construction the shell of the
addition, the homeowner is doing the inside.
There was some discussion on how the new addition was going to be heated.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend Staff
Recommendation .
Discussion:
Weiland commented that if the commission grants the variance now, what about if
the resident wants a garage, he feels that the commission should recognize want is
not conforming now and not grant the variance.
Orr Burma stated that the building itself is conforming except for the lot size and
shed encroachments. The Commission is talking about a non existent garage
which is not the issue at hand.
P/annl'ng Commission Meeting
October 2?, 1997
Glister stated that by not allowing this addition, it is not bringing it any closer to
conforming at this time. It will still be nonconforming.
Weiland questioned what the required square footage is for a new structure.
Sutherland stated that for a new dwelling it is 840 square feet.
Weiland requested that this is reflected in the resolution that this house would still
be undersized after the addition was put on.
Mueller felt that the availability of the adjacent lot was not researched as it should
have been.
Weiland stated that this would be a good opportunity for the city to look into
finding ways of implementing a policy or procedure to purchase properties of this
nature.
The applicant's representative from Sawhorse builders stated that the applicant just
purchased the property. The applicant does not have the funds to purchase the
adjacent property even if it was for sale.
Clapsaddle stated that the city is not in business to buy up properties and become
land developers.
Mueller stated that this gives Council an opportunity to look at a comprehensive
plan.
Hanus stated that the commission is going about this all wrong. It is wrong to keep
a resident under thumb to make a point to council. He suggested to go ahead and
deal with the case under the merits of the case. If a message is to be sent to
council, a recommendation for programming needs to be proposed and brought to
the council.
Comments were made that the homeowner should have checked into the
availability of an addition prior to purchasing the home.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend staff
recommendation with the finding of fact that the home will still be
undersized for this zoned area.
The motion carried 5-2. Weiland and Mueller opposed.
This case will go to City Council on October 28,1997
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 1997
There was additional
discussion regarding this and similar cases.
Information: City Council Minutes - October 14, 1997
Weiland asked for an add on item requesting a truth and zoning statement.
Mueller took a poll on the commission as to whether there should be a truth and
zoning. All commission members present voted yes.
Take to council that the planning commission is in favor of a truth and zoning
requirement for the City of Mound. also to look into the funding issues of such
project.
Clapsaddle felt that the council should authorize the expenditure of a professional
investigation on the issues for both a legal and planning standpoint from someone
other than our current attorney who specializing in the legal aspects of these truth
and zoning issues.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to adjourn the meeting at
8:55 p.m. The motion carried 7 - 0.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1997
~ It [
Case # 97-49: Variance, Lot Size Variance to construct Addition,
Launie Rubineh, 2213 Chateau Lane, Lot 17, Block 1, Crevier's Subdivision
of part of Lot 36 Lafayette Park,
PID 13-117-24 43 0058
Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
The applicant, has applied for a variance to build a 12 feet by 14 feet bedroom
addition. The addition would be located on the rear of the home. The additions will
result in the following requests:
Existing Reauired Variance
Lot Area 4783 6,000 1217
Code requires a 6,000 square feet lot size in the R-2 District which this property
does not meet. Hard¢over requirements are under 30 percent coverage after
improvements. There are two sheds along the rear property line. The larger 10.5
feet by 12.3 feet shed encroaches 1 foot into the side yard setback and 2 feet into
the rear yard setback. It appears that the shed has existed on the property for a
long time and is in reasonable condition. It sits on a poured concrete foundation.
The house is small measuring at only 600 square feet and the addition will add only
another 168 square feet. It seems reasonable that a home of this size, although on
an undersized lot could be afforded an addition. There is not a garage on the
property that could come up as an issue in the future. If the proposed addition
were built, any garage design would require a variance to yard space or for the
required 10 feet driveway access.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions.
The 1 foot side yard and 2 feet rear yard encroachment be recognized for
the shed.
2. The City Engineer review and approve the drainage plan for the addition.
Staff feels the home is in good condition and the improvements will increase the
livability of the house and will not be a detriment to the character of the
neighborhood.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1997
Discussion:
Weiland questioned the condition of the foundation.
Mueller questioned if the new foundation didn't match the old, what would
happen. Sutherland stated it could be done two different ways either build the new
to match the old or go to the old and build it like for the new.
Weiland asked if there had been any thought given to purchasing the neighboring
lot. Gordon stated that we cannot force someone to purchase property.
Voss stated that he felt there was lack of data of structural soundness.
Burma stated that the commission can strongly recommend that the applicant work
with the city before a permit is issued regarding the structual soundness.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to table this case until more
information is obtained on the adjacent property to the south.
Hanus stated that possible the applicant or staff could look into a block grant
money program.
Bill Shenvert from Sawhorse builders spoke for the applicant stating that the
applicant does not have the extra money to purchase the adjacent lot. They will
look into the matter of how structurally sound the foundation is. They are willing to
work with the Building Department with the foundation issue.
Sutherland stated this case can come back to the Planning Commission meeting on
October 27th and still go to the City Council on October 28th.
The motion carried 5-3. Burma Reifschneider, Micheal opposed.
This case will come back to the Planning Commission on October 27th.
P. 2
Rubmeh Lot Size Variance
approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions.
The 1 foot side yard and 2 feet rear yard encroachment be recognized.
The City Engineer review and approve the drainage plan for the addition.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: October 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Lot size variance
OWNER: Launie Rubineh - 2213 Chateau Lane
CASE NUMBER: 97-49
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5ff
LOCATION: 2213 Chateau Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant, has applied for a variance to build a 12 feet by 14 feet
bedroom addition. The addition would be located on the rear of the home. The additions will
result in the following requests:
Existing Required Variance
Lot Area 4783 6,000 1217
Code requires a 6,000 square feet lot size in the R-2 District which this property does not meet.
Hardcover requirements are under 30 percent coverage after improvements. There are two sheds
along the rear property line. The larger 10.5 feet by 12.3 feet shed encroaches 1 foot into the side
yard setback and 2 feet into the rear yard setback. It appears that the shed has existed on the
property for a long time and is in reasonable condition. It sits on a poured concrete foundation.
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):
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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.
The house is small measuring at only 600 square feet and the addition will add only another 168
square feet. It seems reasonable that a home of this size, although on an undersized lot could be
afforded an addition. There is not a garage on the property that could come up as an issue in the
future. If the proposed addition were built, any garage design would require a variance to yard
space or for the required 10 feet driveway access.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested with the following condition.
The 1 foot side yard and 2 feet rear yard encroachment be recognized.
The City Engineer review and approve the drainage plan for the addition.
Staff feels the home is in good condition and the improvements will increase the livability of the
house and not detriment the character of the neighborhood.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
PAID
SEP 2 4 1997
,J'FY Of OUN
Application Fl~ee: ?100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
,City Council Date: /O
Distribution: c~,'~-0 7 City Planner ~-~-'c)'7 DNR
q-&,~- q'? City Engineer Other
q-~,%-~]7 Public Works
SUBJECT Address
PROPERTY Lot / q Block
LEGAL Subdivision/-f
.
DESC. P~D~ / 3 -- / / 7- ~?"J' ~' r.Z~_ £ Plat ~
APPUC~,~r Name ~.~a,
THAN Phone (H) ~ Z~g/'J~.;~/~ (W) 5 _5[.~'-65 .)25 '-~ (M)
OWNER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, PO no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
/ '
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No.
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No {KJ. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (NSEW) ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft.
: (NSEW) ft.
Street Frontage: ft.
Lot Size: O, O0 0 sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
fl. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. fl.
sqft l 7. o "1 sqft
sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ,(50 existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. 1/14)97)
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No.
o
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~4'. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No~. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes ~,/g), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
3 7~g (Rev.
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 30%
SQ. FT. X 40%
SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only) . .
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
x
X
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC
X
TOTALDECK
TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY ':~'f~ z.~-~, DATE
HARDCOVER WORKSHEET JOB 971104
Concrete Area
1 7~ 7~ 49
2i 2.5: 7 18
3 17~ 3,
4. 6! 6i 36'
ITotal Concrete
1661
House , Area
6 26.4: 22.5' 594
ITotal House
!Asphalt Drive :, Area i
ITotal Asphalt Drive
7591
ITOTAL HARDCOVER
17oI
10941
ITOTAL LOT AREA
IPERCENT OF LOT THAT MAY BE HARD
4793
30%
FT. OF ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER
IAREA OF H.C. UNDER + OR OVER - ORD.
1438J
3441
,C~ATEAU LAN E
~Nit~¥ SEWER
:- 40. o0---
BENCHMARK
F-LEV. 9'1 ~. ?..0
..... 40. O0 ......
N 00°03~4.0"W
RECEIVED
ir;br.
JOB /40.971104
· Unique Designs
· 10(D+ References
· lO.year Limited \Varrant¥
· Guaranteed Price
· Financing
· ~IN Licen~ 2382
HECEIVEU
· Expert Project Management
1VO Your P~ucts
R~m A~i~ ' P¢c~s ' ~c~ ' K~ · ~ · Ouamnteed Completion
Lowest Price for Best Value Schedule
L
4740 42nd Ave N · Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422 · (612) 533-0352 FAX (612)533-2668
· Unique Designs
· 1000+ References
· lO.5,ear Limited Warranty
· Guaranteed Price
· Financing
· MN Licen~ 2382
l,'ll,l~ & II~,i,!,t~.
Room Additior~s . Porches. Decks. Kitcber~s · Baths Lowest Price for Best Value
· Licen~d, Bonded, Insured
· Expert Project Management
· Showroom to Select
Your Products
· Guaranteed Completion
Schedule
4740 42nd Ave N · Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422 · (612) 533-0352 FAX (612)533-2668
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILE? FYES) I NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO
YARD ] DIRECTION
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
RI 10,000/60 BI 7,500/0
R1A $,000J~ B2 20,000/80
~ e..,_q.~.Z,s_~--'-" e3 zo,ooo/eo,
"1~--2 14,000/80
R3 $~ ORD. ~2 30,000/100
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
HOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
15'
10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SliED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT
FRONT
N S E W
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 N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
HAR[X2OVER 30% OR 40%
CONFORMING? YES / NO ?
IaY: ~/~ IDATED: ' I
This Zoning lnformalion Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning .Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Planning Department al 472-0600.
.7
: ............. '.'-:.,-~ ,.._,:0 -,, '~ ,~o-.-_-'_ ~,~ ;,,, ;, -,., ,,?_
{ .... ,-, .-
. {~]~]~[. ~l 2 51ZOo:': ~(]051-- '~5 'c g ~/ ,491~66
~[(
Planning Commission Minutes
0ctoi~er 13. 1997
Case # 97-50: Minor Subdivision, Andy Gearhart, 2075 Grandview Blvd,
Lots 47,48,49, Mound Shores
PID 14-117-24 42 0084
Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
The applicant, Andy Gearhart, is seeking approval of a lot split which would create
two developable parcels from an existing parcel that is 27,707 square feet in area.
The property is located on the corner of Hillcrest and Grandview Blvd. The new
parcel would remove 8,400 square feet from the rear yard of the existing parcel
with a 50 foot width. This satisfies the lot size and area requirements of the R-2
district.
There is an existing wood shed located behind the garage which would be an
encroachment as proposed. To alleviate this situation, the building would need to
be removed or relocated on the existing parcel meeting accessory structure
setbacks. It cannot be placed on the new parcel until a home is built.
The existing garage has a downspout on the NE corner which drains into a tile that
discharges onto the new parcel. This will also need to be relocated so that the
discharge is directed away from the lot line.
The City Engineer has reviewed the application and the report is included in your
packets. Additionally, the recommendations are included in the conditions below.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the request with the following conditions:
1. The wood shed encroachment be removed.
2. The drainage tile be rerouted to discharge water to the east of the garage or a
downspout apron be used to filter from the garage.
3. Final Grading and Drainage Plan to be approved by the City Engineer at the time
of building permit application.
4. Dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City, 5 feet in width along all side
lot lines and 10 feet in width along both front and rear lot line for both parcels.
5. Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel A, either be installed or some type
of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond.
6. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $ 1,828.15 to be paid.
October 13, 1997
Discussion:
Stephanie Snidarich, 2055 Grandview BIvd, expressed concern that by separating
this lot that it is going to take away from the green space of the neighborhood. Is
also concerned that whoever purchases that lot is going to put an oversized house
lot. Also asked if possibly the city could purchase the lot and turn it into a
on the
park.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded Clapsaddle to recommend Staff
recommendation. The motion carried unianimousely 8-0.
This case will go to City Council October 28, 1997.
October 28, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
AT 2075 GRANDVIEW BLVD,
LOTS 47, 48, AND 49, MOUND SHORES,
PID 14-117-24 42 0084,
P & Z CASE g97-50
WHEREAS, the applicant, Andy Gearhart, has applied for a lot split which would
create two developable parcels from an existing parcel that is 27,707 square feet in area, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet, and 40 feet of lot frontage, and;
WHEREAS, the property is located on the corner of Hillcrest and Grandview
Blvd, and;
WHEREAS, the new parcel would remove 8,400 square feet from the rear yard
of the existing parcel with a 50 feet width which satisfies the lot size and area requirements of
the R-2 district, and;
WHEREAS, the existing wood shed located behind the garage would be an
encroachment and would need to be moved or removed, and;
WHEREAS, the existing garage has a downspout on the NE corner which drains
into a tile that discharges onto the new parcel which would need to be relocated, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the lot split as recommended by staff, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property with the following
conditions
The wood shed encroachment be removed.
The drainage tile be rerouted to discharge water to the east of the garage or
downspout apron be used to filter from the garage.
Final Grading and Drainage Plan to be approved by the City Engineer at the time
of building permit application.
Dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City, 5 feet in width along all side
lot lines and 10 feet in width both front and rear lot line for both parcels.
October 27, 1997
Gearhart
Page 2
e.
f.
Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel A, either be installed or some type
of f'mancial guarantee provided, such as a cash escrow or performance bond.
One deficient street unit charge in the mount of $ 1,828.15 to be paid.
o
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Minor subdivision for two developable parcels.
This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 47, 48, 49, Mound Shores.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Il I I ,I, ,,IL I 1. I, Il,
612-835-3168 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 678 P02 OCT 09 '97 12:21
PLANNING
REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Sta. ff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: October 1 I, 1997
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
OWNER: Andy and Margaret Gearhart - 2075 Grandview Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 97-50
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5gg
LOCATION:2075 Grandview Blvd.
EXISTING ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a lot split which would create two
developable parcels from an existing parcel that is 27,707 square feet in area. The property is located
on the comer of Hillcrest and Grandview Road. The new pm'cci would remove 8,400 square feet
from the rear yard of the existing parcel with a 50 feet width. This .qatisfies the lot size and gee
requirements of the R-2 district.
There is an existing wood shed located behind the garage which would be an encroachment as
proposed. To alleviate this situation, the building would need to be removed or relocated on the
existing parcel meeting accessory structure setbacks. It cannot be placed on the new parcel until a
home is built.
The existing garage has a downspout on the NE comer which drains into a tile that discharges onto
the new parcel. This will also need to be relocated so that the discharge is directed away fi'om the
lot line.
The City Engineer has review the application and the report is included in your packets.
Additionally, the recommendations are included in the conditions below.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the request with the following conditions.
1. The wood shed encroachment be removed.
Council
37 7
612-835-31B0 HOISIN6TON KOE6LER 6?0 P03 OCT 09 '97 12:22
P. 2
Gearhart Minor Subdivision
The drainage tile bc rcrouted to discharge water to the east of the garage or a downspout
apron be used to filter water from the garage.
Final Grading and Drainage Plan to be approved by the City En~ncer at the time of building
permit application.
Dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City, 5 feet in width along all side lot lines and
10 feet in width along both front and rear lot lint for both parcels.
Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel A, either be installed or some type of financial
guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond.
6. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 to be paid.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739
Telephone Engineers
612/476-6010 Planners
612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MFRA FILE:
Jon Sutherland
John Cameron, City Engineer
October 6, 1997
City of Mound
Gearhart Minor Subdivision
2075 Grandview Boulevard
Case No. 97-50
11828
As requested, we have reviewed the information provided for the above referenced minor
subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations:
Grading and Drainage
The survey submitted does not show any proposed future house location or elevation; therefore,
final grading and drainage plans will need to be provided when application is made for a building
permit. We would also recommend that drainage and utility easements be dedicated along all lot
lines, 5' wide on the sides and 10' wide on both the front and rear for both parcels.
Streets and Utilities
According to the City's record utility plans, Parcel A does not have any in-place sanitary sewer
or water services. Services for this parcel will need to be provided at the applicant's expense. If
these services are not installed prior to recording of the subdivision, some type of financial
guarantee should be provided to the City.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Lo-U
Jon Sutherland
October 6, 1997
Page 2
The combination of these three (3) lots were only assessed and one unit charge when the streets
were reconstructed in 1980. With this proposed subdivision creating an additional buildable
parcel, one deficient unit charge of $1,828.15 should be collected.
In conclusion, we are recommending the following conditions become a part of the subdivision
approval:
1. Final Grading and Drainage Plan to be approved by the City Engineer at the time of
building permit application.
2. Dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City, 5 feet in width along all side lot
lines and 10 feet in width along both front and rear lot lines for both parcels.
3. Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel A, either be installed or some type of
financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond.
4. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 to be paid.
e:h-nain:\l 1828\suth 10-6
Rex'. 1/9/97
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
/o// 3 / q 7
City Plarmer efl-,.~':~"~ ?DNR
Public Works Other
City Engineer
..
SEP 2 5 199
Case No.
Application Fee:
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
CiTY OF MOUND
g 7-sO
$75.00
$1,000
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address 24:)75 ~PJ~IDV/EI, J BLVD .~ I'noaMD / ~ ~53&q
INFORMATION
EXISTING Lot~ ~79 q~, q? Block / Plat~~
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION Subdivision ~O~ ~~ PID~ /~ ]/7--~ ~ ~0~
ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 B-1
B-2
B-3
APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner __other:
Phone (H) qTZ-EO~6 (wi ~70 - 3~ (MI ~ ~
OWNER Name
(if other than
applicant) Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER Address ~ff2 ~ ~~ ~ W~, ~& ZW~ff ~ ~-X~
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.
Owner's Signature
O w~he~ Signature
Date
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA Oc>/7'f~ i -~ SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
x =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .[?i~31I~/I~ [} ~H,' ,-P. ~ '
........................ ~L,~;,,,',,,~'::,:,:..,
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
I
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I
Jd.'17/93
i I, ,~,
FAX oi" 472 0620
.' CITY OF' MOUND
,l, , I,
.~. ANCIIOR SCIENTIFI
~ 001
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
NAME:
ADDRESS:
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
HOUSE{
SQ FT X 30% =
SOETX
LENGTH
· ' WI DTH
X
I
'.,
GARAGE:
TOTAL'GARAGE
DRI AY'" .., ' ~
Acc co~E.t E ·
TOTAL HOUSE *******************
x 6-A~Z<~ ~' =
~0oz
DECK:
(if impervious
'surface under
deck = 100%)
OTHER: ('-.J~. X = ~ (
TOTAL
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
BY: . .. ..
2: ' '~' ~ '~;
c -Z4"-q7 "i'i
',, '~.,-C:ciVEL) - "t'
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
ANDY GEARHART /
OF LOTS 47, 48, &,49, MOUND SHORES
42 ', ' ,::. ,_':. ;T~6'* ,., ', ,:~ ;.; .
o..~:~ . . : S 89°59' E 176.62 : - .- ~:: ....... ~' / ~ / ·
~ , ./'...- ..... /
: ~ :
.... ' "2~__2___~
':' "~ .....
,'; t¥ : ' GARAGE ~',
, ..... ~ ,,~??"~~ ........... :.,,,.~.,~ .... ~ .............,
~., i
...... ~ .............. ,~.,o . "
RECEIVED
L~OUI'ID PLAItI,]IfdG & If]SE
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1997
Case # 97-51' Variance, Lot Size and Frontyard Setback to construct an Addition,
Brian & Dee Skalbeck, 5341 Franklin Road, W-P/Lot 46, Whipple Shores,
PID 25-117-24 21 0015
Loren Gordon reviewed this case.
The applicant, Brian and Dee Skalbeck, are seeking a variance to lot area and front
yard setbacks to build an addition on the rear and replace the deck. The proposal is
to build a second story addition to the porch on the rear of the home. Along with
the addition, the decking around the porch will be replaced. The property is located
at the intersection of Franklin and Piper Place. The setback and proposed variance
are listed below.
Existin.q Required Variance
Front Yard 5.5' 30' 24.5'
Rear Yard 3' 15' 1 2'
Lot Area 8536 10,000 1464
There are three encroachments on the property that should be addressed. In the
front of the house is a planting area encased with patio block that encroaches onto
the Franklin Street right-of-way. The street is a paper street west of Piper Place and
most likely will not be improved. On the north side of the garage is a 10 feet by 10
feet concrete slab which is split by the property line. It is unclear if the slab serves
any useful purpose to either property or which property it was intended to serve.
Along the lakeshore, are two landings which have been with the property for some
time. The landing north of the sidewalk (which is not shown on the survey) is in
the Franklin Place right-of-way. Additionally the landing on the property is twice as
large as the permitted size.
The site drains from the east to the west toward the lake. The hardcover
calculations show the lot is below the 40 percent standard for lots of record.
The proposed addition and the deck appear to be reasonable improvements to a
home which is in good condition. The improvements will not increase the front or
rear yard nonconformity. The deck is elevated on a poured concrete retaining wall
which is 2 to 4 feet in height that arcs around the west side of the house. At the
southern edge it is 3 feet from the property line. Due to the mass of the wall and
the support and stability it seems to provide, removing it seems somewhat
unfeasible. A greater loss to the home might occur if the wall was tampered with.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1997
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions.
1. The landing in the right-of-way be removed.
2. The landing on the property be reduced to the 32 square feet requirement.
3. The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan.
Recognize the front yard planting box encroachment into the Franklin Place
right-of-way.
Discussion:
Clapsaddleasked if adverse possession could take place on this property.
Does not apply to government owned land.
MOTION by Mueiler, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend Staff
Recommendation. The motion carried uniamiously 8-0.
This case will go to City Council October 28, 1997.
October 28, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ~/97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION
AT 5341 FRANKLIN ROAD,
W-P/LOT 46, WHIPPLE SHORES,
PID 25-117-24 21 0015,
P & Z CASE//97-51
WHEREAS, the applicants, Brian and Dee Skalbeck, have applied for a lot area
and front yard setback variance to build an addition on the rear and replace the deck and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000
square feet, and 60 feet of lot frontage, and;
WHEREAS, the property is located the intersection of Franklin and Piper Place,
and;
WHEREAS, the existing front yard setback is 5.5 feet requiring a variance of
24.5 feet and the existing rear yard set back is 3 feet requiring a 12 foot variance, and an
existing lot area of 8,536 requiring a 1,464 variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing landing along side the house lies in the Franklin Place
right of way and is twice the permitted size, and;
WHEREAS, the hardcover calculations are below the 40 percent standard for
a lot of record, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed addition and deck will not increase the front or rear
yard nonconformities
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a front yard variance of 24.5 feet, a rear yard variance of
12 feet and a lot area variance of 1,464 square feet with the following conditions
The landing in the Franklin right-of-way be removed.
The landing on the property by the lakeshore be reduced to the 32 square feet
requirement.
October 27, 1997
Skalbeck
Page 2
The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan.
Recognize the front yard planting box encroachment into the Franklin Place right-
of way.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residemial 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:
Building an addition and replacing a deck.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
W-P/Lot 46, Whipple Shores.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
612-8~5-~160
HO I S I NGTON KOEGLER
668 P09
OCT 09 '97 11:21
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: October 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Lot size and front yard setback variance
OWNER: Brian and Dee Skalbeck - 5341 Franklin Road
CASE NUMBER: 96-51
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5hh
LOCATION: 534I Franklin Road
EXISTING ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to lot area and front yard setbacks to build
an addition on thc rear and replace the deck. Thc proposal is to build a second story addition to
the porch on thc rear of the home. Along with the addition, the decking around the porch will be
replaced. The property is located at the intersection of Franklin and Piper Place. The setback and
proposed variance are listed below.
Existing Required Variance
Front Yard 5.5' 30' 24.5'
Rear Yard 3' 15' 12'
Lot Area 8536 10,000 1464
There are three encroachments on the property that should be addressed. In the front of the house
is a planting area encased with patio block that encroaches onto the Franklin Street right-of-way.
The street is a paper street west of Piper Place and most likely will not be improved. On the north
side of the garage is a 10 feet by 10 feet concrete slab which is split by the properly line. It is
unclear if the slab serves any useful purpose to either property or which property it was intended
to serve. Along the lakeshore, are two landings which have been with the property for some time.
The landing north of the sidewalk (which is not shown on the survey) is in the Franklin Place
right-of-way. Additionally the landing on the property is twice as large as the permitted size.
The site drains from the east to the west toward the lake. The hardcover calculations show the lo£
is below the 40 percent standard for lots of record.
p. 2
Skalbeck Lot Size and Front Yard Variance
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 335-0500 Fax (612)338-6538 ~,,~gd7
61~-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 668 P10 OCT 09 '99 11:21
p. 2
Skalbeck Variance
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:$30):
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result t¥om 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.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
Dm
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.
The proposed addition and the deck appear to be reasonable improvements to a home which is in
good condition. The improvements will not increase the front or rear yard nonconformity. The
deck is elevated on a poured concrete retaining wall which is 2 to 4 feet in height that arcs around
the west side of the house. At the southern edge it is 3 feet from the property line. Due to the
mass of the wall and the support and stability it seems to provide, removing it seems somewhat
unfeasible. A greater loss to the home might occur if the wall was tampered with.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions.
1. The landing in the right-of-way be removed.
2. The landing on the property be reduced to the 32 square feet requirement.
3. The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan.
4. Recognize the front yard planting box encroachment into the Franklin Place right-of-way.
123 North Third Street, Sui[e 100. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 335-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
PAID
SEP 2 5 1997 ~¢~
CiTY OF MOUND
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City' Council Date:
Distribution:
/¢-/3 Pq
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
Case No. 9 ¢-5/
DNR
Other
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Subdivision /~ P~ ~A _ ~,.~
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3
Block
Plat #
?
B-1 B-2 B-3
Phone (H) q'?,2 */~,6 ¢' (W)
(M)
Name
Phone (H)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. 1114/97')
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with al!~ea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No Jg0. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
SETBACKS:
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) fie9 ft. ~'~i ~' ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ~ dr_9 ft. ~.v~ ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) /aP fl. /~'~ fl.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ($-- ft. z'~ ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft.
· (NSEW) ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft.
Lot Size: /~7~ sq ft ~sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft
VARIANCE
, ,~-v~'ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
sq ft
sq ft
Does the pres.ent use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~ No .~. If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
~ too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
describe: H.4o~.~e~¢/
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
(K) other: specify
p/
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Case No.
Variance Application, P. 3
o
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~.' If yes, explain:
°
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~)'. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes 04', No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
" ~~~~~ Date
Applicant's Signature ~ ~- ,~ -- -
(Rew 1/14/97)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CAI~CULATIQN.~
IMPERVIOUS E iRAGE}
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all Iots~ ...............
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*)
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buiidings
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350: ! 225,Subd. 6. B. t. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
x =
?,~ ~ ~ :~/o~--' "7 x
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
DETACHED BLDGS X =
(GARAGE/SHED) ~ ~' ~ X ~_ ~. ~ = ~9-/~. ~_~
DRIVEWAY, PARKING ,'j, /
AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ,~, /
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
/.,.;.z.~ x 3/ : 3,'?. ?_
j/.TC x 70.7_ = ~'~7.3
4 x 7_ :
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
Ol3ening between boards) with
13ervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER ~ ~J
/¢
,'7.¢
TOTAL BECK:
/ ZZ
TOTAL OTHER
x '7.? =
x z,/ : /07
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
-70,? l
%z¢---¢7
/:
CI'I'Y OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION StlEET
SURVEY ON FILE'~.~_YES~ NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
YARD [ DIRECTION I REQUIRED
HOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
-~ ~o.ooo/so~ u~ 7,soo/o
~A- 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EXISTINGIPROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:,
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEP]H:
VARIANCE
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W 15'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
GARAGE, StiED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT 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
ltARDCOVER
CONFORMING? YF..q / NO
N S E W
50'
!0' OR 30'
30% OR 40%
? [BY: I DATED:
TI,is Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlact the City of Mound
..... Plnu~!n.R Department at 472-0600.
0
r=l
t~.
CITY
118),
(165)
Planning Commission Minutes
Octol~er 13, 1997
Case #97-52: Variance, Frontyard and Sideyard Setback to construct 3 season
porch, Bob & Cathy Bergemann, 3054 Brighton Blvd., Lots 12 & 13 and 15'
vacated street, Block 14, Arden,
PID 24-117-24 44 O1 68 & O169
Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
The applicant, Bob & Cathy Bergemann, are seeking a variance to recognize
existing front and side yard setback encroachments to attach a screened porch to
an existing shed. The setback and proposed variance are listed below.
Existing Required Variance
Front Yard 15.7' 20' 4.3'
Rear Yard 3.6' 10' 6.4'
The lot is a combination of two 40 feet parcels with the home occupying the
northern parcel. The southern parcel remains as open yard space on the property.
The front yard encroachment is a landing which is used as a deck at the top of the
stairs leading up from the street. The north wall of the house is the second
encroachment and is 3.6 feet from the lot line.
The landing on the front of the house is used a deck to that connects the stairs to
the deck and the stairs that lead to the front door. The front yard has a steep slope
and the landing is elevated some 6 feet or so from Brighton Lane and the parking
pad along the street.
The screened in porch is built as shown on the survey. It is attached to an existing
shed which is built on the deck. The porch meets all accessory structure and yard
setback requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the variance as requested.
Discussion'
Mueller stated that there is a practical difficulty that the decks serve a purpose.
Hanus stated that the deck is a reasonable use of the property.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend staff
recommendation. The motion carried uninamiously $-0.
This case will go to City Council on October 28, 1997.
Ocwber 28,
PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 3 SEASON PORCH
AT 3054 BRIGHTON BLVD,
PID 24-117-24 44 0168 & 0169,
P & Z CASE//97-52
WHEREAS, the applicants, Bob and Cathy Bergemarm, have applied for a
variance to recognize an existing front and side yard setback encroachments to attach a screened
porch to an existing shed, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet and 40 feet of lot frontage, and;
WHEREAS, the lot is a combination of two 40 foot parcels with the home
occupying the northern parcel, and;
WHEREAS, the existing front yard encroachment of 4.3 feet from the required
20 feet is a landing which is used as a deck at the top of the stairs leading up from the street,
and;
WHEREAS, the existing north wall of the house is encroaching 6.4 feet from the
required 10 feet side yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the existing deck is encroaching 4.3 feet from the required 15 feet
side yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed 3 season porch meets all accessory structure and yard
setback requirements, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend
approval of the variance recommended by staff, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby grant a front yard variance of 4.3 feet, a side yard variance of 6.4
feet to allow construction of a 3 season porch.
October 28, 1997
Bergemann
Page 2
o
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
o
o
Building of a 3 season porch to an existing deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 12 & 13 and 15' vacated street, Block 14, Arden
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
612-815-]160 HO I S I NGTON KOEGLER 668 Pll
OCT 09 '97 11:22
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE; October 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Front and side yard setback variance
OWNER: Bob and Cathy Bergernann - 3054 Brighton Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 96-52
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-$ii
LOCATION: 3054 Brighton Blvd.
EXISTING ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing front and side yard
setback encroachments to attach a screened porch to an existing shed. The setback and proposed
variance are listed below.
Existing Required Variance
Front Yard 15.7' 20' 4.3'
Rear Yard 3.6' 10' 6.4'
The lot is a combination of two 40 feet parcels with the home occupying the northern parcel. The
southern parcel remains as open yard space on the property. The front yard encroachment is a
landing which is used as a deck at the top of the stairs leading up from the street. The north wall
of the house is the second encroachment and is 3.6 feet from the lot line.
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):
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.
B. 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
123 North Third Street, Suite 1 IX), Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (6'12) 338-6838
612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 668 P12 OCT Og 'g? 11:22
P. 2
Bergemann porch variance
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant. -
That granting of the variance request wil/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.
The landing on the front of the house is used a deck to that connects the stairs to the deck and the
stairs that lead to the front door. The front yard has a steep slope and the landing is elevated some
6 feet or so from Brighton Lane and the parking pad along the street.
The screened in porch is built as shown on the survey. It is attached to an existing shed which is
built on the deck. The porch meets all accessory structure and yard setback requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota $5g01
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 33g.6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
PAID ~'~
S EP 2 9 1997 i~TM
Apt~V~l~. UN~ 00. O0
i(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
q- -q'7
~ ' '2, ~d' ' '6' _
Ud v s;on
Address ff~'~ ~I~TO,4 ~, ~]~. ~,~-
Phone (H>/~t*5 qV 2 - ~q' (W> ~t~ (M)
Phone (H~',ji&) c{~ ~ -~cic~ (W) 3"-/'r~ (M)
Has an application ever bee] ,m'ade for zonin'g, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property?ft/} yes, t~ j 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.):
Po c ( -irc)
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (N S E(~)~) d:~O ft. _~1~ o~', ft. ~ fi.
Side Yard: (~.S E'~"i [0 ft. h3, ~ ft. ~ ft.
Side Yard: ( ~E~W ) 10 ft. M~. q ft. --~E:~ ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S~,~vV ) I~" ft. c~o~,~' ft. ~~ ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ~ ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq fl
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ,(4, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ? ( ) shape
( ) soil
~(~..~isting situation
( ) other: specify
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982).9 Yes (), No V~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road.'? Yes (),
No ,~. 'If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition.9 Yes (/Y~ No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected.'?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
' ~/~5~/~ ~.. ~.~/.,VI Date
'17' Owner's Signature ~~~6 ~'/~41~%a,~--
Applicant's Signature
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA 7 2g'~~
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
LENGTH WIDTH
SQFT
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)pRo~D
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under ere
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
g x tz : f¢
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
~ x 7_~ :
X =
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~VER (ind~dif~.ce) ...............................
PREPARED BY /,/'ru -~f~_.~Y~¢,'/,~ DATE
FOR:
CERTIFICATE OF
CARL HANSQN
I
~'~. ~Z ....
SURVEY
1
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
Lots 12 and 13,-
Block 14, ARDEN
o Denotal Iron monument
n L?2notes offer ~teke
x ooo.o Oenote~ existing el~.
( o~.o ) Denot~ Pm~ el~,
, : ~t~ mff~ drainage
Pro~ ~re~ f~r el~.-
I here~ ~rtify thlt this is I true Ind correct repre~ntation of a survey of
the ~undaries of t~ a~ve ~i~d land end of the I~ation of all ~ildin~,
DEMA~ - GABRIEL if any, thereon, and all visine encroach~nts, if any, from or on said land.
__LAND SURVEYORS, INC. ~~ ~~,~. ,~
Al ~urvl~d by m thil dly of _
Plymouth MN 8~41
,'0..:,,',,,,--. )/
Proposed lowest floor elev. -
Proposed top of foundation elev. -
BENCH MARK:
File No.
Book - Page
Scale
I": 70'
RESOLUTION #96-62
RESOLUTION
TO
APPROVE THE VACATION OF AN ~
UNIMPROVED PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY ' --J
WHEREAS, the applicants, Michael and Carrie McDonald, owners
of 3018 Churchill Lane, have requested the vacation of the 30 foot
wide platted right-of-way locate~ between Block 12, Lots 19-26, 5,
6, and 7, and Block 14, Lots 4-17, all in Arden, and;
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues, Section 412.851 provides that the
City Council may, by resolution, vacate any street, alley, public
grounds, or public way, or any park thereof, when it appears in the
interest of the public to do so, and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council June
25, 1996, as required by law, and;
WHEREAS, approval of this request will add vacated property
to the neighboring parcels who are not part of this request, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommend approval of the vacation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota to hereby approve the request to vacate a
30 foot wide platted right-of-way known as Churchill Lane located
between Block 12, Lots 19-26, 5, 6, and 7, and Block 14, Lots 4-17,
all in Arden, as shown on the attached plat.
A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the
City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings.
It is the responsibility of the owner to record this Certified
Resolution in the office of the County Recorder and/or the
Registrar of Tiles, as set forth in M.S.A. 412.851.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus
and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Attest: Acting City'Clerk
Mayor
Resolution adopted: June 25, 1996
WARRANTY DiED Minnesota Uniform Convcyancing Blanks (1978)
r Pmaerahip .t. .....
transfer entered; Certificate of]
R~l,~tate~Value ( ) filed ( ) not required l
,CeHifi~terof Real Estate Value No,
19
~ ' ~' CONTraS FINANCE COMPANY
Miller-Davis Co., St. Paul
County Auditor
L
Deputy
DUE HEREON: $15.30
SEPTEMBER ...~,.~ ,1997 (reserved for reconJinS data) ....
CONSIDERATION, CONTRACTS FINANCE COMPANY '"
~ :: , a CORPORATION under thc laws:of .,,
'''''' ~.', r '.~, Grantor. hereby conveys and warrants to ROBERT CARL BERGEMANN
· _ HUSBAND AND WIFE , Grantee,
:operty,in HENNEPIN County, Minnesota, described as follows:
!4,. -ARDEN. ...!~ ..: ,,., . ~,'
~ST~UCTIONS.
AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF ANY, . ~"7'~"__
DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY WELLS ON THE DESCRIBED REAL
: .[':! (ir more space is needed, continua on hack) "?
and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions:
i~Here CONTRAt'T~fl FINAN~ ~OMPANy ' '
Its PRESIDENT .... . ~:. ' ' '
~" By ...
'HENNEPIN Its ~ '",h
acknowledged before me this .3.~"~ day of SEPTEMBER , .17 97,
HANSON mad
x~J~d
CONTRACTS FINANCE COMPANY , a CORPORATION
under, the,laws of "' MINNESOTA , on behalf of the CORPORATION :' ' "
! , NOTARY POBOC -lagg~lOTA
· *U"'f ' ~ i~'.':, ' Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should ', r
be sent to (include name and address of Gramee): ....
ROBERT CARL & CATH~gg~Lt~,~9~. ~}1~t~I,(~47~.~,~+.-?.~ -
3054 B~GHTON BLVD. HENN. /3SW
~ED~{ ,' $15.30 , ~ '~-
M~UND, MN 55364 PAID $15.~ .....
RECEIVED?'
CITY OF MOUND - ZONIN(
ADDRESS: r
SURVEY ON FILE.'? YES I NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
INFORMATION SttEET
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1 10,000/60 B1 T,S00/0
RIA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
e2' e,ooo'/!.~ ~ ~o.ooo/eo.
R2 14,000/80
R3 gEE ORD. ll 30,000/100
EXISTING/PROPOSED
HOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W ~Z~
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
EXISTING~iZE: ....
LQ~ WIDTH: ~-~
VARIANCE [
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W 15'
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, SiIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT 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 N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
HARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
This 7.oning Information Shee! only summarizes a portion of die rcquiremenls ouuineo in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contac! the City o Mou
Plannin~ Department at 472-0600. · '
I
24-11
I
o
r~ ,'-~ o~
,-4 ! !
Planning Commission Minutes
Oc,~o~er 13, 1997
Case #97-53' Minor Subdivision, Balboa Center Limited Partnership, 5300
Shoreline Drive, P~D 1 3-117-24 34 0096 & 13-11 7-24 34 011 5
Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
The applicant, Balboa Center Limited Partnership, is seeking minor subdivision
approval for purposes of adjusting a tax parcel boundary to match a zoning district
boundary. The reason for the adjustment is to keep the parcel north of Lynwood
Blvd. zoned as residential under one tax parcel and the land south zoned industrial
under another.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and find this is a logical procedure to ensure the
long term use of the parcels and clean up property ownership with a common
street and zoning district line. The City Engineer has determined that there are no
impacts to utility services with the proposal.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the request as submitted.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff
recommendation
Discussion:
Weiland questioned the wording on the legal description.
Clapsaddle asked if there were any drawbacks to this subdivision. Gordon stated
that it seemed logical from staffs review to separate tax parcel boundaries with
streets.
Mueller questioned what percepitated this. Sutherland stated that there was no
need for the land on the other side of the street.
Mueller questioned if this creates buildable sites on the other side of Lynwood Blvd.
The motion carried 8-0.
This case will go to the City Council on October 28, 1997.
October 25, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION g97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
AT 5300 SHORELINE BLVD,
PID 13-117-24 34 0096 & 0115,
P & Z CASE//97-53
WHEREAS, the applicant, Balboa Center Limited Partnership, has applied for
minor subdivision approval for purposes of adjusting a tax parcel boundary to match a zoning
district boundary, and;
WHEREAS, the properties are located in the Industrial I-1 and the R-2 Two
Family Residential, and;
WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed the proposal and find this a logical procedure to
ensure the long term use of the parcels and clean up property ownership with a common street
and zoning district line, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the minor subdivision recommended by staff, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the parcels indicated on the survey.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
This minor subdivision is granted for the following properties as legally described in the
attached Exhibit C and Exhibit D.
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.
October 28, 1997
Balboa Center Limited Parmership
Page 2
o
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been flied with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
EXHIBIT C
Proposed Legal Description of' Tax Parcel 13-117-24-34-0096
I[
Lots 19 to 21 inclusive, Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound,
Minnetonka."
That part of Lots 22 and 23, Block 11, lying north of a line drawn from the most westerly
comer of Block 9 to the point of intersection of the southeasterly line of Block 11 with a line
drawn parallel to and 40 feet northerly, measured at right angles, from the southerly line of
Block 11 and its extension, all in "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound-
Minnetonka."
Lots 1 Uo 5 Lnc!usive, Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minnetonka", according to the duly recorded plat thereof. The
northerly, westerly and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 1, the northerly
and southerly boundary lines of said Lots 2, 3 and 4, and the northerly,
easterly and aoutherly boundary lines of said Lot 5 are marked by judicial
landmarks se~ a~ the northwest and southwest corners of said Lot 1, at the
southeast corner of said Lot 5 and at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot
5 distant .4 feet Scutheas~er!y from the northeast corner of said Lot 5,
pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15803.
Lots 23 %o 28 ±nc!uslve, "Koeh!er's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka,
according to ~ke recorded plat thereof. The north, east and southerly boundary
lines of said Lot 23, the north and south boundary lines of said Lots 24, 25,
26 and 27, the north, west and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 28 are
marked by iud±cia! landmarks set at the northwest and southwest corners of
said Lot 28 at the northeas~ and southeast corners of said Lot 23 pursuant to
Torrens Case Nc. 15804. '
Lots 6 to 12 ~nclusive, Block 11 "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minnesc:a", according to the duly recorded plat thereof.
Lots 13 tO 18 ±ncluslve, Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minnescta", according to the duly recorded plat thereof. The easterly
line of Lot !$, Block 11, said subdivision is marked by judicial landmarks set
pursuan~ to Case No. ~S803.
That parz of ~o: 36, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
and tha~ par~ of ~ke southwest i/4 o~ ~he sou%hwes~ 1/4 of Section 13, Township
117, Kange 24, al! described as beginning at a point on the norsk line o~ said
M1:02~3469.01
Lot 36, distant 25 feet west from the northeast corner thereof, which point is
marked by a judicial lan~ark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence
east to the n~rtheast corner of said Lot 36, which point is marked by judicial
landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence south along the east
line of said ~ot 36 and its extension to an intersection with a line drawn
parallel to and 33 feet scutherly from the southerly line of said Lot 36;
thence westerly alcng the last described parallel line to its intersection
with a line drawn south, parallel to the east line of said Lot 36 and its
extension, from the point of beginning; thence north along said last described
parallel line 34.15 feet to a point marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant
to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence continuing north along said last described
line 121.9 feet to ~he point of beginning.
That part of Lot 8, Block 5, Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound-Minnetrista
Township, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: beginning at the
northwest corner of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark
set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002, thence east along the north line of
said Lot 8, 358.35 feet to a point which is 134.4 feet westerly from the
northeast corner of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark
set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15805; thence south parallel to the east east
line of said Lot 8, 287.3 feet to the south line of said Lot 8, which point is
marked by a fudicial lan~v, ark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15805, thence
westerly and northwesterly along the south line of said Lot 8, 207.77 feet to a
point which is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No.
16002; thence continuing northwesterly along said south line 162.58 feet to a
point which is marked by a judicial lan~ark set pursuant to Torrens Case No.
16002; thence continuing northwesterly along said south line to the west line
of said Lot ~; thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 8 to a point
which is 40.14 feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 8, which point is
marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence
continuing northerly along said west line 40.14 feet to the point of beginning,
according to ~he recorded plat thereof.
That part of ~he southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, Section 13, Towship 117,
Range 24 described as beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 36, Auditor's
Subdivision Nc. 170, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being marked by a
judicial lan~r, ark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence westerly,
along the north line of said Lot 36 a distance of 25 feet to a point marked by
a 4udicia! landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence north
parallel witk ~he east line of said southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, to the
point of intersection witk a line 40 feet northerly of, measured at a right
angles to and parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 36 said point of
intersection being marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case
No. 17105 thence easterly, along the last described parallel line a distance
of 25 feet tc the point of intersection with the east line of said southwes~
1/4 of the sou~hwes: 1/4, said point of intersection being marked by a
juducial lan~r, ark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence south, along
said east line, to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey
thereof.
Ml:O253a69.01
Lots 10 to 14 inclusive, and that part of Lot 15, lying north of the south 8
feet thereof, all in Block 2, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36
Lafayette Park.
Lots 1 to 11 inclusive, Block 5;
Lots 1 to 7 :--~ , ~ -o
..... us_~., and ~hat part of Lot 8 lying easterly of a line drawn
south, parallel to ~he eas~ line of Lot 8, from a point on the northerly line
thereof distan: 134.4 fee~ westerly from the northeast corner of Lot 8, Block
6;
Ail of Yost Street, vacated, lying between the extension across said street of
the northerly lines of Lots 1 to 6 inclusive, Block 6, and a line drawn from
the southwes~ corner of Lot 1, Block 6, to the southeast corner of Lot 11
Block 5; '
All in Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound-Minnetrista Township, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof.
The boundary lines of the above tract have been judicially determined and
marked by judicial landmarks as shown by Torrens Case No. 15805.
Lot 1, Block - and Lot 1, Block 2, Balboa Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EXHIBIT D
Proposed Legal Description of Tax Parcel 13-117-24-34-0015
Lots 12 to 15 inclusive, and the Southwesterly Half of Lot 16, Block 9; and that part of Bryant
Avenue, vacated, lying between the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line of Block
9 and a line drawn from the most westerly comer of Block 9 to the point of intersection of the
southeasterly line of Block 11 with a line drawn parallel to and 40 feet northerly, measured at
right angles, from the southerly line of Block 11 and its extension, all in "Abraham Lincoln
Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka."
That part of Lots 22 and 23, Block 11, lying south of a line drawn from the most westerly
comer of Block 9 to the point of intersection of the southeasterly line of Block 11 with a line
drawn parallel to and 40 feet northerly, measured at right angles, from the southerly line of
Block 11 and its extension, all in "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound-
Minnetonka."
MI' 1:0283469.01
Il
61~-8~5-~160
I ,I , ,I~
HO I S I NGTON KOEGLER
I l,, I,
6?8 P04 OCT 89 '97 12:22
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission ~d Staff
FROM: Leren Gordon, AICP
DATE: October 1 I, 1997
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
OWNER: Balboa Center Limited Partnership - Dallas, TX
CASE NUMBER: 9?-53
HKG FILE NLTMBER: 97-Sjj
LOCATION: 5300 Shoreline Drive
EXISTING ZONING: Industrial I-1 District
COM-PREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking minor subdivision approval for the purposes of adjusting
a tax parcel boundary to match a zoning district boundary. The reason for the adjustment is to keep
the parcel north of Lynwood Blvd. zoned as ,esidential under one tax parcel and the land south zoned
industrial under another.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and find this is a logical procedure to ensure the long term use of the
parcels and clean up property ownership with a common street and zoning district line. The City
Engineer has determined that there are no impacts to utility services with the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the request as submitted.
31 35
Rev. i,'9/97 Application for
.M NOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:]
City Council Date: I0 -'C~_~ --qq
Distribution:
City Planner q.,;~ ~ e] DNR
Public Works Other
City Engineer
, ,:_6: IYED
Application Fee: S75.00
Escrow Deposit: $1,000
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
............... VARIANCE REQUIRED?
Please tvpe or print the follow~ng information: ....
PROPERTY Subject Address 5300 Shoreline Drive
INFORMATION
EXISTING Lot See attached legal descriptions Block Plat #
LEGAL J A [13~ i i 7- z ~-34- OU~JB--a-n-d
DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
APPLICANT The aoplicant is: ~owner other:
Name Balboa Cen~er L~m~Ced
Address 3131 HcK~nney Avenue, Su~e 404, Dallas, ~K 75204
Phone (H) (W) (214~ 220-0205 (~F~) (2[4) 220-2887
OWNER Name
(if other than
applicant) Address
Phone (H}. (W) (M)
Name
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER Address 7565 Off~ce R~dge C~rc[e, Eden P~a~r~e~ ~ 55344-3644
Phone(H) (W) 829-0700 (U) (FAZ) 829-7806
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. (not to the knowledge
of Applicant)
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNE--RSHIP
By: CK Development Corporation
: ~artner ~
By Its-: ../'.~.;~' ~:~
Owner'.~ ~-ignature
Date
Date
FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
2200 NORWEST CENTER, 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
]VII2qNEAPOLIS, ]VILNNESOTA 55402-3901
TEL EPHOI~TE 612-336-3OOO
FACSIMILE 612-336-3026
PAUL S. MOE
612/336-3334
September 22, 1997
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Attn: Chris
Re:
Proposed Tax Parcel Adjustment
Balboa Business Center
5300 Shoreline Drive
Dear Chris:
At the suggestion of Mark Koegler, I am forwarding to you a completed "Minor
Subdivision Application" related to the Balboa Business Center at 5300 - 5400 Shoreline
Drive in Mound. As you may recall, the owner of this properly is Balboa Center Limited
Partnership. Balboa Center would like to move the boundary line between two tax parcels.
This request is summarized as follows:
Balboa Center Limited Partnership presently owns Tax Parcel 13-117-24-34-
0096, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and Tax Parcel 13-117-
24-34-0015, legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto. The existing
boundaries of Tax Parcel 13-117-24-34-0096 are outlined in green on the
enclosed survey identified as "Existing Tax Parcels", and the boundaries of Tax
Parcel 13-117-24-34-0015 are outlined in pink on the same survey.
Balboa Center Limited Partnership proposes to relocate the boundary line
between Tax Parcels 13-117-24-34-0096 and 13-117-24-34-0015 so that it is
identical with the northeasterly right of way line of Lynwood Boulevard. As a
result, all of the land northerly of Lynwood Boulevard (zoned for residential
purposes) would be covered by one tax parcel, and all of the land southwesterly
of Lynwood Boulevard (zoned I-1) would be covered by a second tax parcel.
The proposed new legal description of Tax Parcel 13-117-24-34-0096 is
identified on Exhibit C attached hereto, and outlined in blue on the enclosed
survey identified as "Proposed Tax Parcels". The proposed legal description of
Tax Parcel 13-117-24-34-0015 is set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto and
outlined in yellow on the same survey.
Minneapolis Denver Des Moines London Frankfiart Almaty
City of Mound
September 22, 1997
Page 2
The purpose of this adjustment is to have all of the residential property north of
Lynwood Boulevard in one tax parcel. If this property is conveyed to a different owner, the
owner will have the ability to develop (with the City's approval), and the obligation to
maintain, all of its property northerly of Lynwood Boulevard. There will no longer be a
neglected parcel of undeveloped land north of Lynwood that is owned by the owner of this
industrial property south of Lynwood.
I have enclosed a check in the amount of $75.00 payable to the City of Mound as the
application fee. Given the simple nature of this proceeding, I am requesting that the $1,000
escrow requirement be waived. (We will of course pay for any costs incurred by the City in
reviewing this Application.) We would like this matter placed on the calendar for the
Planning Commission meeting on October 13th and the City Council Meeting on October 28th.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
PSM:met
Enclosures
M 1:0298232.01
EXH]BIT A
Existine Legal Description o£ Tax Parcel 13-11%24-34-0096
Lots 19 to 23 inclusive. Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound,
Minnetonka."
Lots 1 to 5 inclusive, Block tl, ~'Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minne:cnka", according to the duly recorded plat thereof. The
northerly, wesser!y and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 1, the northerly
and southerly boundary lines of said Lots 2, 3 and 4, and the northerly,
easterly and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 5 are marked by judicial
landmarks se~ at tke nortkwest and southwest corners of said Lot l, at the
southeast corner of said Lot 5 and at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot
5 distant .4 feet ~outheasterly from the northeast corner of said Lot 5,
pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15803.
Lots 23 to 28 ±nclusive, "Koehler, s Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka,
according to :ke reccrded plat thereof. The north, east and southerly boundary
lines of said Lot 23, the north and south boundary lines of said Lots 24, 25,
26 and 27, tke norsk, west and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 28 are
marked by jud~cia! ~andmarks set at the northwest and southwest corners of
said Lot 28 a% the northeast and southeast corners of said Lot 23, pursuant to
Torrens Case No. 15804.
Lots 6 to 12 ~nc!usive, Block I1 "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minnesc:a", according to the duly recorded plat thereof.
Lots 13 to 18 inclusive, Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minnesota~, a~c~rding t~ th~ n~uly r~rd~d ~lat thereof. The easterly
line of Lot 18, Block 11, said subdivision is marked by judicial landmarks set
pursuant to Case No. 15803.
That part of Lou 36, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
and that par~ of the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township
117, Range 24, all described as beginning at a point on the north line of said
:%11:0283469.01
Lot 36, dis%an; 25 feet west from the northeast corner thereof, which point is
marked by a j-:dicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence
east to the northeast corner of said Lot 36, which point is marked by judicial
landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence south along the east
line of said Lot 36 and its extension to an intersection with a line drawn
parallel to and 33 feet southerly from the southerly line of said Lot 36;
thence westerly along the last described parallel line to its intersection
with a line drawn south, parallel to the east line of said Lot 36 and its
extension,' f'~o-m"tbe'-~oi~t'~f'~eg~r~i~g~"~h~nc~"nor~h 'a~ong~-said .last-~escribed
parallel line 34.15 feet to a point marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant
to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence continuing north along said last described
line 121.9 feet to the point of beginning.
That part of Lot 8, Block 6, Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound-Minnetrista
Township, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: beginning at the
northwest corner of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark
set pursuant ~o Torrens Case No. 16002, thence east along the north line of
said Lot 8, 3~8.35 feet to a point which is 134.4 feet westerly from the
northeast corner of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark
set pursuant ~o Torrens Case No. 15805; thence south parallel to the east east
line of said Lot 8, 287.3 f.eet to the south line of said Lot $, which point is
marked by a fudicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15805, thence
westerly and northwesterly along the south line of said Lot 8, 207.77 feet to a
point which is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No.
16002; thence continuing northwesterly along said south line 162.58 feet to a
point which is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No.
16002; thence continuing northwesterly along said south line to the west line
of said Lot ~; thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 8 to a point
which is 40.i; feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 8, which point is
marked by a fudicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence
continuing norcheriy along said west line 40.14 feet to the point of beginning,
according to ;he recorded plat thereof.
That part of the sou%hwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, Section 13, Towship 117,
Range 24 described as beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 36, Auditor's
Subdivision ~o. 170, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being marked by a
judicial lan~r, ark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence westerly,
along the nor;h line of said Lot 36 a distance of 25 feet to a point marked by
a ~udicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence north
parall~l.~itk.~he .~a.s~ ~ine..~f~$ai~ ~th~e.st ~1/4 .of .the..~outbwest .1./.4, ~o the
point of intersection with a line 40 feet northerly of, measured at a right
angles to and parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 36 said point of
intersection being marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case
No. 17105 thence easterly, along the last described parallel line a distance
of 25 feet to the point of intersection with the east line of said southwest
1/4 of the souchwes; 1/4, said point of intersection being marked by a
juducial lan~r, ark sec pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence south, along
said east line, to the point of beginning,~ according to the Government Survey
thereof.
M1:021~3469.01
Lots 10 to 1~ inclusive, and that part of Lot 15, lying north of the south 8
feet thereof, all in Block 2, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36
Lafayette Park.
Lots 1 to 11 fnclusive, Block 5;
Lots t uo 7 ±nclusive, and that. part qf.Lqt .8 ~yin. g .~s.~rly..~f .a .li~e d~a%~
south, paral2=' to %ke eas% line of Lot 8, from a point on the northerly line
thereof distant 134.4 feet westerly from the northeast corner of Lot 8, Block
6;
Ail of Yost Street, vacated, lying between the extension across said street of
the northerly lines of Lots 1 to 6 inclusive, Block 6, and a line drawn from
the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 6, to the southeast corner of Lot 11,
Block 5;
All in Sylvan Heights Addiuion to Mound-Minnetrista Township, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof.
The boundary lines of the above tract have been judicially determined and
marke~ by judi~ia~ ~andmarks as shown by Torrens C~s~ No. 1~805.
Lot 1, Block ' and Lot 1, Block 2, Balboa Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EXHIBIT B
Existing Legal Description of Tax Parcel 13-117-24-34-0015
Lots 12 to 15 inclusive, and the Southwesterly Half of Lot 16, Block 9; and that part of Bryant
Avenue, vacated, lying between the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line of Block
9 and a line drawn from the most westerly corner of BloCk 9 to the point of intersection of the
southeasterly line of Block 11 with a line drawn parallel to and 40 feet northerly, measured at
right angles, from the southerly line of Block 11 and its extension, all in "Abraham Lincoln
Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka."
MI :0283469.01
EXHIBIT C
Proposed Legal Description of Tax Parcel 13-117-24-34-0096
RECEIVED
Lots 19 to 21 inclusive, Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound,
Minnetonka."
That part of Lots 22 and 23, Block 11, lying north of a line drawn from the most westerly
corner of Block 9 to the point of intersection of the southeasterly line of Block 11 with a line
drawn parallel to and 40 feet northerly, measured at right angles, from the southerly line of
Block 11 and its extension, all in "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound-
Minnetonka."
Lots 1 to 5 inclusive, Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minne~onka", according to the duly recorded plat thereof. The
northerly, westerly and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 1, the northerly
and southerly boundary lines of said Lots 2, 3 and 4, and the northerly,
easterly and s~utherly boundary lines of said Lot 5 are marked by judicial
landmarks se~ at the nortkwes~ and southwest corners of said Lot 1, at the
southeast corner of said Lot 5 and at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot
5 distant .4 feet Southeasterly from the northeast corner of said Lot 5,
pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15803.
Lots 23 %0 28 inclusive, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka,
acccrding to the recorded plat thereof. The north, east and southerly boundary
lines of said Lot 23, the north and south boundary lines of said Lots 24, 25,
26 and 27, the north, west and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 28 are
marked by judic~a! landmarks set at the northwest and southwest corners of
said Lot 28 a~ ~he northeast and southeast corners of said Lot 23, pursuant to
Torrens Case Nc. 15804.
Lots 6 to 12 ~nclusive, Block 11 "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minnescta", according to the duly recorded plat thereof.
Lots 13 to 18 inclusive, Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park,
Mound, Minnesota", according to the duly recorded plat thereof. The easterly
line of Lot 18, Block 11, said subdivision is marked by judicial landmarks set
pursuant to Case No. ~5803.
That par% of Lo~ 36, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, HenneDin County, Minnesota,
and %ha% Dart of ~ke southwes~ 1/4 of ~he southwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township
ll7, Range 24, a!~ described as beginning a~ a point on the north line of said
N11:0283469.01
Lot 36, distan~ 25 feet west from the northeast corner thereof, which point is
marked by a ~udicial lanky, ark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence
east to the northeast corner of said Lot 36, which point is marked by judicial
landmark set Dursuan~ to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence south along the east
line of said Lot 36 and its extension to an intersection with a line drawn
parallel to and 33 feet scutherly from the southerly line of said Lot 36;
thence westerly alcng the last described parallel line to its intersection
with a line drawn south, Daralle! to the east line of said Lot 36 and its
extension, from the point of beginning; thence north along said last described
parallel line 34.15 feet to a point marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant
to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence continuing north along said last described
line 121.9 feet to the point of beginning.
That part of Lot 8, Block 6, Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound-Minnetrista
Township, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: beginning at the
northwest corner of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark
set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002, thence east along the north line of
said Lot 8, 3~8.35 feet to a point which is 134.4 feet westerly from the
northeast corner of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark
set pursuant ~o Torrens Case No. 15805; thence south parallel to the east east
line of said Lot 8, 287.3 feet to the south line of said Lot 8, which point is
marked by a ~udicial lan~T, ark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15805, thence
westerly and northwesterly along the south line of said Lot 8, 207.77 feet to a
point which is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No.
16002; thence continuing northwesterly along said south line 162.58 feet to a
point which is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No.
16002; thence continuing northwesterly along said south line to the west line
of said Lot ~; thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 8 to a point
which is 40.5~ feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 8, which point is
marked by a ~udicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence
continuing northerly along said west line 40.14 feet to the point of beginning,
according to the recorded plat thereof.
That part of ~he southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, Section 13, Towship 117,
Range 24 described as beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 36, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 170, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being marked by a
judicial lan~r, ark se% pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence westerly,
along the nor%h line of said Lot 36 a distance of 25 feet to a point marked by
a Judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence north
parallel with ~he east line of said southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, to the
point of intersection with a line 40 feet northerly of, measured at a right
angles to and parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 36 said point of
intersection being marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case
No. 17105 thence easterly, along the last described parallel line a distance
of 25 feet tc %he point of intersection with the east line of said southwest
1/4 of the southwes~ 1/4, said point of intersection being marked by a
juducial lan~r, ark se~ pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence south, along
said east line, to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey
thereof.
M 1:0283469.01
Lots 10 to 14 inclusive, and that part of Lot 15, lying north of the south 8
feet thereof, all in Block 2, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36
Lafayette Park.
Lots 1 to 11 £nclusive, Block 5;
Lots 1 to 7 inclusive, and that part of Lot 8 lying easterly of a line drawn
south, paral'=' to %he eas~ line of Lot 8, from a point on the northerly line
thereof distanu 134.4 fee~ westerly from the northeast corner of Lot 8, Block
Ail of Yost Sureet, vacated, lying between the extension across said street of
the northerly lines of Lots 1 to 6 inclusive, Block 6, and a line drawn from
the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 6, to the southeast corner of Lot 11,
Block 5;
All in Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound-Minnetrista Township, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof.
The boundary lines of the above tract have been judicially determined and
marked by judicial landmarks as shown by Torrens Case No. 15805.
Lot 1, Block ' and Lot 1, Block 2, Balboa Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EXHIBIT D
t:::CElYED
Proposed Legal Description of Tax Parcel 13-l 17-24-34-0015
Lots 12 to 15 inclusive, and the Southwesterly Half of Lot 16, Block 9; and that part of Bryant
Avenue, vacated, lying between the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line of Block
9 and a line drawn from the most westerly corner of Block 9 to the point of intersection of the
southeasterly line of Block 11 with a line drawn parallel to and 40 feet northerly, measured at
right angles, from the southerly line of Block 11 and its extension, all in "Abraham Lincoln
Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka."
That part of Lots 22 and 23, Block 11, lying south of a line drawn from the most westerly
corner of Block 9 to the point of intersection of the southeasterly line of Block 11 with a line
drawn parallel to and 40 feet northerly, measured at right angles, from the southerly line of
Block 11 and its extension, all in "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound-
Minnetonka."
M 1:0283469.01
u
~8IH$llht
SS~t8d~,3
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET
SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
YARD ] DIRECTION
iiOUSE .........
REQUIRED
RI 10,000/60' Bi 7,500/0
~zn e,ooo/4o ~a 2o,ooo/eo
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
~2 zi,ooo/so. }
R3 gEE ORD. I 30.000/100
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE: ·
]LOT WIDTH:
LOT DF. PT[I:
VARIANCE
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E w
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SHED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
SIDE
N S E W
4' OR 6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
30% OR 40%
ItARDCOVER
CONFORMING? YES / NO
This 7.oning Information Sheet only summarizca a portion of the tequiremcnta outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the Cily of Mound
Planning Department at 4724}600.
~'~- :T~-::i :'~ m- i~- ~->'.?'L~-~~-':'7- ~- ~ ~'-~.~. ¥ ~.-7~. -~7~_~7,.,'~" '~"-~'.~/'~ ~" ';<.57-~7/ 7~.':',~ /~,
r~. ...... ~ .... ~ .... ~..~.~0'".~ Z ,'.:'" ''.~"/' -, ~ °,t ~// '"/~':--.,'-_-,1",~ ~:
· ~ ,. ~ ...... ~1.-~... ~.~t-:.~i.;~'~-~. t ~~~
TORO H.I.D.
I tusing~ .~ JtJ~j
REMODEL (TEST CELLS) ¢/9405 (10-14-91)
?~ ¢11993 (12-3-91)
Ci ir concrete floor 2nd fl /t9428 10-30-91
sprinkler ~! 1985 11-22-91
6 SPRINKLER HEADS t~2048 (3-12-92)
ADD PARTITION WALLS ¢~9516 (3-12-92)
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 1/2074 (4-15-92)
ACCESSORY BLDG: HEATER TEST FACILITY //9873 11-4-92
3 SPRINKLER HEADS t~2314 1-27-93
CEILING/WALL IN SHOP //10139 7-28-93
2 SPRINKLER HEADS ¢~2804 10-27-94
I~OP. ELINE DRIVE
Sylvian Heights
IALBOA
ELSH COMPANIES
Addition to Mound
13-117-24 34 O0?A
(62170) see back ....
5300~ VACANT
5304¥
TORO ~OME ZMP. (usi~~s~O~ bmP~'~
WALTER G. ANDERSON CORP.
5310
5312
5314
5316
5320
5324
5330
5338
TORO HOME IMP.
C.R. MANUFACTURING
~5300 SHORELINE DRIVE
BALBOA - WELSH
13-117-24 34 0096
(62!7e)
~&B
5300 VACANT (UPSTAIRS) ~
5304 TORO HOME IMP. (USING 5300)
5308 DROP SHIP EXPRESS
5310 W.G. ANDERSON
5318 INFINITI MARKETING
5320 TORO
5330 TORO HOME IMP.
5338 C.R. MFG.
PLUMBING (BACKFLOWS) 111842 4-2-91
ROOF REPAIRS t/9210 6-3-91
" CANOPY 119409 10-16-91
ROOF REPAIRS 119868 (10-29-92)
I0115
PARTIAL REROOF 1110281 11-5-93
5340: WALL OPENING TO EXPAND TORO t/10336 2-18-94
~ROOF A ~ D (C.R.) ~10373 3/30/94 ~
Reroof Section K permit #10992 7-13-95
REROOF SECTION U PERMIT #11191 10-27-95
~11289 4-10-9~ ~
TORO /J11753 3-18-97 ENLARGE WALL OPENING
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD i
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-168~
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
OcLober 21, 1997
Edward Shukle
city Ma hagen'
FROM:
Greg Skinner
Public Works Supt.
SUBJECI: CBD Snow Plowing Contract
Bids for the'1997-98 CBD snow plowing were opened on October
i6, i997. ]'he~'e were two bids submitted, Widmer Bros. in St.
BonJf'acius and Concept Landscape from Mound. After reviewing
both bids ~ recornmend Lhat Widmer Bros. be awarded the
c:ontl' act.
prlnled on recycled paper
40% Pre-Consumer Content · 10% Post-Consumer Content
Page No.
WlDMER INC.
P.O. Box 219
ST. BONIFACIUS, MINNESOTA 55375
PHONE 446-1495
FAX 446-1836
of
Pages
PROPOSAL SUBMIrrED TO
City of Mound
STREET
5341 Maywood
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
Mound, MN 55364
ARCHITECT I DATE OF PLANS
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
PHONE
472-1251
JOB NAME
SnowPlowing
JOB LOCATION
IDATE
9/17/97
JOB PHONE
66 Kawasaki $87.00 Per Hr.
..... 95'0'Cat ........................................... :'~: .............. '~-$84.00 Pe"r Hr; ............
........... 3.0.0Komatsu- ==..===.=.$84..00. Per Hr
4 x 4 Pickups ....... $55.00 Per Hr.
...................... ................................. ~'~'$'6'6":O'0-"P~'~'"'H~";
...................... Tandem. Dumps_.....(.for.......hauling) .......................................................................... =.=..=..r~.==.=.=$4,9....OO.....P,e.r...Hr
Salt/Sand Delivered ....... $30.00 Per Ton
Incurred pertaining to lien. We will not be responsible for any underground utilities that cannot be located by the utility companies
or the,hom~ownef~,,Normat' clean-up is Inctuded i~ ,this proposal There, ls,no sod figured in.this I~OposaL We wttr,,not-,a~sume ~he .............
responsibility for water pipes, trees, tree roots, sprinkler systems, etc. unless notified to exact location prior to excavating. Frost
ripping extra charge. It is expressly stipulated and agreed that the undersigned shall not be held liable for damages to grass, trees,
there will be extra charges based on time and material.
hereby to furnish material and labor --complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
Payment to be made as follows:
Within o,f) ~y~q upnn billing
A finance charge of 1%% per month (18% annual rate) will be charged on past due accounts.
dollars ($ ).
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica-
tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire. tornado and other .ecessary insurance.
Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance.
to do tt
Authorized
Signature __
Note: This proposal may be
withdrawn by us if not accepted within
days,
l rreptattre o[ troposal-The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Signature
Signature
Concept Landscaping
3153 Priest Lane, Mound, MN 55364
472-4118
Proposal
MN. Contractor LIC.#000-8997
Bonded Shoreline Contractor #019008644
Ci~' of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound. MN 55364
October 6,1997
BID-SNOW REMOVAL FROM PARKING LOTS IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Loader with 2-3 yard Snow Bucket
$65.00 per hour
F-350 or C-30 1 ton Dump Track (all 4 wheel drives)
Dump Track with Behnke 12 yard tandem dump
$55.00 per hour
$55.00 per hour
Loader with a Plow
Loader with bucket
Loader with a Snow Blower
C-30 w/Crysteel Sander (Cities Sand)
$60.00 per hour
$60.00 per hour
$65.00 per hour
$55.00 per hour
This bid is based on an hourly basis, per the above equipment being u?~L and includes a driver and fuel.
We propose hereby to furnish all material and labor--complete in accordance to the above specifications, for the sum of: $$ee above
balance upon completion of each month
and or deviations from the above specifications shall become an extra cost over and above thc original estimate. All agpee,c, ent~ contingent upon
strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry, fire, tornado, and other necessary insurance. Our workers are covered by workers
compensation insurance.
atom: I his proposal may bc w/thd~awn w~th m 1o day:~
Acceptance of Proposal--The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hexeby accepted~ You are aulhorized to do the wm'k as specified.
Payment will be made as outlined above:
acceptance
.Signature
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472..0620
DATE:
MEETING
DATES:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
October 10, 1997
October 16, 1997 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
October 28, 1997 City Council
Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant
Sutherland, Building Official <~ i
Jon
SUBJECT:
Land Alteration/Trimming Public Lands Permit Application from
Thomas R Menken
1720 Dove Lane
Wiota Common
Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking a permit as described in the attached
application in order to get the lilacs trimmed as a health and maintenance issue. The trimming
of the lilacs has a minimal impact on the screening of the house from the lake.
Recommendation. Staff recommends the D&C recommend approval of the request to trim the
lilacs. The work shall be done by a contractor who is licensed by the City and coordinated by
the Parks Director or Building Official. The contractor shall give the staff 24 hours notice prior
to starting the work.
JS.'kl
The abutting property owners have been notified of this request.
[ printecl on recycled paper
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #97-__
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A LAND ALTERATIONS ON PUBLIC LAND
KNOWN AS WIOTA COMMON
TO ALLOW TRIMMING OF LILAC BUSHES
ABUTTING 1720 DOVE LANE, LOTS 7, 8, & 9, BLOCK 12
DREAMWOOD
WHEREAS, the applicant, Thomas Menken, has requested the approval of a
Land Alterations Permit to allow trimming of bushes, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a
four-fifths vote for construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or
the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, the bushes have been unattended for years, need pruning to stay
alive, healthy plants and will maintain erosion control, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. To approve a Land Alteration Permit to trim back the lilac bushes. The work
shall be done by a licensed contractor and coordinated with the Building
Official.
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: City Clerk
J, ,!, , J, r, l,,
Dock & Co.v.o~ Ad~.~o~ Commision
October16, 1997
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 16, 1997
Present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Jim
Funk, Dennis Hopkins and Mark Goldberg. Staff present: Parks
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary
Clare Link and the following interested citizens, Rita Pederson,
Carl Palmquist and Tom Menken. Those absent and unexcused: Gordy
Tulberg.
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION - THOMAS HENKENt 1720 DOVE LANE
Fackler reviewed the application to trim lilacs on the site. Staff
recommends approval. Work shall be done by a licensed contractor
and coordinated with the Building Official. There is also a branch
on a willow tree which the City has already removed.
Goldberg asked if some of these applications can be handled on an
administrative level. Fackler stated the Council prefers all
trimming and maintenance items be brought before this Commission.
Motion byPolston, seconded by Ahrens to recommend approval of
the public lands permit application. Motion carried
unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 1, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jon Sutherland, Building Of,~
FROM: J~m Fackler, Park DirectOr-
SUBJECT. Public Lands Permit For ~mas~Menken.
I have reviewed the application and inspected the area
noted. The willow tree has been scheduled for trimming
because there is a large dead branch that poses a hazard.
How ever the trimming of the Lilac bushes is part of
Shoreland Management, Section 350:00, Subdivision 4 as it
relates vegetation alteration and needs to be addressed by
the Building Department.
Please note that I will need all information in relation
to this application by October 8, 1997 in order to place it
on the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission agenda for
October 16.
printed on recycled paper
COmmoNS
.I
- cYc
S,C~-T~',':':'":., ,.~,. OF' PREMISES S'~RV',. ~D'
8, 'and 9, B].ock 12, DREAMWOOD~
stes iron marker' set
ores iron marke? found
~tes'exist~ng spot elevation, ~ean sea level datum
3 5'7
OCT- 1-[~'[ 141-'1)
pUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOI3~N~D, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, i~,IN- 55.364
· rnon¢: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
I)_[5~7. :.R__IB_ UT ION:
l~"/Lq'7 BUi~-l~i'~d OFFICIAL
/O"/.-T~PARKS DIRECTOR %C ~ ad
/o.6.fZ. McwD
/o-/~_~PUBLIC WORKS
DATE RECEIVED j~,j.. Z'27__..
DOCK lVFEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE_~_...,..O/._g~_
~h..e..~
I
I
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT. new con~rrucdon. NOTre ~o P~IT SU.~.L
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRU~ION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER B~LDINGS ON Pb~LIC ~.ND (Ci~ Ccd~
Set,on 320, SuM. I),
PUBI,IC LAND MALN~EN~NCE PERMIT - to allow repairs m an exi,ting structure (City Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE. to allow an existing encroachment to remain in ::p. ":es is" :ondm.~n
(City Cod~ Section 320. Sub& 3).
LAND ALTERATION
App!ican~
Akut r. i n9
Legal
Descri~t ion
Pub i i c
Property
Contractor
Lo~
Subd. Block
___ .................
Name_~ ' ....
Dock Si~e #
~------ Shoreline T}'~e
Name ~Y '~l.~_tYt~_ 'qT<~- ~V/~ '---- ....
Address ....
~ 1
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT ~'CLL~ING L~OR & NIA~A~): ~D.
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PU~OSE: ~ ~ ~o~& ~¢'~3-~g~
................ ~ ~. ~) ~g/Ns T~ .~ D~IU~~
~/w -,' ..........
BILLS-
........ October 28, 1997
Batch 7102
Total Bills
$246,532.17
$246,532.17
c~o
c~
t:~rn
c:)
m
ZZ
Z
m
Z
z
0
Z
C~
Z
33000000 OOCDO
T
Z ~
Z
0 0
Z c:rl~
Z
Z
m
Z o
m
m
>
[11
~°°
Z~
.-,Ir
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
October 15, 1997
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL-CHRIS PALM, 1772 LAFAYETTE LANE
I met today with Jim Fackler, Parks Director and Randy Schwerin, Shorewood Tree Service to
discuss the facts of this matter.
Randy indicated that he was contacted by Chris Palm on July 18, 1997, a day after the severe storm
that hit the City of Mound, to obtain a price to remove a tree that became hazardous due to the storm.
Randy provided an initial price of $1,900. After discussing the job with Ms. Palm, he decided to
lower the price to $1,500. He indicated he would take the tree down right away. Ms. Palm stated
she had obtained a price from another contractor for $750. Randy said fine and he walked away
from the site.
Five or six days later, Randy found out that the low price came from John Ecklund, previous owner
of Shorewood Tree Service. Ecklund was not licensed or bonded in the City of Mound. Randy
called Ecklund and asked him what he was trying to do. Randy told him that he had to call Ms. Palm
and tell her that he could not do the work. Randy stated that Ecklund did call Ms. Palm back and
declined to do the work.
Ms. Palm then talked to Randy again and Randy agreed to remove the tree for $1,500 and he would
do the work right away. Ms. Palm stated that she was leaving on a vacation and wanted to be home
when the work was going to be done. Randy stated that he would try to get to the site on August 12
but did not guarantee that he would be there on that day. (Ms. Palm stated at the Council meeting
that Randy did not show up on August 12). In the meantime, Craig Goodrich, the next door
neighbor, was continuing to call Randy and Jim about the removal of this tree. Randy indicated to
Jim that the only day that he had available was August 22. Jim told Randy to go ahead and remove
printed on recycled paper
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1997
Page 2
it on behalf of the City. Jim called Ms. Palm on August 21 and told her that Randy would be
working on the removal the next day. Randy and his crew showed up at 7:45 a.m. on August 22 and
spent the entire day cutting up the tree.
Shorewood Tree Service did not bring in any heavy equipment such as a crane. They used ropes and
a bobcat. They took the tree down, cut up the wood, stacked the wood for Ms. Palm and raked up
any debris. Ms. Palm was home until 1:00 p.m. watching the work being done.
I questioned Randy and Jim why there is a difference in price between what Randy quoted Ms. Palm
and what the City was charged. Jim stated the work is done on a time and materials basis. The City
usually uses Randy to remove trees off of public property. As an example, the July 17th storm saw
many trees down and Jim called and directed that Randy come in and do the removals as soon as
possible. Jim does not go out and seek quotes on each removal. This would take several days and
when you have storms like this which cause so much damage, you have to get the trees out of the
way in a very expeditious manner. The same analogy can be used as we deal with water main
breaks. Greg Skinner does not go out and seek quotes from 5 or 6 excavators before he fixes the
main break. He usually goes to one vendor who can be there immediately.
To summarize, the job was completed for public safety reasons. Ms. Palm delayed the process by
not working with Randy on getting the tree removed on a timely basis. Randy actually had quoted
her a price of $1,900 and then reduced it in frustration in dealing with Ms. Palm.
October 20~ 1997:
I called Ms. Palm today and explained to her my conversation with Mr. Fackler and Mr. Schwerin
regarding the tree removal. I explained that Randy had offered to remove the tree initially for $1,900
and then reduced the fee to $1,500. She indicated that she never was told it was $1,900. She recalls
Mr. Ecklund's quote of $750. I told her that Randy was ready to take the tree down right away. She
was not aware of this. She accused me of believing Randy and not her and that he was lying and she
wasn't lying. She said: "Why would I lie?" I asked her: "Why would Randy lie?" She said money
and that because she is a woman.
There is also the matter of the stump and its removal. Palm states that the stump was to be removed
as part of the job and it wasn't. Schwerin indicated that the stump removal was not part of the job
as he seldom removes stumps with regard to his tree removal service.
I also told her that Randy stated that he never guaranteed that he would be there on August 12. What
he told me was that he would try to get there on that day but if not, it would be later.
She also told me that Mr. Ecklund had assured her that the tree was not going to blow down and that
it would not have to be removed right away. This does not mesh with what Randy is saying.
38-/3
Memo to Mayor and City Council
October 15, 1997
Page 3
The "bottom line" is that she does not want to pay $1,810. She feels that Randy should only charge
$1,500 or the City should pay the difference.
In conclusion, what we have here is her word against Randy Schwerin's. I do not believe we are
going to resolve this matter with Ms. Palm because her story is different from what Schwerin's is.
Schwerin told me he would not reduce his bill to the City of Mound. Therefore, $1,810 assessment
is still in front of you as an issue. I believe Ms. Palm should pay $1,500 and be assessed for it
through the normal procedures. I do not believe that Schwerin should have to absorb the $310
difference due to work he was asked to perform by the City. Therefore, my recommendation is to
assess $1,500 to Palm and absorb $310 out of the tree removal budget.
October 14, 1997
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
PID #
RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID HAZARDOUS TREE
RE~OV~ 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:
1. 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.
IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY #
13-117-24 22 0011
e
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, SuM. 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.
0
0
U
0
U
CITY OF MOUND
October 7, 1997
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
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 licensed tree remover in Mound. I instructed
her he had to be licensed and would work with Mr. Ecklund to
pr~n~e~ on recycle~ pa~r
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.
I inspe ~-= "s. Palm and she said a date o~ Ay.gu
removed. I ca~l~uj-, .... ~ ........ ~ Tree Service for l~s .
12th was schedu£e~ wl~n ~nu~=w~
her an extension for the tree removal base~
removal. I gave ...... ~-~-~or scheduled and I verified
on her having a llcensea cunu~=~
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). · ,
COMZPL~ FORM
Date Received
PID #
PHONE: home
wor~_~" .~ ~..'
NAME
~.ss
PID #
PHONE: home
work
DETAILS OF COMPLAINT.
FINDINGS r~..' /'~ /~-~~ ~--
SCHEDULED FOR REMOVAL
REMOVAL DATE
STUMP REMOVED9 yes , no___
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
472~600
TI ET REM VEHAZARD US TREE
pretty, assess the total cost
NAME OF
ADDRESS:~ ___
R~c~ntly a r~9r~s~ntativ~ from th~ City of~ound inspected tr~s on
your property for the possibility of a hazardous condition.
Th~ field diagnosis by th~ Tr~ Inspector is that th~
constitutes a hazard. City Cod~
S~ction ~~ sp~zifi~s that
~y d~[e~Se~ O~ ~ea~ ~ee m]st be ~moved~ t~] {~0}j ~[~s1
after notification by th~ City Tr~ Inspector.
Reinspection date for your property is. ~m, '~+ ~ .
J ,
if ~h~ tr~(s) ar~ not r~mov~d by this date, the City shall proceed
to r~mov~ such tr~(s) and
agains~ th~
also wish to receive the
following senAces (for an
extra fee):
1. [] Addressee's Address
2. [] Restricted Deliven/
Consult postmaster for fee.
~-4b. Se~ce Type .,,,
Registered ~ Certified
o tess Mail [] insured
I '1 Return Receipt for Merct~ndise LJ ~ _
I L Date of Deli~/ery /-
~ ~/y/f requestea
Invoice
iiiii:::::::::::.;: ......................
BILL TO
CITY OF MOUND
A~: ~
534! MAYWOOD ~
MOUND, MN 55364
SHOREWOOD.TREE SERVICE
9715 FENNER AVE SE
DELANO, MN 55328 "
612-972-2441 (Office)
DATE INVOICE #
8/2:5/97 342
Se~ce Address
1772 LAFAYETTE LANE
MOUND
TERMS
JOB DATE
8/22/97
PO~
KRIS PALM
DESCRIPTION
STORM DAMAGE-REMOVAL OF TREE
NO LAWN REPAIR-NO DAMAGE
MN SALES TAX
Thank you for your busines~
PLEASE KEMrr UPON RECEIPT. FINANCE CHARGE
OF 1 1/2% PER MONTH WILL APPLY TO UNPAID
BALANCE.
AMOUNT
1,700.00T
110.50
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364'! 687
(612) ~72-0600
FAX [6~2) 472-0620
REQUEST FOR BILLING
SEND BILL TO:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
PID ,: 15-//7-
TYPE OF WORK PERFORMED:~
COST OF WORK TO BE BILLED .... $
code payment to: .........
prtnled on recycled paper
0CT-08-97 81:28 PM CONTRACT RESOURCE SERV.
612 ~61 6264
P.01
October 8, 1997
TO: Jim Fackler
CO: City of 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 failing into our tree's during a storm. I'm sorry I do not have dates to
confirm this.
If J recall right the storm hit on a Thursday in the micidle of the night. Our neighbor,
Chris Palm's tree fell into our trees a result.
The next day when everyone was looking at the damage I went to Chris to see wr~at
she thought. She hadn't realized the tree had gone down so we discussed it and she
saict 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 caIled eeveral 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 I~er 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 safel o o '
three year old as huoe bran,-~,-, ......... ~!-Y g . ut m our back yard. Especially our
warning and who was to say the whole tree wouldn't come down as it was sinking as it
~ ,,' ,~ ,.,- ~uur afrferen~ occasion's had fallen down w~h no
settled. She again told me she hadn't gotten any decent bids and didn't fee.~ it was an
II ,,l I , L I
0C~08--97 01:29 PM cOHTRACT RESOURCE SERV. 612 361 6264
P.02
2of 2
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. Trois
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
CHRIS PALM
1772 LAFAYETTE LN
MOUND, MN. 55364
612-472-6534
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
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.
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
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. i~HE 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
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 CAME 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 ~IEN 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 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.
SINCERELY,
CHRIS PALM
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AlVlENDI~G SECTIONS 235
AND 920 OF TIlE CITY CODE PEI~TAINING TO
RECREATIONAL FIRES
The City of Mound does ordaim
Section 235 of the City Code is amended by adding a new Section 235:25 to read
follows:
Section 235:25 Recreational Fires. No person shall, wjlhout a permit, nor in.~olation of
the conditions d~..crib~ommence, conduct, ~' .a~ec~attonal fi--'----;-' "re, which is not
contained within' a fully enclose~'~'~ ~t--~-d-l{i'~cle, and from .?hich products of
combustion are emitted directly ~e without passina through a stack duct or
'x'~ ---.- · ,.,~,,,;,-,,~ .;,t,,.r ,,,,a~. +~.;." -' /r under Section 235 27 for a fire
· ~,,.- -~ ,~. ~h~11 r ----,,'~ -- ~'-" - -" .... '- ~' .... 1...--:-- 1,. ,.4 '
bea*mq, ..... ontse~___ ........ om.. .......... ,,,,,~, ,a ~,,~,~ ~,~f ,~-. ............ ., .... iol~uon
Sub& 1 Definitions. FOr purposes of this Section the followin~ definitions shall apply.'
(a'} "Attendant" is the same as a com¢¢tem, unimpaired adult.
"Burner" means a firebox, a barrel or similar container used fqr an outdqor
fu'e. but not including: ~o, rills or barbecues used p..rincipallv for the cooking
of food.
"Compet~ Unimpaired Adult" means a person over eighteen (l g) years
of age 8ii~s not under the influence of alcohol or other dm~s. ,,,,'ho shall
be the responsible party for directly supervising an open bum and who
shall be responsible for ensufin~compliance with this Section.
"Fire Ch/eft means the aCpointed Fire Chief or any individual designated
by the Fire Chief to perform specific duties.
"Recreational Fir~" means a.fire set for cooking or warming or other
recreational oumoses Which Jl~ not more than three ¢3) feet in diameter
and three (3) feet in flam~ hcgh~;, ~n4 has a non-combustible separation
between the fire area and adjoining combustible material such as bricks
or stones and has had the ground five (5~ feet from the base of the fire
Ceatr~ of all combustibD material.
"Starter Fuels" means dry, un~-~at,e& unpainted wood or charcoal fire
starter. Paraffin candles, commercially available products for use in
starting clam-coal grills, and alcohols are permitted as starter fuels and as
NHA~D · A~HNNH~:MO~ AI'OI
aids._to i 'tion onlv. Pro ane as torches or other clean burnin devices
eausm minimal ollution ma be used to s-tan o n re Starter fuels
do not include asoline diesel fuel kerosene, and heatin oil.
ood means - clean fuel .onlv such as twi s. branches limbs
" sro-lo s". "duraflame lo s' charcoal cord wood. and untreated
dimensional lumber includin clean allets. "fuel" does not include wood
.that is ee - leaves or needles- ..orass eli in s: arden waste: wood that
as rotten, oil soaked or treated with aha lue o reservative. I ·
article board, chi board finished anelin . or ainted. Ire. ate& or stained
cardboard or ~ap .er
.~___.e f~re shall be attended b a eom ten tmim aired adult at all times that smoke
as rodueed from the fire.
E ui ment to control and ex-un ~sh the fire shall be immediatelv available to the
attendant at the site of the ftre at all times durin bumino This ma- include hand
tools hose lines, and water buckets. ' '
~S TO RECREATIONAL FIRE ORDINANC
Introductory paragraphs to 235:25:
(Agenda, page 3891)
Section 235:25 Recreational Fires. No persons shall commence, conduct or allow any
recreational fire in violation of the conditions described below.
· obtained for all recreational fires; except, that a permit is not required
Permits shallb ..... -.__ ,a~.~q for a fire contained in a charcoal _grill,
under either this Section o.r un.aer a~uo.u ~..~;_-_- ~ .... ,-.,~- of cookine or heating; but,
or other aevice destgned for ,..~ t,,~ r ..... . .
camp stone, fire bo.% ...... ~- fire or burning in v~olation of any
no person shall commence, conduct or auow any
other provision of law.
235:25, Subd. 4:
(Agenda, page 3893)
(g) . - ' recreational fires may be conducted at any
time of the day or night.
,TR, DL3264~
cans of sum~onin e ' e De artment $ ali ' ' available
~..._ ,.,-.~A ~-~ for use by the att_endant.
Only Wood as de.f'med in Sub& 1 ee'~ of this Section and starter_Fuels as defined
in_ Subd. 1 (fkmay be .burned in, a recreational fire.
The fire may noi be ~t~rt-~- or confiniJ~ in sit%tlons where prevailing
winds or other factors c _re,a~ an un.~fe conditi°n or direct smoke
toward other n~rby reside, nc. em.
(a') A fLm b~'_~rd exists or develom durln~_ th, course of the bum, ~(ff'~Y '
Co) Pollutonor nui-~nce condifio~ develop durin~ the co,,se the bum.
The fire is left .unattended, or the atten..clant is impaired~
(e)
The fire is allowed to smolder with no flame visible and.. is unattended.
~nv of_the condifions~c~~ ,,,:-7_--,-m~*~ are viol.ateci d-_ring the course qf thc burn.
II.
Section 235:27 of the City Code is amended by amending Subdivision 1 thereon to read
as follows:
Subd. I Om:n B_umine Prohibit. ed. In addition_to the ~ r~_uirernent
contained in Secfign 2~5:25_, it shall be unlawful fo~.~rson to start or allow
t~ burn any ot~n fire, ~xc~pt, a recreational fire on ~ property within the City
of Mound without a permit issuext under this Section.
~ No l~rmit shall be required for any official fire set by any public official
as provided in Section 490:20.
III. Section 920:05 of the City code is amended to read as follows:
Section 920:05. Hours of Burning. Except as othcr~i_'se authorized by the
_ " ,,n.--a.'~ ,...~'~*..~t'~.ang--~-.,,, no
provisions of Sections 235:25. and 235:27, :; '.},c c-- : -- ..' -' :"?
person shall, ~-hhin the City., bum or cause to be burned any bonfirc, outdoor
rubbish fire Erass or brush fire between the hours of midnight and 'noon of any
day.
3
Dated:
ATTEST:
~/ayor
City Clerk
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL-
PUBLISHED IN THE LAKER
l'IU20o.1
4
RESOLUTION 97-
RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY
OF LOCATING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT COUNTY ROAD 15 (SHORELINE DRIVE)
AND WILSHIRE BLVD. IN THE CITY OF MOUND
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is concerned with the health,
safety and welfare of the City; and
WHEREAS, traffic has increased on Hennepin County Road 15 and Wilshire Blvd;
and
WHEREAS, residents have asked for the City of Mound and Hennepin County to
consider locating a traffic signal at this location to prevent accidents and relieve traffic congestion
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, hereby requests a feasibility study of this intersection to determine if a traffic
signal is warranted.
The foregoing resolution was moved by , seconded by
The following voted in the affirmative:
The following voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
SEPT. 1997
75.OO%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Transfers
from Other Funds
Charges to Other
Departments
TOTAL REVENUE
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKSFUND
SEPT. 1997 YTD
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE
1,266,460 0 649,296
6,250 340 4,382
121,800 18,413 105,739
968,210 546 530,426
51,100 1,175 8,477
65,000 7,562 85,561
43,300 29,412 31,696
43,50O 0 0
lO.OOO
336,020 36,889 295,639
108,320 5,099 97,668
1,525,000 120,239 1,124,640
430,000 42,769 323,346
880,000 90,236 710,952
4,100 350 2,145
73,800 19 70,088
PERCENT
VARIANCE RECEIVED
(617,164) 51.27%
(1,868) 70.11%
(16,061) 86.81%
(437,784) 54.78%
(42,623) 16.59%
20,561 131.63%
(11,604) 73.20%
(43,500) 0.00%
~ 92.56%
(40,381) 87.98%
(10,652) 90.17%
{400,360) 73.75%
(106,654) 75.20%
(169,048) 80.79%
(1,955) 52.32%
(3,712) 94.97%
rev97
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
SEPT. 1997
75.00%
SEPT. 1997 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE. VARIANCE EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Summer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
GENERALFUNDTOTAL
69,370 6,266 59,950 9,420 86.42%
4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00%
800 201 526 274 65.75%
193,470 13,936 140,189 53,281 72.46%
2,100 0 1,857 243 88.43%
59,480 0 61,218 (1,738) 102.92%
168,960 12,214 119,820 49,140 70.92%
23,550 641 13,835 9,715 58.75%
114,460 5,965 66,843 47,617 58.40%
924,350 61,622 634,938 289,412 68.69%
4,100 536 1,897 2,203 46.27%
172,870 14,271 127,202 45,668 73.58%
405,270 25,729 303,887 101,383 74.98%
82,840 4,795 52,533 30,307 63.42%
148,550 14,475 113,293 35,257 76.27%
36,200 0 0 36,200 0.00%
20,000 1,099 21,264 (1,264) 106.32%
161,390 12,870 115,823 45,567_ 71.77%
2 591 760 174,620. 1,839,075 752 685 70.96%
Area Fire
Service Fund
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Cemetery Fund
Docks Fund
336,020 26,685 210,141 125,879 62.54%
118,950 15,127 110,837 8,113 93.18%
211,920 16,886 159,773 52,147 75.39%
351,460 43,680 271,356 80,104 77.21%
903,140 102,601 861,853 41,287 95.43%
8,100 753 7,203 897 88.93%
68,440 3,517 34,579 33,861 50.52%
Exp-97
1011011997
G.B.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, October 22, 1997
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
· 11/5/97 Workshop/Planning Meeting, 6 P.M., Gray's Freshwater Center
· 11/12/97 Regular Board Meeting will be held at Shorewood City Hall
· 11/18/97 Sheriffs Water Patrol Joint & Cooperative Agreement Meeting, 7 A.M.,
LMCD Office
READING OF MINUTES - 9/24/97 Regular Board Meeting
10/1/97 Workshop/Planning Session
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by '""' will be approved in one
motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the
item will be removed from the consent agenda.
1. WATER STRUCTURES
A. Schmitt Marina, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of
a New Multiple Dock License;
B. City of Wayzata, petition to amend LMCD Code Section 2.01, Subd. 3c);
C. Additional Business;
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Update on 10/11/97 Personal Watercraft Forum coordinated by Lake
Minnetonka Association;
*B. Water Patrol Significant Activity Report (handout);
C. Additional Business;
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Ordinance Amendment, first reading of an ordinance relating to the
commercial launching of watercraft on Lake Minnetonka; adding new section
3.085 to the LMCD Code of Ordinances;
*C.
8.
9.
10.
OrdJrlance Amendment, third reading of an ordinance relating to special
events on Lake Minnetonka; amending Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District Code Section 3.09;
10110197 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting was cancelled;
D. Additional Business;
SAVE THELAKE
FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers for payment;
_ 1011197 - 10/31/97
B. September financial summary & balance sheet;
C. Additional Business;
ADMINISTRATION
A. Update on re-appointment of Board members whose terms expire in 1997;
Report from nominating committee with recommendations for Board Officers
for 1998;
staff update on the vacant Administrative Assistant position;
D. Additional Business;
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, September 24, 1997
Tonka Bay City Hall
_CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster,
Deephaven; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Lili McMillan, Orono; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene
Partyka, Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Tom Reese, Mound; Herb Suerth, Woodland.
Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director
Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood; Victoria and Minnetonka
have no appointed members.
~CHAIR ANNOUNCEM~NTS,
Chair Babcock reminded the Board of the Workshop/Planning Session scheduled for 10/1/97 at 6
P.M. at the Grays Freshwater Center. He noted the proposed agenda would be discussed under
New Business.
READING OF THlV~ M]NU'IT~
Nelson moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the September 10, 1997 Regular Board
meeting as amended: McMillan noted she abstained from voting on the termination issue under
new business. Babcxx:k noted the Minutes should state the meeting was reopened instead of re-
adjourned following the executive session. Babcock noted on page 4, Item 6A. 1), should read,
"updating the car/trailer counts required by the Lake Access Task Force Report". Motion carried
unanimously.
Reese moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the September 3, 1997
Workshop/Planning Session as amended: Babcock noted on page 2, the sentence "It was noted this
should be the basis for the establishment and enforcement of all ordinances" should be struck.
Ayes (8), Abstained (2, Foster and McMilla_n), Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS~
There were no public comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda.
_CONSENT AGENDA
Reese moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Items so approved include the
following: Item lB, Warren McNeil, staff recommends refund of $250 deposit variance
application. Motion carried unanimously.
Lake Mlnnetonlm Conservation District
Page 2
WATER STRUCTURES
A. Schmitt Marina, Discussion of Public Hearing for a New Multiple Dock
License.
Foster asked staff for explanation on what section of the dock structure exceeds the
6 foot restriction established by Code.
Nybeck explained that for the finger between slips 7,8, and 9, there is a small
triangular section that abuts the main walkway that exceeds the 6' width. He added
he believed that dock section would be used for the storage of a high-pressure
sprayer.
Robert Schmitt, owner of the property, expressed concern that the licenses in recent
years have not been issued in his name because he is the official owner. He added
concern in that the application being considered by the Board idenILfies Richard
Westin owner of the property rather than himself.
Nybeck explained that staff sends out renewal applications and issues licenses each
year based on the contact person identified on the application received. He noted
the contact person could be either the owner or the tenant.
Foster suggested revising the application forms to include whether the contact
person is the owner or an authorized agent. Staff was directed to make this change
to the application form.
Nybeck clarified the applicant's calculation of BSU's and WSU's on the application
were incorrect and need to be mended. He noted the proposed application is for a
total of 18 BSU's and 58 WSU's. He added because of this, the applicant overpaid
for 14 WSU's, or $120, on the application. He stated the Board should issue a
refund check of $120 for the overpayment.
LeFevere stated the LMCD Code Section 2.015 requires the Executive Director to
establish an envelope for the new proposed plans. He noted he had discussed this
with Nybeck, who believed the envelope should coincide with the authorized dock
use area because the existing dock structure does not extend beyond 100' from
shore, provided it does not further encroach into the side setbacks. He stated in this
case, the Board might consider the envelope to be the same as the authorized dock
area or specify some other envelope which could, for example, preserve a setback
from a channel.
Babcock provided background on the envelope concept and how he recalled the
ordinance was drafted to place restrictions on docks that extend beyond 100' from
shore. He stated in the proposed application there is not a length problem because
the existing dock is within the normal dock use area. The Board discussed the
ordinance and the consensus was to allow the applicant to make changes within
®
®
Lake Tmnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 24, 1997
100', provided they comply with all conditions outlined in the ordinance.
Gilman recommended conditions from the existing, approved site plan be included
with a new license. The attorney was directed to review these conditions to
determine which ones should be included in the Order.
MOTION:
Page 3
Foster moved, Nelson seconded to direct the attorney to prepare
Findings of Fact and Order approving the new multiple dock license
for Schmitts Marina, subject to approval by other governmental
jurisdictions, subject to including stipulations from the existing
license, and to issue a refund check of $105 for the overpayment of
14 WSU's.
The consensus of the Board was to allow the finger between slips 7, 8, and 9 that
exceeds 6' in width to remain.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Additional Business
There was no additional business.
LAKE USE AND RECREATION
A. Ordinance Amendment, 1st Reading of an Ordinance Relating to High Water
Conditions, Amending LMCD Code Section 3.021, Subd. 2c).
MOTION: Reese moved, Gilman seconded to move the first reading, to waive
second and third readings, and adopt an ordinance relating to high
water conditions, mending LMCD Code Section 3.021, Subd. 2c).
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Additional Business
There was no additional business
EURAS~ WATER MILFOII./EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to special
events on Lake Minnetonka; amending Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Code Section 3.09.
Babcock stated comments have been received, as requested, from the DNR and
other interested parties relating to the proposed ordinance amendment.
Lak~ Mim~onka Conservation District
Re~aflar llam-d Meeting
Reese stated he believed enforcement
expenditures under Subd. la.
Page4
should be added to the list of possible
Foster expressed concern about the proposed change i~ the permitting process.
stated he believed this is the wrong approach to address zebra mussel concerns for
the lake. He expressed concerns with the fee structure and that fees charged to the
applicants not be ex~sive. He concluded he feels many people are not informed
about the zebra mussel and that a proactive educational campaign is necessary.
Reese stated the purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment is to control the use
of the lake and to enhance everyone's enjoyment of it. He noted the zebra mussel is
the principle reason; however, there are other reasons for doing this.
Babcock stated the proposed ordinance would not change the washdown of boats,
but would get the LMCD active again in special event permitting.
Denny Nelson, coordinator of Wednesday night bass toumaments throughout the
summer, expressed concern about potential special event fees. He noted his
tournament entry fees are only $10 per person, which does not give him a lot of
room for additional fees. He added he believed his participants complied with the
boat washing requirements this past summer.
Blake Middleton, Executive Director of the Minnetonka Yacht Club, asked ff the
proposed ordinance would e 'hminate the Water Patrol's licensing and enforcement of
special events on Lake Minnetonka.
Babcock stated the Water Patrol still has jurisdictional permitting authority for
special events on take Minnetonka in addition to the LMCD.
McMillan expressed concern about the amount of paperwork for the applicants and
the open-ended fees.
Babcock stated the fees charged to the applicants would be in an amount necessary
to recover costs to the LMCD for administering an event.
Reese stated the intent of the proposed ordinance change is to give the Executive
Director the latitude to grant permits without bringing them all before the Board.
Lan'y Schraers, resident of Ch~assen, stated he believed the number of fish on
Lake Minnetonka have been impacted through overfishing over the years. He stated
he does not want to see fishing tournaments eliminated; however, steps need to be
taken to protect it.
Blake Middleton, Minnetonka Yacht Club recommended the permit~g process be
streamlined to make it as simple as possible. He emphasized the importance of
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 24, 1997
keeping the fees as low as possible.
Page5
Babcock explained the fee structure used in the past.
Gilman asked if the sheriffs application could be used as our own. Foster
suggested the same fees be used as well. Babcock stated the fees would be
discussed at another meeting.
McMillan stated it is important to discuss this issue with the Water Patrol before an
ordinance is passed. She believed it should be a joint application to make the
process simple.
MOTION:
Nelson moved, Reese seconded to move the second reading of an
ordinance relating to spedal events on Lake Minnetonka as
amended.
Reese recommended substituting "enforcement" for "surveying" Under Section 1,
SuM. la.
B®
VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Foster); Motion carried.
Board members discussed the DNR's letter from Jay Rendall. Staff was directed to
respond to the letter with interested Board members' assistance.
Additional Business
Foster discussed the importance of a campaign to inform lake users of the dangers
of zebra mussel infestation to Lake Minnetonka. He noted the LMCD should work
with the DNR and other governmental agencies to educate the public. He suggested
billboards and pamphlets as examples.
There was no discussion.
FINANCIAL REPORT
A. Audit of vouchers for payment
9/16/97 - 9/30/97
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. He noted an
additional check, //11839 in the amount of $23.50 payable to Minnesota
Unemployment Compensation, should also be added.
MOTION:
Gilman moved, Reese seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for
payment, adding check//11839 for $23.50.
L~ke biinmionka Conservation District
Babcock stated payment for the computer upgrades should be held until a computer
issue is resolved. He noted one of the computers has not been returned after the
machine was taken to upgrade the RAM.
Reese stated he did not agree with withholding the payment.
Foster stated he believed staff and the Chair should decide what to do, not the
Boa~d o
MOTION:
TO AMEND
Gilman moved, Partyka seconded to amend the original motion to
payment of check//11825 in the amount of $23.50 to Geek
Technology, and to authorize the payment of the se~ice provided
to the C~ and the Executive Director.
Ce
AMENDED
MOTION:
Gilman moved, Partyka seconded to approve the audit of vouchers
for payment including an additional payment (check #11839) in the
amount of $23.50 payable to Minnesota Unemployment
Compensation and to authorize payment to Geek Technologies if
deemed appropriate by the Chair and Executive Director for
computer upgrades.
VOTE ON:
AMENDED
MOTION
VOTE ON:
ORIGINAL
MOTION
Amended motion carried unanimously.
Original motion, as amended, carried unanimously.
August rmanclai summary and balance sheet
Nelson reviewed the August financi~ summary and balance sheet as submitted.
MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded to approve the August financial
summary and balance sheet as submitted.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Additional Business
There was no additional business.
Lake mnetonka Conservation District
Reguhr Meeting
Septem _her 24, 1997
6. ADMINISTRATION
A.
Page7
Appoint nomln~ting comm~ee to reconmaend Board officers for 1998.
Babcock stated he had discussed with Dahlen, Gilman and Rascop the idea of them
serving on the nominating committee. He recommended Board approval.
MOTION: Partyka moved, Reese seconded to appoint Board members Rascop,
Dahlen, and Gilman to the nominating committee to recommend
Board officers for 1998.
VOTE:
Ayes (7), Abstained O; Rascop, Dahlen, and Gilman); Motion
canied.
B. Establish date to meet with Water Patrol regarding joint and cooperative
agreeanent.
Ce
Dates were discussed, and the second half of October was suggested. Nybeck stated
a final date will be scheduled for the second half of October.
Additional Business
®
There was no aaditional business.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RFaUORT
N_vbeck reported on the followin£:
· An October calendar of events was circulated, noting that the office would be dosed for
Columbus Day, October 13.
· It was suggested that the meeting on October 8th be canceled because ~here is not a need
for two action meetings in October. The Board agreed.
· The meeting on November 12th will be held at Shorewood City Hall due to a conflict
with the Tonka Bay City Hall.
· A personal watercraft forum will be held on october 8th at the Freshwater Institute
starting at 8:00 a.m. The Board discussed the possibilities of being on the panel and
directed staff to check into it.
· He noted staff would like to work with Gabriel Jabbour and other interested marina
owners to get educational information out to marinas regarding exotics and how to
prevent the infestation of them. Board members discussed related educational
opportunities. Staff was directed to prepare a code amendment that would prohibit the
hunching of boats into Lake Minnetonka that have been infested prior to having them
inspected and/or washed, with emphasis on transporters.
Lake Mlnnetonka Conservation District
Rek~w Board Meeting
Sel mber 24, 1997
MOTION: Partyka moved, Suerth seconded to approve staff working with
Jabbour on educational information regarding exotics.
Pa~e8
Gabriel
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Babcock reviewed agenda items to be discussed at the October 1, 1997 Workshop/Planning
Session. They included:
1. Review plan update procedure described in item//14 (pages 81 to 83)
2. Review Appendix 1, Definitions (pages Al-1 to Al-4)
3. Review Executive Summary and introduction (pages 1-16).
Idonfify areas needing changes, additions and/or updates.
4. Discuss order of review for remaining sections.
®
Suerth feel he believed it is important that the LMCD get involved with the Lake
Minnetonka Association, starting with the Lakewide Personal Watemmft forum.
10.
ADJO
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Douglaa Babcock, Chair
RECEIVED OCT 2 t3
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD WORKSHOP/PLANNING SESSION
6:00 P.M., Wednesday, October 1, 1997
Grays Freshwater Center
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster,
Deephaven; Lili McMillan, Orono; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound. Also present:
Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician.
Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Craig Nelson, Spring Park;
Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Minnetonka and
Victoria have no appointed member.
1)
Review plan update procedure described in item #14 (pages 81 to 83)
Babcock reviewed this section of the LMCD Comprehensive Plan, noting it is not the same as
City Comprehensive Plans and is not bound to the same rules. He summarized letters land g on
page 82 noting the LMCD must hold at least one public meeting at least 60 days before the
scheduled meeting at which a decision could be made. He concluded that if during this 60 day
comment period three cities request a special meeting to discuss the proposed amendment, the
LMCD is obligated to do so.
Reese stated he felt this is more of an update than a revision of the Comprehensive Plan.
Dahlen asked if the plan had ever been amended?
Partyka stated he believed the Lake Access Task Force section may have. Staffwas directed to
check into this around July, 1994.
Foster and Reese provided some background on why the LMCD Comprehensive Plan was
established.
The Board stated some of the proposed projects identified in the Comprehensive Plan may have
some funding problems.
2)
Review Appendix 1, Definitions (pages Al-1 to Al-4)
Babcock asked if Board members had questions on any definitions or if they would others
added.
Reese stated that the comprehensive plan does not currently address personal watercr~.
McMillan noted DNR definition ofmilfoil and exotics may need to be included.
t
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Workshop/Ptanniflg Session Page 2
October 1,1~7
· Dahlen asked if it is appropriate for LMCD Code definitions and Comprehensive Plan
definitions to be coordinated.
Babcock stated he believed LMCD code defrnition should not be included in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Foster stated the definition of a wetland should be included.
Reese stated dock use areas and other general dock regulation terms should be included.
Review Executive Summary and introduction (pages 1-16) Identify areas needing changes,
additions and/or update.
Foster noted the existing Comprehensive Plan stresses strong enforcement ofthe existing rules. He
added he believed there currently is not enough enforcement on Lake Minnetonka. He concluded
this needs to be addressed.
Partyim stated he believed the majority of enforcement hours on Lake Minnetonka are being done
by special deputies of the Water Patrol.
Reese stated he would like to see how many hours the Water Patrol are out on Lake Minnetonka.
Babcock concurred with Reese and stated he would like to see if the hours of enforcement by the
Water Patrol are going up or down on the lake.
Mnnn~_ement Structur.e
The Board discussed the role of the LMCD beyond its regulatory programs. It was noted the role of
the LMCD is to assist other agencies have the resources to implement their programs by being the
foremost advocate of the lake. The idea of funding lake management .from user fees was discussed.
It was noted that the DNK was not favorable to this concept in the past.
The idea of taxing County wide, in addition to the 14 member cities, was discussed. It was noted
t[mt this was not adopted in the past because of the request for representation in the past.
Foster stated he believed the LMCD should work towards eliminating the outlot in the future and
grandfather in the existing. He reviewed page 3 noting the Comprehensive Plan states the greatest
threat to the lake in the next 25 years comes more from re-development than development.
McMillan stated it may be in the LMCD's best interest for Board members to get feedback from
their City on a specific issues such as the outlot issue.
4) Dbcu~ order of review for remaining sections
Babcock tnw, ommended the Board review the Comprehensive Plan on a topic by topic basis.
The Board consensus was to review it on a section by section basis rather than topic. The section to
be discussed at the 11/5/97 Workshop/Planning Session was pages 17 through 44, with a two hour
maximum meeting length.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Workshop~Planning Session
October 1, 1~7
Page
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Ben Foster, Secretary
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A- 2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487- 0240
October 1, 1997
To: Hennepin County Municipal Officials and Residents
In 1996, Hennepin County Commissioners held several meetings with suburban officials to
learn about the needs and challenges that municipalities face in addressing affordable housing
and maintaining quality communities.
Municipal representatives suggested a number of ways the county could assist communities in
these efforts. Foremost among them was the need for greater technical and financial
assistance for the rehabilitation of aging housing stock (both rental and ownership).
Following these meetings, and based on the input provided by municipal officials, the
Hennepin County Board and the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HCHRA) adopted a housing policy to guide the county and the HCHRA. Hennepin County
housing activities will be implemented in a manner that complements city efforts and
maximizes housing results for the benefit of county residents.
This report has been prepared to update municipal officials and county residents on the steps
that have been taken by the county and the HCHRA staff to implement the recently adopted
housing policy. The report also describes changes made in HCHRA legislation, this past
session, to streamline program administration while affording cities the opportunity to
determine which HCHRA programs will be available in their communities.
Members of the Hennepin County and HCHRA Boards are pleased with the results we have
achieved in implementing our housing policy. We have strengthened our relationships with
suburban communities and provided assistance in achieving common housing objectives. We
look forward to continuing to work with communities in implementing these programs and
developing additional innovative approaches for addressing critical housing and community
development needs.
Sincerely,
Randy Johnson, Chair
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
Penny Steele, Chair
Hennepin County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSING POLICY
Hennepin County's housing policy and activities
should be consistent with the following goals
and assumptions:
· Housing is primarily a municipal
responsibility.
· County involvement in housing should
complement, not supplant, existing
municipal responsibilities and resources.
· Consistent with the county board's vision
and mission, county housing activities
should achieve one or more of the following
goals:
- Reduce county service costs or improve
service results,
Reduce reliance on county services and
promote self-reliance,
- Stabilize neighborhoods and strengthen
the tax base.
No additional federal, state or county funds
are expected to become available in the
foreseeable future to support housing
activities.
°
Future county and municipal access to state
and federal funds for housing, community
development and transportation purposes are
likely to be linked to affordable housing
performance.
Hennepin County's current supportive role for
housing is continued, in cooperation with
municipalities, in promoting neighborhood and
tax base stabilization and furthering affordable
housing.
Hennepin County will utilize and seek to
maximize existing resources to assist
communities in achieving locally established
goals under the Livable Communities Act,
including the preservation of existing housing
units.
County staff is authorized to prepare proposals
for strengthening the county's coordinating role
and establishing countywide programs to
address housing and tax base concerns identified
by communities, subject to county funding
constraints and county board approval, as
required.
Following is a brief update on the progress Hennepin County has made in implementing
this policy:
FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER MORTGAGE
PROGRAM
The Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HCHRA) submitted an application on
behalf of Hennepin County and forty-two
participating suburban communities to the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for an allocation
under the Minnesota Cities Participation Program.
Hennepin County was allocated $8.5 million.
Under the Minnesota Cities Participation Program,
MHFA sells mortgage bonds and the proceeds of the
bonds provide below-market mortgages for income-
eligible homebuyers. The maximum purchase price
for homes under this program is $95,000. Loans are
originated by area mortgage lenders. Bloomington,
Richfield and Eden Prairie submitted 'individual
applications and received separate funding awards,
making the total funding available in suburban
Hennepin County approximately $11.5 million.
The Hennepin County allocation was committed
within two months and mortgages were provided to
115 families.
The HCHRA participation in this program has
increased the amount of funds available in suburban
Hennepin and has made the program available to
residents of every community in Hennepin County.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR THE
REHABILITATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES
Fix-Up Fund:
The Hennepin County Board provided the necessary
funding to enable the HCHRA to expand single-
family rehabilitation programs available to
Hennepna
HOUSING POLICY UPDATE
OCTOBER 1, 1997
Hennepin County Commissioners
Mike Opat, District 1
Mark Stenglein, District 2
Mark Andrew, District 3
Peter McLaughlin, District 4
Randy Johnson, Chair, District 5
Mary Tambornino, District 6
Penny Steele, District 7
County Administrator
Jeff Spartz
Office of Plnnning and Development
Philip Eckhert, Director
Barbnrn Hnyden, Administrative Manager
Meinnie Strntmoen, Principle Office Specialist
10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 260
Minnetonka, MN 55305
(612) 541-7080 * (612) 541-7090 FAX
TDD/TTY: (612) 541-7981
homeowners in suburban Hennepin County. This
action will add to the existing $1 million allocated
annually to single-family, rehabilitation loan
programs in suburban Hennepin County. Residents
will have access to state Fix-Up Fund Loans for the
improvement of their homes and it will allow
specific communities to access funds for targeted
neighborhoods. Loans are available to households
with incomes at or below $41,000. Maximum loans
are $15,000, having a fifteen-year term and bering
interest from 2 to 8 percent, depending upon family
income. To-date, neighborhoods in Brooklyn Park
and Brooklyn Center have been designated eligible
for Community Fix-up Fund Loans. Community Fix-
up Fund Loans have a higher income limit and
longer term.
Sewer and Water Improvements:
HCHRA has successfully secured state loan funding
for the replacement of wells and nonconforming
sewage treatment systems in western Hennepin
County. Funds can also be used for sewer and water
hook up fees. Homeowners with incomes up to
$65,000 are eligible for loans. The term of the loan
and interest will vary depending on family income.
Lower income families will be eligible for deferred
loans.
ONGOI~IG PROGRAMS
Hennepin County administers three federal
entitlement programs in suburban Hennepin County.
The 1997 HUD appropriations are as follows: the
Community Development Block Grant Program
(CDBG) - $3.593 million, the HOME Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) - $1.508 million and
the Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG) -
$97,000. Funds for these housing and community
development programs incorporate the Hennepin
County Mission and Vision by emphasizing activities
that promote self-sufficiency, support families in the
provision of housing and community services, assist
in improving and stabilizing neighborhoods and
increase/maintain the county tax-base through
development and redevelopment activities.
By Hennepin County working in conjunction with
communities, these programs continue to be a
success. Nearly 60 percent of the $5.8 million
expended in 1996 went directly to iow-income
housing activities. Accomplishments reported at the
end of the 1996 prog~'am year include: rehabilitation
of more than 170 single-family and ten multi-family
residential units, provision of eighteen units of
housing for individuals with persistent mental illness,
redevelopment of twenty-two blighted single-family
homes which were subsequently purchased by low-
income families, development assistance for thirty-
two new family rental units, which are now
occupied, and assistance to one hundred additional
units under construction, development of six public
housing rental units for large families, assistance to
nine families in transitional housing, rapid exit
shelter services, ongoing fair housing initiatives,
$600,000 in community facility improvements,
which include the removal of architectural barriers,
$600,000 in the redevelopment of blighted property
and $500,000 in community oriented public services
for low-income residents.
ESTABLISHMENT OF RENTAL
REHABILITATION PROGRAM
A suburban Hennepin County rental rehabilitation
loan program was established using approximately
$550,000 in 1996 and 1997 federal HOME funding.
The program provides up to 80 percent of the funds
for the improvement and maintenance of affordable
multi-family rental units. Maximum loans are
$150,000, having a fifteen-year term and bearing 3
percent interest.
Hennepin County staff has been working in
conjunction with cities and property owners to
implement this program. The vacancy rates for
rental housing in Hennepin County is extremely low,
1 to 2 percent. Rents continue to climb. In this
environment, owners are reluctant to commit to
affordable rents in turn for low interest loans.
County staff will continue working with
communities and property owners to use these funds
toward the improvement of affordable multi-family
housing units.
MODULAR RAMPS
Persons with permanent or temporary disabilities
often cannot remain at home or lead independent lives
if their homes are not accessible. The public cost of
assisting individuals is usually significantly less when
the individual remains at home. Coupled with this is
the fact that limited funding is available to make
homes accessible. Ramps are a common improvement
needed to allow individuals in wheelchairs access to
and from their home.
.f_r_°~st.,f°°tings.that_r.estrict construction to warm REDEVELOI~I¢I~,i
weather months. The ramps are often a cumbersome
permanent structure and few contractors have , ~t~a.lV~: CHANGE
expertise in the design or construction of ramps.
Costs for conventional, residential ramps, for
Hennepin County residents, are approximately
$3,000-$3,500.
A new design concept has been developed to construct
modular residential ramps. This design was
developed in 1991 as a joint project with the
Metropolitan Center for Independent Living,
Minnesota Division of Rehabilitation Services,
Multiple Sclerosis Society and United Handicapped
Federation. It is a nationally recognized model that
results in a substantial cost savings. These modular
ramps are portable, reusable and installed throughout
the year.
Hennepin County and the Minnesota Division of
Rehabilitation Services allocated funding to establish
a provider for the construction, installation and
recycling of the modular ramps. Twin Cities Tree
Trust, a nonprofit corporation which provides youth
and adult employment training, agreed to contract for
the administrative oversight of this ramp project.
The modular ramp production and service design
enables state and local agencies to purchase the
modular ramps for a reduced cost, approximately
$ ! ,500-$2,000 per ramp. These cost savings will
allow for individuals with disabilities to utilize
funding for other modifications or support services.
Additional cost savings will be realized when modular
sections of ramps are reused. Homeowners are also
able to dispose of the ramps when they are no longer
needed
Since January 1, 1997, twenty ramps have been
installed for Hennepin County residents. If you would
like more information on this program, contact Carol
Stinar. Hennepin County, at 541-7085 or Dave
lawes. Tree Trust, al 920-9326.
The state statute which authorized the creation of the
Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority restricts the authority from exercising any
powers within a municipality without the request of
the municipality's housing and redevelopment
authority (HRA) or economic development authority
(EDA). Currently, there are thirty EDAs or HRAs in
suburban Hennepin County. An amendment to the
HCHRA statute enacted in 1997 deletes the
cumbersome requirement that the HCHRA receive
formal approval from each HRA or EDA prior to
undertaking countywide activities such as the first-
time homebuyers mortgage program or the Fix-up
Fund. HCHRA is required to notify local HRAs and
EDAs, on an annual basis, of proposed activities and
cities have the option of restricting HCHRA fi'om
administering any programs within their community.
The HCHRA will offer the following countywide
programs throughout suburban Hennepin County
through the end of 1998. In the fall of 1997,
Municipalities will.be formally notified of the
availability of these program services. Communities
may exemise their option to not have the HCHRA
administer one or more of these programs within their
community.
septic systems,
weH~replacementand ~hOok up fees:Under~
the'Ml~ A cOmmunitY RehabilitatiOn.
MINUTES
October 16, 1997
Present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Jim
Funk, Dennis Hopkins and Mark Goldberg. Staff present: Parks
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary
Clare Link and the following interested citizens, Rita Pederson,
Carl Palmquist and Tom Menken. Those absent and unexcused: Gordy
Tulberg.
MINUTES
Motion made by ~hrens, seconded by Funk to approve the minutes
of the ~ugust 21, 1997 Dock and commons ~dvisory Commission
meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGE~
Goldberg added the following items: Discussion of meeting with
multiple dock owners, meeting on Saturday, and discussion of public
land permits and renewal permits.
PUBLIC L]%ND PERMIT ~PPLICATION - THOMAS ~RNKEN, 1720 DOVE LAI~..
Fackler reviewed the application to trim lilacs on the site. Staff
recommends approval. Work shall be done by a licensed contractor
and coordinated with the Building official. There is also a branch
on a willow tree which the City has already removed.
Goldberg asked if some of these applications can be handled on an
administrative level. Fackler stated the Council prefers all
trimming and maintenance items be brought before this Commission.
Motion by ~olston, seconded by Ahr~ns ~o recommend approval of
the public lands permit appl~catxon. Motion carried
unanimously.
DISCUSSION: 1998 DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES
The dock inspector reviewed two proposed changes to the 1998 dock
location map. Dock sites 33090 and 33150 are proposed for removal.
He discussed the plan to change the current dock numbering system
to encourage future growth.
Goldberg stated he wouldn't want new dock sites established without
the involvement of this commission. Fackler stated that wouldn't
be the case and discussed the need to renumber docks.
Polston discussed the need to determine the actual lineal footage
of docks is throughout the city. There could be potential legal
implications.
Fackler stated the next meeting will be the public hearing on this
item.
Motion by Polston, seconded by Gol~berg to hold a public
hearing at the November meeting to discuss the 1998 dock
location map changes. Motion carried unanimously.
City of Mound
Docks and Commons Advisory Commission
October 16, 1997
Page 2
CONTINUED DISCUSSION - ENCROACHMENT POLICY
Polston read the existing encroachment policy recommendations. It
is the City's intent the non-conforming structures eventually be
removed. Exceptions to removal, permit renewal, life of an
encroaching structure, and maintenance/repair permit requests were
identified.
Funk discussed the City Attorney,s memo regarding fees. Polston
b~l~ev~d encroachments should apply to every encroachment no matter
wna= i= is.
Goldberg agreed the word "small', should be taken out of the policy
where it relates to the fee. Commissioners discussed how much the
fee should be. Polston stated the fees collected should be
escrowed. Fackler stated the commission should keep in mind some
residents may have more than one encroachment. Hopkins noted the
City Attorney recommends a $10-15 fee per structure. Polston
suggested listing all the encroachments to determine a maximum fee
for each resident. Funk suggestd basing the fees on matching the
needed revenue.
Commissioners discussed whether it should be an annual fee and
whether they would be charged in conjunction with their dock
permit. Goldberg questioned whether an encroachment such as a
boathouse should be charged the same fee as a birdhouse. Polston
believed if they want to keep the encroachment, they have to pay
the fee. He stated the City's goal is to hasten voluntary removal.
Commissioners discussed setting an annual permit fee of $15 per
encroachment per year and escrowing the monies into the dock fund
to fund encroachment removals.
Motion by Polston, seconded by Hopkins to recommend a $15 per
year encroachment fee to escrow the monies into the dock fund.
Motion carried. Ahrens voted against the motion.
Goldberg revised #3 under exceptions allowing for proactive steps
to hasten removal to read: "Significant hindrance of Commons use
by others occurred, and the encroachment owner is unwilling or
unable to alleviate.,,
Commissioners discussed changing 5 year maintenance permit
transfers and revised language to read, "5 year maintenance permits
can be transferred if the abutting property changes hands provided
the encroaching structures continue to meet the criteria for their
existence.,,
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Hopkins to recommend changing
the language to read, '? year maintenance permits can
..... ~*o~=u~=.-- ~o:lon carried unanimously. -
Commissioners reviewed the decision flowchart. The title will be
nh~n.=~ to Docks and Commons Advisory Commission Decision Flowchart
date changed.
City of Mound
Docks and Commons Advisory Commission
October 16, 1997
Page 3
Motion by Polston, secon~e~ by~hrens to approve the Decision
Flowchart as amende4 to change the title and add October 16,
1997 as the official ~ate. Motion carrie4 unanimously.
Motion by Funk, secon~e4 by Ahrens to recomemnd approval of
the Encroachments Policy as amende4. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioners reviewed Exhibit J, Guidelines for Writing Staff
Reports for Public Land Permits, and discussed the task force's
proposed changes, and the Building official's response to these
changes.
Commissioners agreed to add the Building official's recommendation
to add "as required by the Building official" to the end of the
sentence in 4A. He noted minor typographical errors should also be
corrected.
Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Polston to remove Parks Director
or Dock Inspector from paragraph 4E. Motion carrie~
unanimously.
Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Polston to recommend approval of
Exhibit J as amended. Motion carried unanimously-
CONTINUED DISCUSSION - VISITING DOCK PERMIT
The dock inspector stated an individual can currently have a
visiting boat for a 48-hour period. He reviewed recommended
language which would only allow two such occurrences in a calendar
year.
Polston asked how it would be enforced. The dock inspector stated
he would only know if a resident complains.
Motion by ~hrens, seconded by Funk to recommend approval of
the revised language to read, ,,no more than two occurences of
a 48-hour period in a calendar year" be added to subdivision
12. Motion carried unanimously.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION - FISHING DOCK~
Fackler stated this is a continuation of the discussion held in
August. He discussed the cost of improving the area for an
estimated $10,770.00. He stated he has applied for a permit from
the DNR to spray the area. The permit has been granted, but it is
only good until November.
Hopkins stated the cost of removing sediment from the storm drain
should come out of a fund other than the dock fees. Fackler stated
several storm drain cleanings have been funded from the dock fund
in the past. It was noted by Polston that it wouldn't need
cleaning if the fishing dock were not developed.
Ahrens stated there have also been cases where dredging has been
funded through the street fund or another source. He believed ~.
would be appropriate in this case.
City of Mound
Docks and Commons Advisory Commission
October 16, 1997
Page 4
Commissioners discussed the proposed costs. Goldberg discussed
visiting the site. He didn't believe a sign is needed, and the
area should remain low key. Polston was concerned it would create
a need for parking.
Fackler stated this could be part of the normal budgeting process
in 1999 unless the dock fund is used.
Commissioners will visit the site prior to further discussion at
the next meeting.
~OMPLETION OF INSPECTIONS TO FINISH PUBLIC LAND PERMITt
Goldberg directed staff to have the inspections completed in order
to finish the public land permits.
~ULTIPLE DOCK MEETINC
Goldberg noted only three people showed up for the multiple dock
meeting on the llth of October. He discussed their comments.
Commissioners discussed shared dock slips.
Goldberg discussed the agenda for the meeting on the 18th of
October.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION made by P. ols. ton, seconded by Ahrens to adjou, rn the D.ock
&unaC~o°un:l ,C. ommlss~on Meeting at ,:30 p.m. Motion c&rr~ed
· y
Chair, Mark Goldberg
Attest:
ARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
' C
KAREN R. COLE
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9212
October 16, 1997
Ed Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Re:
Bailey et al. v. Lien. et al.
Court File No.: MC97-15540
Our File No.: BE295-34
Dear Ed:
Enclosed please find the Answer Of Certain Respondents Abutting Wawonaissa Common. Also
enclosed please find a notice filed by two landowners abutting Wawonaissa Common, (James and
Lisa Prom) seeking to intervene as respondents, along with an answer similar to that filed by the
other respondents.
Through their answers, these respondents deny that the City of Mound has any interest in the
segments of Wawonaissa Common at issue. The respondents admit that their right to construct
improvements on the Common is subject to the general building code requirements, but deny it
is subject to any regulations relating to improvements on the public lands. The respondents take
the position that the dedication of Wawonaissa Common in 1906 gave lot owners the right to use
the Common only as a street or avenue and did not give all plat owners any riparian rights. The
respondents also take the position that the easement to use Wawonaissa Common as a street was
subsequently abandoned or otherwise terminated. I am expecting one additional answer (from
Attorney Mark Greene on behalf of additional respondents).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
Karen R. Cole
KRC:db
Enclosures
cc: John Dean
DKBi22693
BE;Z95-34
October"
-~. 1997
:-John B. Dean, Esq.
Kennedy & Graven
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Mark E. Greene, Esq.
Standke, Greene & Greenstein, Ltd.
17717 Highway 7
Minnetonka, MN 55345
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
PROFESSIONAL
Marc D. Simpson
612-335-1504
mds 1504~email.leonard.com
Paul E. Kaminski, Esq.
Best & Flanagan
4000 First Bank Place
601 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4331
Re.'
Blaine Bailey. et al. v. Robert M. Lien. et aL
LS&D File No. 06427-19259
Dear Messrs. Dean, Greene & Kaminski:
Please find enclosed and herewith served
documents: upon you by U.S. mail the following
Answer of Certain Respondents Abutting Wawonaissa Common.
James M. Prom and Lisa M. Prom's Notice of Intervention Pursuant to Minn. R.
Civ. P. 24.03.
Answer of Intervenors James M. Prom and Lisa M. Prom.
Very truly yours~
Marc D. Simpson
MDS:clp:1587744
Enclosures
zSO SouT~t FZrT}~ STRZZT SUtT£ ~3oo MINN£A~'O~.IS, MINNESOTA 55402 T£L 6X~-335.X5OO FAX 6Z2'335-I657
LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL AND MANKATO
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Blaine Bailey. et al.,
VS.
Robert M. Lien, et al.,
Petitioners,
Respondents.
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No.
ANSWER OF CERTAIN
RESPONDENTS ABUTTING
WAWONAISSA COMMON
COMES NOW, the following owners of parcels abutting Wawonaissa Common:
Robert M. Lien; Carol L. Lien; Dennis G. Flack: Shirley K. Flack; Margaret Alice Gaudette;
Theodore O. Metz; Mary Jeanette Metz; Michael S. Gardner; Judy M. Gardner; OlenJ.
Pederson; Ruth O. Kilby; John A. Korlath, Jr.; Sandra A. Korlath; Robert M. Abbott a/k/a Robert
Mark Abbott: Beverly M. Abbott; Bradley M. Bristol; Janice M. Bristol; Gerald A. Aman;
Wilbur Karl Swanson: Janet K. Swanson; Ronald Motyka; and Mary M. Motyka (collectively
referred to herein as "Answering Respondents"), and as and for their Answer to the Complaint in
the above-captioned matter, state and allege as follows:
GENERAL DENIAl,
Except as hereinafter expressly admitted or qualified, Answering Respondents deny each
and every, allegation set forth in the Complaint.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES
1. Answering Respondents are without knowledge to admit or deny the allegations set
forth in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. Answering Respondents
affirmatively allege that petitioner Carol E. Doyle is no longer an owner of property located in
the Plat of Woodland Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Plat"), and that petitioner
Michael Porter is deceased. Further, upon information and belief~ Answering Respondents state
that not all of the petitioners have consented to be named as petitioners in the above-captioned
lawsuit.
2. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Answering
Respondents admit that they are the owners of property located in the Plat which abuts
Wawonaissa Common. Answering Respondents are without knowledge to admit or deny that the
other Respondents in this proceeding are all remaining owners of property located in the Plat as
well as encumbrancers for those properties in the Plat. Upon information and belief,
Respondents Robert J. Kilby, Willard H. Hillier and Leonard B. Frahm are deceased, and
Respondents Ross A. Jensen and Shannon K. Bailey are also identified as Petitioners in this
action.
Complaint.
Answering Respondents admit the allegations set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the
4. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the Complaint~ Answering
Respondents state that the Plat shows the following named streets and avenues: Tonkahata Lane
(now Bluebird Lane), Tecumseh Lane (now Canary Lane), Titonka Lane (now Dove Lane)~
Tiskilwa Lane (now Eagle Lane), Swastika Lane (now Finch Lane), Minnetowanda Lane (now
Ill ,1 I % ,~1 ,%& · ~"
Gull Lane), Minnetrista Road (now Woodland Road), Wawonaissa Common and Waurika
Common.
5. Answering Respondents are without knowledge to admit or deny the allegations set
forth in the first sentence of paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
Answering Respondents admit the allegations set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 6 of
the Complaint.
Answering Respondents admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the
Complaint.
7.
Answering Respondents deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the
Complaint, and affirmatively allege that Wawonaissa Common has not served as a recreational
area for all owners of lots in the Plat, that no footpath exists on Wawonaissa Common, and that
historically only those owners of lots in the Plat who had docks on Wawonaissa Common
utilized Wawonaissa Common for pedestrian access to those docks.
8. Answering Respondents admit the first sentence of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
Answering Respondents deny the second sentence of paragraph 9 of the Complaint and
affirmatively allege that Wawonaissa Common is maintained by the abutting lot owners and not
by the owners of inland lots. Answering Respondents deny the third sentence of paragraph 9 of
the Complaint and affirmatively allege that the waters adjacent to Wawonaissa Common have
been treated for aquatic weeds almost entirely through the work and financial contributions of
abutting lot owners.
9. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Answering
Respondents admit that the City of Mound, wherein the Plat is located, adopted Ordinance
No. 94 in 1960 and Ordinance No. 332 in 1975, and state that those ordinances speak for
themselves. Answering Respondents deny that those ordinances purported to regulate docks and
boathouses on privately dedicated commons.
10. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Answering
Respondents admit that the City of Mound requires owners of property located in the Plat,
including owners of lots adjacent to Wawonaissa Common, to obtain building permits prior to
constructing improvements on Wawonaissa Common. Answering Respondents affirmatively
allege that these improvements are subject to the general building permit rules, but are not
subject to any special rules or ordinances for improvements to public lands, because Wawonaissa
Common is not public land.
11. Answering Respondents admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of the
Complaint and affirmatively allege that the materials and services contributed by the City of
Mound to the maintenance of Wawonaissa Common have been extremely limited.
12. Answering Respondents admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 13 of the
Complaint.
13. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Answering
Respondents admit that the Court in the Flack case concluded that all lot owners in the Plat once
had an interest in the commons. That interest was created in 1906. Answering Respondents
admit that the Court could not determine the exact nature of said interest or whether that interest
still exists, withoutjoining all lot owners in the Plat in an action.
14. Answering Respondents are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. Answering
Respondents admit that ifa lot owner's deed made reference to the Plat, they were, as a matter of
law, deemed to have notice of everything appearing on the Plat.
4
15. Answering Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint and
affirmatively allege that inland lot owners may not rely upon any dedications in the Plat that
have been abandoned, vacated, lost through adverse possession or otherwise terminated.
16. Answering Respondents deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of the
Complaint, and affirmatively allege that the dedication of Wawonaissa Common in 1906 gave
owners of lots in the Plat the right to use Wawonaissa Common only as a street or avenue. The
dedication of Wawonaissa Common did not give all Plat lot owners riparian rights. Answering
Respondents deny that all Plat owners purchased their property relying upon the right to access
and use the Commons.
17. Answering Respondents deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the
Complaint.
15. Answering Respondents are unable to answer the allegations set forth in
paragraph 19 of the Complaint without further specificity. Answering Respondents are without
knowledge that any inland lot owner has been harmed (either economically or in terms of use
enjoyment), and therefore deny the same. Answering Respondents deny that they have received
any economic windfall through any denial of riparian rights that may have occurred.
19. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Answering
Respondents restate the answers made in paragraphs 1-1g of this Answer, as though fully set
forth herein.
20. Answering Respondents admit the allegations set forth in paragraphs 21-22 of the
Complaint.
21.
estoppel.
22.
Petitioners' Complaint is barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and
Petitioners' Complaint is barred by statutes of limitation.
Petitioners' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
WHEREFORE, Answering Respondents request that the Court enter a judgment declaring
as follows:
1. That Answering Respondents are the fee owners of the segments of Wawonaissa
Common lying between the extensions of Answering Respondents' lot lines to the shore of Lake
Minnetonka.
2. That in 1906 Wawonaissa Common was dedicated only as a private street or avenue
for the benefit of all lot owners in the Plat and that such easement has been abandoned or
otherwise terminated.
3. That the owners of lots in the Plat which do not abut Wawonaissa or Waurika
Common do not have the right to use the adjacent shoreline and lake bed for riparian activities
including fishing, hunting, boating and swimming, and do r~ot have the right to construct docks
or other improvements normally associated with riparian activities.
4. That the City of Mound does not have an3' right, title or interest in any of the
segments of Wawonaissa Common referred to in paragraph 1 above.
5. That Answering Respondents have all rights of a riparian owner of the segments of
Wawonaissa Common referred to in paragraph 1 above, including the right to construct and
maintain a dock on their respective segments of Wawonaissa Common.
6. That the Answering Respondents' rights to construct improvements on Wawonaissa
Common are subject to the City of Mound's general building code regulations, but not any
regulations relating to improvements on public lands.
7. That Answering Respondents have such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper, together with their costs and disbursements incurred herein.
Dated: October ~ .1997.
(//691715)
Marc D. Simpson (//183301)
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
ROBERT M. LIEN; CAROL L. LIEN;
DENNIS G. FLACK; SHIRLEY K. FLACK;
MARGARET ALICE GAUDETTE;
THEODORE O. METZ; MARY JEANETTE
METZ; MICHAEL S. GARDNER; JUDY M.
GARDNER; OLEN J. PEDERSON; RUTH O.
KILBY; JOHN A. KORLATH, JR.;
SANDRA A. KORLATH; ROBERT M.
ABBOTT A/K/A ROBERT MARK ABBOTT;
BEVERLY M. ABBOTT; BRADLEY M.
BRISTOL; JANICE M. BRISTOL; GERALD A.
AMAN; WILBUR KARL SWANSON;
JANET K. SWANSON; RONALD MOTYKA;
AND MARY M. MOTYKA
7
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.21. the parties represented by the undersigned attorneys
hereby acknowledge that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be
awarded to the opposing parties for actions in bad faith; the assertion of a claim or defense that is
frivolous and is costly to the other parties: the assertion of an unfounded position solely to delay
the ordinary course of proceedings or to harass: or the commission of a fraud upon the court.
Dated: October ~ . 1997.
1586949
· Maynard (#69176)
Marc D. Simpson (#183301)
LEONARD, STREET AND DEl'NARD
Professional Association
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
ROBERT M. LIEN; CAROL L. LIEN;
DENNIS G. FLACK; SHIRLEY K. FLACK;
MARGARET ALICE GAUDETTE;
THEODORE O. METZ; MARY JEANETTE
METZ; MICHAELS. GARDNER; JUDY M.
GARDNER; OLEN J. PEDERSON; RUTH O.
KILBY; JOHN A. KORLATH, JR.;
SANDRA A. KORLATH; ROBERT M.
ABBOTT A/K/A ROBERT MARK ABBOTT;
BEVERLY M. ABBOTT; BRADLEY M.
BRISTOL; JANICE M. BRISTOL; GERALD A.
AMAN; WILBUR KARL SWANSON;
JANET K. SWANSON; RONALD MOTYKA;
AND MARY M. MOTYKA
39.g o
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Blaine Bailey, et al.,
VS.
Robert M. Lien. et al.,
Petitioners,
Respondents.
Court File No.
JAMES M. PROM AND LISA M. PROM'S
NOTICE OF INTERVENTION
PURSUANT TO
MINN. R. CIV. P. 24.03
TO:
PETITIONERS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS, PAUL E. KAMINSKI, ESQ., AND BEST
& FLANAGAN, 4000 FIRST BANK PLACE, 601 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4331; RESPONDENTS ELIZABETH A.
VULCINOVICH-JOHNSON AND KEITH O. JOHNSON AND THEIR ATTORNEYS.
MARK E. GREENE, ESQ., AND STANDKE, GREENE & GREENSTEIN, LTD..
17717 HIGHWAY 7, MINNETONKA, MN 55345; AND RESPONDENT CITY OF
MOUND AND ITS ATTORNEYS, JOHN B. DEAN, ESQ., KENNEDY & GRAVEN,
200 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, SUITE 470, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that James M. Prom and Lisa M. Prom desire to intervene as
Respondents in the above-captioned action and hereby file this Notice of Intervention pursuant to
Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.03. In the absence of objections by any existing party to the action within
thirty (30) days after service of this Notice of Intervention upon the party, this Intervention shall
be deemed to have been accomplished. A copy of the Answer of Intervenors James M. Prom and
Lisa M. Prom setting forth the nature and extent of their defenses to the Petition is attached
hereto.
Dated:
October
,1997.
Hugh M. Maynard (#69176)
Marc D. Simpson (#183301)
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
JAMEs M. PROM AND LISA M. PROM
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.21, the parties represented by the undersigned attorneys
hereby acknowledge that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be
awarded to the opposing parties for actions in bad faith: the assertion of a claim or defense that is
frivolous and is costly to the other parties; the assertion of an unfounded position solely to delay
the ordinary course of proceedings or to harass; or the commission of a fraud upon the court.
Dated: October -~' 1997.
1587707
>tt, c v,--et 4
Hugh 19I. Maynard (#69176)
Marc D. Simpson (#183301)
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
JAMES M. PROM AND LISA M. PROM
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Cindy L. Peterson of the City of Apple Valley, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, being
first duly sworn, says that on the 3rd day of October, 1997, she served the annexed JAMES M.
PROM AND LISA M. PROM'S NOTICE OF INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO MINN.
R. CIV. P. 24.03 on the following individuals by mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an
envelope, postage prepaid, and by depositing the same in the post office at Minneapolis, Minnesota,
directed to said individuals at their last known addresses, as follows:
John B. Dean, Esq.
Kennedy & Graven
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Paul E. Kaminski, Esq.
Best & Flanagan
4000 First Bank Place
601 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4331
Mark E. Greene, Esq.
Standke, Greene & Greenstein, Ltd.
17717 Highway 7
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Cindy L. Peterson
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 3rd day of October, 1997.
066072.01
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Blaine Bailey, et al.,
Petitioners,
VS.
Robert M. Lien, et al.,
Respondents.
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No.
ANSWER OF INTERVENORS_
JAMES M. PROM AND LISA M. PROM
COMES NOW, Intervenors James M. Prom and Lisa M. Prom, and as and for their
Answer to the above-captioned Complaint, state and allege as follows:
REASON FOR INTERVENTION
lntervenors James M. Prom and Lisa M. Prom (the "Proms") are the owners of Lots I0,
11, 26 and 27, Block 6, Plat of Woodland Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Proms have
a right in the property that is the subject of the above-captioned action. The Proms desire to
intervene as respondents in the above-captioned action.
GENERAL DENIAL
Except as hereinafter expressly admitted or qualified, the Proms deny each and every
allegation set forth in the Complaint.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES
1. The Proms are without knowledge to admit or deny the allegations set forth in
paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. The Proms affirmatively allege that
petitioner Carol E. Doyle is no longer an owner of property located in the Plat of Woodland
Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Plat"), and that petitioner Michael Porter is deceased.
Further, upon information and belief, the Proms state that not all of the petitioners have
consented to be named as petitioners in the above-captioned lawsuit.
2. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, the Proms
admit that they are the owners of property located in the Plat which abuts Wawonaissa Common.
The Proms are without knowledge to admit or deny that the other Respondents in this proceeding
are all remaining owners of property located in the Plat as well as encumbrancers for those
properties in the Plat. Upon information and belief, respondents Robert J. Kilby, Willard H.
Hillier and Leonard B. Frahm are deceased, and respondents Ross A. Jensen and Shannon K.
Bailey are also identified as petitioners in this action.
3. The Proms admit the allegations set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Complaint.
4. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, the Proms
state that the Plat shows the following named streets and avenues: Tonkahata Lane (now
Bluebird Lane), Tecumseh Lane (now Canary Lane), Titonka Lane (now Dove Lane), Tiskilwa
Lane (now Eagle Lane), Swastika Lane (now Finch Lane), Minnetowanda Lane (now Gull
Lane), Minnetrista Road (now Woodland Road), Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common.
5. The Proms are without knowledge to admit or deny the allegations set forth in the
first sentence of paragraph 6 of the Complaint. and therefore deny the same. The Proms admit
the allegations set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
6. The Proms admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
7. The Proms deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and
affirmatively allege that Wawonaissa Common has not served as a recreational area for all
owners of lots in the Plat, that no footpath exists on Wawonaissa Common, and that historically
only those owners of tots in the Plat who had docks on Wawonaissa Common utilized
Wawonaissa Common for pedestrian access to those docks.
8. The Proms admit the first sentence of paragraph 9 of the Complaint. The Proms
deny the second sentence of paragraph 9 of the Complaint and affirmatively allege that
Wawonaissa Common is maintained by the abutting lot owners and not by the owners of inland
lots. The Proms deny the third sentence of paragraph 9 of the Complaint and affirmatively allege
that the waters adjacent to Wawonaissa Common have been treated for aquatic weeds almost
entirely through the work and financial contributions by abutting lot owners.
9. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, the Proms
admit that the City of Mound, wherein the Plat is located, adopted Ordinance No. 94 in 1960 and
Ordinance No. 332 in 1975, and state that those ordinances speak for themselves. The Proms
deny that those ordinances purported to regulate docks and boathouses on privately dedicated
commons.
10. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the Proms
admit that the City of Mound requires owners of property located in the Plat, including owners of
lots adjacent to Wawonaissa Common, to obtain building permits prior to constructing
improvements on Wawonaissa Common. The Proms affirmatively allege that these
improvements are subject to the general building permit rules, but are not subject to any special
rules or ordinances for improvements to public lands, because Wawonaissa Common is not
public land.
11. The Proms admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of the Complaint and
affirmatively allege that the materials and services contributed by the City of Mound to the
maintenance of Wawonaissa Common have been extremely limited.
12. The Proms admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
13. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the Proms
admit that the Court in the Flack case concluded that all lot owners in the Plat once had an
interest in the commons. That interest was created in 1906. The Proms admit that the Court
could not determine the exact nature of said interest or whether that interest still exists, without
joining all lot owners in the Plat in an action.
14. The Proms are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matters
alleged in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. The Proms admit that if
a lot owner's deed made reference to the Plat, they were, as a matter of law, deemed to have
notice of everything appearing on the Plat.
15. The Proms deny the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint and affirmatively
allege that inland lot owners may not rely upon any dedications in the Plat that have been
abandoned, vacated, lost through adverse possession or otherwise terminated.
16. The Proms deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and
affirmatively allege that the dedication of Wawonaissa Common in 1906 gave owners of lots in
the Plat the right to use Wawonaissa Common only as a street or avenue. The dedication of
Wawonaissa Common did not give all Plat lot owners riparian rights. The Proms deny that all
Plat owners purchased their property relying upon the right to access and use the Commons.
4
17. The Proms deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
18. The Proms are unable to answer the allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the
Complaint without further specificity. The Proms are without knowledge that any inland lot
owner has been harmed (either economically or in terms of use enjoyment), and therefore deny
the same. The Proms deny that they have received any economic windfall through any denial of
riparian rights that riaay have occurred.
19. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the Proms
restate the answers made in paragraphs 1-18 of this Answer, as though fully set forth herein.
20. The Proms admit the allegations set forth in paragraphs 21-22 of the Complaint.
DEFENSES
21. Petitioners' Complaint is barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and
estoppel.
22. Petitioners' Complaint is barred by statutes of limitation.
23. Petitioners' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
WHEREFORE, the Proms request that the Court enter a judgment declaring as follows:
1. That the Proms are the fee owners of the segments of Wawonaissa Common lying
between the extensions of the Proms' lot lines to the shore of Lake Minnetonka.
2. That in 1906 Wawonaissa Common was dedicated only as a private street or avenue
for the benefit of all lot owners in the Plat and that such easement has been abandoned or
otherwise terminated.
3. That the owners of lots in the Plat which do not abut Wawonaissa or Waurika
Common do not have the right to use the adjacent shoreline and lake bed for riparian activities
including fishing, hunting, boating and swimming, and do not have the right to construct docks
or other improvements normally associated with riparian activities.
4. That thc City of Mound does not have any right, title or interest in any of the
segments of Wawonaissa Common referred to in paragraph 1 above.
5. That the Proms have all rights of a riparian owner of the segments of Wawonaissa
Common referred to in paragraph 1 above, including the right to construct and maintain a dock
on their respective segments of Wawonaissa Common.
6. That the Proms' rights to construct improvements on Wawonaissa Common are
subject to the City of Mound's general building code regulations, but not any regulations relating
to improvements on public lands.
7. That the Proms have such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper,
together with their costs and disbursements incurred herein.
Dated: October ~' .1997.
Maynard (#69176)
Marc D. Simpson (/4183301)
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENORS
JAMES M. PROM AND LISA M. PROM
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.21, the panics represented by the undersigned attorneys
hereby acknowledge that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees max' be
6
awarded to the opposing parties for actions in bad faith; the assertion of a claim or defense that is
frivolous and is costly to the other parties; the assertion of an unfounded position solely to delay
the ordinary course of proceedings or to harass; or the commission of a fraud upon the court.
Dated: October ~ .1997.
1587718
Hugh M). Maynard (#69176)
Marc D. Simpson (#183301)
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENORS
JAMES M. PROM AND LISA M. PROM
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS.:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Cindy L. Peterson of the City of Apple Valley, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, being
first duly sworn, says that on the 3rd day of October, 1997, she served the annexed ANSWER OF
INTERVENORS JAMES M. PROM AND LISA M. PROM on the following individuals by
mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and by depositing the
same in the post office at Minneapolis, Minnesota. directed to said individuals at their last known
addresses, as follows:
John B. Dean, Esq.
Kennedy & Graven
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Mark E. Greene, Esq.
Standke, Greene & Greenstein, Ltd.
17717 Highway 7
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Paul E. Kaminski, Esq.
Best & Flanagan
4000 First Bank Place
601 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4331
Cindy L. Peter~on
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 3rd day of October. 1997.
Notalff'~t~blic
'366072.01
H A
RTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street RECEIVED OCT 2 3 1~?_
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
KAREN R. COLE
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9212
October 20, 1997
Ed Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Re:
Bailey et al. v. Lien et al.
Court File No.: MC97-15540
Our File No.: BE295-34
Dear Ed:
Enclosed is an additional answer filed in the Bailey case.
persons with property abutting Waurika Commons.
Very truly yours,
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
Karen R. Cole
KRC:db
Enclosures
cc: John Dean
Robert Weisbrod (BRS File No. 11019873)
This one is filed on behalf of two
ERC132!25
55295-34
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HE~P~
Case Type: Other
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JLrDICIAL DISTRICT
Blaine Bailey et.al,
VS.
Robert M. Lien, et.al,
Petitioners,
Respondents.
File No.
ANSWER OF ELIZABETIt
A. VUCINOVICH-JOItNSON
AND KErr]~ O. JOItNSON
Respondents, Elizabeth A. Vucinovich-Johnson and Keith O. Johnson, as and for
their answer, state and allege as follows:
1. Deny each and every allegation as made by petitioners except
hereinafter admitted, qualified or otherwise stated.
2.
3.
as may be
Admit paragraphs 3, 4, 21 and 22 of the petition.
As to paragraph 5, state that while there is nothing specifically named "Street" or
"Avenue" on the plat, there are six thoroughfares with "Lane" included in the
name, one with "Road" included in the name, and two with "Commons" in the
name, to wit: "Waurika Commons" and Wawonaissa Common" (hereafter
together, the "Commons").
As to paragraph 8, state that parts of the Commons have served as a footpath and
upon information and belief, parts have served as recreational areas, however,
respondents specifically state that no part of their property has been used for
recreational purposes without their specific consent.
10.
11.
12.
As to paragraph 9, admit that the portion of Waurika Commons that abuts their
property is their lawn; but deny that private docks located on their property are
subject to city ordinances or that any parties but themselves and their
predecessors in title, cared for any part of their property.
Deny paragraph 10, to the extent that petitioners are alleging that the mentioned
ordinance regulate any part of the private Commons located on their property.
Admit paragraph 11, but only to the extent that building permits are required of
all owners within the City of Mound.
Deny, upon information and belief, that the City of Mound has contributed any
materials or services to maintain any portion of their property; and, have
insufficient information to form a belief as to whether the City has contributed
materials or services to other parts of the Commons.
As to paragraphs 13 and 14, respondents state that the decision speaks for itself
and that respondents were not parties to the earlier action.
Deny paragraphs 16, 17, and 18 to the extent that such allegations suggest that lot
owners in the plat have rights to use the Commons for any purpose other than for
thoroughfare purposes.
Respondents have insufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of
paragraphi I, 2, 6, 7, 15 and 19 inclusive.
Paragraph 20 does not require a response.
WHEREFORE, respondents request that the Court:
Enter a judgment declaring that:
a. The respondents Elizabeth ,~,. Vucinovich-Johnson and Keith O. Johnson
are the owners in fee simple, as husband and wife, joint tenants, of the
2
Dated:
bo
following lands in the City of Mound, County of Hennepin, legally
described as follows:
That part of Waurika Common, adjoining Lots 1 and 2,
Block 2, "Woodland Paint" Hermepin County, Minn., as
shown on said plat lying between the extensions across it of
the Westerly line of Lot 2 and the Easterly line of Lot 1.
That the segment of Waurika Common described in paragraph a. above is
subject to the easement interests of other lot owners in Woodland Point,
limited for use as a thoroughfare only, as was intended pursuant to the
dedication clause of the plat.
That the City of Mound did not acquire any easement over the segment of
Waurika Common described in paragraph a. above, by common law
dedication or otherwise, and has no right, title or interest in said segment,
except as it may have as a lot owner of some lots in the plat.
That respondents have all rights of a riparian owner of the segment of
Waurika Common described in paragraph a. above, including the fight to
construct and maintain a dock on the property.
For such other and further relief as to the Court seems proper.
ST3~NDKE, GREENE & GREENSTEIN, LTD.
Mark E. ~Jreene( 1I)# 37461)
Attorney for Respondents, Elizabeth A.
Vucinovich-Johnson and Keith O. Johnson
17717 Highway 7
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345
Telephone: (612) 474-3221
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Pursuant toMinn. Stat. Section 549.21, the party or parties 'represented by
the undersigned attorneys acknowledge(s)that costs, disbursements, and reasonable
attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties for actions
in bad faith; the assertion of a claim or a defense that is frivolous and that is costly to
the other party; the assertion of an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary
course of the proceedings or to harass; or the commission of a fraud upon the court.
STANDKE, GREENE & GREENSTEIN, LTD.
By: l~lark E. Greene( ID #37461)
Attorneys for Respondents, Elizabeth A.
Vucinovich-Johnson and Keith O. Johnson
17717 Highway 7
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345