The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-12-16AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1997, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Ail 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 evem 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. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 9, 1997 REGULAR MEETING ................................. 4189-4193 *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 11, 1997 TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING. (To be handed out at Meeting Tuesday evening) *C. CASE 97-55: VARIANCE REQUEST: FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION, CAROL A. KRASNOW-HAMMER, 5972 HILLCREST ROAD, MOUND SHORES, PID 14-117-24 42 0070 .................... 4194-4205 *D. CASE 97-56: VARIANCE REQUEST: SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT A NON- CONFORMING ADDITION, JEFF BISHOP, 1549 & 1551 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 6 & 31, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT, PID 12-117-24 43 0038 & 12-117-24 43 0052 ................... 4206-4228 *E. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #93-1997 - AMENDING SECTIONS 510, 520 AND 540 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO FEES .......... 4229-4231 *F. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97- RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STUDY OF MOBILE HOME PARKS ............................... 4232-4238 4187 *G. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97- RESOLUTION TO SET PRICES FOR CEMETERY LOTS IN THE MOUND UNION CEMETERy AS PROPOSED STARTING JANUARY 1, 1998 .................... 4239 *H. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97- RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A 3 YEAR CONTRACT WITH E-Z RECYCLING FOR WEEKLY CURBSIDE RECYCLING IN THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEARS 1998, 1999 AND 2000 ................ . ........................ 4240 *I. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97-RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1998 BUDGET AND FINAL LEVY FOR 1998 .................. 4241-4243 *J. PAYMENT OF BILLS ................................. 4244-4260 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PRESENTATION BY MARK GOLDBERG, CHAIR, DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION RE: PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT POLICY ......................... 4261-4268 INFORMATION/MIS CELLANEOUS: Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 1997 ............... 4269-4274 Economic Development Commission Minutes of November 20, 1997 ..... 4275-4276 4188 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 9, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, December 9, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Police Chief Len Harrell, City Attorney John Dean, and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Mathew Simmons, Wilma Simmons, Michael Simmons, Ken Persing, Maureen Leckland, Karen Cole, Germaine Persing, Beth Olson, Chelsie Olson, and Ryan Olson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 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. 1.0 PRES~A~ON OF COMME~A~ON TO GERMAINE JOY PERSING FOR HER LIFE-SAVING EFFORTS IN ASSISTING A HEART ATTACK VICTIM. The Police Chief related the background for the presentation of commendation to Germaine Persing. He and the Mayor presented Ms. Persing with the plaque. *CONSENT AGENDA: Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 1997, REGULAR MEETING MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. '1.2 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS AT LAKE MINNETONKA BOWL Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. Mound City Council Minutes - December 9, 1997 RESOLUTION/D7-123 RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS AT LAKE MINNETONKA BOWL '1.3 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDINq; SECTION 437:05, SUBDIVISION 7 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION BB THERETQ RELATING TO SHARED DOCKS, COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM ORDINANCE g92-1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION SUBDIVISION 7 OF THE CITY CODE BY SUBSECTION BB THERETO RELATING TO DOCKS, COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM 437:05, ADDING SHARED Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously. '1.4 APPROVAL OF 1998 DOCK LOCATION MAP MOTION Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously. '1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously. 1.6 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ADDITION TO SHIRLEY ItlLLS ELEME~Y SCHOOL, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The City Manager reported that this item has been continued since April because of the Task Force Study on renovating the existing Westonka Community Center. The School District held a Special Referendum Election on December 4, 1997, to authorize the issuance and sale of up to $7.7 million dollars in bonds for this project. The result was positive with 819 voting yes to 615 voting no. Since the passage of the referendum the City Council and the School Board need to meet to negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement. Assuming this is finalized, this application becomes mute, but if for some reason the Joint Powers Agreement doesn't come together, there is the possibility that this would come back before the City Council at a later date. He has discussed this with the City Attorney and we have several options as follows: Continue this public hearing to a date certain; or Set the item aside and deal with it as an application if it were to come back (this woul require publication of another public hearing notice but would not make the applicant go through the entire application process again). The Council expressed concern about the fact that this particular application carried a rezoning based upon a time certain that a Conditional Use Permit was to be issued. They did not feel comfortable leaving that open because of setting a precedent for others who may come before the Council and ask that a rezoning be left open. The Council discussed acting on the issue before them and the fact that, at this time, there is no CUP required. The City Attorney asked if the Council wants him to draft a resolution denying the CUP that is before them tonight and as part of that the Council could specify that if they need to come back to the Council on this CUP issue in the future, the fees could be waived. The City Attorney pointed out that the ordinance specifies that after a denial, the School District would have to wait 6 months to reapply and that too could be waived. The Council asked that the City Attorney prepare the denial resolution based on the discussion tonight and bring it back to the first meeting in January. 1.7 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF WILSHIRE BLVD. AND COUNTY ROAD 15. The City Manager explained that a petition for this traffic signal has now been received by the City with 188 names. The City would be asking that Hennepin County conduct a feasibility study on the installation of a signal. He explained that if a traffic signal were installed, the City would have to pay about 75% of the total cost(100,000) or $75,000. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was no response. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed both intersections: 1. Wilshire and County Road 15; and 2. Cypress and County Rd. !5. The Police Chief reported that there have been no accidents at the intersection of County Road 110 and Three Points Blvd. since the traffic signal was installed there. He reported that there is actually a higher volume of accidents at Wilshire and Cty. Rd. 15 than there was on Three Points and Cty. Rd. 110. He reported that when looking at Cypress and Cty. Rd. 15 there are over 50% of those accidents that have injuries, some are pedestrian related, some is because there is a crosswalk and one car stops and someone rear ends the stopped vehicle. He suggested looking at both intersections to determine which intersection is more appropriate for a signal light. There have been 21 accidents at Wilshire and Shoreline. There have been 15 at Cypress and Shoreline, 8 with injuries. The Police Chief reported that, at this point, there are variables which make it hard to tell which intersection would be the best for a signal light. (i.e., future use of the Balboa Building; and how much traffic will be generated by ECFE. The City Manager reported that there is no cost for the feasibility study by the County, and the City is not obligated to install the light if the warrants are there to allow installation. The Council asked that the County consider pedestrian safety as well as moving traffic through Mound when the study is done. Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-124 RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF LOCATING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT COUNTY ROAD 15 (SHORELINE DRIVE) AND WILSHIRE BLVD. OR COUNTY ROAD 15 (SHORELINE DRIVE) AND CYPRESS LANE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Police Chief reported that he has been working through the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association with an initiative to the Legislature to try to get the pedestrian law changed to reflect the school bus law where Police have a 4 hour window to tag people who violate the pedestrian crosswalk law. 1.8 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for November 1997. Bo Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of November 20, 1997. Co Information from Rule B Task Force of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Announcement of Upcoming Meeting to Be Held on Monday, December 8, from 2:00 P.M. to 3:30 P.M. At the MCWD Offices in Navarre. Mayor Polston Is a Member of this Task Force. REMINDER: Annual Christmas Party, Sunday, December 14, 1997, Beginning at 5:30 P.M., American Legion. You Need to RSVP by December 9 to Jodi Rahn. Eo REMINDER: The photograph of the City Council is tentatively rescheduled for Tuesday, February 24, 1998. Please confirm this date with me and I will schedule the photographer. F. REMINDER: HRA Meeting, 7 P.M., December 9, 1997, City Hall. REMINDER: Truth in Taxation Hearing, Thursday, December 11, 1997, 7:30 P.M., City Hall. Continued Hearing is Scheduled for Thursday, December 18, 1997, if needed. The Budget Can Actually Be Adopted at December 16, 1997 Regular Meeting. Ho REMINDER: Second City Council Meeting in December Is Scheduled for Tuesday, December 16, 1997, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) will be holding a Public Hearing to discuss the Proposed Lake Langdon Restoration Project, Wednesday, December 10, 1997, 6:30 P.M., Mound City Hall. Information on this Project is attached. 4 , Il MINUTES - TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BUDGET - MOUND CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session for the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing on Wednesday, December 11, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Parks Director Jim Fackler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Police Chief Len Harrell, Fire Chief Steve Erickson, Public Works Superintendent Greg Skinner, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Finance Director Gino Businaro and Fire Chief-Elect Greg Pederson. The following interested citizens were also present: Scott Spanjers, Randy and Marilyn Bell. The Mayor opened the meeting. 1998 PROPOSED BUDGET COMMENTS City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed the proposed 1998 Budget. He indicated that the City Council had reviewed the proposed budget at the October Committee of the Whole and had asked to make some revisions for discussion this evening. Shukle reviewed the purpose of the Truth in Taxation hearing and then introduced Gino Businaro, Finance Director, to present some statistical information and other data associated with the proposed tax increase and budget for 1998 in the City of Mound. Businaro played a video produced by the Minnesota Association of Counties regarding the Minnesota Property Tax system. He then reviewed various terms related to the tax system and presented sample properties with different market values to indicate the tax impact on those properties. Businaro pointed out that the City Council had approved a preliminary budget and levy in September and that the proposed tax increase from the 1997 levy was approximately 5.5%. The City Council asked if the tax increase could be lessened by reducing the general fund balance to approximately 37% of total general fund expenditures proposed for 1998. Copies of the budget reflecting that concept had been distributed to the Council prior to this evening's meeting. Shukle had sent a cover memo out with this information indicating that it was his recommendation that the City Council stay with the 5.5% increase since there was no increase in the levy for 1997 from 1996 and that it is not a good financial practice to reduce the fund balance. The fund balance is used for cash flow purposes until the City receives its tax settlements and Local Government Aid (LGA) and Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) payments into the middle or latter part of the year. Further, it is important that the tax increases be consistent and that major increases not be proposed Minutes of Truth in Taxation Hearing December 11, 1997 Page 2 to make up for what was not levied previously. The renovation of the Westonka Community Center will definitely involve some form of tax increase as it pertains to operating expenses for the center. This is another concern that staff has expressed to the Council that they keep in mind. Mayor Polston then opened the public hearing. No one present asked to address the Council regarding the Truth in Taxation issues. The Mayor closed the public heating and returned the matter to the Council for discussion. The Council discussed whether the 5.5% tax increase was a good idea or if it should be reduced to 1.91% as they had talked about at the October Committee of the Whole meeting. Mayor Polston suggested a 3.5% increase while Ahrens and Hanus were focusing on the 1.91%. Hanus was suggesting that the City Council look at "growing into the increase." Jensen and Weycker supported the 3.5% increase. Concerns were raised by some members of the Council regarding revenues projected for 1998 and that maybe more revenue would be taken in than what is shown in the revenue section of the budget. Questions were raised regarding the adequate amount for a fund balance. Following the discussion, it was suggested that the item be moved to the December 16, 1997 City Council agenda for action. It was moved by Polston, seconded by Weycker and carried unanimously to cancel the December 18, 1997 continued Truth in Taxation public hearing since the City Council agreed to bring the final budget and levy discussion to the December 16 agenda. The Council then continued the meeting to Conference Room 301 regarding the Westonka Community Center. Westonka Community_ Center The Council then convened in Conference Room 301 for a meeting with representatives of the Westonka School Board regarding a joint powers agreement for the renovation and operation of the center. Members present from the City of Mound: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Weycker; City Manager Ed Shukle. Members present from the School Board: Pinegar and Charon; Superintendent Dr. Pam Myers. Also Present: Bert Haglund, TSP/EOS. Ed Shukle lead the group through a summary of the last meeting held on this subject. It was agreed that the Superintendent and the City Manager present a summary of the discussion to the School's attorney and the City's attorney and jointly a document will be developed based on the discussion by the two parties. A meeting to review such document will be held sometime in January 1998. Minutes of Truth in Taxation Heating December 11, 1997 Page 3 A brief discussion regarding identifying the "players" who will be a part of the renovation project was held. The Superintendent and the City Manager wondered if this discussion could take place while the joint powers agreement was being created. Questions regarding the architect's role, whether a construction management firm would be hired, who the owners representatives would be etc., were asked. Mayor Polston asked if the project could be done on a "design/build" or "turnkey" basis. Bert Haglund, TSP/EOS, explained that there are 3 basic types of construction forms: Design/Bid/Build/Delivery Construction Management Delivery Design/Build (Turnkey) Haglund reviewed each of those and listed some pros and cons of each. He indicated that he would provide more information on this at the next meeting. It was moved by Polston, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, to adjourn the City Council meeting at 11 p.m. Attest: City Clerk City Manager The City Manager reported that the School District would like to set up a meeting with the City Council, possibly before Christmas, to discuss the Joint Powers Agreement. The Council suggested maybe an early morning meeting would work. The City Manager to schedule a meeting possibly after the Thursday, December 11, 1997, Truth in Taxation Meeting. 1.9 PLANNING COMM[qSION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINC The City Manager reported that he has received some information from the City Attorney on Truth in Zoning and has contacted the City of Richfield about their scattered site acquisition program. The City Manager and Loren Gordon have met with the Community Development representative of Richfield and it sounds like something that could be presented to the Planning Commission. He has arranged it so that the Richfield Community Development representative will meet with the Mound Planning Commission on January 26, 1998, for a presentation. He urged the Council to attend also. Richfield does this under their HRA. Mark Hanus, Council Rep. to the Planning Commission stated they are very interested in this. He also asked if the City Attorney could attend a future meeting to answer some legal questions that the Planning Commission has. This will be set up as soon as possible. 1.10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT SUMMON,q. The City Manager stated that Karen Cole is in attendance for an Executive Session with the Council to discuss a proposed settlement offer in connection with the Woodland Point litigation. Councilmember Weycker removed herself from the Council for this Executive Session. The Council went into Executive Session at 8:15 P.M. The Council returned at 9:20 P.M. The City Attorney stated that the Executive Session was for the Council to discuss possible settlement proposals and future settlement discussions on the Woodland Point litigation. As a result of that discussion, the City Council received information from its legal representative, Karen Cole. Direction was given to the City's legal representative as to how to proceed in the settlement discussions. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 9:25 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Attest: City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager December 9, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN CONFORMING ADDITION AT 5972 HILLCREST ROAD, LOT P/30, MOUND SHORES PID 14-117-24 42 0070, P & Z CASE//97-55 WHEREAS, the applicant, Carol Krasnow-Hammer, has applied for a rear yard setback variance to build a conforming addition on the property located at the intersection of Sycamore and Hillcrest, 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 rear yard is 10.3 feet requiring a 4.7 feet variance, and; WHEREAS, the proposed 9 x 30 single story addition will conform to setbacks, and; 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: 1. The City does hereby grant a rear yard setback variance of 4.7 feet. 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: Building a conforming 9 x 30 single story addition to the rear of the home. December 9, 1997 Krasnow-Hammer Page 2 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of S 250' Lot 30 N of a line running W at rt ang fr a pt in E line sd lot dis 145' N fr SE cor thof. Mound Shores 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. 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 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 Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 1997 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1997 Those present: Vice Chair Michael Mueller, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Gerald Reifschneider, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Chair Geoff Michael, Jerry Clapsaddle, Building Official Jon Sutherland. Public Present: Carol Krasnow-Hammer, Jeff Bishop, Steve Sobeniak, Jerry Aman. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 10, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Bill Voss requested to be added to the present list and Orv Burma requested to be removed from the present list. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the November 10, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting with the above stated corrections. Motion carried 7-0. CASE # 97-55: Variance: Rear yard setback variance to construct an addition, Carol A Krasnow-Hammer, 5972 Hillcrest Road, Mound Shores, PID # 14-117-24 42 0070 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize a rear yard setback to build an addition on the rear of the house. The setback and proposed variance are listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Rear Yard 10.3' 1 5' 4.7' An encroachment of the west portion of the home into the rear yard setback has Minutes - Planning Commiss~bn December 8, 1997 prompted the request. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the home in the side yard and conforms to code requirements with a 23 feet setback. This home is in within the R-1 residential zoning district. The proposal is to build a 9 feet by 30 feet single story addition for a bedroom and future expansion space for the kitchen. The applicant states the improvements will also make the home more functional. This layout will relocate and upgrade a half bath to a full size that is easily accessible from all areas of the home. The new bathroom would be centrally located between two bedrooms and the kitchen. Off the bathroom is the new 9 feet 6 inch by 14 feet bedroom with a large closet. The common wall between the bedroom and bath will be moved in 6 inches for more bedroom space. Future kitchen expansion space is provided in the addition. This space provides an additional access from the kitchen to the rear of the house. The house faces and is addressed to Hillcrest Road although the yard spaces are opposite for zoning purposes. The narrow street frontage which is Sycamore Lane establishes yard spaces. The rear yard is west of the garage and side yard is north of the rear of the home. Front yards are adjacent to Hillcrest and Sycamore. The request to recognize the rear yard encroachment is a reasonable request to allow property improvements. Staff feels that there is a practical difficulty present that would warrant granting a variance for the proposed improvements. The addition to the home will not increase the nonconformity of the rear yard setback or create a new nonconforming situation. The improvements will increase the livability of the home and add to the value of the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. Discussion: Reifschneider questioned if there was also a side yard variance required. Gordon confirmed that the rear yard was the only nonconforming year space and the proposed 23 feet side yard exceeds the 10 feet requirement. Hanus questioned how it is determined which side is considered the front yard on a corner lot. Gordon stated that it is the frontage with the shorter length that determines how the yard spaces are defined. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to approve staff recommendation with correction on item E to state, "The variance requested is the minimum variance which could alleviate the hardship." Along with the statement that the proposed addition does not create a vision obstruction for any adjacent properties. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to City Council on December 16, 1997 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. III! k-4H TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: December 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Rear yard setback variance OWNER: Carol A. Krasnow-Hammer - 5972 Hillcmst Road CASE NUMBER: 97-55 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5mm LOCATION: 5972 Hillcrest Road EXISTING ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREItENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize a rear yard setback to build an addition on the rear of the house. The setback and proposed variance are listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Rear Yard 10.3' 15' 4.7' An encroachment of the west portion of the home into the rear yard setback has prompted the request. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the home in the side yard and conforms to code requirements with a 23 feet setback. The proposal is to build a 9 feet by 30 feet single story addition for a bedroom and future expansion space for the kitchen. The applicant states the improvements will also make the home more functional. This layout will relocate and upgrade a half bath to a full size that is easily accessible from all areas of the home. The new bathroom would be centrally located between two bedrooms and the kitchen. Off the bathroom is the new 9 feet 6 inch by 14 feet bedroom with a large closet. The common wall between the bedroom and bath will be moved in 6 inches for more bedroom space. Future kitchen expansion space is provided in the addition. This space provides an additional access from the kitchen to the rear of the house. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Hammer Variance Request December 8, 1997 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. Bo 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 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 faces and is addressed to Hillcrest Road although the yard spaces are opposite for zoning purposes. The narrow street frontage which is Sycamore Lane establishes yard spaces. The rear yard is west of the garage and side yard is north of the rear of the home. Front yards are adjacent to Hillcrest and Sycamore. The request to recognize the rear yard encroachment is a reasonable request to allow property improvements. Staff feels that there is a practical difficulty present that would warrant granting a variance for the proposed improvements. The addition to the home will not increase the nonconformity of the rear yard setback or create a new nonconforming situation. The improvements will increase the livability of the home and add to the value of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, 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 PAID . CITY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) ?lanning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANq' (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT(R-I~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Phone (H) ~7~ - ~m7 (W) ~7~ &¢~ (M) Address .~ Phone (H) ,.~ (W). (M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resOlutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Re,.,. 1/14199) 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. s~t area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (N~V) '3c") ft. ~-4.q ft. '-- ft. Side Yard: ( N~E W ) Side Yard: (~S E Rear Yard: (N S E~') /~ ft. iO,3 ft. 4.~ fl. L '. ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: Lot Size: /~4'~.q x/to .~ sq ft /q~&3q' sq ~ ~ sq ft Hardcover: iO~~ sq Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes '~X), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 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 ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe:-,L-lo Oco C 'tS ~e'~- (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 3)0. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No Q~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~/0, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: 7. 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 Date /I ,/~-0/4'~ Applicant's Signature Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION.~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA ['4~ r~" ~ ~,l 2- SQ. FT. X 40% ~'~q,oo~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. I I = (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. LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE '~' -~ ~ ' '" X ~ -~. '-;- x X TOTAL HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) SQFT = ??;), '-3.5.,= cj q , / , g c X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING ? ~' f-~ X /'7 = 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 I~, = ~,~;~ X = TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE l'hat part of the South 250 feet of Lot 30, "Mound Shores", lying North of a line drawn at right angles to the East line thereof, from a point on said East line distant 145 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot, to the West. line thereof, Hennepin County, Mi nnesota. ~BORG SURVEYING INC. i I here=y certify that this plan, survey.or report was. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under tho laws of tho State · of Minnesota. ~ _ /~ Date: ~c~'"" S"- ,)~:,:,~,'~:~-- Registration No. 14700 JOB # Book - Scale / GI£NEIC%L ZONIN(¢ INFORMATION SIIEET Required Lot Width: (frontage on an improved public street) +I-- SETBACKS RZQUIRZD: FRONT ~ FRONTI N S ~ W 50' fmeasured from O.M.W.)~ _ LA~SHO~: _ 50' fmeasur?d from O.~,W.) EXISTING ~/OR PROPOSED S~TBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUiLDINq ACCESSORY BUILDI~ FRONT: N g W , ~ FRONT: N $ ~ W ~ NS ~ W ~ N S ~ W LAKESHO~ ~ (69) ~ December 9, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AT 1549 & 1551 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 6 & 31, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT PID 12-117-24 43 0038 & 12-117-24 43 0052, P & Z CASE//97-56 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jefferson & Marie Bishop, have applied for side yard setback variances to construct a new home at 1549 Bluebird Lane, 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 combination of the two lots would eliminate the lot of record status and the side yard setbacks would be 10 requiring a 4 feet setback on each side and; WHEREAS, the combination of the two lots would encompass a 10, 240 square feet lot area meeting the requirements, and; WHEREAS, the applicant will live in the home at 1551 Bluebird Lane while the home at 1549 is being constructed, and; WHEREAS, the home at 1551 Bluebird Lane will be removed at the time of completion of the home at 1549, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a two side yard setback variances of 4 feet each with the following conditions: ao do Post a bond and/or place an easement over the property in regards to the removal of the home at 1551 Bluebird Lane. Combination of the two lots prior to Certificate of Occupancy. A revised survey be submitted at time of building permit application that meets all City survey requirements including proposed grades, existing and proposed utilities and setbacks, and a drainage plan. All delinquent utility bills be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. & Vl,.SEC) 3-D December 16, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AT 1549 & 1551 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 6 & 31, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT PID 12-117-24 43 0038 & 12-117-24 43 0052, P & Z CASE//97-56 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jefferson & Marie Bishop, have applied for side yard setback variances to construct a new home at 1549 Bluebird Lane, 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 combination of the two lots would eliminate the lot of record status and the side yard setbacks would be 10 requiring a 4 feet setback on each side and; WHEREAS, the combination of the two lots would encompass a 10, 240 square feet lot area meeting the requirements, and; home at 1549 completion of recommended WHEREAS, the applicant will live in the home at 1551 Bluebird Lane while the is being constructed, and; WHEREAS, the home at 1551 Bluebird Lane will be removed at the time of the home at 1549, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, 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 two side yard setback variances following conditions: a. of 4 feet each with the The City and the applicant enter into an agreement for the removal of the[]5.5.5.5~i) Bluebird Lane home providing for right of entry and security for the City in[he event the applicants fail to remove the house.'tt'~ o~^o-- ~* '~o t~,,~ Combination of the two lots prior to C~'-'a~°to of c~cctlpmm3y t~oo~o-tt._,C'- a A revised survey be sttbmitted at time of building permit application that me~tg all City survey requirements including proposed grades, existing and proposed utilities and setbacks, and a drainage plan. December 16, 1997 Bishop Page 2 d. f. go All delinquent utility bills be paid in full prior to iss~nce of.a buiJding pe .rrn~t. A..draina~ ~,~s,~iic,i i~ required, i.3~-~t:i¥~-~e,~"~-'r~~ · Upon completion of the new home and the removal of the 1551 residence, only one water and sewer service to the property exist and the Public Works department shall determine the most feasible means to accomplish this. A temporary certificate of occupancy be issued for the new home at 1549 Bluebird Lane until the existing home at 1551 Bluebird Lane is removed. 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: Building a non conforming 2 story home with attached garage. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6 & 31, Block 6, Woodland Point 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. 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 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 J, ,J, , Il, Ii December 16, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION g97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AT 1549 & 1551 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 6 & 31, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT PID 12-117-24 43 0038 & 12-117-24 43 0052, P & Z CASE//97-56 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jefferson & Marie Bishop, have applied for side yard setback variances to construct a new home at 1549 Bluebird Lane, 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 combination of the two lots would eliminate the lot of record status and the.side yard setbacks would be 10 requiring a 4 feet setback on each side and; WHEREAS, the combination of the two lots would encompass a 10, 240 square feet lot area meeting the requirements, and; WHEREAS, the applicant will live in the home at 1551 Bluebird Lane while the home at 1549 is being constructed, and; WHEREAS, the home at 1551 Bluebird Lane will be removed at the time of completion of the home at 1549, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a two side yard setback variances of 4 feet each with the following conditions: a. The City and the applicant enter into an agreement for the removal of the 1551 Bluebird Lane home providing for right of entry and security for the City in the event the applicants fail to remove the house. ~ of the two lots prior to Cex:.ficate cf Combination A revised survey be submitted at time of building permit application that meets all City survey requirements including proposed grades, existing and proposed utilities and setbacks, and a drainage plan. December 16, 1997 Bishop Page 2 d. e. f. go All delinquent utility bills be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. Upon completion of the new home and the removal of the 1551 residence, only one water and sewer service to the property exist and the Public Works department shall determine the most feasible means to accomplish this. A temporary certificate of occupancy be issued for the new home at 1549 Bluebird Lane until the existing home at 1551 Bluebird Lane is removed. 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: Building a non conforming 2 story home with attached garage. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6 & 31, Block 6, Woodland Point ° 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. 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 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 December 9, 1997 Bishop Page 2 eo A drainage easement is required. Upon completion of the new home and the removal of the 1551 residence, only one water and sewer service to the property exist and the Public Works department shall determine the most feasible means to accomplish this. 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. o It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Building a non conforming 2 story home with attached garage. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property' Lots 6 & 31, Block 6, Woodland Point 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 Minutes - Planning CommiSsion December 8, 1997 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1997 Those present: Vice Chair Michael Mueller, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Gerald Reifschneider, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Chair Geoff Michael, Jerry Clapsaddle, Building Official Jon Sutherland. Public Present: Carol Krasnow-Hammer, Jeff Bishop, Steve Sobeniak, Jerry Aman. CASE # 97-56: Variance: Side yard setback variances to construct a new home, Jeff & Marie Bishop, 1549 & 1551 Bluebird Lane, Lots 6 & 31, Block 6, Woodland Point, PID # 12-117-24 43 0038 & 12-117-24 43 0052 The applicant is requesting side yard variances in order to build a new home. The proposal is to combine lots 6 and 31 of Woodland Point, Block 6 into one parcel. The 1 549 Bluebird Lane residence will be removed initially in preparation for the proposed home. During construction, the applicant will occupy the 1551 Bluebird residence. Upon completion of the new home, that residence would also be removed. The combination of these two lots causes the lot of record status to go away. Side yard requirements would change to a 10 feet minimum. The resulting parcel would be a legally conforming lot encompassing 10,240sf, measuring 40 feet by approximately 251 feet. Listed below are the requested variances. Existing (~ 1549) Proposed Required Side Yard (south) 3' 6' 10' Side Yard (north) 10' 6' 10' Variance The proposed home is a two-story design with a two stall attached garage. The home has 5 bedrooms and 3 baths on the first and second floors. Kitchen and living rooms are located on the first floor. A utility room is also located off the entry from the garage. The basement is about half as large as the first floor in area and is a walkout. Front and rear yard setbacks of the proposed home would be approximately 87 feet from Bluebird Lane and 74 feet from Lake Minnetonka. The lake setback mimics the adjacent homes. The existing driveway currently used by the 1 549 residence will be retained for the new home. The proposal meets residential redevelopment objectives by combining nonconforming undersized lots into legal conforming lots. Through this combination however, the lot loses its lot of record status, which increases the side yard requirements from 6 to 10 feet. The applicant feels this is a hardship to redevelopment. Minutes - Planning Commission December 8. 1992 Currently, both properties have delinquent water and sewer utility bills. The City of Mound recently sent certified statements to Hennepin County for their inclusion on the respective property tax roles. These statements do not include the current billings that will be ready in a week. Under Minnesota Statue Section 462.353 subdivision 5, a delinquent bill may be used as a condition for approval of an application. "A municipality may require, either as part of the necessary information on an application or as a condition of a grant of approval, an applicant for an amendment to an official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364, or for a permit or other approval required under an official control established pursuant to those sections to certify that there are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, penalties, interest, and municipal utility fees due on the parcel to which the application relates. Property taxes which are being paid under the provisions of a stipulation, order, or confession of judgment, or which are being appealed as provided by law, are not considered delinquent for purposes of this subdivision if all required payments are due under the terms of the stipulation, order, confession of judgment, or appeal have been paid." In weighing this case the Planning Commission will need to consider the benefits of the proposed improvements. The variance request does not meet the 75 percent side yard setback rule used for nonconforming uses. If the improvements to the property are considered to be of greater benefit, then the Planning Commission should clearly state the reasons a variance should be granted. From a staff perspective, the proposed improvements outweigh the code requirements for side yard setbacks. The proposal reflects the setbacks of the adjacent lots, the lakeside setback is consistent with adjacent properties, and hardcover requirements are satisfied. The improvements should be a positive improvement to the property and the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Recommendation' Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions. 1. The existing residence located at 1551 Bluebird Lane be removed upon completion of the new residence. 2. A revised survey be submitted at time of building permit application that meets all City survey requirements including proposed grades, existing and proposed utilities and setbacks. 3. All delinquent utility bills be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. Discussion: Weiland stated that there is now two hookups for sewer and water, what happens so the homeowner does not have two billings. It was discussed that one of the Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 1997 services would be removed. Public Works would address the method of capping or removing water and sewer pipes.. Burma questioned whether the bay window was off the ground. Gordon stated that it was off the ground and would not be considered part of the side yard setback. Voss questioned why a bond issue was not included in the recommendation. Gordon stated that it's usually included in the comments and it probably should be addressed. Mueller questioned whether there should be a bond or easement or possibly both. Mueller stated that the lots be combined prior to issuance of either building permit or certificate of occupancy. Mueller also recommended the following changes: Item #1 Post a bond and/or place an easement over the property in regards to removal of the home at 1551. Item #2 Combination of the two lots prior to Certificate of Occupancy Item #3 A revised survey be submitted at time of building permit application that meets all City survey requirements including proposed grades, existing and proposed utilities and setbacks. Item #4 All delinquent utility bills be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. Item #5 A drainage easement is required. Item #6 Upon completion of the new home and the removal of the 1551 residence, only one water and sewer service to the property exist and the Public Works department shall determine the most feasible means to accomplish this. Hanus questioned if there was an ordinance regarding combination of parcels. He felt that it fell under the same guidelines as a minor subdivision. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to accept staff recommendation with the above additions. There was an amendment to Item # 3 to add a drainage plan. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to accept staff recommendation with additions and amendments. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to City Council on December 16, 1997 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Kocglcr Group [nc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: December 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Side yard setback variances OWNER: Jefferson and Marie Bishop - 1549 Bluebird Lane CASE NUMBER: 97-56 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5nn LOCATION: 1549 and 1551 Bluebird Lane EXISTING ZONING: Residential District R- IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting side yard variances in order to build a new home. The proposal is to combine lots 6 and 31 of Woodland Point, Block 6 into one parcel. The 1549 Bluebird Lane residence will be removed initially in preparation for the proposed home. During construction, the applicant will occupy the 1551 Bluebffd residence. Upon completion of the new home, that residence would also be removed. The combination of these two lots causes the lot of record status to go away. Side yard requirements would change to a I0 feet minimum. The resulting parcel would be a legally conforming lot encompassing 10,240 sf, measuring 40 feet by approximately 251 feet. Listed below are the requested variances. Existing (@ 1549) Proposed R. equired Variance Side Yard (south) $' 6' 10' 4' Side Yard (north) 10' 6' 10' 4' The proposed home is a two-story design with a two stall attached garage. The home has 5 bedrooms and 3 baths on the first and second floors. Kitchen and living rooms are located on the first floor. A utility room is also located off the entry from the garage. The basement is about half as large as the first floor in area and is a walkout. Front and rear yard setbacks of the proposed home would be approximately 87 feet from Bluebird Lane and 74 feet from Lake Minnetonka. The lake setback mimics the adjacent homes. The existing driveway currently used by the 1549 residence will be retained for the new home. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55a01 p. 2 Bishop Variance Request December 8, 1997 COMM]iiNTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. 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. 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 Sl~Cial 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 proposal meets residential redevelopment objectives by combining nonconformimg undersized lots into legal conforming lots. Through this combination however, the lot loses its lot of record status, which increases the side yard requirements from 6 to 10 feet. The applicant feels this is a hardship to redevelopment. Currently, both properties have delinquent water and sewer utility bills. The City of Mound recently sent certified statements to Hennepin County for their inclusion on the respective property tax roles. These statements do not include the current billings that will be ready in a week. Under Minnesota Statue Section 462.353 subdivision 5, a delinquent bill may be used as a condition for approval of an application. "A municipality may require, either as part of the necessary information on an application or as a condition of a grant of approval, an applicant for an amendment to an official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364, or for a permit or other approval required under an official control established pursuant to those sections to certify that there are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, penalties, interest, 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapohs, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 P. 3 Bishop Variance Request December 8, 1997 and municipal utility fees due on the parcel to which the application relates. Property taxes which are being paid under the provisions of a stipulation, order, or confession of judgment, or which are being appealed as provided by law, are not considered delinquent for purposes of this subdivision if all required payments are due under the terms of the stipulation, order, confession of judgment, or appeal have been paid." In weighing this case the Planning Commission will need to consider the benefits of the proposed improvements. The variance request does not meet the 75 percent side yard setback rule used for nonconforming uses. If thc improvements to the property are considered to be of greater benefit, then the Planning Commission should clearly state thc reasons a variance should be granted. From a staff perspective, the proposed improvements outweigh the code requirements for side yard setbacks. The proposal reflects the setbacks of the adjacent lots, the lakeside setback is consistent with adjacent properties, and hardcover requirements are satisfied. The improvements should be a positive improvement to the property and the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions. 1. The existing residence located at 1551 Bluebird Lane be removed upon completion of the new residence. 2. A revised survey be submitted at time of building permit application that meets all City survey requirements including proposed grades, existing and proposed utilities and setbacks. 3. All delinquent utility bills be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) ~3~-0500 Fax (~12)338-~38 {~'/3 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: b0.{~(~(~ll ~ fi, ]~t~q Case No. q City Council Date: be~ U'~, ~(~ r7 Distribution: It-~-q2 City Pla~er ~l-g0-~ DNR ll-~-cl,~ City Engineer I I- ZG-~Q ~blic Works S~ECT Address /~ ~ /~/~~~ ~ ~-~ LEGAL Subdivision ~~ ~~~ / /~r ~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 1 R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICA~ Name (IF OTHER Address THAN hone (M). OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, $~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.): / 1/14/97) J I I I ,J ,, ,I,,, I1~, ,,I Variance Applicatiom 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 0(. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for yariance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):- -- - .~'~,,4~, - .., ,. ,. ,,,,:: < o--.._ ,.. SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ,~'-o ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ,,, o ft. ~ ft. 5/ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ,/' o ft. ~ fi. ~' ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) j ~' ft. ft. fi. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ~' ~ ft. fi. ft. : (NSEW) ft. fi. ft. Street Frontage: 5/0 ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: j~0 Z,/o sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No tI~. 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 ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: '~-de' ~o /'"~,~,o'yr'5' ~,,~ ( ) soil ('~0 existing situation (X5 other: specify (Rev. ,/]4/97) al.5' 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? 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 (t~, No (). If no, list som¥other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's S ignature~~// / ~'~'~~ Applicant's Signature q~,,lj~ll~ (Rev. IH4/97) Date CITY 0F MOUND HARD_COVER GALGULATIQ _ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACF- COVERAGE) LOT AREA ./~,2. zZ~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% ,~ (for LOtS of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ, FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) · · · Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, es outlined in Zoning Ordinance Soction 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submittod and approved by tile Building Official. HOUSE L)E'I ACHED BLDG$ (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DEC~., T,'pun decks {1/4" min. opcr.,r~ ~e:zveen board~) with e p~rviouu surfac~ under are . nol cmmted a~ hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SO FT X = ,'". ~''d-':~? X TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. · z ,/ X x TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. - X ~ TOTAL OTt'IER ......................... Z2~/,~,- 4,-,r:l ~?z-~. -- TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... ,' "" ' DATE /,~,,/Z,,~__/~. -2 PREPARED BY , ~'~'~,"-. ' .......... > CD .~ 0 ~ ~ ~ O~ o 0 \ {') o I 0 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE7 YES / NO LOT OF RECORD,'? YES I NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: B1 ?,500/0 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 ~l YARD ] DIREC'~ION [ REQUIRED EXISTINGIPROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE:, LOT WlDTIt: .~{ DEPTH: VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W NS E W N S E W IO 15' 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' OR6' lEAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF lO' OR 30' This Zoning Inforn'mtion Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requircmcn~ outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. __. _ ....... '12' PROPOSED ORDIN]tNCE %93-1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 510v 520 AND 540 OF THE CITY CODE RREL~TED TO FEES The City of Mound does Ordain: Section 510:00, Subd. 7. be corrected as follows: Subd. Code Conditions No. Section Type of License and Terms Amount 7 800:15 Special Sunday (Class B) Annual $200.00 Section 520, Subd. 7. be clarified as follows: 7. 330:75 Plats & Subdivision *Preliminary Plat $ 200.00 *Final Plat $ 150.00 Minor Subdivision (lot split)$ 75.00 PLUSPBR LOT OVBR2LOTS $ 10.00 PER LOT OVBR2LOTS Escrow Deposit $ 1,000.00 *NOTE: Escrow fees will be assessed to cover all extra expenses to the city. Section 540:00, clarifying Subd. 17 & 18 (Code Sections) and adding Subd. 22. Subd. Code Conditions No. Section Type of License and Terms & m o u n t 17 610:35 Standpipe (curb box) Per Connection 28.63 Subd. 2 18 610: 35 Stationary Rod Per Connection 15.00 Subd. 2 ADD the following: 22 610:35 Water Meter Per Meter 100.00 Subd. 2 Section 540:00, Subds. 3 and 13 relating to sewer and water rates as follows: Subd. Code Conditions No. Section TTpe of License and Terms Amount 3 600:45 Subd. i Treatment Rates Sewer Rates Residential Quarterly Charge Quarterly sewer charge For 10,000 gallons or less Ail over 10,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons $40.00 Minimum 2.35 2.50 Minimum Quarterly Bill 40.00 NOTE: The above minimum applies to each single family dwelling or apartment which is in accordance with existing sewer department policy. Commercial, Including Large Apartments Monthly Charges Monthly Sewer Charges (Large Users) For 3,000 gallons or less $13.35 Ail over 3,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons 2.50 NOTE: Minimum Monthly Bill per apartment ~ 50 13.35 Single Family Dwelling - The sewer rate shall be based on the actual usage or the first quarter Jl ,,J I I. fJ ,J, i ~ ,, actual water usage, whichever is less. Two-Family Usage and Multiple Dwelling Usage - Is computed on the same basis as a single dwelling, except that the total quarterly charges on all such properties shall not be less than the number of units multiplied by the ~"~.~v:~ $13.35 per month, minimum charge per unit. Water used but not placed into the sanitary sewer may be deducted providing it is metered. Dwellings Connected to Sewer but not Connected to Municipal Water - Shall pay a quarterly rate of $44~-~9 $46.50. If such users wish to pay sewer rates based on gallons of water used, they can purchase a water meter from the City and have their own plumber install the meter on their well. Commercial and Industrial - The quarterly sewer rate is baed on the actual amount of water used each month on the same cost scale as residential (see above). Water used but not placed into the sanitary sewer may be deducted providing it is metered. Availability Charge - Ail dwellings not connected to the sanitary sewer must pay an availability charge of $37.25 $40.00 per quarter whether occupied or vacant. Late Fee Penalty - For all bills not paid on or before the due date specified on the bill, a 10% late fee will be added. 13 610:45 ( S%~bd. 2) Water Gallonage Rates Service charge of ~"¥~.~°= $1.42 per month, per account For all water consumed: $1.20 $1.25 per 1,000 gallons a C 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-204,. Phone: (612) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 Fax: (612) 281-1299 ° TDD (612) 281-1290 November 17, 1997 RECEIVED TO: FROM: RE: Edward Shukle, Manager City of Mound Andrea Steams, IGR Representative SAMPLE RESOLUTION Enclosed please find a sample resolution regarding mobile home parks for your city council to consider. If your council elects to pass the resolution, please send a short letter to your legislators along with a copy of the resolution indicating your council's support of the League of Minnesota Cities' policy (attached). Also, we have included lists of the key House and Senate committees and their members in label format. Please make sure that each member of the various committees receives a copy of the correspondence you send to your legislators. If your city's resources are limited, send copies only to the chairs of each committee. In addition, it would be helpful ifI could get a copy of the correspondence that you send. You may fax it to me at (612) 215-4116 or send it to my attention at the above address. Please call me at (612) 281-1258 if you have any questions about the enclosed information. Thank you very much! AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER CITY OF RESOLUTION # Resolution Supporting Minnesota Department of Health Study of Mobile Home Parks WHEREAS, The State of Minnesota has assumed responsibility for the regulation of mobile home parks through the Minnesota Department of Health; WHEREAS, serious issues face mobile home park residents and their host communities related to general living and housing conditions and public safety; WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities is proposing legislation which would require the Minnesota Department of Health to conduct a statewide study of mobile home park issues and to develop proposed solutions for these issues. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: The City Council declares its support for adoption by the Minnesota Legislature of the legislation proposed by the League of Minnesota Cities requiring the Minnesota Department of Health to conduct a statewide study of mobile home parks. Adopted this day of ,1997 CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: Page 1 7 1 SD-12. Mobile Home Park Oversight 2 Issue: The State has preempted cities in the licensing of mobile home parks and has 3 limited the authority of cities to place new regulations on established mobile home parks. 4 However, cities are responsible for dealing with the various housing and public safety 5 challenges mobile home parks may create. 6 Response: Since the State has already taken the lead, the legislature should 7 provide sufficient resources and direct the Department of Health to conduct a study on 8 the condition of mobile home parks throughout the State of Minnesota. Cities and mobile 9 home park owners and residents should be involved in the study. The results of the study 10 should be used as a basis for policy discussions regarding ways in which the State can 11 provide for increased and improved oversight of mobile home parks and establish a 12 statewide support system for cities to rely on in dealing with the array of issues that arise 13 in mobile home parks. Outcomes of the study should include: 14 · "best practices" for the operation of mobile home parks; 15 · recommended state regulatory changes for the operation of mobile home parks; 16 · suggested ways cities can better address the issues presented by mobile home 17 parks; and 18 · identification of mechanisms to provide assistance in financing mobile home park 19 upgrades. Heuse Committee on Health & Human Services Representative Eileen Tompkins 245 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Mike Delmont 433 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Bill Haas 201 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Ruth Johnson 567 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue S~p~ aul, MN 55155 Representative Arlon Lindner 227 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Joe Opatz 473 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Barb Vickerman 211 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative John Dom, Chair 571 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Represenative Lynda Boudreau 327 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Kevin Goodno 369 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Thomas Huntley 533 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Jim Knoblach 207 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Betty McCollum 501 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Ken Otremba 545 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Linda Wejcman 407 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Nora Slawik 551 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Fran Bradley 233 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Lee Greenfield 381 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Loren Jennings 591 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Luanne Koskinen 411 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Richard Mulder 283 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Kathy Tingelstad 295 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Housing & Housing Finance Division of the House Committee on Economic Development & International Trade Representative Jim Rhodes 309 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Mike Jaros 559 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Barbara Sykora 389 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Karen Clark 503 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Jerry Dempsey 251 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Carlos Mariani 403 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Steve Trimble 597 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Gary Kubly 423 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Ged Evans 413 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Representative Mark Olson 323 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senate Committee on Health and ~ nily Security Senator Sheila Kiskaden 135 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Steve Dille 103 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator c.~, x~nr~ G-24 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Dallas Sams 328 State Capitol Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 S~,liator Dan Stevens 105 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator John Hottinger, Chair 120 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Linda Berglin 309 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Michelle Fischbach 151 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Pat Piper G-9 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Don Samuelson 124 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator David J. Ten Eyck G-24F State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Becky Lourey, Vice Chair G-9 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Don Betzold 306 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Leo Foley G-9 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator ~ ~ -"' lviartna Robertson 125 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Sam Solon 303 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Roy Terwilliger 115 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senate Jobs, Energy and Community Development Subcommittee on Housing and Economic Development Senator Doug Johnson 205 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Warren Limmer 127 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Mark Ourada 145 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Ellen Anderson, Chair G-24 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Randy Kelly 323 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator James Metzen 303 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Pat Pariseau 109 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Linda Higgins 227 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Arlene Lesewski 131 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Senator Steven Novak 322 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 December 16, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO SET PRICES FOR CEMETERY LOTS IN THE MOUND UNION CEMETERY AS PROPOSED STARTING JANUARY 1, 1998 WHEREAS, the City of Mound owns and operates the Mound Union Cemetery and Cemetery Fund revenue received from the sales of lots is used to cover the cost of care and maintenance of the cemetery; and Adult Grave Adult Grave Baby Grave or Cremains Baby Grave or Cremains the following are the current prices of graves: Resident $350.00 Non-Resident $650.00 Resident $175.00 Non-Resident $325.00 Ail open and close handled through funeral home. Ash Burial NOW, No additional charge if grave is purchased as a single grave. $50.00 charge if ash burial is placed on top of casket burial. must be made for opening through City Staff. Arrangements THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that prices for cemetery lots in the Mound Union Cemetery will be as follows starting January 1, 1998: Adult Grave Resident $400.00 Adult Grave Non-Resident $800.00 Baby Grave or Cremains Baby Grave or Cremains Resident $175.00 Non-Resident $325.00 All open and close handled through funeral home. Ash Burial No additional charge if grave is purchased as a single grave. $50.00 charge if ash burial is placed on top of casket burial. must be made for opening through City Staff. Arrangements December 16, 1997 RF~OLUTION NO. 97- RF~OLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A 3 YEAR CONTRACT WITH E-Z RECYCLING FOR WEEKLY CURBSIDE RECYCLING IN THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEARS 1998, 1999, AND 2000 WHEREAS, on December 31, 1997, the City of Mound's contract, for curbside recycling, with E-Z Recycling expires; and WHEREAS, the Lake Minnetonka Solid Waste Management Group (LMSWG) consisting of the Cities of Mound, Wayzata, Shorewood, Excelsior, Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach, have reviewed E-Z's performance and service and is satisfied; and WHE~AS, the Recycling Coordinator and LMSWG are recommending a three year contract (1998, 1999, and 2000) with E-Z Recycling at $2.05 per household. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a 3 year (1998, 1999 and 2000) contract with E-Z Recycling for weekly curbside recycling at $2.05 per household. December 16, 1997 RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL 1998 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,776,950; SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,898,010; LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT 0tACA) OF $492,040, RESULTING IN A FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,405,970 APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1998 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following final 1998 General Fund Budget appropriations: City Council 71,610 Promotions 4,000 Cable TV 3,000 City Manager/Clerk 210,970 Elections & Registration 13,200 Assessing 62,450 Finance 172,710 Computer 18,550 Legal 86,460 Police 990,170 Emergency Preparedness 4 250 Planning and Inspection 173,280 Street 420,820 City Property & Buildings 103,380 Parks 192,380 Recreation 37,290 Contingencies 45,000 Transfers 167.430 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2,776,950 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following taxes for collection in 1998: Resolution December 16, 1997 Page 2 SPECIAL LEVIES Bonded Indebtedness Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds Total Special Levies TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE LEVY TOTAL TO BE LEVIED FOR 1998 Less Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY 83,660 33.350 117,010 1,781,000 1,898,010 -492.040 1,405,970 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the final overall budget for 1998 as follows: As per above SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Area Fire Service Fund Capital Improvement Fund Cemetery Fund Dock Fund TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 2,776,950 360,220 665,210 6,710 76,660 1,108,800 126,830 293,700 445,400 981,020 1,846,950 Resolution g97 December 16, 1997 Page 3 SUMMARY General Fund Special Revenue Funds Enterprise Funds TOTAL ALL FUNDS 2,776,950 1,108,800 1,846,950 5,732,700 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby held a Public Hearing on Thursday, December 11, 1997 for consideration of the 1998 Proposed Budget and determined that the Thursday, December 18, 1997, meeting was not necessary. BILLS December 16, 1997 BATCH 7122 Total Bills $263,478.30 $263,478.30 0 .( o 8 ~.0 I la, Z'~ LLJ 7, 0 Z Z .,.., Z Z Z e ~~~°°~oo i' Z U.J gl. I ~' Z J Z 44,,; , , , , , ,, ,, , , ~ , , ggoooo oo oo oog IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII oooooo0~ooo°oo~oo~oo~oooo Z Z n. Z Z o Z 0 o 0 ~o .,JO OZ ~'~ · ~ ,-, I S ? 2~2oo I=111 On' z DOCKS AND COMMONS COMMISSION EXISTING ENCROACHMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION SEPTEMBER 21, 1997 WHE~A$, Cit~' ordioances appzovjng construction of currently b~ued s~'uctures existed as recently as 197~: and WHEREAS, the City holds and manages the lakeshore public commons in trust for the benefit of all users: and WHEREAS, such management does not exclude a recognition of the unique position of abutting property owners, especially in instances where those owners or their predecessors have constructed and maintained structures upon the lakeshore public commons in reliance of their right to do so. and WHEREAS, the City has the responsibility to monitor encroachments to confirm that they do not hinder safe use of the lakeshore public commons by the public: and WHEREAS. the dock and Commons Advisory Commission is charged v4th making recommendations as to policy which the City Council may from time to time consider and adopt regarding use of the public commons, including regulation of encroachments thereon. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. that the Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission hereby recommends that the City Council consider for adoption and implementation to following policy: PUBLIC COMMONS ENCROACHMENT POLICY Sc_!9,Ei. The policy recommendations contained herein are intended to apply only to lakeshore public commons and not to other public property in the city. While a similar policy might bc applicable in those situations, it is beyond the scope of these recommendations. The policy recommendations also are intended to apply only to encroaching structures which were allo-~d at the time of construction bm which could not be constructed under the city's current regulations. This would be analogous to nonconforming structures that are not on commons. Specifically this recommendation does not apply to those sl2'uctures which were legal at the time of construction and could be legally constructed under cun'ent regulations. This would generally include stairs, erosion control structures and safety structures such as lighting and rails. The repair and maintenance of those structures is subject to other provisions of the City Code. The most recent summary of encroaching structures (January. 1995) indicates that there are approximately 10 buildings, 13 decks. I0 platforms, $ fences and a small number (less than 10) of miscellaneous structures such as bird houses and flagpoles, which would be subject to the policy recommendations contained herein. POLICY- A. Encroaching structures should eventually be removed. Existing encroaching structures which violate the use plan should eventually disappear from thc public commons. B. The removal of encroaching structures should not be hastened, but should be subject to the conditions contained in Paragraph below. The city should not deny approval to maintain a structure on commons which would otherwise bc approved for nonconforming structures that are not on commons. C. _Only in soecial situations should the removal of a structure be hastened. Four situations which would allow for proactive steps to h~sten removal arc: 1. Significant safe~y problems exist that the structure's owner is unable or unwilling to rectify within a reasonable time period. Thc life of the structure has come to an end. The life of the structure v-ill be deemed to have come to an end when any of the following circumstances occur: a. safety hazards exists for which the cost of repair is equal to 50% or more of the fair market value of the structure before repair. bo Co the functional use of thc structure is impaired such that restoration to functionality would cost 50% or more of the fair market value of the stmcturc before repair. aesthetic appearance of the structure becomes so deficient that the restoration to an acceptable appearance would cost 50% or more of the fair market value of the structure before repair. The structure significantly hinders the use of thc commons by others and the owner is unwilling or unable to alleviate the hinderance within a reasonable time. Any of the above conditions exist and no one is willing to accept ownership of or responsibility for the structure. SO/1~O 2.8-0 i-~eO T. he permit process for structures should be continued both as a means of monitoring encroachments and as a source of revenue, through permit fees, to underwrite enforcement efforts. The permit period should be increased from three years to five years: and should be transferable if the abutting property changes hands providing the criteria for continuation of thc structure are present. A permit fee should be charged for each structure which would be collected in five annual installments of $15 each.~ h~ instances in which the permit holder also receives a dock license from the city., the dock license would not be issuccl until bo,il! the annual installment and the dock license fee were paid (provided that ownership of the encroachment is'"' r~ot in dispute). The structure fee would be carried in a separate ~ in thc dock fund and would be used for enforcement and administration, o*o~ Es* Maintenance and Repair requests should be reviewed and acted .uvon using the same criteria as that used for the repair ann m~aint.enance of nonconformine structures pursuant to Section 350:420 of the Code (assumit~ that_the structure would not, fo. llowine repair, come Within a~y of the circumstances described in paragraph C_above.. This policy permits maintenance and repair of non-structural elements of the structure only. structural work would not be permitted. L//F. T. he owners of encroaching structures should be made legally responsible for the structure through the use of .I.egal 'encumbrances and other means available to the CiR. The decision flow chart as shown in Attachment A and thc guidelines for writing staff reports should be amended as shown in _Attachrncn.t_~ so that both will be consistent with these rccomrner~dations- ~ Although beyond the scope of this recommendation, it is suggested that the fee be made applicable to all encroachments on the public commons. 3 PROPOSED REVISIONS COMMONS TASK FORCE 11-7-96 I ~, ,~ a ~ ,, (AS IT APPLIES TO LAKESHORE COMMONS) DECISqON FLOW CHART Adopted b~ Resolution ~93-51, on ~ril 27, 1}93 IMPL~ENTING ~ PROCESSING OF SPECIAL PE~ITS FOR PRIVATE S~U~RES ~D ~IVATE CONS~U~ION A~IVITIES ON PUBLIC ~NDS (~CU~TED BY CI~ CODE ME.ION 320) ~gczI'~ "PUgLIC ~ND (~) P~codu=e Manual). ( allNO~~G U~. lt~ ~ ~ City A STRU~E OR SEPA~TE ~tob6n~,~~fo~i~m~m~t ~UILDING ~T t~ M~u~ ~ql at ~m~ ~ve m ~ ]A~ACEED ~ ~ ] [ ~S REQUIRED. for, H~m~ ~ ~ble, ~d ~ s~ I ~ State Bm~di~ C~ RE~UTRK APPROVAL ~OTHER A~E~? ~F YES, RECEIVE APPROV~ ~OM AGENCY ~EN PROCEED. DENY REQUEST. YES NU~ ~ EXISTING PUBLIC LANDS (new) NANCS (repair exist- - LAND ALTERATION lng ~tructure) (grading, retaining CONTINUATION OF walls, trees, etc.) STRUCTURE (to remain "as ts") HOUSE OR OTHER gUILDING? ~[<9)' [WILL THE REQUEST I E,m'~CE *ND E. COURAGE {...~[THE USS OF ~S PUBLIC [ LANDS BY THE GENERAL { PUBLIC AS DEFINED gY ITHE USE PLAN? YES 1 SHOULD THE CIT~ BUILD OR MAINTAIN? (13) YES ~NO GRANT PERMIT UP TO 5 YEARS AND RENU~ABLE. I in a negative impact on the Uae Plan? I five ylarl and renewable. DENY REQUEST. DEVELOP PLAN ACCORDING TO PRIORITIES. (3) (5) YES WILL THE REQUEST JENHANCE AND ENCOURAGE iT HE USE OF THE PUBLIC --J LANDS BY THE GENERAL [PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY THE USE PLAN? NO WILL THE REQUEST RESULT IN A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE USE pLAN? I (15) ~ ) YEARS AND P. EN~ABLE, I YEARS, NOT RENEWABLE. PERMIT I~ T~SFE~SL~.[ ' ] /on ~he Use plen I~,,~J eube~antia], enough ~ ~o override ] nlqa~lvl ~pac~ On I ~hm ~ner of removing PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits Exhibit J Page 1 of 3 Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports for Public Land Permits Staff reports shall be written according to applicable ordinances, regulations, and policies, including: Use Plan Comprehensive Plan Shoreland Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200) "Policy for Structures on Public Lands" adopted by Resolution No. 93-142 on October 26, 1993 b.&c.: Recommendations for permissible uses, according to the Decision Flow Chart, such as sta/rways, retaining walls, land alterations, etc., will be based on the following: ao If a structure is in good condition and meets the building code, staff will recommend to the City Council permit approval for 5 years. Use a means of enforcement other than witholding dock permits. Instead, use fines, liens, special assessments, etc. (Abutters need to be made legally responsible for their encroachments). If a structure is in good condition but does not meet building code, staff will recommend approval and the structure must comply with code within the time specified by the City Council and dock permit will not be issued until structure meets code. If structure is not corrected or removed within t/me specified by City Council that dock site will be exempt from dock license issuance. The permit holder for that structure must remove or correct the structure at their expense, if not, the City will attempt to abate through legal channels. Co If a structure is in hazardous condition staff will recommend removal or correction immediately. The Site Holder's Dock License will not be issued until structure meets code. The dock site will be reserved for the that dock site holder until the structure is corrected, however, the dock will not receive it's license. Recommendations for uses inconsistent with the Decision Flow Chart and other applicable regulations shall be reviewed on a case by case basis. Buildings or other structure may require separate legal review, and the following information should be assembled: pertinent facts, history, existing conditions, current photos, and a draft report. This information should be submitted to the City Manager and City Attorney for review, when necessary. qev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96 PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports for Public Land Permits, cont. Exhibit J Page 2 of 3 4. Stairways: ao New Stairways. All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform Building Code standards for residential stairways. Existing Stairways. All stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this Procedure Manual (4-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe or otherwise unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures, provided such continued use is not dangerous to life. Co Alterations or Repairs to Existing Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any stairway without requiring the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway. Maintenanc~e of Stairwav._.__.____._~s ancl Othe_._Lr Structure._______2s. Ail stairways, both existing and new,-") and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the ~._ permit 15 issued is responsible for all mmntenance. appro;'¢ such repairs. The City shall inspect and approve such repairs where a building permit is required. e. Minor Maintenance of Stiarwavs and Ohter Structures. Minor maintenance of any currently permitted stiarwav, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can and should be done at the discretion of the homeowner or upon the direction of the Building Official, Parks Director or Dock Inspector. Correction Orders. All stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by the Building Official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal. Electrical: All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply t-o from the abutting property must be disconnected by a qualified electrical contractor until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Pre-existing electrical installations that do not meet code shall be ~iven thirty (30) days to be brought up to code. Expiration Date for Permits: All permits, for each property, will be made to expire concurrently. Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96 PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports for Public Land Permits, cont. Exhibit J Page 3 of 3 e 10. 11. Minor Maintenance: Minor maintenance of any currently permitted encroachment5 er, is6~ b~ can and should be made (without a public land permit) at the discretion of the permit holder or upon the direction of the Building Official, Parks Director, or Dock Inspector. The Dock Inspector currently writes correction orders for minor items such as loose treads, handrails, or replacement of boards on docks. The Building Official is to be copied on all correction orders regarding building code items. Platforms: Platforms (one edge on-grade) for the use of dock storage, not exceeding 4' x 8', consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance at 32 square feet, are allowable on Class A and C Common areas only, due to steep slope and nontraversibility. Riprap: Riprapping of the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka that is below the 100 year floodplain elevation of 931 is regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and below the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 929.5 is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. Permits are required from these agencies before a Public Lands Permit can be granted by the City of Mound. Seawalls.' Basically the same as riprapping (above). Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance for more regulations. Vegetation Alterations and Trimming: Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96 Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 1997 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1997 Those present: Vice Chair Michael Mueller, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Gerald Reifschneider, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Chair Geoff Michael, Jerry Clapsaddle, Building Official Jon Sutherland. Public Present: Carol Krasnow-Hammer, Jeff Bishop, Steve Sobeniak, Jerry Aman. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 10, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Bill Voss requested to be added to the present list and Orv Burma requested to be removed from the present list. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the November 10, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting with the above stated corrections. Motion carried 7-0. CASE # 97-55: Variance: Rear yard setback variance to construct an addition, Carol A Krasnow-Hammer, 5972 Hillcrest Road, Mound Shores, PID # 14-117-24 42 0070 The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize a rear yard setback to build an addition on the rear of the house. The setback and proposed variance are listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Rear Yard 1 0.3' 1 5' 4.7' An encroachment of the west portion of the home into the rear yard setback has ! Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 1997 prompted the request. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the home in the side yard and conforms to code requirements with a 23 feet setback. This home is in within the R-1 residential zoning district. The proposal is to build a 9 feet by 30 feet single story addition for a bedroom and future expansion space for the kitchen. The applicant states the improvements will also make the home more functional. This layout will relocate and upgrade a half bath to a full size that is easily accessible from all areas of the home. The new bathroom would be centrally located between two bedrooms and the kitchen. Off the bathroom is the new 9 feet 6 inch by 14 feet bedroom with a large closet. The common wall between the bedroom and bath will be moved in 6 inches for more bedroom space. Future kitchen expansion space is provided in the addition. This space provides an additional access from the kitchen to the rear of the house. The house faces and is addressed to Hillcrest Road although the yard spaces are opposite for zoning purposes. The narrow street frontage which is Sycamore Lane establishes yard spaces. The rear yard is west of the garage and side yard is north of the rear of the home. Front yards are adjacent to Hillcrest and Sycamore. The request to recognize the rear yard encroachment is a reasonable request to allow property improvements. Staff feels that there is a practical difficulty present that would warrant granting a variance for the proposed improvements. The addition to the home will not increase the nonconformity of the rear yard setback or create a new nonconforming situation. The improvements will increase the livability of the home and add to the value of the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. Discussion: Reifschneider questioned if there was also a side yard variance required. Gordon confirmed that the rear yard was the only nonconforming year space and the proposed 23 feet side yard exceeds the 10 feet requirement. Hanus questioned how it is determined which side is considered the front yard on a corner lot. Gordon stated that it is the frontage with the shorter length that determines how the yard spaces are defined. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to approve staff recommendation with correction on item E to state, "The variance requested is the minimum variance which could alleviate the hardship." Along with the Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 1997 statement that the proposed addition does not create a vision obstruction for any adjacent properties. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to City Council on December 16, 1997 CASE # 97-56: Variance: Side yard setback variances to construct a new home, Jeff & Marie Bishop, 1549 & 1551 Bluebird Lane, Lots 6 & 31, Block 6, Woodland Point, PID # 12-117-24 43 0038 & 12-117-24 43 0052 The applicant is requesting side yard variances in order to build a new home. The proposal is to combine lots 6 and 31 of Woodland Point, Block 6 into one parcel. The 1549 Bluebird Lane residence will be removed initially in preparation for the proposed home. During construction, the applicant will occupy the 1551 Bluebird residence. Upon completion of the new home, that residence would also be removed. The combination of these two lots causes the lot of record status to go away. Side yard requirements would change to a 10 feet minimum. The resulting parcel would be a legally conforming lot encompassing 10,240 sf, measuring 40 feet by approximately 251 feet. Listed below are the requested variances. Existing (@ 1549) Side Yard (south) 3' Side Yard (north) 10' Proposed Required Variance 6' 10' 4' 6' 10' 4' The proposed home is a two-story design with a two stall attached garage. The home has 5 bedrooms and 3 baths on the first and second floors. Kitchen and living rooms are located on the first floor. A utility room is also located off the entry from the garage. The basement is about half as large as the first floor in area and is a walkout. Front and rear yard setbacks of the proposed home would be approximately 87 feet from Bluebird Lane and 74 feet from Lake Minnetonka. The lake setback mimics the adjacent homes. The existing driveway currently used by the 1 549 residence will be retained for the new home. The proposal meets residential redevelopment objectives by combining nonconforming undersized lots into legal conforming lots. Through this combination however, the lot loses its lot of record status, which increases the side yard requirements from 6 to 10 feet. The applicant feels this is a hardship to redevelopment. Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 1997 Currently, both properties have delinquent water and sewer utility bills. The City of Mound recently sent certified statements to Hennepin County for their inclusion on the respective property tax roles. These statements do not include the current billings that will be ready in a week. Under Minnesota Statue Section 462.353 subdivision 5, a delinquent bill may be used as a condition for approval of an application. "A municipality may require, either as part of the necessary information on an application or as a condition of a grant of approval, an applicant for an amendment to an official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364, or for a permit or other approval required under an official control established pursuant to those sections to certify that there are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, penalties, interest, and municipal utility fees due on the parcel to which the application relates. Property taxes which are being paid under the provisions of a stipulation, order, or confession of judgment, or which are being appealed as provided by law, are not considered delinquent for purposes of this subdivision if all required payments are due under the terms of the stipulation, order, confession of judgment, or appeal have been paid." In weighing this case the Planning Commission will need to consider the benefits of the proposed improvements. The variance request does not meet the 75 percent side yard setback rule used for nonconforming uses. If the improvements to the property are considered to be of greater benefit, then the Planning Commission should clearly state the reasons a variance should be granted. From a staff perspective, the proposed improvements outweigh the code requirements for side yard setbacks. The proposal reflects the setbacks of the adjacent lots, the lakeside setback is consistent with adjacent properties, and hardcover requirements are satisfied. The improvements should be a positive improvement to the property and the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Recommendation' Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions. 1. The existing residence located at 1551 Bluebird Lane be removed upon completion of the new residence. 2. A revised survey be submitted at time of building permit application that meets all City survey requirements including proposed grades, existing and proposed utilities and setbacks. 3. All delinquent utility bills be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. Discussion: Weiland stated that there is now two hookups for sewer and water, what happens so the homeowner does not have two billings. It was discussed that one of the 4 Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 1997 services would be removed. Public Works would address the method of capping or removing water and sewer pipes.. Burma questioned whether the bay window was off the ground. Gordon stated that it was off the ground and would not be considered part of the side yard setback. Voss questioned why a bond issue was not included in the recommendation. Gordon stated that it's usually included in the comments and it probably should be addressed. Mueller questioned whether there should be a bond or easement or possibly both. Mueller stated that the lots be combined prior to issuance of either building permit or certificate of occupancy. Mueller also recommended the following changes: Item //1 Post a bond and/or place an easement over the property in regards to removal of the home at 1551. Item //2 Combination of the two lots prior to Certificate of Occupancy Item //3 A revised survey be submitted at time of building permit application that meets all City survey requirements including proposed grades, existing and proposed utilities and setbacks. Item #4 All delinquent utility bills be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. Item//5 A drainage easement is required. Item //6 Upon completion of the new home and the removal of the 1 551 residence, only one water and sewer service to the property exist and the Public Works department shall determine the most feasible means to accomplish this. Hanus questioned if there was an ordinance regarding combination of parcels. He felt that it fell under the same guidelines as a minor subdivision. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to accept staff recommendation with the above additions. There was an amendment to Item # 3 to add a drainage plan. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to accept staff recommendation with additions and amendments. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to City Council on December 16, 1997 Mueller drew a vote on the clarification of which ordinance does the combination of Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 1997 the lots fall under. A decide is needed prior to December 16 meeting. Also, a copy of the determination back to the planning commission for future reference. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to request staff to clarify the ordinance to which the combination of lots/parcels fall under. Motion carried 7-0 APPROVAL OF 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES. Mueller recommended to cancel the December 28, 1998 meeting. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to accept the 1998 Planning Commission dates with the cancellation of the December 28, 1998 meeting. Motion carried 7-0. INFORMATIONAL: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 Voss questioned about the progress with block grants. Hanus stated that there has been discussion on City Council level. There was further discussion on CDBG funds. Gordon mentioned the program that the City of Richfield has implemented. There will be a presentation to the Planning Commission on January 26, 1998. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 pm. The motion carried 7-0. MINUTES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION-NOVEMBER 20, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7 a.m. Members Present: Brewer. Absent and excused: Drahos. Also Absent: Cook, Bruce Chamberlain, Gino Businaro and Ed Shukle. Meisel, Jensen, Pietrowski and Longpre. Also Present: Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Brewer and carried unanimously, the minutes of the October 16, 1997 meeting were approved. Lost Lake Improvement Project Chamberlain and Shukle updated the EDC on the status of the dredge plans, dredge disposal site and further promotional materials on the Lost Lake project. Chamberlain indicated that the dredge plans are being worked on currently. Shukle indicated that the agreement between the party and the City is in the final draft stage and would be ready for execution very soon. Chamberlain reviewed the draft of some promotional material that will be used by various agencies, the school district through certain social studies classes, and the general public regarding the Lost Lake project and the redevelopment of Mound's downtown area. Auditor's Road Improvement Proiect Shukle updated the status of this project. Concern was expressed about the safety of the demolished area along the new Auditor's Road. Shukle indicated that fencing would be placed in the area to prevent people from driving or walking across the rough parts of the area that was demolished. Cook asked about the status of the relocation of the Post Office. This will be on the agenda at the next EDC meeting. Update on Westonka Community Center Shukle reported that the referendum is scheduled for Thursday, December 4, 1997. If the referendum passes, the City of Mound and the School District will attempt to finalize a joint powers agreement. If the referendum fails, other options will be explored. Other Business It was noted that the annual Christmas Party is scheduled for Sunday, December 14, American Legion beginning at 5:30 p.m. RSVP's are due by December 9. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 18, 1997, 7 a.m., Mound City Hall. Cook EDC Minutes November 20, 1997 Page 2 is scheduled to bring the rolls. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 a.m. iectfully submitted, Ed~ City Manager Decision Resources Ltd. REPORT OF KEY FINDINGS Westonka Communities Survey Methodology: This study contains the results of a stratified telephone survey of 336 randomly selected residents of the Cities of Mound, Minnetrista, an~l Spring Park. The average interview took eleven minutes. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across these communities between August 20 and 27, 1997. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adults in the Westonka Communities within + 5.5 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demographics: The median longevity of adult residents in the city was found to be 1 !.3 years. Twenty-seven percent of residents had lived in the Westonka Area for five years or less, while twenty-six percent had been in the area for over twenty years. The median adult age of residents was found to be 45.8 years old. Twenty percent posted ages less than 35 years old, while twenty percent posted ages over 64 years old. Twenty-one percent of households contained senior citizens. Thirty percem of households contained school-aged children; of these, seventy-eight percent attended Westonka Public Schools. Eleven percem of households contained pre-schoolers. Eighty-one percent owned their present residences. The median current value of residemial property was $130,000.00. Women and men were equally represented in the sample. City representation was re-weighted to reflect population. Fi~3r-two percent resided in the City of Mound. Twenty-seven percent lived in the City of Spring Park, and twemy-one percent lived in City of Minnetrista. 3128 Dean Court · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 · (612) 920-0337 ' Fax (612) 929-6166 Westonka Communities 1997 Community Center Study Awareness of the Wes'tonga Community Center Issue: Seventy-six percent recalled seeing or hearing something about the Community Center. Residents in the Westonka Communities for more than ten years, households with children, and Mound City residents were more likely to recall heating or seeing something about the Community Center. People who did not recall anything were more apt to be residents of the Westonka Area for less than ten years, empty nesters, 18-44 year olds, renters and City of Spring Park residents. When probed on the specifics of what they recalled, thirty-three percent remembered "several construction possibilities." "Remodeling of facility" was recalled by sixteen percent, while "tearing down old facility" was mentioned by sixteen percent. "High cost of project" was posted by five percent. Those who recalled hearing or seeing information were asked for their impression of the project. Among those recalling information, thirty percent were favorable toward the project, while twenty-five percent were unfavorable. Seventeen percent had mixed opinions, while twenty-eight percent were uncertain about their feelings toward the project. Residents of the Westonka Area for more than ten years tended have a more unfavorable opinion about the current project. Residents who were unsure of their opinion about the project at this point tended to have lived in the area for less than ten years. If an impression were given, residents were asked for reasons for their opinions. Twenty-six percent felt the Center was "worth remodeling." Thirteen percent thought "people deserve a community center," while twelve percent reported the "cost was too high." Ten percent felt the "current location is a good location." Eight percent would support it if the "cost was acceptable." Eight percent wanted to preserve the "historical landmark," but seven percent supported "a new building." Residents were asked whether the current plans call for the Community Center to be converted to a Recreation Center. Only twelve percent felt current plans called for the Community Center's conversion into a full-service Recreation Center, while sixty-one percent accurately reported that current plans do not have this feature. Misconceptions about the current plans were encountered more often among households with children and City of Mound residents. Reactions to Current Plans: Residents were then read a list of specific proposals concerning the renovation and remodeling of the current Westonka Community Center in Mound. Majorities supported each of the main aspects of the current Community Center proposal. Two proposals broke the seventy percent support level: eighty-two percent of residents supported extensive remodeling and renovation of Page 2 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 DEAN COURT MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA Hello, I'm 55416 WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS CITIES OF MOUND AND MINNETRISTA FINAL VERSION calling on behalf of JIF CITY OF--MOUND SAY:] the-City of Mound and the Westonka School District. JIF CITY OF MINNETRISTA SAY:] the City of Minnetrista and the Westonka School District. JIF CITY OF SPRING PARK SAY;] the Westonka School District. We are speaking with a random sample of residents about issues facing the area. I want to assure you that all individual re- sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. Approximately how many years have you lived in the Westonka Area? LESS THAN ONE YEAR ..... 3% ONE OR TWO YEARS ....... 9% . THREE TO FIVE YEARS...15% ' SIX TO TEN YEARS ...... 17% ELEVEN - TWENTY YRS...20% OVER TWENTY YEARS ..... 36% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0% There have been discussions lately about the Westonka Community Center located at the old High School Building in Mound. 2. Do you recall hearing or seeing YES ............... 76% anything about the Community Center? NO ..... ''''20% DON'T ~d~~ ........... /REFUSED ..... 4% IF "YES," ASK: (N=257) o What do you recall seeing or hearing about the Communi- ty Center? o DON'T KNOW, 2%; READ SOMETHING, 3%; HEARSAY 7%; REMODEL, 16%; UP FOR SALE m ' , 8°; TEAR DOWN, 16%; CONSTRUCT NEW, 3%; MOVE TO NEW LOCATION, 5%; SEVERAL CONSTRUCTION POSSIBILITIES, 33%; NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE, 2%; COST OF PROJECT, 5%; SCATTERED, 1%. Do you generally feel favor- FAVORABLE .... 30% able or unfavorable about the UNFAVORABLE ......... project based upon what you MIXED ........... 25% have heard or read? DON'T 28% IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=186) Why do you feel that way? DON'T KNOW, 2%; WORTH REMODELING, 26%; WANT NEW BUILDING, 7%; COST TOO MILCH, 12%; DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE, 5%; GOOD LOCATION, 10%; PEOPLE DESERVE IT, 13%; IF COST IS ACCEPTABLE, 8%; GOOD PROGRAMS/SERVICES, 4%; HISTORICAL LANDMARK, 8%; SCATTERED, 6%. As you may recall, there have been discussions about remodeling and renovating the Community Center. o From what you have seen or heard recently, do current plans call for the Community Center's conversion into a full-service Recreational Center, similar to a health club? YES ................... 12% NO .................... 61% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED .... 27% In fact, the current proposal does not call for that type of conversion, at all. Let's talk about the current Westonka Community Center. As you may know, it houses School District Administration Offices, Community Education Program Offices, the Early Childhood and Family Education Program, the Youth Center, the Senior Center, the Adult Basic Education Program, the Head Start Program, the Westonka Community Action Network, and the TRI-AX Public Access Cable Television Production Studios, in addition to 9ymnasium space. The intent of the current proposal is to remodel and renovate this facility to better serve the needs of its users. Now, I would like to read you a list of specific proposals con- cerning the renovation and remodeling of the current Westonka Community Center in Mound. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose it. If you have no opinion just say so. ( ROTATE ) , o o o Extensive remodeling and renovation of the Community Center to comply with life-safety, and fire codes, as well as promote better handicapped accessibility. Modernizing office and classroom spaces for greater efficiency and flexibility of uses. Upgrading and enlarging the senior center area for better space effici- ency and accessibility. STS SMS SMO STO DKR 56% 26% 6% 5% 7% 34% 38% 8% 6% 14% 36% 30% 7% 7% 21% 10. Retaining of one of the two gym- haslum spaces for community use, while converting the second gym- nasium space into a community performing arts facility for band or choir concerts and community or school district theater productions. STS SMS SMO STO DKR 39% 29% 12% 8% 13% 11. Creation of interior courtyards in the "pod area" to simplify finding ones way around the building and to promote better roof drainage. 32% 32% 10% 10% 17% 12. Remodeling or the locker rooms to provide updated recreational support space. 24% 34% 10% 7% 25% 13. Additional parking space at the facility. 32% 29% 14% 9% 16% If the current Community Center were renovated and remodeled along the lines we have discussed .... 14. Would you support or oppose the renovation and remodeling of the current facility? (WAIT FOR RE- SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY SUPPORT ...... 36% SUPPORT ............... 38% OPPOSE ................. 7% STRONGLY OPPOSE ........ 6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 13% IF A POSITION IS TAKEN, ASK: (N=294) 15. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? DON'T KNOW, 1%; REMODELING NEED, 25%; IF COST IS ACCEPTABLE, 13%; DON'T RAISE TAXES, 2%; PEOPLE DE- SERVE IT, 19%; GOOD FOR FUTURE OF COMMUNITY, 18%; CONSTRUCT NEW CENTER, 5%; GOOD LOCATION, 5%; COST TOO MUCH, 6%; HISTORICAL LANDMARK, 5%; SCATTERED, 1%. The remodeling and renovation of the Community Center would require the issuance of municipal bonds. In order to finance the construction costs, an increase in residential and commercial property taxes would be required. 16. How much would you be willing to NOTHING ............... 18% pay in additional property taxes $2.00 .................. 6% to fund the renovation and re- $4.00 .................. 9% modeling of the Westonka Community $6.00 ................. 14% Center? (START AT RANDOMLY SELECT- $8.00 .................. 8% ED LEVEL) Let's say, would you be $10.00 ................ 25% willing to pay $__ per month? DON'T KNOW ............ 19% (MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RE- REFUSED ................ 1% SPONSE) How about $ per month? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes ..... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest. 17. First, persons 65 or over? 18. School-aged children? 20. 21. 0 ..................... 79% 1 ..................... 14% 2 OR MORE .............. 7% 0 ..................... 71% 1 ..................... 15% 2 ..................... 10% 3 OR MORE .............. 5% IF SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN ARE PRESENT, ASK: (N=98) 19. Do they attend public schools WESTONKA PUBLIC ....... 78% in this district, public OTHER PUBLIC ........... 6% schools in another district, parochial schools, private schools, or home school? Pre-schoolers? Do you own or rent your present residence? PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS ...... 9% PRIVATE SCHOOLS ........ 5% HOME SCHOOL ............ 1% COMBINATION (VOL.) ..... 1% REFUSED ................ 0% 0 ..................... 89% 1 ...................... 9% 2 OR MORE .............. 2% OWN ................... 81% RENT .................. 19% REFUSED ................ 0% IF "OWN," ASK: (N=273) 23. 24. 25. 22. What is the current value of your residential property -- under $75,000, $75,000- $125,000, $125,000-$175,000, or over $175,0007 What is your age, please? (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) Gender (DO NOT ASK) REGION (FROM LIST) : UNDER $75,000 .......... 6% $75,000-$125,000 ...... 35% $125,001-$175,000 ..... 25% OVER $175,000 ......... 30% DON'T KNOW ............. 4% REFUSED ................ 1% 18-24 .................. 3% 25-34 ................. 17% 35-44 ................. 27% 45-54 ................. 20% 55-64 ................. 13% 65 AND OVER ........... 20% REFUSED ................ 0% MALE .................. 48% FEMALE ................ 52 % MOUND ................. 52% SPRING PARK ........... 27% MINNETRISTA ........... 21% ~ 0 , ~:~ 0 0 0 0 II II 0 r~ 0 © 0 (~ v + n. o~ o o 0 0 0 0 ct '0 0 0 ~o 0 + 0 + J ,1 ,, il, ,,I, o~ 0 e~ 0 0 ,13 o {o 0 0 0 0 rt 0 ~ 03 "o r-. ,.- o ~o ~ 0 om 0 0 0 0 rr 0 0 0 ~' 0 ,'~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 m m 0 0 ~ ~ cl. t.~ ,-] 0 + v 0 ~t 0 0 0 0 ~D m~ 0 0 m o o ~ to o 0 ~f~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r~ ~ · 0 o .o 0 0 ~J 0 + ~ Il torn 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ 0 0 0 0 ~J ta-j I-~^ 0 + 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 u~ 0 + r~ o~ 0 13' (~ 0 0 0 0 ~' · V~ · 0 0 ~ W 0 (3("3 0 H J. ,l ,, Ii, , I, ~ 0 r~ ~ o 0 0 ID' o 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 CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT NOV. 1997 91.67% NOV. 1997 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,266,460 0 649,296 (617,164) 51.27% 6,250 20 4,412 (1,838) 70.59% 121,800 12,043 127,376 5,576 104.58% 968,210 2,852 595,566 (372,644) 61.51% 51,100 580 9,520 (41,580) 18.63% 65,000 5,159 98,460 33,460 151.48% 43,300 150 32,141 (11,159) 74.23% 43,500 0 0 (43,500) 0.00% 10,000 2,648 13,349 3,349 133.49% TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 2.575.620 23.452 1.530.120 !1.045.500} 59.41% 336,020 14,914 349,971 13,951 104.15% 108,320 6,187 112,333 4,013 103.70% 1,525,000 121,922 1,378,974 (146,026) 90.42% 430,000 31,960 388,407 (41,593) 90.33% 880,000 87,164 884,983 4,983 100.57% 4,100 0 2,145 (1,955) 52.32% 73,800 0 70,192 (3,608) 95.11% 12/15/1997 rev97 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT NOV. 1997 91.67% 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 NOV. 1997 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE 69,370 4,000 80O 193,470 2,100 59,480 168 960 23.550 114.460 924 350 4 100 172~870 405 270 82,840 148,550 36,200 20,000 161,390 5,574 75,046 0 4,000 124 1,537 13,018 169,474 106 1,963 20 61,439 12,176 144,836 317 15,716 17,218 94,515 65,465 775,097 654 2,809 16,061 157,433 33,833 373,652 6,028 75,228 7,374 131,866 0 0 6,144 29,181 12,869 141,561 VARIANCE (5,676) 0 (737) 23,996 137 (1,959) 24,124 7,834 19,945 149,253 1,291 15,437 31,61 8 7,612 16,684 36,200 (9,181) 19,829 PERCENT EXPENDED 108.18% 100.00% 192.13% 87.6O% 93.48% 103.29% 85.72% 66.73% 82.57% 83.85% 68.51% 91.07% 92.20% 90.81% 88.77% 0.00% 145.91% 87.71% GENERALFUNDTOTAL 2 591 760 196,981. 2 255 353 336,407 87.02% Area Fire Service Fund Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund 336,020 118,950 211,920 351,460 1,020,460 8,100 68,440 14,795 248,150 87,870 73.85% 9,648 129,645 (10,695) 108.99% 11,754 191,506 20,414 90.37% 21,593 354,395 (2,935) 100.84% 57,209 1,008,633 11,827 98.84% 0 7,742 358 95.58% 643 41,728 26,712 60.97% Exp-97 12/15/1997 G.B. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 9, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, December 9, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr., Police Chief Len Harrell, City Attorney John Dean, and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Mathew Simmons, Wilma Simmons, Michael Simmons, Ken Persing, Maureen Leckland, Karen Cole, Germaine Persing, Beth Olson, Chelsie Olson, and Ryan Olson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 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. 1.0 PRESENTATION OF COMMENDATION TO GERMAINE JOY PERSING FOR HER I.IFE-SAVING EFFORTS IN ASSISTING A HEART ATI'ACK VICTIM. The Police Chief related the background for the presentation of commendation to Germaine Persing. He and the Mayor presented Ms. Persing with the plaque. *CONSENT AGENDA: Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 1997, REGULAR MEETING MOTION '1.2 Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS AT LAKE MINNETONKA BOWL Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. '1.3 Mound City Council Minutes - December 9, 1997 RESOLUTION//97-123 RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS AT LAKE MINNETONKA BOWL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AM~;NDING SECTION 437:05. SUBDIVISION 7 O1,' THE CiTY CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION BB THERETO RELATING TO SHARE~ .DOCKS, COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM ORDINANCE ~92-1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437:05, SUBDIVISION 7 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION BB THERETO RELATING TO SHARED DOCKS, COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. '1.4 APPROVAL OF 1998 DOCK LOCATION MAP MOTION '1.5 PAYMENT OF MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. 1.6 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ADDITION TO SHIRLEy H I !.Lq El,EM ENTARY SCHOOL. WF~qTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOL~. The City Manager reported that this item has been continued since April because of the Task Force Study on renovating the existing Westonka Community Center. The School District held a Special Referendum Election on December 4, 1997, to authorize the issuance and sale of up to $7.7 million dollars in bonds for this project. The result was positive with 819 voting yes to 615 voting no. Since the passage of the referendum the City Council and the School Board need to meet to negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement. Assuming this is fmali?ed, this application becomes mute, but if for some reason the Joint Powers Agreement doesn't come together, there is the possibility that this would come back before the City Council at a later date. He has discussed this with the City Attorney and we have several options as follows: Continue this public hearing to a date certain; or Set the item aside and deal with it as an application if it were to come back (this wou require publication of another public hearing notice but would not make the applicant go through the entire application process again). 2