1998-04-28AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*~_~.r.r.nLdg~_n~: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council
and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
PAGE
Bo
Do
Fo
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14, 1998
REGULAR MEETING.
................................. 1280-1301
CASE 98-15: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER,
JOP, J AYAZ, 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 15,
DEVON, PIDS//25-117-24 11 0046 & 25-117-24 11 0047 ............ 1302-1321
CASE 98-16: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, KYLE COSKY,
1932 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 9 AND PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0069 ................. 1322-1342
CASE 98-18: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD
SETBACK, CRAIG A. ROSE, 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE,
LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LP CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK,
PID # 13-117-24 42 0006.
............................... 1343-1358
CASE 98-04: MINOR SUBDIVISION, MARK & VAL STONE,
6380 BAYRIDGE ROAD, PART OF GOVT LOT 5 AND PART OF
ROLLING SHORES, PID#23-117-24 32 0037 ................... 1359-1392
PROCLAMATION - MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK - MAY 3 - MAY 9, 1998. 1393
PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT - USE OF MOUND BAY PARK-
MINNETONKA CLASSIC BASS CLUB, 11:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.,
WEIGH-IN ONLY, JUNE 6, 1998.
............................ 1394
1278
o
e
H. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS: ............................... 1395
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT - JUNE 6, 1998, FISI-I FRY
MOUND CITY DAYS - JUNE 19-21, 1998.
AMERICAN LEGION/VFW - PARADE PERMIT - MAY 25, 1998
I. RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE
(2OMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ................ 1396-1414
J. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................. 1415-1430
CONTINUED DISCUSSION: RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS
ADVISORY COMMISSION REGARDING A PROPOSED FISHING SITE OFF WILSHIRE
BLVD. (POSSIBLE HANDOUT TUESDAY, EVENING.) ............... 1431-1437
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Financial Report for March 1998, as prepared by Gino Businaro ........ 1438-1439
B. Planning Commission Minutes - April 13, 1998 ................... 1440-1451
C. Notice of Annual League of Minnesota Cities Conference -
June 16-19, 1998
Duluth, MN.
Please let Jodi know if you plan to attend, ASAP .................. 1452-1462
D. Notice from Hennepin County of a Public Hearing on Amendments
to Ordinance Number Seven - Hazardous Waste Management
Ordinance for Hennepin County. This will be held on May 19, 1998 ..... 1463-1499
E. Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority ....... 1500-1505
F. LMCD mailings ...................................... 1506-1534
G. The results of the Open Book Meeting that was held on April 20, 1998, and
a handout done by the Hennepin County Assessor's Office
H. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes - April 9, 1998 ............ 1535-1544
I. Invitation from the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School to
participate in the March for Park's event - April 26, 1998 ............ 1545-1548
Thank you letter from John Gabos .............................. 1549
Reply from Westonka Schools regarding a leaf compost site. Looks like we are
back to looking for another spot .............................. 1550
1279
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 14, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, April 14, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah
Weycker. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Loren Gordon,
City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Finance Director Gino
Businaro, City Insurance Agent Carl Bennetsen, Park Director Jim Fackler, City Clerk Fran
Clark and the following interested citizens: Thomas Stokes, Steve Behnke, John & Christine
Gabos, Greg Knutson, Becky Cherne, Gretchen & Gene Smith,Katherine & Tom Latcham, Kris
Linquist, Jonathan Paul, Don Hopkins, Mark Smith, Bob & Connie Schmidt, Ken Ryan, Colleen
Heal, A1 Coley, Daryl Nehring, and Vince Forystek.
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.
PRESENTATION TO MOUND WESTONKA BOYS HOCKEY TEAM.
The Mayor presented the Mound Westonka Boys Hockey team a Certificate of Recognition from
the City.
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
The City Manager stated that he has an Add-On Item concerning approval of the Labor Contract
between the City of Mound and Teamster's Local//320 - Police Officer/Investigator Detective
and Juvenile Officer.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda,
as presented and the Regular Agenda, as amended with the Add-On Item. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.0
*1.1
*1.2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24, 1998, REGULAR MEETING,
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 1998, JOINT MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
CASE #98-17: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT AREA,
HARDCOVER, KEN & KRIS LINQUIST, 2373 CHATEAU LANE,
LOT 13, BLOCK 4, L.P. CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 948-
LAFAYETTE PARK, PID#12-117-24 43 0096.
RESOLUTION g98-33
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD
SETBACK, LOT AREA, AND HARDCOVER
VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FULL SIZE
FOUNDATION UNDER THE EXISTING
DWELLING, AT 2373 CHATEAU LANE, LOT 13,
BLOCK 4, L P CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE
PARK, PID 13-117-24 43 0096, P & Z CASE//98-17
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.3
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING:
TEI.ECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES~ AMENDING SECTION
350:00 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 350:1300, ENTITLED,
"TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES".
ORDINANCE NO. 96-1998
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND
FACILITIES; AMENDING SECTION 350:00 BY
ADDING A NEW SECTION 350:1300,
ENTITLED, "TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TOWERS AND FACILITIES"
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
2
MOUND CITY COUNCIl, MINUTES- d, PRIL 24, 1998
'1.4
APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION, LITTLE
LEAGUE, BASEBALL AND SOFYBALL SIGN-UP ADVERTISEMENT.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.5
APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION, WESTONKA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ECFE FUNDRAISER.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.6 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT CKLAIR HASSE, 6627 BARTLETT BLVD.,
TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
RESOLUTION g98-34
RESOLUTION APPOINTING CKLAIR HASSE TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION; TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED
TERM OF GERALD REIFSCHNEIDER TERM EXPIRING
12/31/00
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.7
'1.8
SET BID OPENING FOR ANNUAL SEALCOAT PROJECT- SUGGESTED DATE:
APRIL 30, 1998, 11 A.M.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
LICENSE RENEWALS:
AMUSEMENT DEVICE,
REMOVAL.
GAMES OF SKILL
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
GAMES OF SKILL, POOL TABLES, BOWLING,
RESTAURANT, TREE
POOL TABLES
VFW Post #5113
3
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
BOWLING
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
AMUSEMENT DEVICE
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
RESTAURANT
A1 & Alma's
American Legion Post #398
Domino's Pizza//1974
Happy Garden
Hardee's
House of Moy
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
Scotty B's
Subway Sandwiches
VFW Post #5113
Uncharted Grounds
TREE REMOVAL LICENSE
Amberwood Tree Service
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM THE
'1
*1.10
STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS.
Requesting conveyance to the City of Mound of PID #25-117-24 12 0164 and//25-117-24
0169 for wetlands.
RESOLUTION//98-35
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR
CONVEYANCE FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN
TAX FORFEIT LANDS
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1998
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
1.11 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SETON BLUFF
PDA.
The Planner reviewed the revisions that have been made to the final plat to reflect comments
from the March 24th City Council Meeting. They are as follows:
1. The storm sewer ponding area previously located in the right-of-way is located
entirely within Lot 7.
2. Portions of the retaining walls that encroached into the right-of-way are also
located entirely within Lot 7.
3. The driveway entrance now has a width of 18 feet.
4. The setbacks on LOt 7 have been modified to eliminate front yard variances.
5. Minor adjustments in the yard setbacks to reflect changes in the driveway width.
Staff has been meeting with the developer to insure that these changes reflect the intent of
meeting the preliminary plat and the Staff is now recommending approval with a number of
conditions included in the resolution. Most of the conditions are procedural.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments for or against the final plat
approval of Seton Bluff PDA.
Steve Behnke, Fineline Homes, explained that he has some issues that concern him.
1. A continued request from Staff to treat the yard that abuts the unimproved right-
of-way on Lot 7 as a front yard and he considers this a sideyard.
When the plat was drawn, they specifically designed Lot 7 with the front yard
along the curve at the 40 foot minimum. They want to make sure this issue is
addressed in the final plat resolution.
2. The request for additional legal documents which came through yesterday. They
are working on this.
3. He questioned condition//22 in the proposed resolution that requires concrete
curb. They had assumed it would be an asphalt curb. The Mayor explained that
the street standards that the City of Mound has adopted require concrete curb and
gutter. The City Engineer stated that is correct and this was listed in the
preliminary plat as a requirement. The Engineer further stated that another
reason for the concrete curb and gutter is the retaining walls with no guard rail
to stop a vehicle from going over.
The Mayor closed the public heating.
5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
The Planner stated Staff is recommending final plat approval with the following conditions:
The final plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution
and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval
of the City Engineer. The location of all dwellings shall be only as provided on the
City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council; and any
inconsistent dwelling location in the final plat shall be ignored.
The Homeowner's Association documents will be prepared and submitted with the Final
Plat and incorporated into final plat resolution.
Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract
with the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items
covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the
final plat. As part of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with
a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved
by the City Attorney in the amount of 125 % of estimated construction costs as per plans
approved by the City Engineer.
o
The buildable area for each lot include all structure encompassing the house, attached
garage, decks and porches to meet the setbacks as requested.
5. Hardcover calculations reflect any plan modifications.
Engineer's certified design shall be provided for the retaining walls be furnished to the
City for review and approval.
The ponding area receive approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD).
Existing water service for the property at 2620 Kerry Lane shall be reconnected to the
new water main.
o
The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utilities
shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded and the
grade elevations are approved by the City Engineer. All utilities shall be located
underground.
10.
No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and
street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and
recorded at Hennepin County.
6
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
The approval would not be construed as creating an obligation on the part of the City to
expend funds to provide a location for off-site water storage.
The Conservation Easement will be provided and included in the Final Plat Approval.
The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit
from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat.
The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all
required and reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning
construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are
secured.
The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to
the city showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall
provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Seton
Bluff.
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of
the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period,
it shall become null and void.
The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Kildare Road and in any other portion
of the plat shall be borne by the developer, including all required utilities on which the
design shall be approved by the City Engineer.
A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and
provided prior to the Final Plat Approval. All of these documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the
Building Official will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access
servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent,
and Building Official.
The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and
subsequent management of the property.
Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $3,500 is to be paid prior to the
City releasing the final plat.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
22.
The City Engineer review and approve concrete curb along the south side of the private
driveway.
23.
The developer obtain a construction on public lands permit as stated in Section 320.
references to dwelling locations in the final plat shall be ignored.
There was discussion on hardcover. The Planner stated that the following needs to be
incorporated into//5 of the conditions regarding hardcover which has been recalculated and
should read "not to exceed 34.4% ". The developer agreed and stated he believes the hardcover
percentage will be approximately 30.6%.
The Council agreed, with adding the language to 115 of the conditions.
Councilmember Hanus asked about Item 112, the homeowners documents, which require certain
things and certain maintenance but could sometime be amended and changed. He asked if the
City should be in that loop to assure that i.e. the drainage pipe continues to be maintained by
the homeowners association. The Council asked that any changes to the drainage or stormwater
plan be revieWed by the City Staff and this be included in the documents. The City Attorney
stated this can be inserted.
Councilmember Hanus asked if this ponding has been approved by MCWD? The developer
stated, yes. The Engineer reminded the developer that he still must provide the MCWD with
a Maintenance Agreement in order to obtain the permit.
Councilmember Hanus asked the Item/ti 1. be amended to read as follows:
11.
"The approval would not be construed as creating an obligation on the part of the
City to expend funds to provide a location for, or any maintenance of, on-site or
off-site water storage."
The Staff and Council agreed.
Councilmember Hanus asked the 1123. be amended as follows:
23. "The developer obtain a construction on public lands permit as stated in Section 320."
.~4: ....... +~ ~4 .... 111~* 1~-1~. :..~ ,1~ ~.~ ~1~- ~11 ~* : ..... A
~e Council agr~
The Council discussed requiring a public lands permit for the rip-rapping that will be on City
property and maintained by the homeowners association, not the City.
Councilmember Hanus also asked about the $600. bill for surveying that was charged to the
Dock Fund be recovered from the developer and reimbursed to the Dock Fund. Mr. Behnke
agreed to pay the City for this survey. The Council asked that the following be added as
8
MOUND CITY COUNC1L MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
condition #24: The Escrow Account also to be sufficient to cover the costs incurred by the City.
Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution as amended:
RESOLUTION g98-36
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUND GRANTING FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL, FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AND
STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, SHORELAND
VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMISSION REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTIPLE SLIP
DOCK ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED AT ROANOKE LANE ACCESS.
The City Attorney made the following statement: "I have been asked by Councilmember Ahrens
to make a statement at this time. Councilmember Ahrens has elected to absent herself from
consideration of this matter. She has elected not to participate in the discussion and elected not
to participate in the vote on any matters here with respect to which there has been an assertion
that she may have a conflict of interest. That is point number one."
"Point number two. She has asked me to stress to you that her decision to do so is voluntary.
It is her choice and by making that decision she wants it to be made clear that the decision
should not be viewed as an admission of truth of any of the assertions that there may be a
conflict of interest nor is it a consent by her that there is, in fact, the admission of a conflict of
interest in that matter. That's the extent of the statement. Based upon that statement it would
appear that there is no issue for the Council to consider regarding a conflict of interest here.
As a result, the City Council is free to proceed to discuss the substance of the issues before it."
The Mayor made the following statement: "We, as a Council are here to find solutions to
problems. We are not here to create solutions for problems. We want to hear everyone who
wishes to be heard, but the ground rules for the City Council, the Staff, and those participating
in the discussion here, is that we will not allow any personal attacks on any members of the
audience, the City Council, or Staff. All comments or discussion will be directed to the Chair.
We will recognize those who wish to comment or speak. I insist that City Councilmembers,
Staff and members of the public treat each other with the utmost respect and dignity. We will,
in fact, try to answer any questions that you have. And from there, I will ask if anybody on the
City Council has anything they would like to add at this point?" There was no response. The
Mayor continued. "I know there are a number of people here on this item. Are there any
9
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
questions or comments or statements that you would like to make at this time?" There was no
response. The Mayor continued. "Over the past three years, there has been a Commons Task
Force that was appointed by the City Council to address the issues of improving the level of
comfort that both abutters and non-abutters could achieve on the Commons as it relates to docks.
As a result of the Task Force's work, there was a Docks and Commons Advisory Commission
(DCAC) was established. There have been a number of areas where the Docks and Commons
Commission have addressed the use of multiple docks to help alleviate congestion on Commons.
There was a survey of this particular area done by the Task Force and reviewed by the DCAC
that addressed the level of dissatsfacfion by abutters and non-abutters alike. There was
something like 75 % dissatisfaction in the Roanoke Access area."
The Mayor related that the DCAC has done other multiple slip docks in other areas and it has
been working out just fine. The DCAC addressed multiple slip docks on Roanoke Access.
Over the past month, it has become increasingly clear that there are, in fact, a number of people
who are not necessarily opposed to multiple docks, but they are opposed to the particular
location on the Roanoke Access where this is being proposed.
The Mayor stated that he has tried to meet with the people who are affected by any decision that
the City Council would make to try and find a level of comfort that everyone can live with.
"Realizing that there is nothing that we can do, as a City Council, or a society, that will make
everyone absolutely happy and give them everything they want as it relates to Commons Docks
and our Dock Program, but trying to give everyone some of the things they want to improve the
level of comfort they have with what's taking place. There was a proposal by the DCAC to
install a multiple slip dock up to 100 feet long and to provide for 4 or 5 slips. That raised the
discomfort level of a number of people, particularly those who live immediately within the area.
As an individual in going out to discuss this with some of the abutting homeowners and some
of the non-abutting dockholders, and asking what would be acceptable, there was a proposal
made that I indicated I would bring back to the City Council and discuss which involves moving
2 of the docks,//42886 and//41477 (Mr. Stead), to the Pembroke Park multiple slip dock. Mr.
Stead was, in fact, in favor of that because it would be closer to his home. This would be easier
for him to access and it would also be easier for who ever gets//41886 to get access because
they wouldn't have to traverse across a very small Commons. //41886 has not been used for the
last few years. This proposal would also free up another dock for a non-abutting property owner
that hasn't been used, that will probably get some use. The other proposal that I made to the
two dockholders, Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt, was that in fact the City is willing to put in a
City owned dock at Roanoke Lane Access fire lane which would facilitate 2 boats for each user
on each side of the dock, which would decongest the Commons further and would take away
what is considered a very unsafe Commons to traverse across in order to get to the dock. All
but one of the people that was affected was a non-abutter. One was willing to, the other was
opposed to it. So we come here tonight with an open mind to find a solution that is beneficial
to everyone, if that's possible. The Mayor suggested only putting Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt
on the City owned multiple dock at the Roanoke Access. The City Council could prohibit any
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1998
further expansion of that multiple dock to any other people."
The Mayor asked for comments from the people present.
BARB CASEY stated she has had her dock for 12 years and has never had a problem accessing
her dock. She stated she does not have a problem with moving #41886 or #41477, but would
prefer to have her dock and Bob Schmidt's dock left where they are.
The Council discussed having Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Casey share a City owned multiple dock
or a privately owned dock at the Roanoke Access. Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt do not want this
because of congestion in the area.
The Council discussed the word "congestion". Some people feel docks are congestion and others
feel boats are congestion. Councilmember Hanus stated that he believes the number of docks
cause congestion not the number of boats.
Councilmember Weycker expressed concern about increasing the size of the Pembroke multiple
slip dock to accommodate the two extra boats (Stead and dock site 41886).
GENE SMITH, 4705 Island View Drive, stated he is directly affected by this proposed
multiple slip dock on Roanoke Access and he was never notified that this was even proposed.
He felt putting two more boats between Schmidt's and Gabos' dock and two more boats on the
opposite side of that dock would create congestion.
The following persons would like to leave this area of Devon Commons the way it is with no
multiple slip docks on Roanoke Access. They were also against moving the 2 docks (Stead and
#41886) to Pembroke because they are losing 2 docks that could be used by two people in their
neighborhood.
Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive.
Cathy and Tom Latchum, 4711 Island View Drive.
Bob Schmidt, 4708 Island View Drive
Barb Casey, 4704 Island View Drive
John Gabos, 4687 Island View Drive
The Mayor stated that when the Roanoke area was opened for 14 docks in 1977, 7 for abutters
and 7 for non-abutters, there was a safety issue, the narrowness of this Commons. He is
concerned about safety issues on this portion of the Devon Commons because of the narrowness
and difficult terrain to access the docks.
There was discussion about trimming some of the trees on the Commons.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
The Mayor stated that the following petition was received by the City and signed by 9 persons:
"We the undersigned, petition the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission to proceed
with the plan to place a multiple dock for current non-abutter dock site holders on the
end of the fire lane at the Roanoke Access on the Devon Commons. The multiple slip
dock at Roanoke should not exceed 100 feet in length. All other non-abutting dock sites
at Roanoke Access should be eliminated."
Also received was the following petition signed by 14 persons:
"We the undersigned are opposed to placing a multiple dock site at the Roanoke access.
We are opposed to any multiple dock even for a trial period. We hereby petition the city
council to vote against any motion for a multiple dock site at the end of the Roanoke
access."
RENEE LA FORTUNE, 4649 Island View Drive, agreed that there is a safety issue for
this narrow Commons area.
JOHN GABOS, 4687 Island View Drive, thanked the Mayor for doing all he has done
to try to resolve this problem. He further stated that in the 10 years he has lived here, he has
never had a problem with the people who have their docks abutting the Commons in front of his
home. He stated that he feels the multiple dock idea is a good idea, but the locations for these
multiples needs to be evaluated. He stated he does not like to see the micro-managing of the
dock program. Don't try to fix the dock situation one or two docks at a time.
MARK SMITH, 4665 Island View Drive, agreed with Mr. Gabos.
The City Attorney read the proposed resolution as follows:
RESOLUTION//98-
RESOLUTION REGARDING RELOCATION OF DOCK
LOCATIONS AND DISCONTINUANCE OF CONSIDERATION
OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK ON DEVON COMMONS
AT THE ROANOKE LANE ACCESS
WHEREAS, the City of Mound administers and regulates activities within and upon the
various public commons of the City; and
WHEREAS, the regulatory activities include the provision of dock locations upon the
commons for the recreational use and enjoyment of the participants in the dock program; and
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTE8 - APRIL 24, 1998
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the City's regulatory activity, the City Council has
established the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) and has charged it with
making recommendations to the City Council regarding the City's dock program; and
WHEREAS, at its March 19, 1998, meeting, the DCAC adopted and forwarded to the
City Council the following motion:
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg to recommend installation of the multiple
dock, 75' in length, straight dock to accommodate two boats. Dock sites 41477 and
41886 will be eliminated and site holder 41477 will be placed on the city multiple dock.
Dock site 42043 will become the site of the multiple dock with the dock site holder
placed on multiple dock. Dock site holder Schmidt would have the first choice of dock
slips on the multiple dock. Dock site//41956 (Casey) will remain in its current location.
This is the DCAC motion.
WHEREAS, the City Council has had the opportunity to review the DCAC
recommendation and has received input from the staff and interested members of the public and
has considered the recommendation in light of the City Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. Dock site locations 41477 (which is the Stead location) and 41866 (which is shown
as the open location) are hereby eliminated and the City is directed to establish two permanent
sites on the Pembroke Park multiple dock as replacement locations.
2. Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Roanoke Lane is
hereby discontinued and the Park Director is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of
such discontinuance. The Council will consider this matter in the future only if requested to do
so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parties whose property abuts
Roanoke Lane.
3. The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to
determine whether the policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
4. Dock site 41956 will be shifted to the center line of its dock location area, if such
location is in the reasonable judgement of the permit holder at least as accessible and safe as the
existing location.
5. With the exception of dock locations 41477(Stead dock) and 41866 (open
location), and the provisions of paragraph 4 above, all existing dock locations on Devon
Commons will remain unchanged and unaffected by this action.
13
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus adopt the above resolution.
Councilmembers Jensen and Weycker stated they were not comfortable moving
the 2 dock sites to the Pembroke Park multiple slip dock without notifying the
property owners who abut Pembroke because the two extra sites there were to be
eliminated as people when from two boats to one. There was also a concern that
the Pembroke site might not be deep enough.
The vote was 2 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion fails.
The Council discussed notifying the abutters at Pembroke Park of the proposal before taking
action and checking on the shallowness at Pembroke.
PETER MEYER, member of Mound Park & Open Space Commission - stated that he
would like to have the POSC review moving the 2 dock sites to Pembroke Park.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to adopt the proposed resolution
above subject to the approval of the existing users of the Pembroke dock as well as
all others who were originally notified of the multiple dock site at Pembroke; also
notification of Mr. Stead about the limitation on the size of his boat. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMISSION REGARDING A PROPOSED FISHING SITE OFF WILSHIRF,
BLVD.
The Park Director explained that a member of the DCAC proposed that a fishing area be
established for the neighborhood residents who would like to utilize it.
The motion passed by the DCAC was as follows: "MOTION by Goldberg, seconded by
Hopkins to consider this on a 1-year test basis limiting it to dredging of the sediment in front
of the storm drain (funding by the street fund), with removal by barge and treatment of milfoil.
If no funds are available from the street fund, the dock fund would be used. Motion carried,
3-1."
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who would like to discuss this item.
14
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1998
The following persons stated they are opposed to this:
Jonathan Paul, 4679 Wilshire Blvd., submitted the following petition signed by 15
people:
"Petition Against Proposed Fishing Site on Back-Waters/Channel Area on Black
Lake.
We the neighborhood residents adjacent to and across from the proposed public
fishing site respectfully submit our concerns and request the discontinuation of
this proposed action, for the reasons following:
1. The proposed area is only 3-4 feet deep and the water stays quite warm,
thus inhibiting game fish from inhabiting the said area.
2. The proposed fishing site would impose upon a very peaceful area, the
reason we inhabit the area.
3. Any Mound resident has adequate canoe and row boat access to the main
lake areas as well as many bridge areas where ail species of game fish are
more abundant.
4. A public fishing area would draw the "out-side the area" people that
currently fish the Black Lake bridge, etc., and not draw from the general
population of Mound.
5. The proposed site would increase traffic/parking congestion and produce
litter and refuse problems as evident from viewing other "public fishing
sites".
6. While other reasons exist why the proposed site will ill-effect the
immediate area, these are some of the initial concerns that make
themselves evident."
o
Ken Ryan, resident of Hopkins, owner of Lots 26, 27 & 28, of which 2 and 3/4 of the
lots are in the lake.
ge
Alan Coley, 4626 Denbigh Road.
Daryl Nehring, 4590 Denbigh Road.
The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed fishing area:
Denn[q Hopkin.q, 4609 Wilshire Blvd., stated this area has always been used for fishing
by the neighborhood.
The Council discussed the cost of cleaning up the sediment at the end of the storm sewer,
remove the weeds from the area for fishing and whether it should come from the Street Fund
or the Dock fund. There was also discussion about parking in the area. Councilmember Hanus
stated he does not want the Dock Fund to pay for this. The Council generally agreed that we
should clean up the delta that has built up from the storm sewer but they also wanted to make
15
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
sure that $2,000 would cover the cleanup. The Park Director stated that he was going to try
and schedule this when there was another project that someone else might be doing to keep the
cost lower.
MOTION made by Jensen seconded by Weycker directing Staff to get actual costs
on what it will cost to clean up this site by removing the sediment at the outlet of the
storm sewer in the lake and bring this cost back to the Council in two weeks for
review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14 COMME~S AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT,
Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Road, stated he built his home and has lived in Mound for 12
years. He built his deck one year after he built his home when Jan Bertrand was the Building
Official. The last 2 or 3 years, the current Building Official has been telling him he did not
have a permit for his deck. Now he intends to hand this file over to the Prosecuting Attorney.
Mr. Forystek maintains that he did have the previous Building Official inspect the deck and she
waived the Building Permit fee at that time. He was concerned about how much money this will
cost the City to prosecute. He offered to pay for a permit if the previous Building Official does
not remember waiving the fee. The Council stated that because this is pending litigation, they
will not discuss this.
Mr. Forystek also voiced concern over the amount of City money that is going to be spent on
the Lost Lake dredge. He asked that the City publicize the costs and where the money is
coming from to pay for this.
1.15 1998 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENNETSEN,
R.L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES.
The Finance Director reviewed the new premiums and options.
16
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
1997 1998
PROPERTY 7,615 7,529
INLAND MARINE 1,852 2,170
LIABILITY/E&O 42,096 40,998
AUTO LIABILITY 12,178 12,198
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE 17,869 17,914
CRIME 403 403
WORKER'S COMPENSATION 35,627 26,154
BOILER & MACHINERY 1,384 1,441
AD&D BENEFIT 350 350
LIQUOR LIABILITY 7,080 3,443
EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY 1,097 1,211
OPEN MEETING LAW 679 571
TOTALS 128,230 114,382
There are also two additional options for 1998:
COVERAGE
$1,000,000 Excess Liability
With Waiver of Immunity
Open Meeting Law:
100 % Reimbursement-Additional Premium
PREIVIIUM
$13,458
131
The City Manager and the Finance Director recommended adding the options.
17
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #98-38
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 1998 INSURANCE
PROGRAM FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
CITIES AS SUBMITTED BY CARL BENNETSEN, R.
L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 98-39
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION REGARDING WAIVER ON TORT
LIABILITY LIMITS FOR LMCIT INSURANCE
PROGRAM
Motion carried.
1.16
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 (WESTONKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT) CREATING THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD
AND APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES TO THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY
CENTER BOARD FROM THE CITY OF MOUND.
The City Manager stated that this is the joint powers agreement between the City and the School
District which creates a separate organization, the Westonka Community Center Board (WCCB),
and outlines the responsibilities of the organization. The Board will consist of the following
members:
a. Two members of the City Council of the City of Mound appointed by Council
resolution.
b. Two members of the School Board of the District appointed by resolution of the
School Board.
c. The City Manager of Mound and the Superintendent of the School District are
exofficio members of the Board without voting rights.
The purpose of the Board will be to oversee the operations of the renovated Community Center.
The School Board approved this Agreement on April 13, 1998, unanimously. The City Manager
stated there is a revision to what was in the packet and he presented that to the Council. It is
a 50-50 split for the use of the facility and will reviewed annually.
There was also discussion about a possible compost site on property they own near the High
18
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1998
School. This is still under consideration by the School District.
Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//98-40
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 (WESTONKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT) CREATING THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY
CENTER BOARD AND APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES
TO THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD
FROM THE CITY OF MOUND.
Hanus stated there are two minor changes in the Agreement. First change Page 6,
Section 8.1, delete the "s" on Members in the first sentence. The second change, Page
7, Section 10.1, second sentence change "three" to "then". The City Manager stated
that these were reviewed by the City Attorney's office and they are correct changes.
The Council also discussed who should be appointed to the WCCB Board.
Councilmember Weycker suggested the Mayor and Councilmember Jensen.
Councilmember Jensen declined. It was decided that the Mayor and Councilmember
Hanus would be appointed with Councilmember Weycker as an alternate in case one of
the two appointed members was unable to attend. The Council agreed.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.17 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MOUND AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE USE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ON
A PERMANENT BASIS.
The City Manager that the School District had asked to use the City Council Chambers for their
School Board Meetings. The Agreement is in the packet for consideration. It would start on
or before July 1, 1999, when construction on the Community Center is scheduled to be
underway.
Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//98-41
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE
WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE
USE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS BY THE
19
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL
BOARD MEETINGS ON A PERMANENT BASIS
Councilmember Hanus stated he really wanted this tied to the Compost Site but he will
go along with it with a few changes. #1 on page 1186 be changed to read. "Westonka
Schools would be invited to use the City Council Chambers for Regular School Board
meetings only. He would like to see statement "or other uses deemed appropriate"
deleted.
The Council did not want to include subcommittee meetings. The Council discussed this and
did not want to put limits on something that hasn't happened yet.
The vote was 3 in favor with Hanus voting nay. Motion carried.
1.18
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY
CODE, MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY ADDING
SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM.
The City Manager explained that the City has been looking at creating a storm water utility for
about a year. The idea is to create a storm water utility to provide a fair method of financing
needed operations and maintenance to the City's drainage system. It also provides for funding
improvements and relates to possible acquisition of properties for the proposed regional storm
water ponds that would be located in the downtown area of Mound and maintenance of those
ponding areas. He explained the Federal and State laws are requiring the City to develop storm
water management plans and that as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update that is due in by
the end of this year, we will be required to have a storm water management plan and this is
another opportunity to be able to finance the cost of that with this fund. The Mound Visions
Program is also underway and the requirements that are going to be related to that downtown
regional ponding area will be significant and the cost associated with redevelopment of that
downtown area are also things that could be eligible for payment out of a storm water utility and
other things such as street sweeping which are now paid for out of the General Fund which
impact the storm water system of the City. He presented the proposed ordinance.
The Council discussed this and decided they would like to hold some public hearings on this
before adopting the ordinance. They suggested the second meeting in May with information
being given to the public prior to the hearing.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he and Councilmember Weycker attended a storm water
program at the National League of Cities Conference and he submitted a copy of a storm water
program done by another city to Staff.
20
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
MOTION made by Poiston, seconded by Jensen directing Staff to prepare an
educational program in preparation for a public hearing to be held May 26 for a
public hearing on adopting this ordinance for creating a storm water utility. The
vote was unanimously In favor. Motion carded.
1.19 ADD-ON ITEM: LABOR CONTRACT WITH TEAMSTER'S LOCAL 320 -
POLICE OFFICER/INVESTIGATOR AND JUVENILE OFFICER
The City Manager explained that this contract expired December 31, 1997, and is now ready
for approval. He reviewed a memo dated April 14, 1998 and recommended approval of the two
year contract as presented.
Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #98-42
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320, POLICE OFFICERS
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 1999
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.29
A.
B.
C.
D.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Department Head Monthly Reports for March 1998.
LMCD Mailings.
Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of March 19, 1998.
Letter from the Mound City Days Committee regarding your participation in the 1998
Parade. If you are interested, send in the registration form as soon as possible.
Letter from Hennepin County regarding the questions you had on the study of a possible
traffic signal at County Road 15 and Wilshire Blvd. and at County Road 15 and Cypress
Lane. Does Mr. Johnson's letter answer your questions? Should I do anything further?
Packet from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) for next Wednesday's meeting.
Councilmember Hanus is the City's delegate to the SRA.
21
I oo
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1998
Packet from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding the Rule B
Task Force. Mayor Polston is the City's representative to this Task Force.
Lake Restoration will be starting the alum treatment of Lake Langdon next week with
an estimate completion date of May 1. You will begin seeing activity around Veteran's
Park by this company so if you receive any calls, this is the project that is being done.
You can refer those calls to me and I will refer them to the MCWD or their Engineer.
Caribou Coffee will not be moving to Mound as expected. Decisions by the Board of
Directors regarding the move have been made and they will be remaining in Minneapolis
until at least August, 1999. They are searching to a 15,000 square foot facility,
somewhere in the metro area to accommodate their Delta Airlines contract. This is
unfortunate but there is still a possibility that they could move their entire operation next
year out of Minneapolis and maybe it could land up in Mound.
K. REMINDER:
MONTHLY HRA MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY,
APRIL 14, 1998, 7 P.M., CITY HALL.
MONTHLY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS
SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 11:40 P.M. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
22
Ap~ 28, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION//98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW
FOR CONSTRUCTION TO CONVERT A 1 ½ STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND
ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE,
AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOT I & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON
PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046,
P & Z CASE//98-15
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jorj Ayaz, has applied for front yard setback
variances and a variance to impervious surface in order to allow construction to convert a
1 ½ story dwelling into a 2 story and add an addition with an attached garage at 4844
Island View Drive, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is a corner lot 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, 40 feet of lot frontage, and front yard setbacks of 20 feet to
each street including the unimproved Right of Way (ROW) Drummond Road, and;
WHEREAS, the existing and proposed dwelling is setback 10 feet from the
front yard facing Island View Drive resulting in a setback variance of 10 feet, in addition
the attached garage is proposed to be setback 6 feet from the unimproved Drummond
Road resulting in a variance of 14 feet, and;
WHEREAS, Drummond road has steep topography and this prohibits the
future improvement of the road essentially rendering this area a rear yard, this coupled
with the unimproved ROW minimizes the impact of the reduced setback making the
proposal reasonable, and;
WHEREAS, currently the property consists of two PID's and this would
require a combination, and;
WHEREAS, the existing setback from Island View Drive is similar to many of
the adjacent properties, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
~Z~pr# 28, 1998
~¥aZ- 4844/s/and View Drive
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant variances as follows, a 10 foot front yard setback to
Island View Drive and a 14 foot setback to the unimproved ROW Drummond Road
in order to convert a 1 ½ story into a 2 story dwelling and to construct an addition
with an attached garage with the following conditions:
The property meet the 40 percent hardcover requirements.
The applicant identify existing easements, vacate unnecessary easements
and add new easements as deemed necessary.
The applicant shall obtain an entrance permit and be granted the right to
remove a portion of the City's retaining wall for driveway access to Amhurst
Lane. The City will allow the applicant to use those removed bricks to build
a retaining wall on the driveway apron. The City will retain responsibility for
that portion of the wall within the right-of-way and the applicant will retain
responsibility for that portion located on said property. During the removal
and reconstruction of the wall the Public Works Department will review and
inspect the wall within the right-of-way.
Lots 1 and 2 represented by PID #'s 25-117-24 11 0047 and 25-117-24 11
0046 be combined.
Satisfying any request of the City Engineer in regards to utility and easement
issues.
The City Engineer and Building Official review and approve drainage plans
and building permits.
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 improvements:
Converting a I ½ story to a 2 story dwelling including an addition with an attached
garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
PID 25-117-24 11 0046: LOT 1, BLOCK 15, DEVON, SUBJECT TO ROAD.
PID 25-117-24 11 0047: LOT 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON
,4prE28,
,4yaz - 4844 Island View Drive
Page 3
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:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
April 28, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND REAR YARD SETBACK
VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO CONVERT A 1 % STORY
DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE,
AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOT I & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON
PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046,
P & Z CASE #98-15
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jorj Ayaz, has applied for a front and rear yard
setback variances and a variance to impervious surface in order to allow construction to
convert a 1 ¥2 story dwelling into a 2 story and add an addition with an attached garage
at 4844 Island View Drive, 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, 40 feet of lot frontage, a front yard setback of 20 feet, and rear yard
setback is 15 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback is 10 feet from the front yard
facing Island View Drive resulting in a front yard setback variance of 10 feet would be
required, and the setback is 15 feet from the rear yard setback;
WHEREAS, currently the property consists of two PID's and this would
require a combination, and;
WHEREAS, the property is a corner lot that fronts on three streets, Island
View Drive, Amhurst Road, and unimproved Drummond Road, and;
WHEREAS, the existing setback from Island View Drive is similar to many of
the adjacent properties, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
April 28, 1998
Ayaz - 4844 Island View Drive
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 10 foot front yard setback to Island View Drive and a
9 foot rear yard setback variances to convert a 1 ~2 story into a 2 story dwelling
and to construct an addition with an attached garage with the following conditions:
The property meet the 40 percent hardcover requirements.
The applicant identify existing easements, vacate unnecessary easements
and add new easements as deemed necessary.
The applicant shall obtain an entrance permit and be granted the right to
remove a portion of the City's retaining wall for driveway access to Amhurst
Lane. The City will allow the applicant to use those removed bricks to build
a retaining wall on the driveway apron. The City will retain responsibility for
that portion of the wall within the right-of-way and the applicant will retain
responsibility for that portion located on said property. During the removal
and reconstruction of the wall the Public Works Department will review and
inspect the wall within the right-of-way.
Lots 1 and 2 represented by PID #'s 25-117-24 11 0047 and 25-117-24 11
0046 be combined.
Satisfying any request of the City Engineer in regards to utility and easement
issues.
The City Engineer and Building Official review and approve drainage plans
and building permits.
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 improvements:
Converting a 1 ¥2 story to a 2 story dwelling including an addition with an attached
garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
PID 25-117-24 11 0046: LOT 1, BLOCK 15, DEVON, SUBJECT TO ROAD.
PID 25-117-24 11 0047: LOT 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON
April 28, T$$8
Ayaz - 4844 Island View Drive
Page 3
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:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, .
Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary
Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison Mark
Hanus.
Public Present: Craig Rose, Kyle Cosky, Ken Linquist, Jorj Ayaz, Bonnie Hannaman, Mark &
Velia Stone, Chuck Downey
Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 23, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to approve the Minutes of the March 23,
1998 Planning Commission Meeting, Motion carried 5-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-15: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER, JORJ AYAZ, 4844
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS I & 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON, PIDS # 25-117-24 11 0046 & 25-
117-24 11 0047
Loren Gordon presented the case
The applicant, Jorj Ayaz, has submitted a variance request for yard space setbacks and
hardcover to convert a 1 Y2 story home to a two-story and add an addition. The variance
requests are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 1 O' 20' 1 O'
Rear Yard 6' 15' 9'
Hardcover 3932 sf 3520 sf 412 sf
The property is located on a corner lot at the intersection of Island View Drive and Amhurst
Lane and is zoned R-lA. The property includes lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Devon plat, containing
8780 sf. As shown on the site plan, the current residence is a 1 Y2 story home that is located
entirely on lot 2. The new addition would be built on the east and north sides of the current
home. An attached two-stall garage is proposed on the north side of the home with access to
Amhurst Lane.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
The property currently has a property identification number for each lot. A combination of
these lots would prevent any future problems with the property if the variances are approved.
The applicant is proposing to add an additional stall to the existing one-stall garage on Island
View Drive. Although the garage has a 10 feet setback from the property line, the street
encroachment on the property reduces the distance from the back of the curb which is 8.5
feet from the garage.
There is an 8" sanitary sewer main along the southern lot line extending from Amhurst Lane
to a manhole. The manhole is located directly under the proposed garage along Island View
Drive. The sewer is a public line only serving this residence.
The proposed new driveway on Amhurst Lane will need to be punched through the retaining
wall owned by the City.
The existing 10 feet house setback from Island View is similar to many of the adjacent
properties. The Island View right-of-way is only as wide as the 15 feet street width. This
makes the street corridor very narrow adding to that the number of garages that are within a
few feet of the street. The applicant is proposing to use the new garage on the north side of
the house to park vehicles. The existing garage and matching addition would continue to be
used for storage of recreational equipment using traditional garage doors for access. Staff has
discussed with the applicant their concerns of having 4 garage stalls for the house as is
excessive and contributes to the overages on the hardcover and setbacks. Although the
driveway location on Amhurst is a better safety situation, it adds hard¢over to the property.
Staff would recommend a couple of options to the Planning Commission in addressing the
garage issue.
The existing garage and matching addition not be allowed to be used as a garage and
the walls facing the street be enclosed. The room could be used for storage but could
not be used for vehicle parking.
The existing garage and matching addition be allowed garage doors for storage of
recreational equipment but restrict any vehicle parking in or in front of the garage.
The proposed garage has a 6 feet setback from Drummond Road which is unimproved.
Although the road is not part of the property, it does provide additional area for buffering the
adjacent property to the north. The garage is nicely sized at 22 feet by 26 feet providing ample
room for parking 2 vehicles with storage area on the sides.
Hardcover is an issue for the property being over the 40 percent limit for non-lots of record by
412 sf. Given the 8,780 sf lot size, the site is probably over built. The new garage and
driveway account for over one-third of the hardcover. There are ways the applicant could
remove hardcover by reducing the size of the driveway, garage, house or combinations thereof
to gain the needed green space. It appears that this could be done without substantially
affecting the applicant's plans. The other option is to suggest is that the unimproved
Drummond Road provides open space for the property even though it is not technically part
of the ownership.
The engineer's report details the specifics of the utility and easement issues and should be
referenced in any conditions in the case.
Mound Planning Commission o Minutes
April 13, 1998
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the request with the following conditions.
Council
1. The property meet the 40 percent hardcover requirements.
2. The applicant identify existing easements, vacate unnecessary easements and add new
easements as deemed necessary.
3. The applicant shall obtain an entrance permit and be granted the right to remove a portion
of the City's retaining wall for driveway access to Amhurst Lane. The City will allow the
applicant to use those removed bricks to build a retaining wall on the driveway apron. The
City will retain responsibility for that portion of the wall within the right-of-way and the
applicant will retain responsibility for that portion located on said property. During the
removal and reconstruction of the wall the Public Works Department will review and
inspect the wall within the right-of-way.
4. Lots 1 and 2 represented by PID //'s 25-117-24-11-0047 and 25-117-24-11-0046 be
combined,
5. Satisfying any request of the City Engineer in regards to utility and easement issues.
6. The City Engineer and Building Official review and approve drainage plans and building
permits.
DISCUSSION:
Glister requested Gordon list the ways to reduce the hardcover issues. Gordon discussed
reductions to the driveway, garage, and house.
Glister asked if the applicant was aware of these options. The applicant stated that they were
discussed with the applicant at a preliminary meeting. Glister is in favor of reducing the
hardcover.
Voss questioned if the driveway could be put on city right of way Drummond Road. Ayaz
stated that the elevation of the land is steep.
Weiland questioned the applicant about how he plans to elevate hardcover. Ayaz suggested
having a single car driveway and fanning it out when it comes to the garage. He also
suggested that possibly only adding a one car garage instead of two.
There was more discussion on the size of the garages that face Island View Drive.
Voss recommended that the applicants research the possibility of having the driveway come
in off of Drummond Road.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Glister to recommend staff recommendation as stated.
Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on April 28, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Jori Ayaz - 4844 Island View Drive
CASE NUMBER: 98-15
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-51
LOCATION: 4844 Island View Drive
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request for yard space setbacks and
hardcover to convert a 1 ½ story home to a two-story and add an addition. The variance requests
are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 10' 20' 10'
Rear Yard 6' 15' 9'
Hardcover 3932 sf 3520 sf 412 sf
The property is located on a comer lot at the intersection of Island View Drive and Amhurst Lane
and is zoned R-lA. The property includes lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Devon plat, containing 8780 sf.
As shown on the site plan, the current residence is a 1 ½ story home that is located entirely on lot
2. The new addition would be built on the east and north sides of the current home. An attached
two-stall garage is proposed on the north side of the home with access to Amhurst Lane.
The property currently has a property identification number for each lot. A combination of these
lots would prevent any future problems with the property if the variances are approved.
The applicant is proposing to add an additional stall to the existing one-stall garage on Island
View Drive. Although the garage has a 10 feet setback from the property line, the street
encroachment on the property reduces the distance from the back of the curb which is 8.5 feet
from the garage.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Ayaz Variance Request
April 13. 1998
There is an 8" sanitary sewer main along the southern lot line extending from Amhurst Lane to a
manhole. The manhole is located directly under the proposed garage along Island View Drive.
The sewer is a public line only serving this residence.
The proposed new driveway on Amhurst Lane will need to be punched through the retaining wall
owned by the City.
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
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
Ao
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 existing 10 feet house setback from Island View is similar to many of the adjacent
properties. The Island View right-of-way is only as wide as the 15 feet street width. This makes
the street corridor very nan'ow adding to that the number of garages that are within a few feet of
the street. The applicant is proposing to use the new garage on the north side of the house to park
vehicles. The existing garage and matching addition would continue to be used for storage of
recreational equipment using traditional garage doors for access. Staff has discussed with the
applicant their concerns of having 4 garage stalls for the house as is excessive and contributes to
the overages on the hardcover and setbacks. Although the driveway location on Amhurst is a
better safety situation, it adds hardcover to the property. Staff would recommend a couple of
options to the Planning Commission in addressing the garage issue.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
Ayaz Variance Request
April 13, 1998
1. The existing garage and matching addition not be allowed to be used as a garage and the
walls facing the street be enclosed. The room could be used for storage but could not be used
for vehicle parking.
2. The existing garage and matching addition be allowed garage doors for storage of
recreational equipment but restrict any vehicle parking in of in front of the garage.
The proposed garage has a 6 feet setback from Drummond Road which is unimproved. Although
the road is not part of the property, it does provide additional area for buffering the adjacent
property to the north. The garage is nicely sized at 22 feet by 26 feet providing ample room for
parking 2 vehicles with storage area on the sides.
Hardcover is an issue for the property being over the 40 percent limit for non-lots of record by
412 sf. Given the 8,780 sf lot size, the site is probably over built. The new garage and driveway
account for over one-third of the hardcover. There are ways the applicant could remove
hardcover by reducing the size of the driveway, garage, house or combinations thereof to gain the
needed greenspace. It appears that this could be done without substantially affecting the
applicant's plans. The other option is to suggest is that the unimproved Drummond Road
provides open space for the property even though it is not technically part of the ownership.
The engineer's report details the specifics of the utility and easement issues and should be
referenced in any conditions in the case.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the request with the following conditions.
1. The property meet the 40 percent hardcover requirements.
2. The applicant identify existing easements, vacate unnecessary easements and add new
easements as deemed necessary.
3. The applicant shall obtain an entrance permit and be granted the right to remove a portion of
the City's retaining wall for driveway access to Amhurst Lane. The City will allow the
applicant to use those removed bricks to build a retaining wall on the driveway apron. The
City will retain responsibility for that portion of the wall within the right-of-way and the
applicant will retain responsibility for that portion located on said property. During the
removal and reconstruction of the wall the Public Works Department will review and inspect
the wall within the right-of-way.
4. Lots 1 and 2 represented by PID #'s 25-117-24-11-0047 and 25-117-24-11-0046 be
combined.
5. Satisfying any request of the City Engineer in regards to utility and easement issues.
6. The City Engineer and Building Official review and approve drainage plans and building
permits.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Apr. 8,1998 3:08PM MCCOMBS PRANK ROOS No, 8773 P. i/2
McCombs Frank Roes Associates, Inc.
15050 2$r'd Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55447'
Telephone
6't2/~,76-6010
612,'476-853~ FAX
Engineer~
Planne~
Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB3ECT:
CASE NO.:
MFRA FILE:
City of Mound
John Camem~, City Engineer
City of Mound
Variance - 4844 Island View Drive
98-15
#12002
I have reviewed the above mentioned variance application and have thc following concerns and
or reconlmend~tions.
The proposed building expansion is shown to be constructed over the City's sanitary sewer main
and existing manhole. According to the City's record plans, this small section of main only
serves these t~vo lots; therefore, we are recommending that the sewer mafia from the existing
manhole in .~mhurst Lane to the manhole on Lot 1 be removed and replaced with a new 4-inch
service for the remodeled home.
The problem with existing and non-existent easements needs to be straightened out. It appears
from the survey that there is an existing ut/lit7 easement, Document No. 779757, 20 feet wide
that has the existing garage located within its botmdarics. In addition, the existing street i_nf~ges
onto both lots, with evidently no easement for street purposes. I would recommend that a search
be conducted at Hennepin County to determine what easements actually exist and then those
portions not required be vacated. Then, new casements be drawn up to cover City utilities and or
streets as deemed necessary. All this should be included as a condition of any variance approval.
An EquaJ Opportun~ Employer
Apr, 8. 1998 3:09PM
City of Mound
Page 2
MCCOMBS ~RANK ROOS No, 8773
P, 2/2
Lane. The applicant should be responsible/'or removing enough of thc existing wall to allow for
driveway cons~uction and then reconstruet/ng returns on both sides of the new driveway from
the old stone. I would also like to see a condition added that a complete grading plan be provided
at the time of building pem~t application.
CONCLUSIONS
1, Remove unnecessary city smitary sewer marl: and manhole and ins~l new 4-inch
PVC sewer service to the existing mam~ole in Amhurst Lane,
2. Identify exis~in§ easements, vacate nnne~ess~f ea.~m~ts and add new easements as
deemed necessary.
Provide complete grading plan at building permit application.
~AR 2..B 1998
FOR O~:~E USE ONLY)
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee: ~ 1 OO.OO
~lanning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
Other
Case No. O[~~:~___
DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
~,Address
Lot I~
Block J~
Subdivision
Name ~O~
Address ~
Phone (H)
R-2 R-3
B-1
B-2 B-3
(M)
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Name ._~ q ¢¢~L
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, ~X),no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
\3\3 (Rev. ll/14/97)
RECEIVED
MAR 1 9 1998
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N(~)E W ) [~,~ ft. ~ ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E(~) ~C) ft. ~ I~ ft.
Sidu Yard: ( i'~~ ft. ft.
~'~Of~"Re~ Yard: ((~S E W ' ~ ft. z~t ft.
Lakeside: E W ) ------ ft. ~ ft.
~: (N S(~W) /--~.'~ ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft.
Lot Size: ' ~,'I~Qj~ sq ft
Hardcover: ~sq ft
ft.
sq ft
sq ft
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
sq ft
sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~1~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
Please describe:
()O existing situation
( ) other: specify
T~ Flf~ .,5?P,£Z T
(Re v. 11 I1419 7)
RECEIVED '
I'IAR ! 9 1998
MOUND PLANNING & INS'
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~).. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes ~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature~
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
RECEIVED
MAR 19 1998
(Rev. ll/14/97) IOUND PLANNING & INSP.
JUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
- Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The applicant is: ~owner ~contractor ~tenant MAP
Phone (H) q?Z-c~[Z (W) ~ ~ (U)
Contact Person ~ ~'~
Address ~q~ }5~ U~Fu~ ~,
., Phone (H) (W) (M)
ARCHITECT Name ~L[~ b~3~ E~ ~
&/OR Addross
ENGINEER Phone (H), qG~ ~ (W) $~ (MI
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
o ALUATi'~O N
F WORK:
VALUE APPROVED:
S~ARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
~ERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDON ED
FGR A PERIO0 OF lB0 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTEJ~ WORK IS COMMENCED.
TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEWCDNSTRUCTION. REPAIRS. REMODELING, AN0 ALTERATIONS
TG ?l-t~ ~Y,T~RIOR5 OF ANY 6UILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE Ill YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TiME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY [301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPEC!FlED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERF0~,MANCE OF CONSTRUCTION,
PRINT APPL~:~'ANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S &IGNATURE ~,~?/ OAT
~//~/~/////////~/~//////////~/~//////////////////~/////////////////////~////~//~/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED APPROVED
ZONING
BLDGSIZE (SO FT) · STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED?
CITY
ENGINEER
~/uNrrs YES / NO PUBLIC WORKS
RECEIVED BY /DATE; PLANS CHECKED BY: APpROvED BY/DATE: ASSESSING
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
IIPROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME: .J--O ~ 7 /'~ ¥ ~-~.
RECEIVED
MAR I 9 1998
~-v'uui~u rLANNINu 1LINSP,
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOTAREA ~)0 SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record') ....... I ,~_~Z,O I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
D,~TACH.~D GLDGS
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
~ $ x ~3~~ ~ = /~, ~
25' 5" ' o"
x (~ : 17~.~1
/5'o" x /~' ~," : 157.5
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
2_( o" x 12' (~" =
2~'0" x zz' o"=
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
/0¢' 0" x 42' ~' = ~%-~;.. ~
/,~ ~" x 6'~ ¢~ = /~3. o
~3~.5
OTHER
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ,~'~32./
UNDER'/OVER (indicate difference) ........................ ~.'D. ~.E.~. I Z//Z. /
PREPARED BY ,~ ,~ ~T' ,~./~.. (..~,,~' ~.~ DATE
S89'2't '1 , E 80.00
',-.3
I /Z Tt"
SURVEY JORJ AYAZ
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4844 lsl,3nd View Drive, Mound, Mir~nesota,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots ! anti 2, Block 15, Devon, according to the recorded
plot thereof and situate in Her,nepir~ County, Minnesota,
I hereby certify that this is a i. rue and correct represenloUon of o survey cf '[he
boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any,
from or on said land.
Doted this 19th day of January, 1998.
by:. __ Jock BoIke
/, oBol
Mmnesoto L~cense No. 20281
RECEIVED
MAR 19 1998
MOUND PL4iVlVlNB & INSR
NORTH
SCALE
1" = 20'
NOTES;
1. The orientation of this bearing system is based or1 the south lioe of Lot
I, Block 15, Devon which is assumed to hove o bearing of West.
2. No title work wes provided for the preporatiorJ of this survey to verify the legal
description, ownership, or the existence of any easements or encumbrances.
Area of the property ,lescribed hereon is 8,780 square feet or 0.2016 acres.
1:318
/]~ ['. IZ L/(2 VII //(Z 1/2
't'O04,~ k I,HIMt'h'~,VEI~ N¢)AD )
%,~ .. .... S89'21'19"E 80.00
0
DO(;. NO.
r
W -ST "' ' 8b.bo
)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4844 Island View Drive, Mound, Minnesota. ,
LEGAL DESORIPTION:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Devon, according to the recorded
plat thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
I hereby certify that this is o true and correct representation of o survey of the
boundaries of the land ob6ve described and of the location of oll buildings, if any, SCALE
from or on said land.
Doted this 19th day of January, 1998. 1" = 20'
by: Jack/ Bolke
Minnesota 'License No. 20281
NOTES:
1. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the south line of Lot
1, Block 1.5, Devon which is assumed to have a bearing of West.
2. No title work was provided for the preparation of this survey to verify the legal
description, ownership, or the existence of any easements or encumbrances.
5. Area of the property described hereon is 8,780 square feet or 0.2016 acres.
4. The property is subject to an easement for street purposes over the southeastly
corner as shown on available County Section Maps.
RECEIVED
HAR ~ 9 199~
LIOUt~D PLAt¢~I~,IG & Ir~Sk EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK INC. ~ Woy, o(o Boulevard
k%nrleOpo~is. MN 55426
SURVEYORS ~,~: (~:) ~4~-~
CITY OF MOUND
MEMORANDUM
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
March 31, 1998
TO:
Mr. John Dean
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
FROM:
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT:
VARIANCE CASE//98-15, 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
PID//25-117-24 11 0047 P &, PID//25-117-24 11 0046 S
After a preliminary review of this variance case with City Engineer John Cameron, we discovered
a number of issues that we need your assistance in preparation of the staff report. I have included
a full copy of the variance application including the survey with my notes from 3-31-98 and
comments/questions as listed below.
1) The applicant is proposing a driveway that cuts through the city retaining wall on the
northeast corner of the property, please advise if a maintenance agreement of some kind is in
order.
2) This property has 2-PID numbers, a combination will be required as condition of the
variance approval?
3) There is a city ROW easement on the SE corner of lot 1 that has not been filed and should
be a condition of approval, the Engineer can write the description and prepare the document that
will include the balance of the roadway and any additional easement area needed on lot 1 for the
existing water and sewer lines. There is a question about the area of the addition that appears to
be on top of the sewer manhole, its possible a new manhole could be installed over the existing
main, clear of the proposed improvements. Public works and the Engineer are wo{king on this
issue.
4) We need copies of all the existing easement documents on file at the county against both
lots. Please check the records at the county and provide us copies of the documents.
Enclosures
pnnted on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
SURVEY ON FILE? YES f/NO)
LOT OF RECORD? {~ES /~" NO
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
B1 7,500/0
B2 20,000/80
B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
R~Qt~RED
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
Lo~ ~ ~
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
HOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
.~S E W
N
w
N S E W~
N S E W
N S E W
,90
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
ItARDCOVER
CONFORMING? YES I NO
NS E W
N S E W
N S E w
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
30% OR 40%
4' OR6'
4' OR 6'
50'
10' OR 30'
This Zoning Information Sheet only sununarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
R RD ~
C: L.rl Ltl ~ 0
~ I I 0 r=l·
G ~ ~--
'~ "~1 ',,.d .=-*
I I
Ap~ 28, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO ADD A BREEZE WAY BETWEEN THE HOUSE
AND GARAGE,
AT 1932 SHOREWOOD LANE,
LOT 9 AND PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID 18-117-23 23 0069,
P & Z CASE #98-16
WHEREAS, the applicant, Kyle Cosky, has applied for a front yard and
lakeside setback variances in order to allow construction of a breeze way between the
house and garage at 1932 Shorewood Lane, 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, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, and Lakeside
setback is 50 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 48 feet from the 929.4 contour
Lakeside setback requiring a 2 foot Lakeside variance, the existing boathouse is setback 5
feet from the 929.4 contour Lakeside setback requiring a 45 foot Lakeside variance, and
the existing garage is 23.5 feet from the front yard setback requiring a 6.5 foot front yard
variance, and;
WHEREAS, Resolution # 92-59 was issued to a previous homeowner to allow
similar construction to the dwelling which was never completed, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to relocate the garage doors to the side
of the garage and relocate the driveway to have a side entry garage and install a retaining
wall where the existing driveway is located, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant requested a 10 x 39 lakeside deck be added to the
existing home, the planning commission denied this request, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with the alterations, and;
April 28, 1998
Cosk¥ - 1932 Shorewood Lane
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 6.5 foot front yard setback, recognize a 2 foot
Lakeside dwelling setback, and a 45 foot temporary Lakeside boathouse variances
to construct an addition with the following conditions:
The existing boathouse shall be brought into conformance or removed within
two years of the date of City Council approval of this resolution. The
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Mound giving the
City access to the property in order to remove the boathouse structure
should the applicant fail to comply with moving or removal of the boathouse
within the stipulated time period. If such removal is necessary by the City,
the applicant shall be assessed for all related costs.
The City Engineer review and approve drainage plans for the new driveway.
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 improvements:
Construct an addition to the existing dwelling q,~ la ! ~ ~.~
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 9 AND THAT PART OF LOT 8 LYING SELY OF NWLY 15 FT THOF, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
o
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the
subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
April 28, 1998
Cosky - 1932 Shorewood Lane
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Coun¢ilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, .
Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary
Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison
Mark Hanus.
Public Present: Craig Rose, Kyle Cosky, Ken Linquist, Jorj Ayaz, Bonnie Hannaman, Mark
& Velia Stone, Chuck Downey
Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-16: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, KYLE COSKY, 1932 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOT 9 AND PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 18-117-23 23
0069
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant, Kyle Cosky, has submitted a request for lakeside and front yard setback
variances to complete a number of property improvements. The variance requests are
listed below.
Existin.q/Proposed Required Variance
Lake Side 38' 50' 12'
Front Yard 23.5' 30' 6.5'
The property is located at 1932 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R-1. The lot has 12,000 sf
of lot area and 85 feet of frontage, a large property as compared to other lots in this
neighborhood. Improvements the applicant is wishing to make are numerous, and include
a lakeside deck, a deck connecting the front door and the side entry of the home, a breeze
way connecting the garage and the home, reorienting the garage doors from a front to a
side entry
with a new driveway, and retaining walls to replace the existing driveway. Some of the
above projects were approved by Resolution//92-59, only the deck and sidewalk were
completed. Apparently, a change in ownership since the last resolution was the reason.
The home does not currently have a lakeside deck. However, there is a 10 feet by 19 feet
deck located in the side yard that shares the lakeside house setback. It steps down to a
brick patio located closer to the lake. The patio is not shown on the site plan. The current
home is located 48 feet from the 929.4 contour.
There is an existing boathouse lakeside located 5 feet from the 929.4 contour and zero
feet from the side lot line. The floor of the boathouse is below the flood plain elevation.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
The floor of the boathouse is dirt and is covered with planking. The walls are constructed
of plywood. Its condition is fair but given the construction materials, deterioration will
occur more rapidly than a block foundation.
The existing garage is a front entry garage setback 23+ feet from the front property line.
The elevation of the garage is about 3 feet lower than the street surface. This differential
makes it difficult to get cars out of the garage during the winter and also causes some
drainage problems in front of the garage door. The applicant is proposing the entry be
reoriented as a side entry to make access easier and provide additional parking. Upon
completion of the driveway relocation, the old driveway would be removed and a retaining
wall installed to match the existing.
The proposed hardcover calculations in the submittal information are in error. The
applicant has included the 865 sf of deck area in the calculations which is not considered
hardcover. By subtracting out this area the revised hardcover count would be 3572 sr.
This is under the 30 percent area requirement by 46 sr.
One of the large issues with this case is, is there reason to grant a variance for a lakeside
deck given the side yard deck affords lake views? It appears that the side yard deck has
existed for some time and was possibly the result of some compromise. Given the case
history on the deck, it would seem somewhat contrary to the past logic to allow an
additional deck lakeside. Staff feels that the existing deck satisfies the intent of providing
the property views of the lake.
The breeze way was a proposal in 1992 that was never completed. The breeze way does
not increase the nonconformity of the house or intensify its use. It doesn't appear that the
breeze way will have any adverse visual impact on adjacent properties due to its relative
small size. Although the garage would be considered part of the principle structure with
the addition, it still functions as a detached garage because of the separation from the
house. The side entry will be a positive access and parking improvement for the property
and neighborhood.
In the 1992 resolution, the existing boathouse was slated for removal. The boathouse still
exists and staff would like to approach it in a similar manner again by recommending it be
removed. Staff has discussed this with the applicant. The applicant understands it is a
nonconforming use and will eventually need to be removed. Its construction would allow it
to be removed easily as it is built of wood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the front yard setback variance and deny the proposed lakeside setback variance.
Approval is granted to all projects requested except construction of a lakeside deck. The
recommendation also has the following condition.
The existing boathouse shall be brought into conformance or removed within two
years of the date of City Council approval of this resolution. The applicant shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Mound giving the City access to the
property in order to remove the boathouse structure should the applicant fail to
comply with moving or removal of the boathouse within the stipulated time period.
If such removal is necessary by the City, the applicant shall be assessed for all
related costs.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
DISCUSSION:
Voss questioned the previous resolution addressing the lakeside setback. Gordon stated
that the figures used were by the survey that was submitted. Voss questioned if staff
could enforce the condition from previous resolution about removing the boathouse.
Gordon stated that staff has not been able to locate any agreement signed between the
old owner and the city.
There was discussion on the lakeside deck. Weiland suggested that the applicant may
want to consider putting in an at grade deck.
Burma questioned the hardcover issue. Gordon stated that it was originally calculated
wrong. There would not be a hard cover issue in this case.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation as
stated with two additions: Item #2. The City Engineer review and approve drainage
plans for the new driveway. Item #3. Recognize a lakeshore setback variance of 2
feet to accommodate the existing home. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on April 28, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Kyle Cosky - 1932 Shorewood Lane
CASE NUMBER: 98-16
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5m
LOCATION: 1932 Shorewood Lane
ZONING: Residential District Rol
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for lakeside and front yard setback
variances to complete a number of property improvements. The variance requests are listed
below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Lake Side 38' 50' 12'
Front Yard 23.5' 30' 6.5'
The property is located at 1932 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R-1. The lot has 12,000 sf of lot
area and 85 feet of frontage, a large property as compared to other lots in this neighborhood.
Improvements the applicant is wishing to make are numerous, and include a lakeside deck, a
deck connecting the front door and the side entry of the home, a breezeway connecting the
garage and the home, reorienting the garage doors from a front to a side entry with a new
driveway, and retaining walls to replace the existing driveway. Some of the above projects were
approved by Resolution //92-59, only the deck and sidewalk were completed. Apparently, a
change in ownership since the last resolution was the reason.
The home does not currently have a lakeside deck. However, there is a 10 feet by 19 feet deck
located in the side yard that shares the lakeside house setback. It steps down to a brick patio
located closer to the lake. The patio is not shown on the site plan. The current home is located 48
feet from the 929.4 contour.
There is an existing boathouse lakeside located 5 feet from the 929.4 contour and zero feet from
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Cosky l/ariance Request
April 13, 1998
the side lot line. The floor of the boathouse is below the flood plain elevation. The floor of the
boathouse is dirt and is covered with planking. The walls are constructed of plywood. Its
condition is fair but given the construction materials, deterioration will occur more rapidly than a
block foundation.
The existing garage is a front entry garage setback 23+ feet from the front property line. The
elevation of the garage is about 3 feet lower than the street surface. This differential makes it
difficult to get cars out of the garage during the winter and also causes some drainage problems
in front of the garage door. The applicant is proposing the entry be reoriented as a side entry to
make access easier and provide additional parking. Upon completion of the driveway relocation,
the old driveway would be removed and a retaining wall installed to match the existing.
The proposed hardcover calculations in the submittal information are in error. The applicant has
included the 865 sf of deck area in the calculations which is not considered hardcover. By
subtracting out this area the revised hardcover count would be 3572 sf. This is under the 30
percent area requirement by 46 sf.
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
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
mo
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.
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.
One of the large issues with this case is, is there reason to grant a variance for a lakeside deck
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
Cosky Variance Request
April 13, 1998
given the side yard deck affords lake views? It appears that the sideyard deck has existed for
some time and was possibly the result of some compromise. Given the case history on the deck,
it would seem somewhat contrary to the past logic to allow an additional deck lakeside. Staff
feels that the existing deck satisfies the intent of providing the property views of the lake.
The breezeway was a proposal in 1992 that was never completed. The breezeway does not
increase the nonconformity of the house or intensify its use. It doesn't appear that the breezeway
will have any adverse visual impact on adjacent properties due to its relative small size. Although
the garage would be considered part of the principle structure with the addition, it still functions
as a detached garage because of the separation from the house. The side entry will be a positive
access and parking improvement for the property and neighborhood.
In the 1992 resolution, the existing boathouse was slated for removal. The boathouse still exists
and staff would like to approach it in a similar manner again by recommending it be removed.
Staff has discussed this with the applicant. The applicant understands it is a nonconforming use
and will eventually need to be removed. Its construction would allow it to be removed easily as it
is built of wood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the front yard setback variance and deny the proposed lakeside setback variance.
Approval is granted to all projects requested except construction of a lakeside deck. The
recommendation also has the following condition.
The existing boathouse shall be brought into conformance or removed within two years of the
date of City Council approval of this resolution. The applicant shal enter into an agreement
with the City of Mound giving the City access to the property in order to remove the
boathouse structure should the applicant fail to comply with moving or removal of the
boathouse within the stipulated time period. If such removal is necessary by the City, the
applicant shall be assessed for all related costs.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
~330
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee: $100.0(
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Lot ~A~-~-
Block
Subdivision
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2
Name J/---"//~---. ~$ K--'-(
R-3
B-1
B-2 B-3
Address / c~..~
Phone (H) Z~'TZ.-c~3 (W) 5~&-oS-ta,/
(M)
Name
Address
Phone (H) (W)
(M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ~,yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
1331 (Rev. I1/14/97)
Variance Application, P. 2
IIh
Case No.
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes ~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N(~E W~) ~7 ft. ~.~. ~ ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E_ W(.~_,J) / c.~ ft. ~_--/. '7 ft.
Side Yard: ( N ~ ) /c.~ ft. iO ft.
Rear Yard: (,~S E W ) ft. ft.
Lakeside: ¢,J~S E W ) ~'C) ft. Z~-~ ft.
-~c-~-r~ PrcN,~...~: ~) '=~..~ ft. _~' ft.
Street Frontage- ' ~O ft. ~--~,~ ft.
Lot Size: I'Z.c'~:~L-~sq ft
Hardcover: ~0! ~. Z~sq ft
I~,C'o c? sq ft
'90/~:~ sqft
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
sq ft
sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes~x~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ existing situation
( ) too shallow ( )shape '~ )other: specify
,riance Application, P. 3 Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyoqe ,having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain:
Was the ha(d/ship 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 whicl,zyou request'a variance peculiar only to the properly
described in this petition? Yes (), No(~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Sig Date
Applicant's Signature
Date
1~}33 (Rev. I1/14/97)
May 26, 1992
RESOLUTION %92-59
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT
1932 SHOREWOOD LANE v PID %18-117-23 23 0069v
PORTIONS OF LOT 8 AND LOT 9, BLOCK 2
SHADYWOOD POINT, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-016
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow
construction of a three phase improvement project including the
following:
Phase One - Replacement of an existing deck and installation
of a sidewalk connecting the house to the street. (1992)
I,o'T' o,M£
Phase Two - Construct an addition connecting the existing
house and detached garage. (1993)
Phase Three - Remodel the existing home including a new roof,
siding repair and window repair. Reshingle and reside an
existing boathouse. (1994)
In order to accomplish the three phases of the work, requested
variances include: a 6.5 foot front yard setback variance for the
existing garage, a 4 foot side yard setback variance for the
existing boathouse and a 4 foot lakeshore setback variance for the
existing deck and principal structure; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-i,
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code
requires a 30 foot front yard setback for attached garages, a four
foot side yard setback for accessory structures (boathouse) and a
50 foot lakeshore setback for attached decks and principal
structures; and
WHEREAS, the lot area and all other setbacks are conforming;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
has recommended approval of the front yard setback variance and the
lakeshore setback variance and denial of the side yard setback
variance for the boat house with a vote of 6 in favor and 0
opposed. In rendering its opinion, the Planning Commission adopted
the following Finding of Fact:
Approval of the proposed variance for construction of the
sidewalk and deck is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of
the Mound Code of Ordinances. Replacement of the
90
May 26, 1992
existing deck in its current location is permissible
since it will align with the north wall of the existing
home and shifting the deck to the south would represent
a practical difficulty to the property owner.
Approval of the proposed variance for construction of the
addition connecting the existing home and existing garage
does not intensify the nonconforming setbacks and is
consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of
Ordinances.
Approval of the variance to improve the existing home is
consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of
Ordinances. Approval of the boathouse which has a zero
foot setback is inconsistent with the Mound Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
3-z 2.
The City does hereby approve a 6.5 foot front yard setback
variance for an existing garage (to be attached) and a 4 foot
lakeshore setback variance for the existing principal
structure and deck. These variances are approved to allow
construction of the three phased improvement project
referenced herein with the exception of the improvement of the
boathouse.
The existing boathouse shall be brought into conformance or
removed within two years of the date of City Council approval
of this resolution. The applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City of Mound giving the City access to the
property in order to remove the boathouse structure should the
applicant fail to comply with moving or removal of the
boathouse within the stipulated time period. If such removal
is necessary by the City, the applicant shall be assessed for
all related costs.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the Use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
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:
Replace existing deck and install a new sidewalk.
May 26, 1992
construct an entryway addition between the existing house
and the detached garage.
Remodel the existing house including a new roof, siding
repair and window repair.
Se
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Lot 8 except the Northwesterly 15 feet thereof, and Lot 9,
Block 2, Shadywood Point. PID %18-117-23 23 0069.
e
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 Smith
and seconded by Councilmember Jessen.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following voted in the negative:
none.
Attest: City Clerk
ss/SkiD Johnson
Mayor
92
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME: ~-'-.//...~__. ~. oSK-~/
LOT AREA IL, o~,~ SO. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ~C./g.O I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . .
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
X =
X =
TOTALHOUSE
I~/. Z
x ~o.n = E~'5/.4.4
x /~'.~ = /gT. '24,
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
~'/.~ x Z7.¢ = /,4Z4.~
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
TOTAL
//
DECK ..........................
X II = IZ.I
X =
TOTAL OTHER
t7~I. o
I ~'7. z4- I
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER ~dicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY ~----"4LA~. ~..-~__-.~ DATE
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATION.g
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
s NAMe:
LOT AREA /2, ~c~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. [ ..~Cl~ ]
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... [
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. [
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ ET
HOUSE ,2~. 4 X ~-~4 .~- = ~7~.
X =
X
TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ~' ~/_,,, ~-'~
DETACHED BLDGS ~-~-'~- ~-- X
(GARAGE/SHED) / ~, ~- X
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING ~-~. ~ X '.~.
AREAS, SIDEWALKS, X =
ETC. X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. '~'~. 7
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min, [4. L~, X =
opening between boards) with a X
pervious surface under are X
not counted as hardcover TOTAL DECK
OTHER X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY ~-'-~L~ ~~--/ DATE
o/.5.44- I
Lo-T- A~-.4
~?_,oeo~ s,7. ~
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOIl
DAVE WISNEWSKI
IN I,OT.q 8 and 9, III,OCK 2, SIIADYWOOI) I)O].NT
IIENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
l..ol: P. except tile Northwesterly 1!~ feel: f:llereof, alL(l' I.ot q, I~lock2.,
"Shadywood Point, Ilennepin Colin(v Minll." . . . --_ ( ~
adjoining holtses in relationsh[p to the ahove de,';crihed property.
It dOO.qllOt purport to show ;lily OlilllTr {lllpr¢)vetllerll:.q (ir ellcr(;achlll(:;lt!;.
LEGEND:
· : iron marker found ,'
A].i J)e~rings .~,Jlown are based IIpOII el% cq.qSl]lii(.~lJ dfitl .
3M-: ' ~T COMPANIES, INC. PHONE NO. : 6125~'~.. ~2.' i~
~ar. 18 I '8 O~:~4PM P3
I
1
I
I
/7'5 IK ,t
13qo
PROPOSED HARD COVER AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT REQUIKE PERMITS
FROMTHE CITY OF MOUND.
LOT NUMBERS: 8 AND 9
BLOCK NUMBER: 2
HOME OWNER: KYLE COSKY
ADDRESS: 1932 SHOREWOOD LANE MOUND. MN. 55364
TELEPHONE NUM]BER: 472-0533
PROPOSED CHANGES
1. MOVE THE TWO(2) EXSISTING GARAGE DOORS THAT FACE S.S.W., SO THAT THEY WILL FACE
E.S.E. EXSISTING GARAGE DOORS WILL BE REPLACED WITH TWO(2) WINDOWS AND SIDING,
SO THAT GARAGE LOOKS UNIFORM TO THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE.
2. REMOVE EXSISTING DRIVEWAY(755 SQ.FT.), REPLACING IT WITH GRASS AND A RETAINING
WALL.
3. REPLACE DRIVEWAY WITH A NEW DRIVEWAY. SEE ENCLOSED ENLARGEI) I)RAWING FOR
DIMENSIONS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE.
4. ADD BREEZEWAY BETWEEN HOUSE AND GARAGE.
5. ADD DECK THAT EXTENDS TOWARD LAKE(10 FT.), AND IS ATTACHED TO EXSISTING DECK.
6. ADD DECK THAT CONNECTS THE EXSISTING DECK TO THE PROPOSED BREEZEWAY. THIS
DECK WILL WRAP AROUND THE E.S.E. CORNER OF HOUSE. IT WILL ALSO REPLACE THE
EXSISTING DECK PADS THAT ARE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
7. REMOVE EXSISTING SIDING. REPLACING IT WITH QUALITY VINYL SIDING AND ALUMINIUM
SOFFETS/FACIA.
8. REMOVE EXSISTING ROOF SHINGLES. AND REPLACE WITH NEW SHINGLES.
I BELIEVE THAT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL ADD VALUE TO MY PROPERTY, AND ENHANCE
ITS APPEARANCE. NONE THE LESS, INCREASING THE PROPERTY VALUE OF HOMES IN THE AREA.
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-062(
SITE Subject Address / 73~- S~Y/&:;),~J~)(DO ~.A/~,/'~' ~0~0 ~
Business Name~ennant ~ ~ ~
The applicant is: ~owner __contractor __tenant
~GAL Lot Block Plat
DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~
OWNER Name ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~
Address J ~ ~ %~~0~
Phone(H) ~-0~ (W) ~-~1 (M)
CONT~CTOR Company Name License g
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
DESCRIBE WORK: ~vte,,/E-
3N
)F WORK:
VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A ~RiOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TiM E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORM ED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR N EVV CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REM ODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO THE EXTERIORS OF ANY BUILDtNG OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMIT'TEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE ~ERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE*YEAR PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE C : CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME DATE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Iff~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /////i//i/////11111/i/i//!///////////////////////////////////////////
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP/DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · COPIED APPROVED
I ZONING
)BLDG SIZE (BO FT) # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED, m CITY ENGINEER
# uNrrs YES / NO I PUBLIC WORKS
I
April 28, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND TWO SIDE YARD VARIANCES IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO THE EXISTING
NON CONFORMING DWELLING,
AT 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE,
LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L P CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK,
PID 13-117-24 42 0006
P & Z CASE #98-18
WHEREAS, the applicant, Craig Rose, has applied for a front yard and two
side yard setback variances to allow construction to add a 2nd story addition at 5100
Edgewater Drive, 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, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record, and;
WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.9 feet from unimproved
Chateau Lane requiring a/~t foot side yard setback variance. The existing garage is 4.5
feet from the front yard setback and 2.6 feet from the side yard setback requiring a 3.5
foot front yard setback and ;~4 feet side yard setback variances, and;
I,~
WHEREAS, the second story addition should not have adverse impact on the
property or surrounding neighborhood and is an improvement to the property, and;
WHEREAS, the existing walls will not be expanded preventing an increase in
the nonconformity, and;
WHEREAS, there was a variance granted in 1970 to reconstruct the garage
in its current location, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-062(
SITE Subject Address
gusiness Name/Tennant ~--"~.~
~ The applicant is: ~owner __contractor __tenant
~GAL Lot Block Plat
DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~
Phone (H) ~Z-OS~ (W) ~-~ (M)
CONT~CTOR Company Name License
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
ALUATION
F WORK:
6000
VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A ~--'RIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORM ED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO THE EXTERIORS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMIT-TEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (SOl BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
t HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE 02c CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME ~./APPL~CA~S SIGNATURE ~' DATE
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII///I/I/11/1111/111111/I/I////I//11111
(OFFICE USE ONLY)
///////~////~~//////~//////////////////////~//////////////////////////////////////////
SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED
I ZONING
iBLDGSIZE (SO F-ri # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER
# UNrTS YES / NO · PUBLIC WORKS
R C} VEQ ByOA*E,,// PLA. S C. CKED B* ,mOV.:B*,DATE:I ASBESS..G
April 28, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND TWO SIDE YARD VARIANCES IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO THE EXISTING
NON CONFORMING DWELLING,
AT 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE,
LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L P CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK,
PID 13-117-24 42 0006
P & Z CASE #98-18
WHEREAS, the applicant, Craig Rose, has applied for a front yard and two
side yard setback variances to allow construction to add a 2"~ story addition at 5100
Edgewater Drive, 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, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard
r~d and; ~ . " , ' ~r .....
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of reco; 't ......... ;' ~," ' ........ ~'
'~,: '..~, WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.9 feet from unimproved
Chateau Lane re~q'~'i'}i'r~g'"'~i~..4-foot side yard setback variance. The existing garage is 4.5
feet from the front yard setback and 2.6 feet from the side yard setback requiring a 3.5
foot front yard setback and.~.'~-~eet side yard setback variances, and;
WHEREAS, the second story addition should not have adverse impact on the
property or surrounding neighborhood and is an improvement to the property, and;
WHEREAS, the existing walls will not be expanded preventing an increase in
the nonconformity, and;
WHEREAS, there was a variance granted in 1970 to reconstruct the garage
in its current location, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
PLEASE SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE FOLLOWING:
THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 12, 1998
1. ZONING AMENDMENT (REZONING)
CASE #98-06 - 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE
THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE SET FOR MAY 26, 1998.
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
CASE//98-05 - 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES
CASE//98-28 - 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE
e
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOTOR FUEL STATION
LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT
CASE//98-26 - 1730 COMMERCE BLVD.
April 28, 1998
Rose - 5100 Edgewater Drive
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby grant a 3.5 foot f,r,~nt yard setback, ~ foot side yard
setback variance for the Garage and a~ foot side yard setback variance for the
existing dwelling as recommended by the Planning Commission.
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 improvements:
Construct a 2nd story addition to the existing dwelling.
.,
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 6 AND THAT PART LYING N OF S 30 FEET INCLUDING ADJACENT PART OF BOULEVARD
VACATED, BLOCK 1, L P CREVlERS SUBDIVISION OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, HENNEPIN
COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
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:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, .
Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary
Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison
Mark Hanus.
Public Present: Craig Rose, Kyle Cosky, Ken Linquist, Jorj Ayaz, Bonnie Hannaman, Mark
& Velia Stone, Chuck Downey
Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE #98-18: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, CRAIG
A ROSE, 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L P CREIVERS SUB LOT 36
LAFAYETTE PARK,
PID # 13-117-24 42 0006
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant has submitted a request to recognize an existing nonconforming
garage and house. The variance requests are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Garage(front & side) 4.5' and 2.6' 8' and 6' 3.5' and 3.4'
Side yard 3.9' 6' 2.1'
The property is located at 5100 Edgewater in a R-lA district. The lot 8448 sf
exceeding the 6000 sf minimum. Hardcover is under the 30 percent requirement. The
east side yard setback is 3.9 feet although the unimproved Chateau Lane provides
additional yard space between the adjacent residences. The existing detached garage
is a side entry and is setback is 4.5 feet from the front yard line and 2.6 feet from the
side yard line.
The applicant wishes to add a second story to the home staying within the existing
footprint. A master suite will occupy this level as shown in the plans. At this time, the
plans do not indicate a deck as part of the project. The applicant could add a deck to
the home without encroaching into the lakeside setback. The home is setback
approximately 73 feet. A variance would be necessary because the house is
nonconforming.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
The second story addition should not have an adverse impact on the property or
surrounding neighborhood. The existing walls will not be expanded preventing an
increase in the nonconformity. The project is an improvement for the property and the
surrounding neighborhood. The side yard setback has existed since the house was
built. During that time there have not been any modifications to the footprint. Chateau
Lane has a 30 feet width and is unimproved. It is essentially used as yard space by the
adjacent residences.
There are a number of garages along Edgewater that are close to the street edge. A
variance was granted in 1970 allowing the garage to be reconstructed in its present
location.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
recognize the variances as requested.
DISCUSSION:
Weiland commented that the neighbor's home is a 2 story and he feels that the
applicants request for a 2 story addition would fit nicely into the neighborhood.
Michael questioned if a drainage plan would be needed. Gordon stated not for a 2nd
story addition. Gordon stated because it is a 2nd story addition and the first floor is
remaining untouched, drainage would not be impacted. No drainage plans would be
required.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff
recommendation as stated. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on April 28, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Craig Rose - 5100 Edgewater Drive
CASE NUMBER: 98-18
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-50
LOCATION: 5100 Edgewater Drive
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to recognize an existing
nonconforming garage and house. The variance requests are listed beloTM.
Existing/Proposed
Garage(front & side) 4.5' and 2.6'
Side yard 3.9'
Required Variance
8' and 6' 3.5' and 3.4'
6' 2.1'
The property is located at 5100 Edgewater in a R-IA district. The lot 8448 sf exceeding the 6000
sf minimum. Hardcover is under the 30 percent requirement. The east side yard setback is 3.9
feet although the unimproved Chateau Lane provides additional yard space between the adjacent
residences. The existing detached garage is a side entry and is setback is 4.5 feet from the front
yard line and 2.6 feet from the side yard line.
The applicant wishes to add a second story to the home staying within the existing footprint. A
master suite will occupy this level as shown in the plans. At this time, the plans do not indicate a
deck as part of the project. The applicant could add a deck to the home without encroaching into
the lakeside setback. The home is setback approximately 73 feet. A variance would be necessary
because the house is nonconforming.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis ora 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):
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
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 special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
£. 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 second story addition should not have an adverse impact on the property or surrounding
neighborhood. The existing walls will not be expanded preventing an increase in the
nonconformity. The project is an improvement for the property and the surrounding
neighborhood. The side yard setback has existed since the house was built. During that time there
have not been any modifications to the footprint. Chateau Lane has a 30 feet width and is
unimproved. It is essentially used as yard space by the adjacent residences.
There are a number of garages along Edgewater that are close to the street edge. A variance was
granted in 1970 allowing the garage to be reconstructed in its present location.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
recognize the variances 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
NAR 2 6 1998
Application Fee: $ ~ 00.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner ~
City Engineer Other
Public Works
DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address .~'i(.,~ _~.~r~,~- ~3~
Lot ~
Block _~
P,D# lg,
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1
Name ~,; ~, ~o>
Address ~j~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ 55~
Phone (H) ~ -5l~2 (W) ~-/~ (M) ~
Name
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
Plat # //'~ I ~'~"~(_.)
B-2 B-3
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes,/~, no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
~ 3 ~ff (Rev.]l~14~97)
Variance Application, P. 2
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (~', No (). It: no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED
Front : ft. ~,~ ft. 3, ~' ft.
Side Yard: ( ~ ft. -'~ I~ ft. r-~ ,~, ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: (i~ E W ) ~ ft. (z2-]-+ ft. ft.
~'-.ft'~CL~ : (N ~W) ~ ft. '~), C) ft. IQ:), ! ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: (/2('-1¢-)~ sq ft ~sq ft ~sq ft
Hardcover: C~--~ sq ft ~L)"~) sq ft , sq ft
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes j~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
arevent its reasonable use for any of
( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) drainage eX} existing situation
( ) shape ( ) other: specify
J)~ too narrow
( ) too small
( ) too shallow
describe: /.~ I'~
(Rev. 11/14/9 7)
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No (~). If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
/ /
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
(Rev. 1111419 7)
~ESOLOTION NO. 70-268
RESOLUTION GRANTING GARAGE VARIANCE '
(Lot 6, Block 1, L. P. Criever'e Subd.
of Part of Lot 56 of Lafayette Park)
~ERF~S, the owner of Lot 6, Block 1, L. P. Crevier's Subdivision o£
Part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park, has asked for variance to
replace a garage on this lot, and
W~EAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that permission be
granted provided it conforms to sideYard requirement on the
west and setback requirement on the south,
NOW, TRRREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VItT.AGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
· MiNnESOTA8
That the following variances be granted according to survey'
plmt attached, provided no parking be. allowed on Chateau Lanes.
-, - 1. A 'three-foot variance from west property line boundar~
· 2'..A one-foot, seven inohwmrianoe from south boundary,
Edgowater Drive
5. A 8ewen-foot1~r~anoe f~om east boundary, Chateau Lane.
70-26S
0-6-70'
Adopted by the Couno~ th~, 6th dray Of 0otober,
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
IIPROPER,TY ADDRESS:
OWNER S NAME:
RECEIVED
MOUND PLANNING & INSR
LOT AREA ~ Z-//(.,.~
SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. J J~;~'Oq, ~/O J
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH
TOTAL HOUSE
WIDTH
X ~' =
X =
X =
SQ FT
x /,¢2' = ~3~,, 7~,
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
/ x =
lOl~k D~IVEW~Y, EIC ..................
~ X =
X =
TOT~k ~fiCK ..........................
~ X =
~/ X
lOl~k OTHE~ .........................
~20,.25' £.,Z ~
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... J
PREPARED BY DATE
~ 0
Plat of Survey
for Patricia L. Osmonson
of Lot 6, Block 1, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision
of Part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Certificate of Survey:
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct representation of a survey
of the ~ boundaries of Lot 6, Block 1,
L.P. Crevier,s Subdivision of Part of
Lot 36, Lafayette Park, including the
adjoining part of boulevard vacated
lying between the extension North of
the East and West lines of said Lot 6,
and subject to the rights acquired for
the public street over the South 30 feet
of said lot; and of the location of all
b~ildings thereon, and all visible en-
croachments, if any, from or on said land.
Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064
Lend Surveyor and Planner
Long Lake, Minnesota
Scale:
Date :
1" = 30'
10-2-70
Iron marker
,20'
RECEIVED
2 6 1998
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
DIRECTION
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1 10,O00/60 B1 7,$00/0
B2 20~000/80
B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. Z1 30,000/100
REQUIRED
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
HOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
N S E W
N ,W
N S E
NS E W
S E W
30'
GARAGE, SHED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED
FRONT N~ S~ E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S EJ W
BUILDINGS
SIDE N S E 4' OR 6'
REAR ,r:%N S E W 4'
HARDCOVER /'% / 30%~4~ 40%
CONFORMING. YF_.3 1/ NO ' ? ]BY: 'h
t._../ U I) d m
This Zoning Inl'ormation Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requlrem%nts outline in e
Planning I~partment at 472-0600.
{ /
City of Mound Zonlug Ordinance. For further information, coulact tha City of Mound
40;
( A££ISONS
April 28, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
AT 6380 BAY RIDGE ROAD,
THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 23,
PID 23-117-24 32 0037,
P & Z CASE #98-04
WHEREAS, the applicants, Mark and Val Stone, have applied for a lot split
which would create one developable parcel (A) and one developed parcel (B) from an
existing parcel that is 53,699 square feet in area, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, and 60 feet of lot frontage, and;
WHEREAS, the property is located with street frontage on Bay Ridge Road
and on Bartlett Boulevard/County Road 110, and;
WHEREAS, the two parcels would meet all R~I district requirements for lot
area and width. The developed parcel B would meet all yard setbacks and hardcover
requirements, and;
WHEREAS, there is a culvert that drains water from the cemetery north of
the property under Bartlett and outlets at the north property edge. The drainage continues
south across the property to another culvert that extends under an old driveway. It then
follows the property line of parcel B to the catch basin on Bay Ridge Road, and;
WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer service runs through the property from
Bartlett to serve the home on Parcel B. There is not currently an easement for this line,
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the lot split as recommended by staff, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
April 28, 1998
Stone - 6380 Bay Ridge Road
Page 2
The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property with the following
conditions:
All drainage, utility and building permits be reviewed and approved by the
City.
Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City Code.
The applicant secure a driveway permit from Hennepin County prior to the
City issuing a building permit.
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,~conforming 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:
Minor subdivision for two develop able parcels.
4. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following legally described property:
Existing Legal Description:
THAT PART OF WEST 1 50.00 FEET OF THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTH OF
STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 1 0 AND RUNNING TO HALSTED BAY, LAKE MINNETONKA, SECTION
23, TOWNSHIP 1 1 7 NORTH, RANGE 24 WEST, AND ALSO LYING NORTHERLY OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROLLING
SHORES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE OR OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON AN ASSUMED
BEARING OF SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ROLLING SHORES AND THE EAST LINE OF
THE WEST 1 50.00 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 339.43 FEET TO THE
CENTERLINE OF BAY RIDGE ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 67 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 52 SECONDS
WEST ALONG THE EXTENDED CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 26.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 53 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 180.02 FEET TO THE WEST LINE
OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING 375.32 FEET SOUTH RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF HIGHWAY NO. 110, SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
PROPOSED PARCEL A:
THAT PART OF THE WEST 150.00 FEET OF THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTH
OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 10 AND RUNNING TO HALSTED BAY, LAKE MINNETONKA, SECTION
23, TOWNSHIP 1 1 7 NORTH, RANGE 24 WEST, AND ALSO LYING NORTHERLY OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROLLING
SHORES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE OR OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE
13 ,o
April 28, 1998
Stone - 6380 Bay Ridge Road
Page 3
REGISTER OF DEEDS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON AN ASSUMED
BEARING OF SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ROLLING SHORES AND THE EAST LINE OF
THE WEST 150.00 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 170.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 79 DEGREES 19
MINUTES 06 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 152.64 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID
GOVERNMENT LOT 5 AND THERE TERMINATING. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
PROPOSED PARCEL B:
THAT PART OF THE WEST 150.00 FEET OF THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTH
OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 110 AND RUNNING TO HALSTED BAY, LAKE MINNETONKA, SECTION
23, TOWNSHIP 117 NORTH, RANGE 24 WEST, AND ALSO LYING NORTHERLY OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROLLING
SHORES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE OR OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON AN ASSUMED
BEARING OF SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ROLLING SHORES AND THE EAST LINE OF
THE WEST 150.00 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 339.43 FEET TO THE
CENTERLINE OF BAY RIDGE ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 67 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 52 SECONDS
WEST ALONG THE EXTENDED CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 26.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74
DEGREES, 0 MINUTES 53 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 180.02 FEET TO THE WEST OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING 375.32 FEET SOUTH OF THE
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHWAY NO. 11 O, AND ALSO LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROLLING
SHORES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE OR OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON AN ASSUMED
BEARING OF SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ROLLING SHORES AND THE EAST LINE OF
THE WEST 150.00 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 170.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 79 DEGREES 19
MINUTES 06 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 152.64 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID
GOVERNMENT LOT 5 AND THERE TERMINATING. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
This Minor Subdivision 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.
,~pril 2$, 199~
Stone - 6380 Bay Ridge Road
Page 4
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
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, .
Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary
Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison
Mark Hanus.
Public Present: Craig Rose, Kyle Cosky, Ken Linquist, Jorj Ayaz, Bonnie Hannaman, Mark
& Velia Stone, Chuck Downey
Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-04: MINOR SUBDIVISION, MARK & VAL STONE, 6380 BAY RIDGE
ROAD, PART OF GOT LOT 5 AND PART OF ROLLING SHORES, PID # 23-117-24
32 0037
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, Mark & Val Stone, have submitted a minor subdivision request for
the property currently addresses to 6380 Bay Ridge Road. The existing parcel
would be subdivided into two parcels, the vacant parcel A having frontage on
Bartlett Blvd. and the developed parcel B retaining its frontage on Bay Ridge Road.
Each parcel would meet the R-1 district requirements for lot area and width. The
developed parcel B would meet all yard setbacks and hardcover requirements.
Parcel A would meet yard setbacks and hardcover as shown in the survey.
There is a culvert that drains water from the cemetery north of the property under
Bartlett and outlets at the north property edge. The drainage continues south across
the property to another culvert that extends under an old driveway. It then follows
the property line of parcel B to the catch basin on Bay Ridge Road.
A. sanitary sewer service runs through the property from Bartlett to serve the home
on parcel B. There is not currently an easement for this line. The City Engineer's
report details drainage and utility related issues on the property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions.
1. All drainage, utility and building permits be reviewed and approved by the City.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
2. Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City Code.
3. The applicant secure a driveway permit from Hennepin County prior to the City
issuing a building permit.
DISCUSSION:
Weiland questioned why the storm sewer was put in the way it was. Sutherland
stated that the access road originally serviced a house on parcel B. There has been
much discussion and work with the Engineer regarding drainage and he is satisfied
with the proposal.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff
recommendation as stated. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on April 28, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
OWNER: Mark and Val Stone - 6380 Bay Ridge Road
CASE NUMBER: 98-04
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5p
LOCATION: 6380 Bay Ridge Road
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicants have submitted a minor subdivision request
for the property currently addresses to 6380 Bay Ridge Road. The existing parcel would be
subdivided into two parcels, the vacant parcel A having frontage on Bartlett Blvd. and the
developed parcel B retaining its frontage on Bay Ridge Road. Each parcel would meet the R-1
district requirements for lot area and width. The developed parcel B would meet all yard setbacks
and hardcover requirements. Parcel A would meet yard setbacks and hardcover as shown in the
survey.
There is a culvert that drains water from the cemetery north of the property under Bartlett and
outlets at the north property edge. The drainage continues south across the property to another
culvert that extends under an old driveway. It then follows the property line of parcel B to the
catch basin on Bay Ridge Road.
A sanitary sewer service runs through the property fi'om Bartlett to serve the home on parcel B.
There is not currently an easement for this line. The City Engineer's report details drainage and
utility related issues on the property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions.
1. All drainage, utility and building permits be reviewed and approved by the City.
2. Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City Code.
3. The applicant secure a driveway permit from Hennepin County prior to the City issuing a
building permit.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Apr. 8, i998 I'00P}~ MCCOMBS FRANB[ ROOS
No,
McC___omb_._~s Fra___n_k R__oos Ass.__oci__ates~, !nc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 554,~7
Telephone
612/475.$010
612/476.8.~32 FAX
P, ~/7
Engineem
Planne~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CASE NO.
MFRA FILE:
City of Mound Planning Commission and Staff
John Cameron, City Engineer
February 2, 1998
City of Mound
Minor Subdivision - Part of Government Lot 5
PID 23-117-24-32-0037
98-04
#10577
As requested, we have reviewed the information furnished for the above referenced minor
subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations:
Background
A previous minor subdivision application for this parcel was flied in October of 1993. The
Planning Commission approved that request, but the City Council, due to insufficient data on
stormwater runoff and the questions of whether the request should be for a major subdivision,
took no action.
In thc process of reviewing this original request, it was discovered that the home on Parcel PIP
23-117-24-33-0023 created by a minor subdivision in 1976 was not connected to city water. The
property now in question is the other parcel created by said 1976 subdivision. The Ci~' extended
the watermain across the end of Bay Ridge Road and as a result of 1993 subdivision request; the
home at 6385 Bay Ridge Road is now connected to city water.
When the 1993 subdivision request failed to gain approval, a home was constructed at thc
southerly end of the parcel with a driveway connected to the end of Bay Ridge Road.
An Equal Opportuni[y Employer
A~, 8.1998 i:01PM MCCOMBS PRANK ROOS
City of Mound Planning Commission and Staff
February 2, 199g
Page 2
No. 8740
?, 5/7
Grading and Drainage
As previously mentioned, one of the factors that lead to the 1993 request not gaining approval
was insufficient data on stormwater runoff. In January of 1994, wc estimated the drainage area
and calculations were made to determine the mount of flow through the culvert under County
Road 110 and onto the subject property. A 50-year storm (which is what the County designs for)
was used, resulting in a peak discharge of only 4 c.f.s. With the present application, a revised
survey has been submitted wb. ich gives more detail of the drainage patterns on thc subject
property. The old unused driveway splits the property into two separate drainage areas. An
existing 1 g-inch culvert allows the drainage from the County culvert and the northwesterly
portion of the property to flow through the culvert under the driveway and then south along the
easterly property line to the catch basins in Bay R/dge Road. There is a small depression that
allows the stormwater to pond to a depth of approximately 18-inches before flowing through the
culvert. The ponded water will remain until it soaks away making the back yard wet. Because of
the culvert's size, the downstream flow is not reduced; therefore the existing 18-inch culvert has
no benefit.
There are a number of solutions available, the best of which would be to install a storm sewer
line from the County culvert to the city system in Bay Ridge Road. A more economically
feasible solution would be to replace the existing 18-inch pipe under the old driveway with a 12-
inch CMP at the existing ground elevation so water does not pond. Since the 12-inch pipe is
mailer than the existing 18-inch, it also reduces the peak downstream flow with less chance of
erosion. The third solution is to do nothing, which could cause problems dov~xuhill.
The proposed house and driveway adds approximately 2,000 square feet of impervious surface to
a drainage area estimated to be 4.7 acres, increasing the hard cover by only 1%, which is fairly
insufficient. We do not have sufficient data to calculate the flows from the drainage area east of
the old driveway. It is very difficult to make a firm recommendation without a more detailed
drainage study, but it appears the option of replacing the old pipe w/th a 12-inch CMP is the best
solution. One change we would recommend to the applicant's proposal is to eliminate the
proposed culvert under the driveway to the new house and reroute the runoff from the County
culvert around the west end of the house. Some type of structure such as a small retaining wall
should also be constructed to direct the water from the County culvert in the desired direction.
Sanitary_ Sewer and Water
The existing sanitary sewer main and existing service in County Road 110 are too high to serve
by gravity a basement in the proposed house using the elevations indicated. A lift pump would
be required. As shown, the existing home on Parcel B has its sewer pressure line crossing Parcel
A and connecting to the city main in County Road 110. An easement for this service Mil need to
be provided as part of the proposed subdivision.
A~, 8, lgg8 l'Otbl ~CCOMBS [RANK ROOS
City of Mound Planning Commission and Staff
February 2, 1998
Page 3
No, 8740
P, 6/7
The City's record plans do not indicate an existing water services for Parcel A; thus either one
needs to be installed or some form of financial guarantee provided.
Permits
The applicant ',riLl probably need two permits from Hermepin County, one for the utility work
and another for the driveway. Because the existing driveway was abandoned years ago, it would
be advisable to verify that it is still permitted.
c:~nain:~10577~mounf14-$
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATION-~
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
LOTAREA ;.,3~Gc-t~ SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for detached buildings only) ..
(for all lots) .............. I
(for Lots of Record*) ....... ]
I
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE ~ Ot'~3~. X =
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
3b-oo
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pe~ious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
P~PARED BY ~'¢'~t,~L,,.,'~!l,.,. DATE
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
IIPROPERTY ADDRESS:
~OWNER'S NAME:
LOTAREA ~7Oo~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY I~'t{¢~/~_ ~ !_~/~.~ ~,-~ DATE
/
.5'0 7.5'"' I
76 -34
-13-76
RESCLUTION NO. 76 - 34
RESCLUTION GRANTING THE DIVISION OF PLAT 61223
PARCEL 1780 INTO TWO PARCELS AND THT~. DEDICJITI~!
OF LAND FOR TPi~-~ EVENTUAL COMIM_ETION OF A CLU~ DE SAC
(Survey of land, division and cul de ssc att)
WHEREAS, property identified ss Plat 61223 parcel 1780, Section 23
Government Lot 5 measures 681 feet by 150 feet, and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that said property be divided into
two parcels to settle an estate, and
WHEREAS, a provision will be made dedicstin§ land for the com-
pletion of a cul-de-sac.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OOUNCTL OF MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That division of Plat 61223 Parcell 1780 into
two parcels and the dedication of land for the
eventual completion of a cul-de-sac be granted.
Adopted by the Council this 13th day of January, 1976.
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
February 3, 1998
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Mark and Val Stone
6380 Bayridge Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Bartlett Lot Split
Dear Mark and Val:
We have received and reviewed your application for the lot split of your property. During the
review process the City Engineer and myself have discovered a couple of issues that need to be
addressed before your application can be forwarded to the Planning Commission. It is my
understanding that Jon Cameron has discussed these issues with the surveyor.
In regards to what information is needed to proceed, the City is requesting the following:
The most current survey that was submitted with the application needs clarification. There
appears to be some discrepancy between a survey submitted for a previous request in terms
of the existing contours and what is currently being proposed.
· There is a culvert under Bartlett that needs to be identified.
· In addition, how will water drainage associated with this culvert be addressed.
· The utility locations on the survey are incorrect. From our data, the sanitary sewer line is the
only service crossing the property.
· Sewer and water service to the lot need to be addressed. There are two ways to handle this.
Install stubs to the property at the time of subdivision or escrow monies for each of the
services.
If you have any questions about these items please feel free to contact Jon Cameron, City
Engineer at 476-6010 or myself.
Sincerely,
Loren Gordon, AICP
Assistant City Planner
cc: Jon Sutherland, City of Mound
RECEIVED
F£ - 6 1,998
MOUND PLANNING & INSR
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838
Re~. 1/9/97 Application for
MINOR SUBDMSION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Plak-ming Commission Date:
City Council Date: O~'O~
Distribution:
'JAN
55364
Case No.
CITY OF MCUND ne"
Application Fee: $75.00
Escrow Deposit: $1.000
I ",~"q~ City Planner~ DNR''¢ RECEIVED Deficient Unit Charges?
Public Works (gd~,'~' ·
City Engineer ' ~.~3;;1% JAN2 2 t998 Delinquent Taxes?
Ctcgd~/tS ~ MOU~D Dl~t:"~"~ft' t men VARIANCE REQUIRED? ~O
.............................................................. ~kpm~ [.0..¢..(0~F~ ............................................ ~ .......
Ple~e ty~ or prMt the foBowMg ~ormation:
PROPERTY Subject Address
INFORMATION
LEGAL -
ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner
Address 63ff0
Phone (H} ~'~2-
OWNER Name
(if other than
applicant) Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
Name
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER 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.
This appfication must be sign~ners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Owner s Signature Date
· ,mer's Signature
Date
Proposed Minor Subdivision
7601 ?3rd Aveaue North
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55428
t~uror~lors (grrtifir~
/ .~
/
/
/
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 23, 1993
1.5 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Mike Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, representing the owners of vacant property whose address
is 6385 Bartlett Blvd., was present objecting to the suspension of their minor subdivision request
that the Planning Commission and Staff recommended approval of and should have been
presented at this Council Meeting. The action was suspended because it was felt that a major
subdivision request should be submitted with the applicants determining how much storm sewer
water runoff there is on this property and how they are going to handle it. Mr. Mueller stated
that there is no easement for the drainage culvert that is on this property. He is asking that the
City provide the drainage information. After discussion the Council asked Staff to research the
background on this property and determine how much water drains on this lot and how it could
be diverted. No further action was taken.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 1993
CASE //93-055: JEFF MARTINEAU & MICHAEL MUELLER FOR
DONALD OLSON, 6385 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF GOVERNMENT
LOT 5, SECTION 23, 23-117-24 32 0037, MINOR SUBDIVISION,
Commissioner Mueller removed himself from the Planning Commission for this
case.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Official's report. The
applicants are seeking approval of a minor subdivision. Both proposed parcels are
conforming to the Zoning Ordinance for lot area, hardcover provisions, and
setbacks. Parcel A exceeds the minimum lot area requirement with 26,900 +/-
square feet. Parcel B, with 26,721 +/- square feet, requires a variance to street
frontage of 28 feet to the required 60 feet in the R-1 zone. The cul-de-sac as
shown on the survey is not intended to be installed. After discussion and review
by staff, it is felt that one additional home does not necessitate the cul-de-sac,
however, if parcel 23 to the south would be developed in the future, the cul-de-sac
should be installed with the adjoining properties being assessed at that time.
PAGE 1 OF 4
CASE f~93-055: 6385 BARTLETT BLVD., MINOR SUBDIVISION
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 1993
Koegler noted that there are some unresolved issues, and as a result the Planning
Commission has the option of tabling the request or approving it with conditions.
Information was anticipated to be provided by this meeting, but has not been
received. The City had to televise the sanitary sewer lines as they were unable to
be located, and the City Engineer has expressed that it is a mess. Information is
needed on the stormwater that passes through this property from across County
Road 110 (Bartlett Blvd.). A design with supporting data, along with the storm
sewer size needs to be provided.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed
subdivision and street frontage variance with the following conditions:
All drainage, utility, and other issues be resolved to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer as noted in his report.
2. Proof of proper recording and dedication of the cul-de-sac be provided.
Parcel B shall be subject to assessment at any time in the future that the City
deems it necessary to install the cul-de-sac.
Park dedication fees shall be set by Resolution of the City Council as noted
in City Code Section 330:120, Subd. 3., and in no case shall be less than
$500 per lot.
An escrow account in the amount of $1,000 shall be provided as required
by City Code Section 520:00, 10. to offset any direct City expenses. Said
escrow shall be received prior to final action by the City Council. All costs
associated with this subdivision are payable by the applicant in any case,
whether the application receives final approval or not.
e
Those conditions outlined in the letter from Hennepin County, Department
of Public Works, dated October 28, 1993.
Clapsaddle questioned, if the cul-de-sac were improved, would the driveway for
Parcel B work? The Commission determined that the cul-de-sac should not be
needed for just one more house and it is not an issue at this time.
PAGE 2 OF 4
CASE f/93-055: 6385 BARTLETT BLVD., MINOR SUBDIVISION
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 1993
The owners of the house to the east of the proposed Parcel B, Mr. and Mrs.
Henry Sandoval, expressed a concern about drainage and grading.
Jeff Martineau related that Mr. and Mr. Stone have a signed purchase agreement
for the proposed Parcel B and would like to construct the house as soon as
possible.
Michael commented that the Planning Commission is not engineers, but the
information should be available for review in order to make a recommendation.
Mueller stated he has requested information from the city regarding these issues
more than once, and basically City staff said to formally apply for a subdivision
and then they will figure it out.
Martineau questioned how he is suppose to figure out where the City sewer and
water are? The City of Mound should tell them where it is. The culvert on 110
puts an enormous amount of drainage on the property, there are no utility or
drainage easements on this property. They have submitted a plan and have tried
to make sense as best they can without spending a large amount of money to solve
issues that have been historically created by other parcels of land in the
community. They will do whatever is required to make this property look nice.
Clapsaddle commented that the law says you do not drain your property on
someonelse's property, however, he would at least expect a concept plan of how
the drainage is going to work on this property.
The Commission discussed if the subdivision can be forwarded to the Council
without first receiving all the required information. The comment was made that
the Planning Commission does not claim to be' engineers or attorneys and maybe
the subdivision should be moved forward with the assurance that certain
information will need to be submitted and certain items resolved before the
subdivision can be recorded at the County.
PAGE 3 OF 4
CASE #93-055: 6385 BARTLETT BLVD., MINOR SUBDIVISION
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 1993
Mueller commented that the subdivision needs to be moved forward in order to get
answers. When he contacted the County they stated its a city cemetery. When he
contact the City Manager he stated it was a County culvert. Somebody needs to
take responsibility for the drainage situation created on this lot. The City and
County are not going to take responsibility for the drainage on this property
without somebody bringing this proposal forward. They are willing to help
alleviate some of these problems, however, moving forward may be the only way
to get answers to his questions.
Hanus summarized that in order to subdivide property you need two buildable
parcels, and there are still some issues that need to be resolved and the City needs
to take some responsibility and get some answers for the applicants, and he would
be in favor of tabling the request to allow the City time to address these issues.
Voss commented that he is opposed to tabling and stated that staff recommended
approval based upon issues being resolved by the City Engineer and staff.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Meyer to recommend
approval of the subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion
carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Meyer, ldx~l~g, Johnson,
Wadlmld, Jensen, and Voss. Those opposed were Clapsaddle,
Hanus, and Michael.
The reason those persons opposed was due to the lack of solutions for the drainage
and sewer and water problems, they did not have a problem with the basic concept
of the lot split.
This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 23, 1993.
PAGE 4 OF 4
CITY of MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 4'72-0600
FAX f612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of November 8, 1993
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official .~F~
Subdivision and Variance Request
Owner: Donald Olson, 771 San Diego Road, Berkeley, CA 94707
Agent for Owner: Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Contract Purchaser: Jeff Martineau, Burnett Realty, 315 E. Lake St., Wayzata, MN 55391
93-055
6385 Bartlett Blvd., Part of Government Lot 5, Section 23, 23-117-24 32 0037
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking to subdivide the subject property as noted on the attached
survey. Both proposed parcels are conforming to the Zoning Ordinance for lot area,
hardcover provisions, and setbacks. Parcel A exceeds the minimum lot area requirement
with 26,900 +/- square feet. Parcel B, with 26,721 +/- square feet, requires a variance
to street frontage of 28 feet to the required 60 feet in the R-1 zone. The cul-de-sac as
shown on the survey is not intended to be installed. After discussion and review by
staff, it is felt that one additional home does not necessitate the cul-de-sac, however, if
parcel 23 to the south would be developed in the future, the cul-de-sac should be installed
with the adjoining properties being assessed at that time.
Staff is working with the surveyor to submit additional information regarding utilities,
sewer and water, and how they plan on dealing with the stormwater that passes through
this property from across County Road 110 (Bartlett Blvd.). A design with supporting
data, along with the storm sewer size needs to be provided. It is anticipated this
information will be provided prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
printed on recycled paper
Staff Report
6385 Bartlett Blvd.
November 8, 1993
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed
subdivision and street frontage variance with the following conditions:
All drainage, utility, and other issues be resolved to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer as noted in his report.
2. Proof of proper recording and dedication of the cul-de-sac be provided.
o
Parcel B shall be subject to assessment at any time in the future that the City
deems it necessary to install the cul-de-sac.
o
Park dedication fees shall be set by Resolution of the City Council as noted in City
Code Section 330:120, Subd. 3., and in no case shall be less than $500 per lot.
Se
An escrow account in the amount of $1,000 shall be provided as required by City
Code Section 520:00, 10. to offset any direct City expenses. Said escrow shall be
received prior to final action byt he City Council. All costs associated with this
subdivision are payable by the applicant in any case, whether the application
receives final approval or not.
JS:pj
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request.
November 23, 1993.
This case will be heard by the City Council on
MOV 03 '93 l l:54AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS P.~x~
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Mir~nesota 55447
Telephone
612/476-6010
~1Z/476-8532 FAX
Englneer6
Surveyors
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Jon Sutherland
John Cameron
November 2, 1993
City of Mound, Minnesota
Minor Subdivision - Case #93-055
Olson Property 6835 Bartlett Boulevard
MFRA #10577
As requested, we have reviewed the survey accompanying the above
request for e minor subdivision and have the following comments and
recommendations:
There are no City utilities shown on the survey, except for a
catchbasin at the end of improved Bay Ridge Road. A proposed
storm sewer is shown running from this catch basin to a detention
pond located on Parcel A. There is an existing culvert under
County Road 10, which is not shown on the survey, that collects
water from the no~th side of the road and dischsr~es onto this
parcel. This culvert could be a ma3or problem depending on its
location and size. We cannot make this determination without
additional information on location and volume of water discharging
to said property.
City as-built drawings do not show either the sanitary sewer or
watermain for this area of Bay Ridge Road. Apparently these
extensions were privately installed and record drawings were never
furnished. The sanitary sewer in County Road 110 is too high to
serve by gravity the basement of the proposed house shown on Parcel
A. We cannot review proposed connections unless the existing
utilities are shown on the survey.
The street access question will be addressed by the Planning
Department's review.
EasemeDts
When all the questions on utilities and drainage are sorted out,
then we will be able to determine what easements should be
required.
An Equal Oppo~unity FmDIo?e~
r-~ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
320 Washington Avenue South
HEiNE~,j Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
PHONE: [6'12] 930-2500
FAX [6~2] 930-25'13
TDD: [6'12] 930-2696
October 28, 1993
NOV 1 1993
~0UNP. PLANNING & INSP.
Peggy James
Planning and Inspections
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ms. James:
RE:
Proposed Lot Division - Jeff Martineau
CSAH 110, south side approximately 150 feet east of Highview Lane
Section 23,Township 117, Range 24
Hennepin County Plat No. 2103
Review and Recommendations
Thank you for submitting the noted lot division to us for review. We reviewed
the lot division and have the following comments:
The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way for a totP-
of 40 feet of right of way from and along the centerline of CSAH 110.
The location of the proposed driveway from Lot A to CSAH 110, approximately 15
feet west of Lot A's northeast corner, is acceptable. The developer must
acquire an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning access
construction. As shown on the proposed plan dated October 21, 1993, this
driveway must have a turnaround. No other direct access to CSAH 110 will be
permitted.
All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved
utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not
limited to driveway removal, drainage and utility construction, trail
development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for
utility permit forms.
The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed
during construction .
Please direct any response to Doug Mattson.
Sincerely,
Transportation Planning Engineer
TDJ/DBM
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City 0f Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
~lanning C0mmi~ion Date: II- ~_~rq_%
City Council Date: t~~
Site Visit Scheduled:
":ning Sheet Completed:.
Topy to City Planner:
Application Fee: $50.00
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Charges?
Copy to Public Works: ~ Delinquent Taxes?
Copy to .City .Engineer: t/
Other:-~'~tl~',~ ~'~7.'~..~.~[ ...... :..~ ~'.~,RtlL' ~'_]~ I -~ [.~.~:..~, .~0-Z~ VARIANCE REQUIRED?
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property
Owner~ s Name Z~/(,'/X L~
Owner's ~ddress ??/ f~,J
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Day Phone
~_,4 ~¥7~7
Name of Surveyor
Name of Engineer
LEGAL DESCRIPTIO~.:~.
Addition
Day Phone ~75- 9'/ ~/
Day Phone /~
Block
PID NO.
Zoning District Use of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other
zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If ~es, list date(s) of application,
action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
application must be signed by ,all owners of the subject property, or an
'?'D~anation, given why this is not the case.
.,, " I/ ;7
~ignature of Owner
Date
4/93
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date: /~:~ ./' ~.3
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No. q~"05~
Site Visit Scheduled:
Zoning Sheet Completed:
Copy to City Planner:
Copy to Public Works:
Copy to City ~p_gipe~r:
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property k7 ~':'.-'f
'x ~ ,'~ /. ,'.r../ 17t: ' ' . . "
Owner's Name i~(zi.,, r~.Ll%_. ~ _.... . --- Day Phone _' ' "" '__ _96
owner's Address V?~ -~;qJ~ .%~?~--:' ~' ~ /"~"'~' ~ ,' .~,'-' "> ~'~
Applicant's Name (if other than oQner)
Address Day Phone
I_,/J. 4
/y;;.,-,< ?-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot
Addition PID No.
Block
Zoning District .~'- / ...
Use of Property: / .//c ;2',u ,'
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~9 no. If
yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions. ~
1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number
of stories, type of use, etc.) '. /;'i, '~-'(Pt? ~ , ~ .~.;t_ ~7 .'"'-' ~' "Y' ".' "' / ~-S /
Ts> '
4/93
Variance Application
Page 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes
(), NO (). If nO, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)
SETBACKS:
required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ~C'i/ ~< ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) /.~/ !.~- ft. ft. ft.
Lake Front: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) /f' ?/f' ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) .~-~ / ~- ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ~O ft. ~ ~ . ft. ~ ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the
zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no,
specify each non-conforminguse:
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
( ) too shallow (~shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe: C~'~-~d- ~/L///~//O,~dF-A
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted
(1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain
4/93
Variance Application
Page 3
Case No.
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the
relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~0' If yes, explain
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~)<), No (). If
no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
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 t~is application
by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of
inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be
required by law.
Applicant' s Signature
Date
76 -34
-13-76
RESCLUTION NO. 76 - 34
RESCLUTIC~I GRANTING THE DIVISION OF PLAT 61223
PARCEL 1780 INTO TWO PARCELS AND THE, DEDICATICB!
OF LAND FOR T}~. EVENTUAL COMFLETION OF A CUL DE SAC
(Survey of land, division and cul de sac att)
WHEREAS, property identified as Plat 61223 parcel 1780, Section 23
Government Lot 5 measures 681 feet by 150 feet, and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that. said property be divided into
tw~ parcels to settle an estate, and
WHEREAS, a provision will be made dedicating land for the com-
pletion of s cul-de-sac.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OOUNCIL OF MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That division of Plat 61223 Parcell 1780 into
two parcels and the dedication of land for the
eventual completion of a cul-de-sac be 9ranted.
Adopted by the Council this 13th day of January, 1976.
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COA~ISSION ~EET!NG - December 11, 1975 7:30 P.M.
Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota
Present were: Chairman Lou Oberdeck, Commissioners Helen Newell, Frank Weiland,
Cklair Hasse, Gerald Smith, Council Representative Gordon Swenson, City Manager
Leonard Kopp,. Inspector Henry Truelsen ar~ Secretary Marge Stmtsman.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Pla~-g Co.~mission meeting of October 30, 1~75 were
presented. Correct spelling of WoOdward on page 3- Rasse moved and Weiland
seconded a motion that the minutes as corrected be approved. The vote wes
unanimously in favor.
BOARD OF
1.
APPEALS
Thomas B~ Stephensonp 1717 Finch Lane
Lots 5, 6, 7 an~ 8, ~lock 13, Dreamwood
Non-conforming use variance
Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson were present. They wish to add onto house as
more bedroom space is needed. Corner of house (original cabin) is en-
croaching about 3 foot 7 inches on Commons.
New~l moved and Wei!and seconded a motion that permit for addition
be allowed providing that the eight foot porch across front of house
be eliminated and any other variances waived.
Discussed. Ail down road are non-conforming uses.
The vote on motion was unanimously in favor.
Owner against removing porch (livingroom with basement underneath).
2. Clarence Olsen, 6385 Bay P. tdge Road
Part of Lot 5 (M & B) Section Twenty Three
Division of Land
Mr. Koenig, Attorney for fee owners, Catherine Olean and Donald Olean,
could not be present. Requested that City M~nager present information
to Plam~t-g Commission. Mrs. Oisen lives in house on South part of
land and Donald Olean has North part. Sewer line runs on lake side.
They are willing to dedicate land for cu!-~e-sac to the City.
Newell' moved that application for division of land as requested be
granted providing land needed for cul-de-sac is dedicated to City
at this time. Smith seconded the motion. '
Discussed. Further division of these two parts probable in the futmre.
The vote was unanimously in favor of the division as requested.
ADDRESS: i~.~:
Required Lot Width: /~,'~O / (fron=ag. on &n imp ....U ~ubl£c .tr.~)
Existing Lot w.~.A ~ I 3o'~/- ~.~=. ~ ,+
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: . s ,,.
REAR: N S E W ~'
LAK~$NOR~:
nox ?~
50' (mqasured from O.N.W.)
ACCESSORY BU]I, DI~NG
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W , 4' 9~ ~'
SIDE: N S E W 4' 9[ §'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAF. ESNORE: 50' (measured from O.M~W. )
~ (8)
~ (~')
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAK.Z SNORE:
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S ~ W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAK~" SHORE:
AC~£SSORY BUILDIN9
,~88.47,43.E
('~7)
7/I 5/76 ~,,
uc
2O)
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Telephone
612'476-6010
612,476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Jon Sutherland
John Cameron
November 2, 1993
City of Mound, Minnesota
Minor Subdivision - Case #93-055
Oison Property 6835 Bartlett Boulevard
MFRA #10577
As requested, we have reviewed the survey accompanying the above
request for a minor subdivision and have the following comments and
recommendations:
Utilities
There are no City utilities shown on the survey, except for a
catchbasin at the end of improved Bay Ridge Road. A proposed
storm sewer is shown running from this catch basin to a detention
pond located on Parcel A. There is an existing culvert under
County Road 10, which is not shown on the survey, that collects
water from the north side of the road and discharges onto this
parcel. This culvert could be a major problem depending on its
location and size. We cannot make this determination without
additional information on location and volume of water discharging
to said property.
City as-built drawings do not show either the sanitary sewer or
watermain for this area of Bay Ridge Road. Apparently these
extensions were privately installed and record drawings were never
furnished. The sanitary sewer in County Road 110 is too high to
serve by gravity the basement of the proposed house shown on Parcel
A. We cannot review proposed ~onnections unless the existing
utilities are shown on the survey.
Streets
The street access question will be addressed by the Planning
Department's review.
Easements
When all the questions on utilities and drainage are sorted out,
then we will be able to determine what easements should be
required.
An Equal Oppor[umt'/E'~cioyer
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
SURVEY ON FILET//'~ / NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
YARD
HOUSE .........
DIRECTION y REQUIRED
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R2 XO,O00/~ ~Z V,500/O
~--1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/60
R2 6,000/40 B3 10.000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I! 30,000/200
IEXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE: ,.
LOT WIDTH:
LOT Di/PTH:
VARIANCE
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
SIDE
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
t0
10' OR 30'
GARAGE, StiED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
HARDCOVER
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
30% OR 40%
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
50'
10' OR 30'
CONFORMING?YES/NO/? ]BY:
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in thc City of Mound Zoning Ordinance, For further information, conl~ct the City of Mound
Planning Department at 472-0600.
~ (2)
..... (3~)
..
[.~
Proclamation
Municipal Cler Week
May 3 through May 9, 1998
Whereas, The Office of the Municipal Clerp~ a time honored and vital part of local
government e~C~sts throughout the world and
Whereas, The Office of the Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants, and
Whereas, The Office of the Municipal Clerkprovides the professional linkbetween the citizens, the
local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels, and
Where,, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality,
rendering equal service to all.
Whereas, The Municipal Clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government
and community.
Whereas, Municipal Cler~ continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs
of the Office of the Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars,
workshops and the annual meetings of their state, province, county and international
professional organizations.
Whereas, It is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Office of the
Municipal Clerk.
Now, Therefore, I, , Mayor of
, do recognize the week of
May 3 through May 9, 1998, as Municipal Clerk6 Weel~ and further extend appreciation
to our Municipal Clerk~ , and to all Municipal Cler~ for the
vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent.
Dated this day of 1998
Mayor
IIMC NEWS DIGEST APRIL 1998 ~
APR-28--g8 82 :20
P.O1
4"Zt}/:~ 14;D~ 1'..~5
{;1'1'~ Iff: ~lt}l'Nl}
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
Use of a public park or commons by any group consisting of [5 or more individuals.
Use, is not to inlcrfere with traffic and general use of the park or commons or to be beyond the
ability of' the police in mab~taining order.
~_Q_.I_,IQ_U_QR_Q.B___B._~J~R _MAY BE USI~D IN ANY OF T31E CIXY PARKS OR
~UflDX~.GS.
Group is to remove all litter mad trash and provide a deposit to insure cleaning up of the park
Deposit __
Da{c of Usc ....... ..~_.../_.~_ [ .!
Time Frame
l,,tended Use
Telephone No. 14omc: q2.2
Drivers License Ntunber
{~ 0tJl.
FOR THE APRIL 28, 1998 COUNCIL MEETING
April 20, 1998
TO:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
The following permits are being requested. Please waive the fee on them as indicated.
Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance etc. being turned in. All fees may be
waived except the Beer Permit.
Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. requests the following permits for the June 6, 1998, Fish
Fry.
Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit
Public Dance Permit
Set-Up Permit
2. Mound City Days - June 19, 20 & 21, 1998.
Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit - Mound Bay Park - June 20 & 21, 1998
Pond Arena - June 19, 1998
Carnival?
Concessions
Craft Show
Entertainment - Pond Arena & Mound Bay Park
Fireworks - June 20, 1998 - Rain date June 21, 1998
Merchant Sales
Parade Permit - June 20, 1998
Public Dance Permit - June 19, 1998 - Pond Arena
Public Gathering - Mound Bay Park
Set-Up Permit - Pond Arena
American Legion/VFW
Parade Permit -
May 25, 1998 - 10:45 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. - Memorial Day
Parade
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's
Housing Incentives Program for 1998 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is
therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Livable Communities
Demonstration Account; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the
Demonstration Account's purpose/s and criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, agrees to act as legal sponsor
for the project contained in the Demonstration Account application submitted on April 28,
2998.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, that the City Manager is hereby authorize to apply to the Metropolitan
Council for this funding on behalf o the City of Mound and to execute such agreements as
are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
RECEF;F_.~.-'.~, g Igg8
Livable Communities
Demonstration Account
of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
1998
Funding Application Guide
~ ..... llii II ,al,
Livable Communities Demonstration Account
of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
Program Guidelines and Criteria
1998 final adopted version
WHAT IS A LIVABLE COMMUNITY?
Livable communities are oriented toward a transit- and pedestrian-friendly environment in
neighborhoods with a mix of uses essential to daily life of the residents including housing, workplaces,
shops, parks and civic uses. In accomplishing these things, livable communities foster a sense of place
and community, where interaction and participation in the community can occur.
Livable communities provide a variety of housing types and costs to accommodate peoples' life-cycle
changes and to suit their changing circumstances. They incorporate higher-density housing that pays
attention to building form and scale.
In a livable community, land uses are compact and connected, encouraging walking and transit use.
Such areas accommodate both the car and the pedestrian; for example recognizing that people will
drive to a destination, but once they are there, they can walk or take transit.
PROGRAM PURPOSE AND QUALIFYING CRITERIA
The Livable Communities Act specifies that demonstration projects must do one or more of the following:
· Provide access to a variety of transportation systems: transit, bicycles, pedestrian, auto;
· Link affordable housing with employment growth;
· Intensify new and existing land use;
· Provide mixed-income housing;
· Encourage public infrastructure that
- connects urban and suburban communities,
- attracts private sector investment, or
- provides employment opportunities to residents.
PRIORITIES
Priority will be given to projects that:
· Contain innovative and creative design, policy or regulatory elements that set them apart fi.om
typical development practices. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee encourages
proposals that will accomplish significant economic integration. In communities that have not yet
reached their affordable housing goals, priority will be given to proposals which will provide
housing affordable to families with incomes at 50 percent or less of median income.
· Are replicable in the region, entirely or in part. Replicable elements can be models or processes;
· Use innovative partnerships among government, private for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, including
private leverage;
· Implement the Regional Blueprint's Regional Growth Strategy.
EXAMI~LES OF PRO,IECTS TO FIT ~ PROGRAM'S PRIORITIES
Examples of innovative and creative project components:
· A mix (rather than in separated areas) of single-family and, townhouses and other attached and
multifamily housing, affordable to a wide range of families and individuals.
· A combination of uses that provide a mix of jobs, services and housing with transit access.
· Application of design concepts (e.g. orientation of buildings to the street and to each other, attention
to building form, placement of garages, etc.) that results in developments that use land more
efficiently.
· A variety of small shops and restaurants on lower levels of buildings with offices or apartments
above.
· Ways to successfully emphasize pedestrian circulation while also accommodating the auto (e.g.
shared parking arrangements, structured parking, pedestrian walkways, etc.)
· Redevelopment or infill projects that are linked to their surroundings through similar or compatible
scale, architectural features, or other means.
· Developments that successfully incorporate or re-introduce public spaces (parks, public squares,
plazas) and pedestrian access and circulation.
· Incorporation of neighborhood-scale retail uses along established transit routes, enabling transit
riders to conduct daily business at the beginning or end of their trip.
· Intensification of land uses in nodes along transit corridors, combining employment locations,
workplaces, retail and entertainment options.
The above examples are also examples of components that could be replicated in the region.
Other examples of replieable projects:
· Projects that address regulatory barriers in ways that can be used in other cities.
· Developments that address circumstances found commonly in the region.
2
Examples of innovative partnerships:
Projects that involve local businesses, community institutions and area residents in planning and
implementing projects.
Projects that involve financial contributions from local for-profit and non-profit businesses and
organizations.
IMPLEMENTING TIlE REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY
The goals of the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the projects as described above are
consistent with objectives of the Regional Blueprint's Regional Growth Strategy. In addition, projects that help
to implement the following goals of the regional growth strategy will receive funding priority, including those
that:
· Increase housing densities in the Urban Area, especially along transit lines.
· Increase job creation and economic development in nodes along corridors from 1-494/1-694 Beltway
into the region's core.
· Enhance existing neighborhoods and activity centers.
· Reduce dependence on the automobile by encouraging direct links among housing, jobs and
transportation.
· Use regional transportation investments to increase transit use and mixed use development.
Below are goals related to land use for different policy areas (refer to Growth Strategy Map attached to these
guidelines). Many of these goals repeat the goals of the Livable Communities Demonstration Account.
In the Urban Area...
· Use land with urban services wisely
Increase the density and intensity of development
Foster efficient, connected land use patterns
Allow mixed use developments
· Support job creation and economic development in nodes along corridors within and near the 1-494/1-694
beltway, especially in concentrations serviceable by transit
· Link transit investments and service enhancements to developments that are pedestrian and transit friendly
· Coordinate redevelopment with regional infrastructure investments
· Provide a diversity of housing types, prices and locations
· Incorporate environmental preservation into the development process
In the Urban Core...
· Revitalize and stabilize neighborhoods through physical renewal, job creation, new housing construction and
rehabilitation of existing housing
~ Accommodate diversity of income groups
· Support and increase job and tax base: target public investments to maintain and enhance the vitality of job
centers and nodes within the Urban Core
· Improve access and mobility 9 Give priority for regional investments to neighborhoods adjacent to the downtowns
~ Increase access to jobs centers and nodes outside the Urban Core to core area residents
In areas split by the MUSA...
· Accommodate the majority of forecasted growth within the existing 2000 MUSA Boundary
Use as little land as possible by emphasizing in fill & intensification
Conserve land through more efficient land use patterns and higher density
0 Use available facility & service capacities as much as possible
Expand the 2000 MUSA less than 80,000 acres for the balance of forecasted growth.
O Plan 2020 MUSA consistent with revised Blueprint and systems plans
· Focus job growth in concentrations at or inside the I694-I494 beltway and along corridors serviceable by
transit
· Protect natural resources consistent with state and regional standards
In Rural Growth Centers...
· Focus growth in rural cities with central sewer service rather than on scattered sites in permanently
agricultural or rural areas
0 Grow contiguously, in stages
Function self-sufficiently with a balance of jobs, housing, and shopping
0 Pay for services locally as growth occurs (schools, sewers, roads, water, stormwater drainage,...)
To implement the regional growth strategy, a goal of the demonstration program is to fund projects that further
the regional strategy goals, during funding years 1998 through 1999, as follows:
Urban Core
One or more proposals
Urban Area
One or more proposals in developing locations.
One or more proposals in redevelopment or infill locations.
Rural Centers
one or more proposals that demonstrate contiguous
development that contributes to community self-sufficiency.
CATEGORIF. S AND SELECTION GUIDELINES
Project Categories are:
Projects Located Within the Urban Core
· Projects located in a developing location (previously undeveloped land) in the Urban Area.
· Projects located on a infill site or a redevelopment area (previously developed with some type of
urban land use) in the Urban Area.
· Projects located in Rural Centers.
The Metropolitan Council may make awards in all of the above categories, or to one or more projects in some of
the categories.
It is the prerogative of the Livable Communities Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan Council to
determine the number and amount of awards. The Advisory Committee and Council may award less than the
total available amount of $4.1 million.
ELIGIBLE USES OF LOAN AND GRANT FUNDS
Two objectives of the Demonstration Program are:
1. To fund project components that directly contribute to completion of a built or finished project.
2. To fund project components or linkages that reflect the goals and principles of the program and set the
project apart from typical development in the region.
Funds may be used for project and site planning costs, design and construction costs. Grant funds are intended
to be used for "hard costs" rather than "soft costs." Ineligible uses include administrative overhead; activities
prior to the start of the grant project; travel expenses; legal fees; permits, licenses or authorization fees; costs
associated with preparing other grant proposals; operating expenses; comprehensive planning costs; and
prorated lease and salary costs.
Project planning costs and predevelopment activities may be eligible if they are necessary to the implementation
of a project. Maximum grant amount for such projects is $150,000. In considering whether planning or other
costs will be funded, the Livable Communities Advisory Committee will evaluate projects on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the viability of the project, and its confidence that the project will be completed.
Higher priority for grants in such cases will be given to proposals that will accomplish significant economic
integration in the housing provided, and will provide housing affordable to families with incomes at 50 percent
or less of median income; or involve two or more communities working together. Other proposals may receive
loans.
PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA
The Metropolitan Council will use the following criteria to determine whether an applicant will be selected to
receive an award under the program:
Qualifying Criteria
The proposal must meet one or more purposes of the Demonstration Account (see page 1).
The proposal must be consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint and
Regional Growth Strategy.
e
The project must demonstrate an endorsement from the applicant city; or from the city in which the
project is located, if the applicant is a county.
4. The proposal must be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city in which the project is located.
Evaluation Criteria (85 possible total points)
Note: The information in italics in this section (on pages 5 and 6) is intended as guidelines, not as specific
criteria to be met.
1. INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY (0-25 points)
a. The extent to which the project provides a compact and connected development pattern.
Principle: Make Development Compact
Connect rather than separate uses, to allow for functional relationships between them.
Build mid- to high-density, with attention to the design and relationships of structures to each
other.
Projects should attempt to achieve overall housing densities of at least 7 units per acre.
Applicants: Include the number of existing and planned housing units ~Tndjobs within 1/4 mile of
the project, and the number of housing units and jobs per acre.
The extent to which the project will provide a mix of, and/or integrate different land uses and
systems--housing, transit, employment, commercial and other systems.
Principle: Mix Uses
· Include shops, workplaces, schools, civic facilities, parks and other public spaces, and a variety
of housing types and costs.
Connect uses to transit, providing people with a way to get around other than driving alone.
Projects should attempt to achieve a mix of different types of development clustered within 1/4 mile
walk or within 40 to 160 acre neighborhoods; housing and neighborhood-scale businesses that are
oriented to transit and the pedestrian; a minimum of five types of neighborhood-scale uses plus
housing.
c. The extent to which the project incorporates pedestrian-oriented design.
Principle: Design for People
· Locate shops and other uses within walking distance of each other, and within walking
distance of transit.
Design streets for pedestrians, not just cars. Orient businesses and other structures to the
street for pedestrian accessibility, and provide convenient parking. This creates safe,
pleasant walking environments.
· Provide places for people to gather--parks and other public open spaces, a central place or
neighborhood center that provides a focus for activities.
· Use design to make places safer, create amenities and improve livability.
Projects should consider pedestrian infrastructure connecting all land uses, with short,
direct walking routes that are weather-protected and well-lit. In parking lots, consider
pedestrian crossings.
Projects should consider including roadway infrastructure that emphasizes walking,
transit and bicycle travel while accommodating cars. Desirable features include blocks
scaled to pedestrian travel; streets that are easy to cross on foot; or, if streets are Wide,.
pedestrian crossings are accommodated through safe, direct pedestrian routes to the transit
stop and to major destinations, with center islands.
Projects should attempt to achieve site and building design where building setbacks are
short, favoring pedestrian use; and where shared parking is located beside or behind
buildings.
Projects should consider including several of the following elements: Public gathering
places, parks and open space, pedestrian-scale lighting, canopies with outdoor retail or
cafes, transit benches or waiting areas, natural and historic features incorporated into the
development.
Proposals are not expected to demonstrate having met all of the principles.
do
Whether and to what extent the proposal has identified regulatory barriers and successfully
negotiated workable and innovative solutions.
e. The extent to which the project is innovative and creative in ways not addressed elsewhere in
the above criteria.
2. REPLICABILITY (0-20 points)
To what extent the proposal has key project characteristics that can provide a model for replication in
other communities.
3. 1NNOVATI~ PARTNEP, SHIPS, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION (0-20 points)
a. Whether and to what extent the proposal will draw in partnerships among government,
private, for-profit and non-profit sectors, and will involve local units of government working
cooperatively to implement community development and revitalization strategies (such as a
cluster agreement or other cooperative arrangement).
b. To what extent the proposal will leverage private sources of funds.
c. To what extent the proposal will leverage other public sources of funds.
d. To what extent the proposal demonstrates a planning process (implemented or proposed)
that will help to ensure successful implementation of the project, according to the following
principles.
Principles:
· Use an open process involving residents, properW owners, developers, businesspersons, and
others with an interest in the future of the subject area.
·Employ visual models of planning proposals and alternatives.
Address design issues, and uses design professionals in the process.
Develop specific zoning and planning tools, and mechanisms to ensure plan implementation.
4. BLUEPRINT AND REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION (0-20 points)
a. The extent which the proposal supports implementation of the priorities of the Regional
Blueprint and Regional Growth Strategy. (See goals listed by policy area on pages 3 and 4).
b. To what extent public housing units are provided to implement the settlement agreement in
Hollman v. Cisneros (Civil No. 4-92-712).
LOCAL SUPPORT
Applications must include a resolution of support from the local unit of government in which the project
is located. See example attached to application format.
Metro 2040
Regional Growth Strategy
Policy ~
I Urbaa Core
:-', ~,~-' Urbaa ~ea
~ Illustrative 2020 MUSA*
Urban Reserve
Rural Growth Centers
I Permanent A~cul~ ~ea
~}~ Permanent Rd ~ea
~ ~ ~$A Bo.~4~ (as of 1~
· -..' ~ U~ ~rv¢
· 'I~ o~ 2020 IvIUSA
· , ~ oftl~ 19~-98
~ ........ Council
Nletrl)l)~)lita n
Cea)graphic lafonnatiou Systems
15 ~[e~
December 19, 1996
Livable Communities Demonstration Account
of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
~BLIILDIi'VG A~ODEL$ FOR LIFECYCLE COMMLIYVITIE$'
PROJECT SUMMARY FORM (1998)
Completing this project summary form is the fa'st step in the application process for the Livable Communities
Demonstration Account. Project summaries will be reviewed by the Livable Communities Advisory Committee, staff of the
Design Center for American Urban Landscape and Council staff. Comments will be provided to applicants on their projects
to assist them with preparing applications.
Note: Applicants must be cities that are participating in the Local Housing Incentives Program established by the Livable
Commumties Act, or metropolitan counties for projects in eligible cities.
Summaries are due by $ PMon May 15, 1998 (tentative) at the Metropolitan Council offices, 230 East 5th Street, St. Paul,
MN 55101. You may fax them to Joarme Barron's attention at 602-1404. Summaries will be reviewed during the week of
May 26 (tentative). Comments will be provided to applicants.
Project summaries must be limited to no more than twopages in length and in the format below. Longer summaries
cannot be considered.
Project Name
Project Location. Attach location and site map.
Project Description. 250 words or less.
less.
Special Features. List up to five unique or innovative features, and describe each infifieen words or
6. Status of Proposal (e.g. stage of planning or implementation, approvals granted or
financing, other funding received or requested). 25 words or less
requested,
7. Contact Person
Address
Phone Fax
Livable Communities Demonstration Account
of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
APPLICATION FORMAT
1998
Please compile application and attachments in order listed. Do not staple or bind the application package.
The application should total 15-18 pages, plus maps and supporting documents (see Sec. 20). Applications that
do not follow the specified format and length limitations may be returned for revision.
1. PROJECT NAME
2. AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUEST
3. APPLICANT AND CITY
Applicant
City(les) located in
4. PROJECT CONTACT PERSON
Name
Address
city.
Phone
FAX
State Zip Code
5. SITE LOCATION
Describe the location and size of the project area. Include maps (as attachments; see Sec. 19)identifying the
location and the adjacent land uses and development. Include relevant excerpts,from the city's comprehensive
plan for the subject area.
6. CATEGORY (Refer to Growth Strategy Map attached to Guidelines and Criteria).
The proposal is:
located in the Urban Core
a redevelopment or infill project located in the Urban Area
located in a developing portion of the Urban Area.
located in a Rural Growth Center.
7. HISTORY (1-2 pages)
Describe the history and background of the project area, such as previous land uses and activities, development
or redevelopment history.
8. PROJECT SUMMARY
In 100 words or less, summarize the project you are proposing.
9. PROJECT ELEMENTS (3-5 pages)
Describe project goals, concept, scope. Specify the types, quantities, locations and timing or phasing of
proposed uses.
List types, quantities and cost of housing in Attachment A.
List number, type and tenure (owner or renter) of housing units affordable at 50 percent or less of median
income ($30,400, $760 or less rent) and up to 80 percent of median ($48,640, up to $128,000 sales price).
Include information on mechanisms to ensure continued affordability of housing.
Describe how the project will provide a mix of or integrate housing, transportation, employment, commercial and
other uses. Specify the effects of any public infrastructure investment that is a part of the project.
10. SPECIAL FEATURES
List up to five innovative, creative or distinguishing features. Describe each in twenty words or less.
11. LINKAGES WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, TO ADJACENT
(1-2 pages)
NEIGHBORHOODS
a. Describe the land use, pedestrian and transit connections within the development or project area.
b. Describe the area surrounding the project area, through use of land use dat~, demographic data or other
means. Briefly describe any redevelopment activities in surrounding neighborhoods during the last five years.
Include pertinent information on relationships between the area of proposed development and adjacent
neighborhoods.
12. RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY (1 page or less)
a. Describe how the proposal implements the Regional Growth Strategy.
b. Describe the connections with respect to employment and transportation between the project area and the
subregion or region.
13. PLANNING PROCESS (1 page or less)
Describe the planning process for developing the proposal, including the process to date, and future planning.
14. PROJECT TEAM (1 page or less)
Identify the participants on the development and management team, including owner/developer, manager,
architect, consultants. Describe the experience of principal participants.
15. PARTNERSHIPS (1 page or less)
Describe the type and nature of partnerships in the project among government, private, for-profit and non-profit
sectors.
16. USE(S) OF DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDS (1 - 2 pages)
a. What specific project components are you proposing to fund with a Demonstration Account award?
b. Describe the benefits or value to the project that Demonstration Account funds will provide.
17. FINANCIAL SUMMARIES
Please complete Attachments B and C.
18. PROJECTSCHEDULE
Please complete Attachment D. Include any important benchmarks, local government approvals, other financing
mechanisms applied for, applicable timelines, etc.
19. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Attach a local resolution of support. See example, Attachment E.
20. ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS
a. Location and other appropriate maps, e.g. land use maps, concept drawings, site plans.
b. Supporting documentation - planning studies, letters of support
HOUSING SUMMARY TABLE (ATTACHMENT A)
I Type } I 1BR t 2BR [ 3BR I 4BRormore I Total No.
New Rental Single
Condo
Other I~ost I
Rehab Single
Rental Family ]cost ~ I J
Net Units Single
Townhouse
all
Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA)
Application
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Total Project Cost
Total Soft Cost
Total Hard Cost
Public Private
LCDA Amount
Requested
2. Are you requesting a loan?
or grant?
3. What is the status of financial commitments for this project?
4. When will you need Demonstration Account funds?
0
0
~ 0
I-Z
ATTACHMENT D
PROJECT SCHEDULE
TASKS
199
199
200
A
IV ~,[M,
A
DN
BILLS
,April 28, 1998
Batch 8042
Total Bills
$157,907.38
$157,907.38
~ ....I,,I II ii,
c',
1,
J
0
~Z
~3. 0
I
I
7.
?
z
n [
o 2 ~
z
oo~oooo oo
''~A'A'A' 'L''
..... ,_, E.__E__I .......
I I I il ~
z
-¥
,.-4
..,J
I>
--
o~
0
i
Z
0
Z
0
0
o~
o o
z
¥
°g
Z Z
0 uJ
w
Z
z
z
z
Z
0
Z
0
~u..~
uJ uJ O~
0 0
! !
0
O0
z
0
1.13
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISQRY
COMMISSION REGARDING A PROPOSED FISHING SITE OFF WILSHIRE
BLVD.
The Park Director explained that a member of the DCAC proposed that a fishing area be
established for the neighborhood residents who would like to utilize it.
The motion passed by the DCAC was as follows: "MOTION by Goldberg, seconded by
Hopkins to consider this on a 1-year test basis limiting it to dredging of the sediment in front
of the storm drain (funding by the street fund), with removal by barge and treatment of milfoil.
If no funds are available from the street fund, the dock fund would be used. Motion carried,
3-1.~
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who would like to discuss this item.
The following persons stated they are opposed to this:
Jonathan Paul, 4679 Wiishire Blvd., submitted the following petition signed by 15
people:
~Petition Against Proposed Fishing Site on Back-Waters/Channel Area on Black
Lake.
We the neighborhood residents adjacent to and across from the proposed public
fishing site respectfully submit our concerns and request the discontinuation of
this proposed action, for the reasons following:
1. The proposed area is only 3-4 feet deep and the water stays quite warm,
thus inhibiting game fish from inhabiting the said area.
2. The proposed fishing site would impose upon a very peaceful area, the
reason we inhabit the area.
3. Any Mound resident has adequate canoe and row boat access to the main
lake areas as well as many bridge areas where all species of game fish are
more abundant.
4. A public fishing area would draw the "out-side the area" people that
currently fish the Black Lake bridge, etc., and not draw from the general
population of Mound.
5. The proposed site would increase traffic/parking congestion and produce
litter and refuse problems as evident from viewing other "public fishing
sites".
6. While other reasons exist why the proposed site will ill-effect the
immediate area, these are some of the initial concerns that make
themselves evident."
e
Ken Ryan, resident of Hopkins, owner of Lots 26, 27 & 28, of which 2 and 3/4 of the
lots are in the lake.
Alan Coley, 4626 Denbigh Road.
Daryl Nehring, 4590 Denbigh Road.
1'/31
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
APRIL 27, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SEDIMENT REMOVAL FROM PROPOSED FISHING AREA ON
WILSHIRE BOULEVARD.
The day after the City Council meeting on April 14, 1998 I
made contact with Minnetonka Portable Dredge for a update
for the 1997 estimate for the storm drain sediment removal
on Wilshire Boulevard.
At this time they have not been able to re-evaluate their
1997 estimate due to the early ice out on Lake Minnetonka
causing their work schedule to be full.
I did talk briefly with the owner, Bill Niccum, today and he
said that there would only be a small increase from the 1997
estimate as long as Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) does not require that a floating barrier be
installed.
At this time I can not respond to the actual cost until Mr.
Niccum has the time to look at the 1997 figures and has
gotten a response from MCWD on the barrier.
I will submit this information as soon as it is received.
printed on recycled paper
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 24, 1998
The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed fishing area:
Dennis Hopkin% 4609 Wilshire Blvd., stated this area has always been used for fishing
by the neighborhood.
The Council discussed the cost of cleaning up the sediment at the end of the storm sewer,
remove the weeds from the area for fishing and whether it should come from the Street Fund
or the Dock fund. There was also discussion about parking in the area. Councilmember Hanus
stated he does not want the Dock Fund to pay for this. The Council generally agreed that we
should clean up the delta that has built up from the storm sewer but they also wanted to make
sure that $2,000 would cover the cleanup. The Park Director stated that he was going to try
and schedule this when there was another project that someone else might be doing to keep the
cost lower.
MOTION made by Jensen seconded by Weycker directing Staff to get actual costs
on what it will cost to clean up this site by removing the sediment at the outlet of the
storm sewer in the lake and bring this cost back to the Council in two weeks for
review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
March 31, 1998
TO: City Of Mound Resident / Property Owner
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Fishing Site off Wilshire Blvd.
Dear Resident / Owner,
The Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) on March 19,
1998, discussed the creation of a location near your
residence or property for the purpose of providing shore
fishing for neighborhood residents. A notice was sent to
you with all related information en February 10,1998. Please
refer back to that mailing and review the enclosed action
that was taken by the DCAC.
The proposal is to be heard at the City Council level on
April 14, 1998. The location is the Council Chambers at,
Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road. The meeting will begin
at 7:30 pm and will be an agenda item to be discussed that
evening.
This is your opportunity to discuss with the Council
concerns you may have. If you cannot attend please feel free
to write a response and it will be presented at the meeting.
Please address your correspondence to: Jim Fackler, Park
Director, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota
55364. All correspondence must be received no later that
April 8, 1998 in order to be placed in the council packet.
6'--~r e 1 y /
~lrecto~
cc: DCAC
enclosure
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
FISHING AREA PROPOSED ON BLACK LAKF. CHANNEl.
Hopkins discussed the proposal for a fishing area on Black Lake Channel. He noted areas
on an overhead which would be cleared out in order to have more available shoreline. He
noted it is deep enough for fishing. A resident noted there are only three good weeks of
fishing in the area because of milfoil, and a fishing area would be a waste of money.
Hopkins stated the milfoil would be treated. He noted the area is well used for fishing.
Ken Ryan, owns three lots abutting this area stated he owns three lots adjacent to this
property. A majority of the lots are under water. He submitted a letter questioning the
ownership of the property, whose idea it was, and funding for the project. He stated he
is opposed to this proposal. He believed it is intended to accommodate only a few
residents. Hopkins stated the purpose is to keep it for the use of the local residents.
Jonathan Paul, 4679 Wilshire stated no parking is permitted on any of the streets in this
area. He discussed discrepancies on the overhead. He explained why he is opposed to the
fishing pier (sic). He stated he didn't believe this is a good fishing area. He was
concerned about after hour activities, need for additional policing, garbage, sanitation
facilities, illegal parking, and trespassing. He believed the money should be used to
improve an already existing area. He submitted a petition of signatures in opposition to
the proposal.
Carv Engelbrightsen, 4626 Bedford Road didn't believe that many more people would
use the area if it were upgraded. He supported the project.
Alan Cole¥, Denbigh Road believed there is room to fish in the area right now. He
suggested only a couple smaller areas be cleared out rather than the entire 100 feet.
DOCK & COI~40NS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 19, 1998
Ahrens was concerned about the proposal and the number of people in opposition.
Kathleen Ree, Wilshire Blvd. stated she is opposed to the proposal. She suggested
putting a dock in Black Lake instead.
Darrin Lee, Denbigh Road said he is also opposed to the proposal.
Gene Bagland stated he is opposed to the removal of the brash.
Daryl Nehring, Denbigh stated there is already a fishing area there and was not in favor
of the area being overused.
Hopkins stated he would withdraw the entire idea if space is provided along Stratford.
Funk stated the area would be more usable if the sand washed into the lake is removed in
addition to some milfoil treatment.
Ahrens stated he would be opposed to the proposal.
Goldberg asked if the sand removal and milfoil treatment would be met with the approval
of the residents. Fackler noted the sand would be removed by a barge. He explained how
much of the sand would be removed.
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Funk to consider this on a 1-year test basis
limiting it to dredging of the sediment and treatment of milfoil.
Ahrens believed the sediment should be funded by the street fund.
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Hopkins to amend the motion to consider
this on a 1-year test basis limiting it to dredging of the sediment in front of the
storm drain (funding by the street fund) with removal by barge and treatment
of milfoil. If no funds are available in the street fund, the dock fund would be
used. Motion carried 3-1.
Fackler stated this will be going to the City Council on the 14th of April for their final
approval.
VAC 4625764 TYRONE LA 9..5 6~ 5
5 CLARE: LA -v4c t~,O 5 5
SHANNON LA ~
EXCELSIOR LA
174
Q. ,~RE LA
/'t3/.'
/\
.$ 7-~.4
CITY OF MOUND
To: Ed Shukle
From:
Tom McC~ffrey
5341 MAYWCGO ROA0
MC)UNO, MINNESOTA 55364-~6~7
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Date: April 22, 1998
Subject: Dock Location #41956
I met with Barb Casey today and discussed with her the access point she would
prefer to her dock site #41956.
Her options are limited due to a group of trees located at the center of her dock
location area. The current access to her dock is to the east of the trees, her other
option is to the west of the trees. She feels that due to the steepness on the west
side it is not as safe as her current access on the east side of the trees. So she
wants the access to her dock to remain at it's current location.
We also discussed that any trimming of trees would require a public lands permit
and she acknowledge.
printed on recycled paper
AiM IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION
i OPPOSE THiS RESOLUTION
COMMENTS
Signature
Print Name
Date
2
April 21, 1998
Page 2
permanent sites on the Pembroke Park multiple dock as replacement locations.
2. Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Roanoke Lane is hereby
discontinued and the Park Director is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of
such discontinuance. The Council will consider this matter in the future only if requested
to do so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parties whose property
abuts Roanoke Lane.
3. The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to determine
whether the policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
4. Dock site 41956 will be shifted to the center line of its dock location area, if such
location is in the reasonable judgement of the permit holder at least as accessible and safe
as the existing location.
5. With the exception of dock locations 41477(Stead dock) and 41866 (open location), and
the provisions of paragraph 4 above, all existing dock locations on Devon Commons will
remain unchanged and unaffected by this action.
This motion is subject to the approval of the existing users of the Pembroke dock as well as all
others who were originally notified of the multiple dock site at Pembroke; also notification of
Mr. Stead about the limitation on the size of his boat.
Please fill out the questionnaire below and return it to the City of Mound attention Tom
McCaffrey Dock Inspector on or before April 28, 1998.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION /
COMMENTS
Signatu~'~
Print Name
Date
Page 2
permanent sites on ~e Pembroke Park multiple dock as replacement locations.
Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Roanoke Lane is hereby
discontinued and the Park Dh'ector is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of
such discontinuance. The Council will consider this matter in the future only if requested
to do so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parties whose property
abuts Roanoke Lane.
The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to determine
whether the policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
Dock site 41956 will be shifted to the center line of its dock location area, if such
location is in the reasonable judgement of the permit holder at least as accessible and safe
as the existing location.
With the exception of dock locations 41477(Stead dock) and 41866 (open location), and
the provisions of paragraph 4 above, all existing dock locations on Devon Commons will
remain unchanged and unaffected by this action.
This motion is subject to the approval of the existing users of the Pembroke dock as well as all
others who were originally notified of the multiple dock site at Pembroke; also notification of
Mr. Stead about the limitation on the size of his boat.
Please fill out the questionnaire below and return it to the City of Mound attention Tom
McCaffrey Dock Inspector on or before April 28, 1998.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION
I OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION ~
mmre
Print Name
Date
April 21, 1998 '
Page 2
permanent sites on We Pembroke Park multiple dock as replacement locations.
2. Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Roanoke Lane is hereby
discontinued and the Park Director is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of
such discontinuance. The Council Mil consider this matter in the future only if requested
to do so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parties whose property
abuts Roanoke Lane.
The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to determine
whether the policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
Dock site 41956 will be shifted to the center line of its dock location area, if such
location is in the reasonable judgement of the permit holder at least as accessible and safe
as the existing location.
With the exception of dock locations 41477(Stead dock) and 41866 (open location), and
the provisions of paragraph 4 above, all existing dock locations on Devon Commons will
remain unchanged and unaffected by this action.
This motion is subject to the approval of the existing users of the Pembroke dock as well as all
others who were originally notified of the multiple dock site at Pembroke; also notification of
Mr. Stead about the limitation on the size of his boat.
Please fill out the questionnaire below and return it to the City of Mound attention Tom
McCaffrey Dock Inspector on or before April 28, 1998.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION
~ A
I OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION /K~
COMMENTS
Print Name
Date
Page 2
permanent sites on the Pembroke Park multiple dock as replacement locations.
Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Roanoke I_~ne is hereby
discontinu~:l and the Park Director is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of
such discontinuance. The Council will consider this matter in the future only if requested
to do so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parties whose property
abuts Roanoke Lane.
3. The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to determine
whether the policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
4. Dock site 41956 will bc shifted to the center line of its dock location area, if such
location is in the reasonable judgement of the permit holder at least as accessible and safe
as the existing location.
5. With the exception of dOCk lOCations 41477(Stead dOCk) and 41866 (open lOCation), and
the provisions of paragraph 4 above, all existing dock locations on Devon Commons will
remain unchanged and unaffected by this action.
This motion is subject to the approval of the existing users of the Pembroke dock as well as all
others who were originally notified of thc multiple dock site at Pembroke; also notification of
Mr. Ste~d about the limitation on thc size of his boat.
Please fill out the questionnaire below and return it to the City of Mound attention Tom
McCaffrey Dock Inspector on or before April 28, 1998.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION
I OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION
Print Name
Date~/u-nf''- ,
2
04-28-1998 10:3~ ...... . .~. . - ...- · .....
F/AX
~'F~'C.~OF V UFtGENT PAGES'/
~ ~ ST. LO~S ""'"
~JJ P,A.~ K '*" CONFIDENTAL DATE
! I I I III II
PHONE #: 0/77- 4/~~ FAX 1:
DEPT: , -
II III
I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS KESOLUTION
OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION
Pembroke Multiple Dock
April 21, 1998
Page 2
permanent sites on the Pembroke Park multiple dock as replacement locations.
2. Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Roanoke Lane is hereby
discontinued and the Park Director is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of
such discontinuance. The Council will consider this matter in the future only if requested
to do so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parties whose property
abuts Roanoke Lane.
3. The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to determine
whether the policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
4. Dock site 41956 will be shifted to the center line of its dock location area, if such
location is in the reasonable judgement of the permit holder at least as accessible and safe
as the existing location.
5. With the exception of dock locations 41477(Stead dock) and 41866 (open location), and
the provisions of paragraph 4 above, all existing dock locations on Devon Commons will
remain unchanged and unaffected by this action.
This motion is subject to the approval of the existing users of the Pembroke dock as well as all
others who were originally notified of the multiple dock site at Pembroke; also notification of
Mr. Stead about the limitation on the size of his boat.
Please fill out the questionnaire below and return it to the City of Mound attention Tom
McCaffrey Dock Inspector on or before April 28, 1998.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION
I OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION
Sienature x
Print Nam9
2
Re: Pemmnent dock sites (Pembroke Park)
Dear Tom:
It was my understanding that the mare r~uson we went to the muluple dock ~'stmn was because of a
congestion problem. My concern is that by adding two more boats this dock configuration would
further add to the problem, in the form of maneuverabilits, because of water depths and the
possibility, of an accident.
It is my opinion that this resolution, although will solve one problem, will cause another. Therefore, l
mn opposed to tias motion.
Sincerely,
================================
I OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION
COMMENTS~
Signature
Prin~; Sa/me
Date '
I OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE FO~,L0~ING REASONS:
I BELIEVE TH_AT ONCE THE LAKE LEVEL DROPS, (AS IT ALWAYS
DOES), THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED LOCATIONS WILL LACK THE WATER
DEPTH NECESSARY TO NAVIGATE IN AND OUT WITHOUT GREAT DIFFICULTY.
WEED GROWTH WOULD ALSO INCREASE THIS PROBLEM.
ANY WATERCRAFT MOORED AT LOCATION #9 WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO
CONSTANT WAVE ACTION, (ESPECIALLY ON WEEKENDS), TH_AT WOULD
INEVITABLY RESULT IN DA/4AGE.
I ALSO BELIEVE TH_AT RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED ON
NON-ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS TH~AT ARE COOPERATING WITH THE
MULTIPLE DOCK PROGRAM THAT ARE NOT EQUALLY PLACED ON THE
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS BENEFITTING FROM THE RELOCATION
OF SAID DOCK SITES, (SIZE OF WATERCRAFT, NUMBER OF WATERCRAFT).
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME CONCESSIONS BEING MADE BY ABUTTING
PROPERTY OWNERS, (SHARING DOCK SITES ESTABLISHED ON COM]~ON LOT
LINES), INSTEAD OF ALL COMPROMISES BEING MADE BY NON-ABUTTERS.
MAINTAINING NON-ABUTTTING SITES ON THE COMiV~ONS RETAINS THE SPIRIT
AND INTENTION OF THE COMMONS, AND WITH THE DIRECTION WE HAVE BEEN
GOING RECENTLY, WE ARE DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO MERELY TURNING OUR
PRECIOUS PUBLIC LAKESHORE OVER TO ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS.
COMMENTS
Signature
· Print Name
'Date
2
04/28/98 10:24 TX/RX NO. 3514 P.002 ·
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
March 1998
25.00%
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
March 1998
BUDGET REVENUE
1,271,520 0
4,780 590
105,300 9,645
950,850 5,457
50,650 927
85,000 7,232
71,000 670
43,500 0
194.350 (3.064)
YTD PERCENT
REVENUE. VARIANCE RECEIVED
0 (1,271,520) 0.00%
1,050 (3,730) 21.97%
16,627 (88,673) 15.79%
39,740 (911,110) 4.18%
3,235 (47,415) 6.39%
14,141 (70,859) 16.64%
6,409 (64,591) 9.03%
0 (43,500) 0.00%
2.709 (191.641} 1.39%
TOTAL REVENUE
83.911 ~ 3.02%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCK FUND
360,220 37,398 118,799 (241,421) 32.98%
118,920 6,334 18,170 (100,750) 15.28%
1,530,000 106,790 317,300 (1,212,700) 20.74%
451,000 28,749 96,818 (354,182) 21.47%
924,000 78,912 251,225 (672,775) 27.19%
5,100 850 1,550 (3,550) 30.39%
77,300 18,200 73,806 (3,494) 95.48%
04/14198
rev97
G.B.
1'-1381
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
March 1998
25.00%
March 1998 YTD
BU DG E._____T.T ~ EXPENS_ E
PERCENT
EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND
Council 71,610 5,840 20,123 51,487 28.10%
Promotions 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00%
Cable TV 3,000 259 259 2,741 8.63%
City Manager/Clerk 210,970 15,332 62,164 148,806 29.47%
Elections 13,200 1 1,773 11,427 13.43%
Assessing 62,450 134 158 62,292 0.25%
Finance 172,710 13,493 37,031 135,679 21.44%
Computer 18,550 2,123 9,801 8,749 52.84%
Legal 86,460 9,846 19,092 67,368 22.08%
Police 990,170 85,255 254,023 736,147 25.65%
Civil Defense 4,250 49 702 3,548 16.52%
Planning/Inspections 173,280 11,422 33,964 139,316 19.60%
Streets 420,820 45,809 114,490 306,330 27.21%
City Property 103,380 7,657 16,625 86,755 16.08%
Parks 192,380 50,276 64,334 128,046 33.44%
Summer Recreation 37,290 0 0 37,290 0.00%
Contingencies 45,000 1,675 2,656 42,344 5.90%
Transfers ,167,450 ~ 41,857 125,573 25.00%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
Area Fire
Service Fund 360,220 40,461 65,750 294,470 18.25%
Recycling Fund 126,830 16,706 38,051 88,779 30.00%
Liquor Fund 215,200 18,297 50,515 164,685 23.47%
Water Fund 445,400 36,825 80,109 365,291 17.99%
Sewer Fund 981,020 145,196 362,944 618,076 37.00%
Cemetery Fund 6,710 0 60 6,650 0.89%
Dock Fund 76,660 5,748 6,940 69,720 9.05%
Exp-97
04/14~98
G.B.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, .
Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary
Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison Mark
Hanus.
Public Present: Craig Rose, Kyle Cosky, Ken Linquist, Jorj Ayaz, Bonnie Hannaman, Mark &
Velia Stone, Chuck Downey
Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 23, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to approve the Minutes of the March 23,
1998 Planning Commission M.eeting. Motion carried 5-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-15: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER, JORJ AYAZ, 4844
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON, PIDS # 25-117-24 11 0046 & 25-
117-24 11 0047
Loren Gordon presented the case
The applicant, Jorj Ayaz,
hardcover to convert a 1
requests are listed below.
has submitted a variance request for yard space setbacks and
¥2 story home to a two-story and add an addition. The variance
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 10' 20' 10'
Rear Yard 6' 15' 9'
Hardcover 3932 sf 3520 sf 412 sf
The property is located on a corner lot at the intersection of Island View Drive and Amhurst
Lane and is zoned R-lA. The property includes lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Devon plat, containing
8780 sf. As shown on the site plan, the current residence is a 1 Y2 story home that is located
entirely on lot 2. The new addition would be built on the east and north sides of the current
home. An attached two-stall garage is proposed on the north side of the home with access to
Amhurst Lane.
Iqql
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
The property currently has a property identification number for each lot. A combination of
these lots would prevent any future problems with the property if the variances are approved.
The applicant is proposing to add an additional stall to the existing one-stall garage on Island
View Drive. Although the garage has a 10 feet setback from the property line, the street
encroachment on the property reduces the distance from the back of the curb which is 8.5
feet from the garage.
There is an 8" sanitary sewer main along the southern lot line extending from Amhurst Lane
to a manhole. The manhole is located directly under the proposed garage along Island View
Drive. The sewer is a public line only serving this residence.
The proposed new driveway on Amhurst Lane will need to be punched through the retaining
wall owned by the City.
The existing 10 feet house setback from Island View is similar to many of the adjacent
properties. The Island View right-of-way is only as wide as the 15 feet street width. This
makes the street corridor very narrow adding to that the number of garages that are within a
few feet of the street. The applicant is proposing to use the new garage on the north side of
the house to park vehicles. The existing garage and matching addition would continue to be
used for storage of recreational equipment using traditional garage doors for access. Staff has
discussed with the applicant their concerns of having 4 garage stalls for the house as is
excessive and contributes to the overages on the hard¢over and setbacks. Although the
driveway location on Amhurst is a better safety situation, it adds hardcover to the property.
Staff would recommend a couple of options to the Planning Commission in addressing the
garage issue.
The existing garage and matching addition not be allowed to be used as a garage and
the walls facing the street be enclosed. The room could be used for storage but could
not be used for vehicle parking.
The existing garage and matching addition be allowed garage doors for storage of
recreational equipment but restrict any vehicle parking in or in front of the garage.
The proposed garage has a 6 feet setback from Drummond Road which is unimproved.
Although the road is not part of the property, it does provide additional area for buffering the
adjacent property to the north. The garage is nicely sized at 22 feet by 26 feet providing ample
room for parking 2 vehicles with storage area on the sides.
Hardcover is an issue for the property being over the 40 percent limit for non-lots of record by
412 sf. Given the 8,780 sf lot size, the site is probably over built. The new garage and
driveway account for over one-third of the hard¢over. There are ways the applicant could
remove hardcover by reducing the size of the driveway, garage, house or combinations thereof
to gain the needed green space. It appears that this could be done without substantially
affecting the applicant's plans. The other option is to suggest is that the unimproved
Drummond Road provides open space for the property even though it is not technically part
of the ownership.
The engineer's report details the specifics of the utility and easement issues and should be
referenced in any conditions in the case.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, '1998
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the request with the following conditions.
1. The property meet the 40 percent hardcover requirements.
2. The applicant identify existing easements, vacate unnecessary easements and add new
easements as deemed necessary.
3. The applicant shall obtain an entrance permit and be granted the right to remove a portion
of the City's retaining wall for driveway access to Amhurst Lane. The City will allow the
applicant to use those removed bricks to build a retaining wall on the driveway apron. The
City will retain responsibility for that portion of the wall within the right-of-way and the
applicant will retain responsibility for that portion located on said property. During the
removal and reconstruction of the wall the Public Works Department will review and
inspect the wall within the right-of-way.
4. Lots 1 and 2 represented by PID #'s 25-117-24-11-0047 and 25-117-24-11-0046 be
combined.
5. Satisfying any request of the City Engineer in regards to utility and easement issues.
6. The City Engineer and Building Official review and approve drainage plans and building
permits.
DISCUSSION:
Glister requested Gordon list the ways to reduce the hardcover issues. Gordon discussed
reductions to the driveway, garage, and house.
Glister asked if the applicant was aware of these options. The applicant stated that they were
discussed with the applicant at a preliminary meeting. Glister is in favor of reducing the
hardcover.
Voss questioned if the driveway could be put on city right of way Drummond Road. Ayaz
stated that the elevation of the land is steep.
Weiland questioned the applicant about how he plans to elevate hardcover. Ayaz suggested
having a single car driveway and fanning it out when it comes to the garage. He also
suggested that possibly only adding a one car garage instead of two.
There was more discussion on the size of the garages that face Island View Drive.
Voss recommended that the applicants research the possibility of having the driveway come
in off of Drummond Road.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Glister to recommend staff recommendation as stated.
Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on April 28, 1998
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
CASE _~ 98-16: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, KYLE COSKY, 1932 SHOREWOOD LANE,
LOT 9 AND PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 18-117-23 23 0069
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant, Kyle Cosky, has submitted a request for lakeside and front yard setback
variances to complete a number of property improvements. The variance requests are listed
below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Lake Side 38' 50' 12'
Front Yard 23.5' 30' 6.5'
The property is located at 1932 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R-l. The lot has 12,000 sf of
lot area and 85 feet of frontage, a large property as compared to other lots in this
neighborhood. Improvements the applicant is wishing to make are numerous, and include a
lakeside deck, a deck connecting the front door and the side entry of the home, a breeze way
connecting the garage and the home, reorienting the garage doors from a front to a side entry
with a new driveway, and retaining walls to replace the existing driveway. Some of the above
projects were approved by Resolution #92-59, only the deck and sidewalk were completed.
Apparently, a change in ownership since the last resolution was the reason.
The home does not currently have a lakeside deck. However, there is a 10 feet by 19 feet
deck located in the side yard that shares the lakeside house setback. It steps down to a brick
patio located closer to the lake. The patio is not shown on the site plan. The current home is
located 48 feet from the 929.4 contour.
There is an existing boathouse lakeside located 5 feet from the 929.4 contour and zero feet
from the side lot line. The floor of the boathouse is below the flood plain elevation. The floor
of the boathouse is dirt and is covered with planking. The walls are constructed of plywood.
Its condition is fair but given the construction materials, deterioration will occur more rapidly
than a block foundation.
The existing garage is a front entry garage setback 23 + feet from the front property line. The
elevation of the garage is about 3 feet lower than the street surface. This differential makes
it difficult to get cars out of the garage during the winter and also causes some drainage
problems in front of the garage door. The applicant is proposing the entry be reoriented as a
side entry to make access easier and provide additional parking. Upon completion of the
driveway relocation, the old driveway would be removed and a retaining wall installed to match
the existing.
The proposed hardcover calculations in the submittal information are in error. The applicant has
included the 865 sf of deck area in the calculations which is not considered hardcover. By
subtracting out this area the revised hardcover count would be 3572 sf. This is under the 30
percent area requirement by 46 sr.
One of the large issues with this case is, is there reason to grant a variance for a lakeside deck
given the side yard deck affords lake views? It appears that the side yard deck has existed for
some time and was possibly the result of some compromise. Given the case history on the
deck, it would seem somewhat contrary to the past logic to allow an additional deck lakeside.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
Staff feels that the existing deck satisfies the intent of providing the property views of the
lake.
The breeze way was a proposal in 1992 that was never completed. The breeze way does not
increase the nonconformity of the house or intensify its use. It doesn't appear that the breeze
way will have any adverse visual impact on adjacent properties due to its relative small size.
Although the garage would be considered part of the principle structure with the addition, it
still functions as a detached garage because of the separation from the house. The side entry
will be a positive access and parking improvement for the property and neighborhood.
In the 1992 resolution, the existing boathouse was slated for removal. The boathouse still
exists and staff would like to approach it in a similar manner again by recommending it be
removed. Staff has discussed this with the applicant. The applicant understands it is a
nonconforming use and will eventually need to be removed. Its construction would allow it to
be removed easily as it is built of wood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve
the front yard setback variance and deny the proposed lakeside setback variance. Approval is
granted to all projects requested except construction of a lakeside deck. The recommendation
also has the following condition.
The existing boathouse shall be brought into conformance or removed within two
years of the date of City Council approval of this resolution. The applicant shall enter
into an agreement with the City of Mound giving the City access to the property in
order to remove the boathouse structure should the applicant fail to comply with
moving or removal of the boathouse within the stipulated time period. If such removal
is necessary by the City, the applicant shall be assessed for all related costs.
DISCUSSION:
Voss questioned the previous resolution addressing the lakeside setback. Gordon stated that
the figures used were by the survey that was submitted. Voss questioned if staff could
enforce the condition from previous resolution about removing the boathouse. Gordon stated
that staff has not been able to locate any agreement signed between the old owner and the
city.
There was discussion on the lakeside deck. Weiland suggested that the applicant may want
to consider putting in an at grade deck.
Burma questioned the hardcover issue. Gordon stated that it was originally calculated wrong.
There would not be a hard cover issue in this case.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation as stated
with two additions: Item #2. The City Engineer review and approve drainage plans for
the new driveway. Item #3. Recognize a lakeshore setback variance of 2 feet to
accommodate the existing home. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on April 28, 1998
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
CASE _8 98-17: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT AREA, HARDCOVER, KEN & KRIS
LINQUIST, 2373 CHATEAU LANE, LOT 13, BLOCK 4, L P CREIVERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE
PARK, PID # 13-117-24 43 0096
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, Ken & Kris Linquist, have submitted a request to recognize existing conditions
for non-conforming lot size, side yard setback, and hardcover to replace a crawl space with
a full size basement. The variance requests are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 4' 6' 2'
Lot Area 4800 sf 6000 sf 1200 sf
The property is located on a 4800 sf lot in an R-2 district that requires a 6000 sf of lot area.
The home is a one bedroom with almost 600 sf of living space with a porch on the rear. The
property is a lot of record and the existing house is set back 4 feet from the side yard. There
is a two-stall detached garage in the rear yard with an adjoining dog kennel. The driveway is
9 feet wide from the street to the rear of the house where it fans out to accommodate both
garage stalls. As the property exists, hardcover exceeds the 40 percent maximum by 460 sf.
Adjacent to the property is the city water tower. The property owners appear to be using a
small portion of the property for storage of miscellaneous items.
The proposed basement will create additional living space in the home without increasing the
nonconformity. This appears to be the most feasible solution for gaining living space on a small
lot that has hardcover issues. The applicant is removing sidewalk up to the house to reduce
the hardcover. There does not appear to be other opportunities to make sizeable reductions
without impacting the garage or house function.
One item that should be addressed along with the request is using a portion of the city water
tower site for storage area. The applicant will gain space in the home where some of these
items can be stored.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
recognize the variances as requested with the following conditions.
1. The City Engineer review and approve drainage plans for the new foundation.
2. The shed encroachment and other storage on the city water tower property be removed.
DISCUSSION:
ross questioned how many lots the city water tower sits on. It sits on three lots.
Weiland commented that there wouldn't be any way to reduce hardcover unless taking down
the house or garage which is not feasible.
Gordon stated that research was done to see of some of the city property could be obtained
because the water tower will need to replaced and giving up land before any plans are
prepared would not be advisable.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation as
stated. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to City Council on April 14, 1998.
CASE #98-18: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, CRAIG A ROSE,
5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L P CREIVERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK,
PID # 13-117-24 42 0006
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant has submitted a request to recognize an existing nonconforming garage and
house. The variance requests are listed below.
Garage(front & side)
Side yard
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
4.5' and 2.6' 8' and 6' 3.5' and 3.4'
3.9' 6' 2.1'
The property is located at 5100 Edgewater in a R-lA district. The lot 8448 sf exceeding the
6000 sf minimum. Hardcover is under the 30 percent requirement. The east side yard setback
is 3.9 feet although the unimproved Chateau Lane provides additional yard space between the
adjacent residences. The existing detached garage is a side entry and is setback is 4.5 feet
from the front yard line and 2.6 feet from the side yard line.
The applicant wishes to add a second story to the home staying within the existing footprint.
A master suite will occupy this level as shown in the plans. At this time, the plans do not
indicate a deck as part of the project. The applicant could add a deck to the home without
encroaching into the lakeside setback. The home is setback approximately 73 feet. A variance
would be necessary because the house is nonconforming.
The second story addition should not have an adverse impact on the property or surrounding
neighborhood. The existing walls will not be expanded preventing an increase in the
nonconformity. The project is an improvement for the property and the surrounding
neighborhood. The side yard setback has existed since the house was built. During that time
there have not been any modifications to the footprint. Chateau Lane has a 30 feet width and
is unimproved. It is essentially used as yard space by the adjacent residences.
There are a number of garages along Edgewater that are close to the street edge. A variance
was granted in 1970 allowing the garage to be reconstructed in its present location.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
recognize the variances as requested.
DISCUSSION:
Weiland commented that the neighbor's home is a 2 story and he feels that the applicants
request for a 2 story addition would fit nicely into the neighborhood.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
Michael questioned if a drainage plan would be needed. Gordon stated not for a 2"" story
addition. Gordon stated because it is a 2n" story addition and the first floor is remaining
untouched, drainage would not be impacted. No drainage plans would be required.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff recommendation
as stated. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on April 28, 1998
CASE # 98-12: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, REAR YARD
SETBACK, MATT PHILIPPI, 4519 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 22 AND PART OF LOTS 1,2,3,
& 5, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID # 19-117-23 31 0059
Jon Sutherland presented the case.
The applicant, Matt Philippi, is seeking approval to recognize of a number of variances in order
to construct one of the four options as noted in the attached illustrations. The previous
variance that was granted by resolution /191-135 and the history are attached. The parcel
contains two principal uses and the subject of the request is (the front structure in the
previous case) the building at 4519 Manchester Lane. The other home (the rear structure) is
identified in our address files as 4501 Tuxedo Blvd. The subject dwelling is setback one foot
from the front yard where a 30 foot setback is required, this along with the other issues result
in the recognition of the following variances:
1 ) A 29 foot front yard setback variance to 4519 Manchester Road. The previous resolution
allowed the new foundation to be installed under this dwelling in its present location.
2) Two principal structures on one zoning lot. 4519 Manchester Road and 4501 Tuxedo Blvd.
3) A variance of approximately four feet to the required side yard setback of six feet for lots
of record for the rear dwelling noted as 4501 Tuxedo Blvd.
4) The existing impervious surface coverage is 2,395 +- square feet, the maximum allowed
without an approved drainage plan is 30% of the lot area which is 2,148 -I- - square feet, and
this results in a variance request of 247 + - square feet. If the existing impervious surface was
considered to be in conformance with the 40% that is allowable for lots of record with an
approved drainage plan, the parcel would be conforming as noted on the impervious surface
calculation sheet.
Comments and options for a recommendation:
A) Based on the comprehensive goals of our cities zoning regulations and comprehensive
plan, the front structure is a classic example of a structure that should be removed.
There is essentially no hardship identified by the applicant or staff sufficient to allow the
expansion as noted in any of the proposed options and if the planning commission agrees with
this viewpoint, a finding of lack of hardship and a recommendation of denial should be made.
It is not uncommon for a dwelling to have a detached garage which is essentially the same as
the condition of the applicant.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
B) The removal of the dwelling has not been accomplished to date (even with the substantial
nature of the previous variance case) and it is unlikely to happen in the near future. The
applicant or whoever is the occupant of the dwelling is dealing with a very dysfunctional
design, and if one of the options was considered minimal enough that it does not essentially
change the use, character, or nonconformance it is possible a finding of practical difficulty
could be made. Allowing a minimal entryway or roof overhang improvement would be an
improvement to the function of the dwelling.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the, history,
comments, and options as stated above and after hearing any input of the applicant, make a
recommendation based on the consensus of the commission.
DISCUSSION:
No discussion was made.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to table this case until further
information is provided by the applicant, the applicant can be present to address
concerns, and to have a full Planning Commission available to hear this Case.
Motion carried 5-0.
CASE # 98-04: MINOR SUBDIVISION, MARK & VAL STONE, 6380 BAY RIDGE ROAD, PART
OF GOT LOT 5 AND PART OF ROLLING SHORES, PID # 23-117-24 32 0037
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, Mark & Val Stone, have submitted a minor subdivision request for the
property currently addresses to 6380 Bay Ridge Road. The existing parcel would be subdivided
into two parcels, the vacant parcel A having frontage on Bartlett Blvd. and the developed
parcel B retaining its frontage on Bay Ridge Road. Each parcel would meet the R-1 district
requirements for lot area and width. The developed parcel B would meet all yard setbacks and
hardcover requirements. Parcel A would meet yard setbacks and hardcover as shown in the
survey.
There is a culvert that drains water from the cemetery north of the property under Bartlett and
outlets at the north property edge. The drainage continues south across the property to
another culvert that extends under an old driveway. It then follows the property line of parcel
B to the catch basin on Bay Ridge Road.
A. sanitary sewer service runs through the property from Bartlett to serve the home on parcel
B. There is not currently an easement for this line. The City Engineer's report details drainage
and utility related issues on the property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions.
1. All drainage, utility and building permits be reviewed and approved by the City.
2. Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City Code.
3. The applicant secure a driveway permit from Hennepin County prior to the City issuing a
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
building permit.
DISCUSSION:
Weiland questioned why the storm sewer was put in the way it was. Sutherland stated that
the access road originally serviced a house on parcel B. There has been much discussion and
work with the Engineer regarding drainage and he is satisfied with the proposal.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff recommendation as
stated. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on April 28, 1998
CASE # 97-41: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, CHUCK
DOWNEY, 2051 ARBOR LANE, LOTS 6 & 7, SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID #
13-117-24 41 0005
.CASE # 97-45: MINOR SUBDIVISION, CHUCK DOWNEY, 2051 ARBOR LANE, LOTS 6 & 7,
SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID # 13-117-24 41 0005
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant, Chuck Downey, has submitted two requests to complete a lot split. The first
request is a minor subdivision which would create parcels A and B as shown on the survey.
The second request is for associated variances on Parcel A. The variance requests are listed
below.
Parcel A:
Existing/Proposed Required _Variance
Side yard 6' 1 O' 4'
Garage (FY& SY) 0.1' and 1.8' 20' and 6' 19.9' and 4.2'
Lot frontage on an unimproved street.
Parcel B:
Lot frontage on an unimproved street.
The property is located at the intersection of Arbor Land and Edgewater Drive. The current
property contains 17,938 sr. As shown on the survey both parcels would meet the 6000 sf
lot area requirement. There are currently no plans for the development of Parcel B.
Both parcels are located adjacent to the City right-of-way although it is not improved
(Wakefield Avenue). At present there are no plans to improve this section of road. The grade
is excessively steep and would require expensive improvements for it to be built. Parcel A
gains its access from a driveway that cuts across the unimproved right-of-way to Edgewater
Drive. A portion of the driveway also cuts through a corner of dedicated city park. This park
is the vacant area created by Edgewater Drive, Arbor Lane, and the Wakefield Avenue. The
park is vacant and gets most of its use from neighbors that park cars along its edge.
Mound Planning Commission- Minutes
April 13, 1998
The Code requirements for road frontage are that buildable lots must be located on an
improved city street. The current property does not fit this requirement. The applicant is
proposing that rather than build a City street in front of the two parcels, a driveway located
on the right-of-way serve as access for the new parcel. The driveway would only serve the
parcel B and parcel A would gain access as it currently does. Allowing the property owner to
build a private driveway on the right-of-way would not afford the owner any protection if
utilities needed to be accessed. The property owner would be responsible for any repairs.
Within the unimproved right-of-way is a city sanitary sewer main that is stubbed. Water
service would be extended from Edgewater Drive.
In order for the development to move forward, Parcel B needs access of some type to
Edgewater Drive. There have been similar past cases where nonconforming street frontage
variances have been granted. A case similar to this one on Glenwood Road was granted a
variance to allow development. In the case at hand, staff has dismissed the possibilities of
vacating right-of-way because of utilities located within it. Also it is unclear how the street
could be vacated. A private driveway appears to be the most feasible alternative in gaining
access for the property.
The Planning Commission has two options at this point in regards to acting on the application.
The first is to accept the applicants proposal granting a variance for nonconforming road
frontage. This would allow the lot split to occur. The second option would be to deny the
request based on the lack of road frontage. With this option the applicant could choose to
install a standard city road or decide to not split the parcel. Staff would recommend the
Planning Commission grant the variance for the private drive.
The lot split also has existing nonconforming house issues that need to be addressed. The
house would have a 6 feet side yard setback with the proposed lot split. This was proposed
in order to afford the undeveloped lot enough buildable space. Staff discussed a 10 feet
setback with the applicant but was decided that this setback would really restrict any desirable
lakeside home. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the side yard variance it could
do so by weighing the setback of the house had the two lots not been combined. In this case,
the side yard setback based on original platted lot lines would be 2.3 feet. The proposed 6 feet
setback appears to be an improvement.
The existing front entry garage is also nonconforming. The Planning Commission could cite the
number of garages close to Arbor Lane as reason for granting the variance. If the Planning
Commission chooses not to approve the variance the garage would need to conform to code
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve
the minor subdivision request and variances as requested with the following conditions.
1. The applicant be responsible for all driveway improvements as reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer.
2. The applicant be responsible for providing water and sewer utilities to the property line or
providing escrow money their installation at a later time.
3. The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan for the property before building
permit issuance.
4. The brick wall cross the parcel lines be removed.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
5. Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City Code.
DISCUSSION:
Michael questioned the lot of record status. Gordon stated that it currently is a lot of record
and if the subdivision were approved both lots would not be entitled lot of record status.
Weiland questioned how old the garage is. Gordon stated that it is probably the same age as
the house.
Voss questioned why not have the applicant build a city street instead of having a driveway.
Sutherland stated that by having the applicant build a driveway, the city would not have to
care of the road.
There was some discussion on this case, with a motion by Weiland, seconded by Glister to
deny the request for reasons of not to create two parcels with more variances and the garage
is not considered a hardship. Voss respectfully asked to have the motion retracted, he felt
that there should be more commissioners present to decide this case. Weiland and Glister
withdrew their motions.
For case 97-41:
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to table this case until a better
proposal is agreed upon. Motion carried 5-0.
For case 97-45:
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to table this case until a better
proposal is agreed upon. Motion carried 5-0.
Voss made a comment that it has been policy of the commission in the past not to allow any
variances with a subdivision.
INFORMATION:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 24, 1998
There was no discussion on this. Councilmember Mark Hanus was absent.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to adjourn the meeting at 9:33 p.m. The motion
carried 5-0.
L
Laa~ua of ~inna~o~a
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (612) 281-1200 ' (800) 925-1122
Fax: (612) 281-1299 ° TDD (612) 281-1290
March 27, 1998
Dear Clerk, Administrator or Manager:
As President of the League of Minnesota Cities, I would like to invite you and the elected
and appointed officials in your city to attend the 1998 Annual Conference, June 16-19, in
Duluth.
Enclosed with this letter is some information about the conference, together with a conference
registration form and a housing registration form. Information and the registration form for the
family program is also enclosed. Similar information was in the March issue of Minnesota Cities
and will be contained in the April issue as well. If those from your city who are planning on
attending have not registered, please encourage them to register now. And, if no one from your
city is planning on attending, I hope my letter will highlight enough of the important events
which are being planned so that officials in your city will consider attending.
Please put the topic of attending the League's annual conference on the agenda of your
next council meeting, if your city has not already discussed attending this event.
There are three purposes for the annual conference: to learn by attending the general sessions and
workshops, to learn by interaction with other city officials, and to inspire and re-energize city
officials.
As you review the enclosed preliminary program, I think you will agree with me that the
conference planning committee again did an outstanding job in designing many learning
oppommities on important topics. Many of these sessions apply to cities of all sizes, but, in
addition to sessions especially focused on the needs of Small Cities, there will be sessions
designed for Metro Cities and Greater Minnesota Cities as well. No matter what the size of your
city or where it is located, there will be several sessions during which your city officials can learn
how to better perform many of their responsibilities.
In the exhibit hall, called "Cities Marketplace" about one hundred and fifty providers of goods
and services to cities will display what they have to offer. This is a great place to learn about the
newest innovations in providing services to citizens and in improving city government.
The Leadership Institute for Elected City Officials will continue, with sessions on Conflict
Resolution and The Basics for Elected Officials.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Letter to Clerks, Administrators or Managers
Page Two
Several sessions are planned where city officials can interact on an informal basis. The Tuesday
Evening Kickoff will be at Spirit Mountain and will include Native American Dancers and
stories of the ghosts of Spirit Mountain. On Wednesday evening for City Night, there will be
strolling musicians and a spaghetti dinner in Cities Marketplace, followed by an ice cream social
in Canal Park and free Omninex Theater admissions.
General session highlights will include a Gubernatorial Forum on City Issues, a presentation by
Mark Yudof, President of the University of Minnesota, on the topic of"Partnerships for Building
Strong Communities, and, for the Grand Finale, the great marathon runner Dick Beardsley will
give an inspirational presentation on "Facing Life's Challenges and Going the Distance."..
And there's more, too much more to outline here. See the enclosed preliminary program and
family program for more details, and,
I'll See You In Duluth!
Sincerely,
Bob Long, President
League of Minnesota Cities
1998 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
SPFCIAL FVF NTS
Tuesday, June 16
6:00 p.m. - dinner
7:00 p.m. - entertainment
Evening Kick-Off
Spirit Mountain
ADMISSION:
There is no charge for this event
No ticket is needed, however, all who attend
this event must be registered delegates and family members
Lift Your Spirits at Spirit Mountain!" Enjoy a panoramic view of Duluth from the top of
Spirit Mountain. The evening begins with a BBQ dinner including ribs, chicken and hot
dogs. Cash bar
Your spirits will be uplifted by the Little Black Bear Drum and Dance with a very special
performance of Native American ceremonies. Then sit tight for a thrilling story-telling
session featuring the League's own ghost story-teller Duke Addicks as he share's
special version of "The Spirits of Lake Superior - Who Haunts Here"
Wednesday, June 17
5:30-7:30 p.m.
City Night in Canal Park
ADMISSION: $10.O0/included in advance registration fee for delegates
City Night tickets can be purchased for family members and
guests under "Extra Meal Tickets" on the registration form
Enjoy an evening of food, film, and fun! Begin with a feast of "marathon spaghetti" in
the DECC's Pioneer Hall - Exhibit area. After dinner, stroll the short distance across
the Minnesota Slip Bridge into the Canal Park District for an evening of stress release
through relaxation or adventure.
Stop at the Grand Slam Adventure World for free ice cream and stay for the fun.
Participate in or cheer on the "League of Minnesota Cities Challenge", featuring city
officials in friendly competition in mini golf, bumper cars, laser tag and basketball free
throw contests. Participation is optional and a special discount card will be
available to LMC conferees. Special prizes will be awarded for the best efforts.
Visit the Duluth Omnimax Theater for a special showing of "The Living Sea". Shows
begin on the hour, every hour from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The admission is free for
LMC conferees.
Complete your evening with a stroll through Canal Park - visit a variety of shops and
eateries - walk the Lakewalk and watch the ship traffic and sailboat races.
1998 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Wednesday, June 17
10:00-12:00 Noon
William A. Irvin & Lake Superior Maritime
Visitor Center
COST: $5.50/Adult
$4.00/Children (3-17 yrs.)
Tour the retired flagship of the USS Great
Lakes fleet, the William A. Irvin and see how
Great Lakes sailors live among powerful
engines and luxurious living quarters. After
leaving the ship, stroll over to the Lake Superior
Maritime Visitors Center for a free tour through
unique artifacts of shipping on the Great Lakes.
12:15-2:00 p.m.
Vista Star Harbor Tour & Lunch
COST: $14.95/person - 12 years and older
$7.00/children (3-11 years)
Sale beneath the famous Aerial Lift Bridge, out
onto Lake Superior and through the harbor's
international activity during a fully narrated
luncheon cruise.
Thursday, June 18
10:00 a.m. -12:00 Noon
Glensheen Mansion Tour
(Transportation from and to the DECC provided)
COST: $7.00/person 12 years and up
$4.00/children (6-11 years)
Tour this 39 room Jacobean revival mansion, and
experience memories of an elegant lifestyle that's
gone forever. You will enjoy the 22-acre estate's
landscaped grounds on the shores of Lake
Superior, the carriage house and the richness of
the mansion itself.
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon
Lake Superior Zoo
(Transportation from and to the DECC provided)
COST: $3.50/person 12 years and up
$1.50/children (3-11 years)
Here is your opportunity to get up close and
personal with lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!
Watch the polar bears, seals and otters splash and
play. Stroll through the Australian outback
featuring kangaroos and emus.
12:45-2:30 p.m.
North Shore Scenic Railroad
COST: $7.00/person 14 years and up
$3.50/children (3-13 years)
Ride the rails on a scenic trip from Duluth
Entertainment Convention Center (DECC), along
the Lake Superior shoreline and through eastern
Duluth woodlands.
Optional Trip
Lake Superior Railroad Museum
12:30 p.m.
COST: $3.00/adults
$1.50/children
Ride the train to the museum instead of
deboarding at the DECC or visit the museum first
and board the train at the museam at 12:30 p.m.
League of AAinneso$o ¢i ies
1998 Annual Conference
Family Activities
Re§istrotion Form
Number Attending/Price
Activity Date/Time
William A. Irvin and June 17
Lake Superior Maritime 10:00 - noon
Visitor Center
Amount Enclosed
(Fill in bl~nks using
costs listed in activity
description)
adults ~ $5.50
children (3-17) ~ $4.00
Vista Star Harbor June 17
Tour and Lunch 12:15 - 2:00
adults ~ $14.95
children (3-11) ~ $7.00
Glensheen June 18 adults ~ $7.00
10:00 - noon ~ children (6-11) ~ $4.00
Lake Superior Zoo
June 18
10:00 - noon
adults ~ $3.50
children (3-11) ~1.50
North Shore Scenic June 18 ~ adults ~ $7.00
R. ailmad 12:45 - 2:30 ~ children (3-13) ~ $3.50
Lake Superior June 18
P. ailroad Museum
adults ~ $3.00
children ~ $1.50
Total Payment Enclosed
(Make check payable to: City of Duluth)
Mail form and advance registration fees (by Maay 31, 1998) to:
Julene Boe
Parks & Recreation
12 East 4th Stxeet
Duluth, MN 55805
Nallle
Address
City/State/Zip
Daytime Phone
If you require accessible transportation, or have other special needs, please indicate your needs on this form. Advance forms
must be received by May 31, 1998. For more information about these activities, please call Julene Boe at (218) 723-3231.
I
I
iI
LMC
League of Minnesota Cities
85th Annual Conference
June 16-19, 1998 Duluth, Minnesota
Registration and Housing
Information
Important Instructions
Rooms will be reserved on a first-
come, first-served basis. The earlier
you make your reservations, the better
the chance you will have of getting
your first choice hotel. The hotels will
hold the room block until May 15,
1998.
A deposit equal to one night's lodging
per room must accompany this
housing form.
CREDIT CARD PREFERRED
YOU WILL RECEIVE A CONFIRMA-
TION OF YOUR RESERVATION
FROM THE ASSIGNED HOTEL.
ALL CHANGES IN RESERVATIONS
OR CANCELLATIONS MUST BE
MADE THROUGH THE HOUSING
BUREAU IN WRITING.
Information and rates
Holiday Inn
200 West First Street
Radisson Hotel Duluth
505 West Superior Street
Inn on Lake Superior
350 Canal Park Drive
Hampton Inn
310 Canal Park Drive
Comfort Suites
408 Canal Park Drive
Best Western Edgewater
2400 London Road
Canal Park Inn
250 Canal Park Drive
Waterfront Plaza
325 Lake Avenue South
All above rates are plus 12.5% lodging tax per
$71 single/double
$79 triple
$87 quad
$71 single/double
Single/double
$89 poolside
$69 single/double cityside
$79 single/double lakeside
$79 single/double cityside
$89 single/double lakeside
$64 single/standard
$70 double/triple/quad
$74 single/atrium building
$80 double/triple/quad atrium building
$68 single/double
$89 studio suites
$99 one bedroom suites
$119 jacuzzi suite
room per night.
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
Name:
City or Organization:
Address:.
Housing Reservation
Title
City: State: Zip:.
Arrival Date: Arrival Time:
Hotel Preference
First: Second:
Special Requirements:
Names of All Occupants:
One Bed Two Beds
__Enclosed is a deposit equal to one night's lodging per room.
Departure Date:
Third
Smoking: __ No Yes
check credit card.
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO
DULUTH CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU
Send to:
Duluth Convention and Visitors Bureau
LMC Housing Bureau
100 Lake Place Drive
Duluth, MN 55802-2326
At-tn: Pat Shinn
or fax to Pat Shinn at (218) 722-1322.
Credit Card Preferred
Credit Card Company
Card Number
Expiration Date
The LMC Housing Bureau is authorized to use the above card to
guarantee my hotel reservations reserved by me. I understand that
one night's room will be billed through this card if I fail to show up for
my assigned housing on the confirmed date, unless I have cancelled
my reservations with the hotel prior to 6:00 p.m. on the day of arrival.
RESERVATIONS BY PHONE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Cardholder signature
Date
questions, please call Pat Shinn at (800) 438-5884, ext. 109
Retain a copy of this form for your records.
Special Housing Request:
If you have special needs, please attach a written description to this housing form, e.g. wheelchair accessible room, etc.
Please type or print
Name
Nickname for badge
Title
Length of time in office
Sex
years
M
City or organization
Mailing address
City
Telephone ( )
State Zip
There is no registration fee for family members, HOWEVER MEAL TICKETS
ARE NOT INCLUDED FOR FAMILY MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE ORDERED IN
ADVANCE UNDER EXTRA MEAL TICKETS.*
Family/Guests attending:
Spouse full name
Child
Sex F M
Child
~ I will attend the Minnesota Women In City Government (MWCG) Lunch
Wednesday, June 17, 11:15 a.m.-l:15 p.m. No charge.
~ I want to join MWCG. Please bill me ($18.00)
~_~ This is my first League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference.
I plan to attend the Leadership Institute for Elected Officials:
~ Thursday 9 a.m.-12 noon Conflict Resolution
.;~ Thursday 2:15-4:30 p.m. Basics for Elected Officials
FULL CONFERENCE
June 16-19, 1998
Registration includes admission to all
sessions and conference activities,
including tickets to:
· TUESDAY EVENING KIcK-OFF Ino ticket
· WEDNESDAY EXHIBITORS' LUNCHEON
· WEDNESDAY CITY NIGHT
· THURSDAY MAYOR'S LUNCHEON
· THURSDAY BANQUET
WEDNESDAY ONLY
June 17, 1998
Registration INCLUDES admission to all
Wednesday sessions including tickets to:
· TUESDAY EVENING KICK-OFF (.o ticket nece=aa~)
· WEDNESDAY EXHIBITORS LUNCH
· WEDNESDAY CITY NIGHT
THURSDAY AND FRIDAY
June 18, 1998
Registration INCLUDES admission to
all Thursday and Friday sessions
including tickets to:
· WEDNESDAY CITY NIGHT
· THURSDAY MAYOR'S LUNCHEON
NOTE: This registration DOES NOT
include THURSDAY BANQUET TICKETS.
ORDER UNDER EXTRA MEAL
TICKETS.
COST INFORMATION
EARLY REGISTRATION
(PosTMARKED BY MAY 8, 1998)
$250 FULL CONFERENCE $~
$120 WEDNESDAY ONLY $
$120 THURSDAY AND FRIDAY $,,,
ADVANCE REGISTRATION
(POSTMARKED BY MAY 22, 1998)
$270 FULL CONFERENCE $.~
$130 WEDNESDAY ONLY $
$130 THURSDAY AND FRIDAY
ON-SITE REGISTRATION (AT CONFERENCE)
$295 FULL CONFERENCE $,
$140 WEDNESDAY ONLY $.~
$140 THURSDAY AND FRIDAY $
EXTRA MEAL TICKETS
PURCHASE FOR ALL FAMILY/GUESTS Al'rENDING
$10.00 WEDNESDAY $~
EXHIBITOR'S LUNCH
$10.00 WEDNESDAY $
C~ N~GHT
$15.00 THURSDAY $__
MAYOR'S LUNCH
$26.00 THURSDAY $.~
BANQUET
TOTAL ENCLOSED $.~
(NO TICKET NECESSARY FOR TUESDAY
EVENING KICK OFF)
General Information
Every delegate, guest, speaker, media
representative, and other attendees
MUST REGISTER with this form.
Complete the form and return it along
with full payment of appropriate confer-
ence registration fees to address below.
NOTE: No registration will be processed
without payment in full, or without an
accompanying city voucher or purchase
order.
Conference Registration
Cancellation Policy
All requests for cancellation must be in
writing, postmarked by May 29, 1998,
and are subject to a $30 cancellation
fee. All registration cancellations/
changes must be in writing.
Special Needs
if you are disabled and require special
services or transportation, or if you have
special dietary needs, please attach a
written description to this registration
form.
Registration Confirmation
Pre-registrants will receive a registration
confirmation to be presented at the
ADVANCE REGISTRATION desk.
Leadership Institute
Credit Available
Elected Officials participating in the LMC
Leadership Institute can earn five credits
towards a certificate of recognition for
conference attendance. Earn an
additional two credits each by attending
the Thursday morning Leadership
Institute program on Conflict Resolution
and the Thursday afternoon program on
Basics for Elected Officials.
Registration Information
For more information contact:
Cathy Dovidio (612) 281-1250 or
1-800-925-1122.
Make check payable and return
with form to:
Finance Department--AC
League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
City contact
Daytime phone number
Feel free to duplicate for
multiple registrations.
1998 LMC 85th Annual Conference
Minnesota Cities: Going the Distance
Tuesday, June 16, 1998
Tuesday Evening Kickoff at Spirit Mountain with BBQ Dinner,
Native American Dancers. and a telling of the Stories of the Ghosts
of Spirit Mountain
6p.m.
Wednesday, June 17, 1998
Registration/"Cities Marketplace'/Tech City/Computer Lab
7:30 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Continental Breakfast
7:30 - 8:45 a.m.
Welcome/Opening Session
8:45 - 10:15 a.m.
MAv,~: Yul)OF, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF M/',~NESOTA
Tour "Cities Marketplace"
10:15 - 10:45 a.m.
Thursday, June 18, 1998
Continental Breakfast
7:30-9 a.m.
Registration/Computer Lab/"Cities Marketplace"
7:30- 11 a.m.
Concurrent Sessions III (choose one)
9- I0 a.m.
· Annexation (GMC)
· Specialized Hiring (Police & Fire) (SC)
· Met Council Forum (MC)
Leadership Institute: Conflict Resolution (until noon)
· Customer Service: Dealing Directly With Citizens
· Money Down The Drain
· Special Interest Sesssion--Especially for Cities Trying to
Implement Sustainable Development
· Special Interest Session--Especially for Cities With Higher Education
Institutions
Nominating Committee Meeting
10:45 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Tour "Cities Marketplace"
10-I1 a.m.
Concurrent Sessions I (choose one)
10:45 - 11:45 a.m.
· How to Handle Hot Topics
· Improving Relationships Be~'een Cities, School Districts and
Counties
· Avoiding Expensive Mistakes in Eminent Domain
· How to Recruit, Sustain, Recognize & Utilize the Services
of Volunteers
· Elected Officials Responsibility in Emergencies
· Investing in the Intemet--What You Can Learn from
Other Cities
· Special Interest Session--Especially for Cities With Airports
Concurrent Sessions IV (choose one)
11 - 12 noon
· Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission (GMC)
· Alternative Waste Treatment Systems (SC)
· Greenways (MC)
· Visioning for Your City
· Leadership Institute: Conflict Resolution (continued)
· Getting Citizens Involved in Relevant, Beneficial Ways
· Special Interest Session--Especially for Cities With Armories
Mayors Association,qVlini-Conference LuncheowLMC Annual Meeting
12 noon - 2:15 p.m.
Exhibitors' Luncheon in "Cities Marketplace"
11:45 a.m. - 1:15 p.m.
General Session
I:15 - 3:00 p.m.
GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES FORUM ON CiTY ISSUES
Tour "Cities Marketplace"
3 - 3:30 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions II (choose one)
3:30 - 4:30 p.m.
Educating Citizens About Local Government
Affordable Housing That Works
· Employee Recognition Programs
New Collaborative Approaches to Recreation
Alternative Revenue Sources (plus Setting Fees & Rates to
Raise Money)
· Improving Community Life for Youth
· Special Interest Session--Especially for Cities With
Railroads
Cit3' Night
4:30 - 8:00 p.m.
With Spaghetti Dinner and Strolling Musicians in "Cities Marketplace"
followed by an ice cream social and games in Canal Park's Grand Slam.
and Free Omninex Theater admissions.
Concurrent Sessions V (choose one)
2:30 - 3:30 p.m.
· Comprehensive Planning (GMC)
· Collaboration (Intergovernmental & Between Cities) (SC)
· The Comp Plan: A Tool For Decisionmaking (Part I--The Issues) (MC)
· Leadership Institute: The Basics for Elected Officials (until 4:45 p.m.)
· Electric Deregulation
· Capital Improvements--Infrastructure
Special Interest Session--Especially for Cities With Municipal Liquor
Stores
Concurrent Sessions VI (choose one)
3:45 - 4:45 p.m.
· Waste Water Treatment Regulations (GMCJ
· Roundtables on Topics of Interest to Small Cities (SCi
· The Comp Plan (Part II--Possibilities for Growth Management,
Redevelopment. Implementation) (MC)
· Leadership Institute: The Basics for Elected Officials tcontinued)
· Pannership 2000: Improving City/State Relations
LMC Reception and Banquet
6-gp.m.
Recognition Celebration
9 p.m. - midnight
Friday, June 19, 1998
Continental Breakfast
8-9a.m.
Note: On Tharsday, certain sessions are specifically
designed for Metropolitan Area Cities (MC), Greater
Minnesota Cities (GMC), and Small Cities (SC).
General Session
9 - 10:45 a.m.
D,CK B£ARDSL£Y
Hennepin
April 13, 1998
To whom it may concern:
Amendments to Ordinance Number Seven
Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance for Hennepin County
Hennepin County is amending its Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance. There are two
basic types of changes that are being made in the ordinance: State rule changes and a policy
change.
The State rule changes include the incorporation of three rule packages which the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency has adopted since the last ordinance amendment in 1995. The policy
change relates to requirements for minimal generators. Minimal generators are the smallest of
the generators in terms of the amount and risk of waste generated. Minimal generators will be
required to follow most of the management requirements as other generators, however, they will
have several paperwork requirements eliminated.
A public hearing will be held on the ordinance on May 19, 1998 before the Environment and
General Government Committee of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Enclosed with this letter, you will find the following:
'I.
2.
3.
A copy of the proposed ordinance with underline and strikeout;
a description of changes made to the ordinance; and
a copy of the notice announcing the May 19, 1998 public hearing.
If you would like to testify at the public hearing, please contact Toni Byard at 348-4019. If you
would like to submit written comments on the ordinance, please send them to the Hennepin
County Board of Commissioners, c/o Toni Byard, A2400, Hennepin County Government Center,
300 S. 6~h St., Minneapolis MN 55487. If you have any questions regarding these ordinance
changes, please contact Rosemary Lavin at 348-8596.
Sincerely,
Gregory B. Izie
Division Manager
Department of Public Works
417 North Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397
(612) 348-6509 FAX:(612) 348-8532
Environmental Info Line:(612) 348-6500
Recycled Paper
ORDINANCE NUMBER SEVEN
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
FOR
HENNEPIN COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF r,T m~ Tr' ....... ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADOPTED BY THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
April 8, 1980
AMENDED ON AUGUST 2, 1983
AMENDED ON JULY 2, 1985
AMENDED ON AUGUST 12, 1986
AMENDED ON APRIL 26, 1988
AMENDED ON AUGUST 14, 1990
AMENDED ON APRIL 27, 1993
AMENDED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1995
AMENDED ON JUNE 2, 1998
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 375.51
AND MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 473.811
SECTION
1.00
2.00
3.00
ORDINANCE NUMBER SEVEN
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
ITEM PAGE
GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................... , ............................. 1
1.01 Administrative Procedures .............................. ' ........................... 1
1.02 Administration
1.03 Definitions .................................................................................. 1
1.04 Compliance ................................................................................ 4
1.05 Conditions .................................................................................. 4
1.06 False Information ....................................................................... 4
1.07 Listing, Delisting and Waste Classification ............................... 4
STANDARDS FOR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
EN~IRO~ENTAL PRESERVATION ...................................... :...4
2.01 Standards Adopted ..................................................................... 4
2.02 Standards Amended ................................................................... 4
2.03 Standards for Minimal Generators ..................... /
LICENSING ....................................................................................... 10
3.01 License Required ................................................... , ................. 10
Licensing Not Exclusive
Fees
License Term
License Application
Incomplete or Non-Conforming Application ........................... 12
Renewal ........... 13
Denial
....................................................................................... 13
Waste Management .................................................................. 14
Facilities .................................................................................. '. 14
Minimal Generator Licensin~ Requirements ........................... 1 /
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07
3.08
3.09
3.10
3.11
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT ............................... ! 9
4.01 Duties of the Department ......................................................... 19
4.02 Right of Entry .......................................................................... 19
4.03 Orders and Notices ................................................................... !9
4.04 Compliance .............................................................................. 19
4.05 Inspection ..................................................... ~ ........................... 20
4.06 Financial Assurance ................................................................. 20
4.07 Revocation of License .............................................................. 2 !
4.08 Suspension o~License .............................................................. 21
4.09 Summary Suspension of License ............................................. 21
4.10 Hearings ................................................................................... 22
TERMINATION OF OPERATION ................................................ 24
VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES ................................................... 24
6.01 Misdemeanor ............................................................................ 24
6.02 Aiding and Abetting ................................................................. 24
6.03 Injunctive Relief. ................... ................................................... 25
6.04 Civil Action or Cost as Special Tax ......................................... 25
6.05 Citation Authority .................................................................... 25
6.06 Penalty. Provisions .................................................................... 25
6.07 Embargo ................................................................................... 26
MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 26
EFFECTIVE DATE .......................................................................... 26
SEVERABILITY ............................................................................... 27
PROVISIONS ARE ACCUMULATIVE ......................................... 27
ORDINANCE NUMBER SEVEN
HENNEPIN COUNTY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to establish roles, regulations, and
standards, for hazardous waste management in Hennepin County, Minnesota for: the
identification, labeling, and classification of hazardous waste; the handling, collection,
transportation, and storage of hazardous waste; the treatment, processing and/or disposal
of hazardous waste; requiring the licensing of hazardous waste generators and ha?ardous
waste facilities; payment of license fees; penalties for failure to comply with the
provisions of this ordinance; issuing, denying, modifying, imposing conditions upon,
suspending or revoking licenses; and other matters as determined to be necessary for the
health, welfare and safety of the public~ Further, this ordinance shall be liberally
construed so as to protect the natural environment from hazardous waste contamination.
Authority. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473.
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners does ordain:
1.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.01
Administrative Procedures. Provisions of the Hennepin County Administrative
Procedures Ordinance that are not covered by this 'ordinance and do not conflict
with provisions of this ordinance shall apply as if fully set forth herein.
1.02
Administration. This ordinance shall be administered by the Hennepin County
Department of, u,,,: .... r ..... : ............. r¥ .' '^-
D 1.,T',. Xlr,-, 1 1Z' ,., .-,*,.I ,~/f,~ ,-~
Environmental Servmes The term "De "
· ' . · partment, where used in this ordinance
and the Hennepin County Administrative Procedures Ordinance, shall mean the
Hennepin County Department nfr,,,~,l;~ xlr...1..~ r:,,.,; ...... ,.1 ~ ~ ........,
Dk'!::' cnEnvironmental Services.
1.03
Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this ordinance,
unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in ti'tis section·
mo
Co
"Agency" shall mean the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
"County Board" shall mean the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners.
"Embargo" shall mean an order by the Department prohibiting the
movement, removal, transport, use, treatment or disposal of a material
which is, or is suspected to be, a ha?&rdous waste and which is being
mismanaged or which the Department has reason to suspect is being or
will be managed in violation of this ordinance.
"Facility" shall have the meaning in Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0020, subp. 24
and, in addition to other hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, is meant in this ordinance to include, transfer facilities, recycling
facilities, and other processing and handling facilities such as:
1)Waste Lamp Collection Facilities. Facilities that collect and store
mercury bearing lamps from generators.
'2~Waste Lamp Recycling Facilities. Facilities that remove, recover, and
recycle for reuse mercury and other materials from mercury bearing lamps
such as fluorescent or high intensity discharge lamps.
3_)Special Hazardous Waste Consolidation Sites. Facilities acting under
the Agency's Pilot Project for the Management of Special Hazardous
Waste, as allowed by County Board Resolution.
4)Special Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities. Facilities that recycle
hazardous waste defined as special hazardous waste under the MPCA's
Pilot Project as allowed bv Countw Board Resolution.
5)Used Oil Filter and Used Oil Contaminated Materials Collection
Facilities. Facilities that colleCt processed or unprocessed used oil filters
or oil contaminated materials from ~enerators. brokers, collectors or
transporters and store them temporarily prior to transferring them to
another _qenerator. broker, collector or transporter, or recycling or
processing them.
6_6.)Used Oil Filter Processing Facilities. Facilities that accept used oil
filters from generators, brokers, collectors, or transporters a.nd process
them to make them more amenable to recycling.
7_)Used Oil Filter Recycling Facilities. Facilities that accept used oil filters
from generators, brokers, collectors, or transporters and transform them
into recycled products.
8_)Used Oil Burning Facilities. Facilities that bum used oil for energy
recovery, in an industrial furnace or boiler pursuant to Minn. Rules pt.
70~,5.0595, zulU. ~ 7045.0885: but does not include sites that burn used oil
in space heaters meeting the requirements of Minn. Rules pt. -m,~ r n~o.~
~"~'~ '~ :*~- 2 7045.0855. subp. 3
9_)Used Oil Processing Facilities. Facilities that accept used oil from
2
Eo
Fo
Go
generators, brokers, marketers, or transporters and process it for purposes
of recycling or reclamation, or in preparation for recycling or reclamation;
or otherwise process used oil. Processing includes, but is not limited to:
blending used oil with virgin petroleum products, blending used oils to
meet the fuel specifications, filtration, simple distillation, chemical or
physical separation, and re-refining.
10)Waste Lamp, Waste Lead Acid Battery, Used Oil Filter, or Used Oil
Storage Facilities. Facilities that accept waste mercury beating lamps,
waste lead acid batteries, used oil filters or used oil from generators,
brokers, collectors or transporters and store them.
"Hazardous Waste" shall mean any refuse, sludge or other waste material
or combination of refuse, sludge or other waste materials in solid,
semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form which because of its quantity,
concentration, or chemical, physical, or infectious characteristics may (a)
cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase
in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (b) pose a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise
managed. Categories of hazardous waste materials include, but are not
limited to, explosives, flammables, oxidizers, poisons, irritants, and
corrosives. Hazardous waste does not include source, special nuclear, or
by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended.
"Person" shall mean any human being, any municipality or other
governmental or political subdivision or other public agency, any public or
private corporation, any partnership, any firm, association, or other
organization, any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent, or other legal
representative of any of the foregoing or any other legal entity.
"Minimal Generator" shall mean any Very Small Quantity, Generator who
generates only the following wastes:
l)'
2)
3)
4)
5)
ten (10) .~allons or less per year ofhaTardous waste that is not
acutely toxic and that is not included in the wastes listed below
any mount of used oil. used oil contaminated sorbents, used oil
filters or petroleum fuel filters
any amount of lead acid batteries
any number of mercury bearinz lamps such as fluorescent or high
intensity discharge
Svecial Hazardous Wastes included in the MPCA's Pilot Project a,~
allowed bv County Board Resolution
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
2.00
2.01
2.02
6) any amount ofphotoeraphic fixer solution and x-ray film which is
7)
8)
shipped off site for recvclin~
any amount of photo_m'aphic fixer if treated on site to remove
eiehrv (80) or more percent of the hazardous constituents
any amount of fuel/water mixtures that is not stored or
accumulated on site
Compliance. No person shall cause or permit the generation, transportation,
disposal, or processing of hazardous waste, or the construction or operation of
ha?ardous waste facilities, except in full compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance, including but not limited to all provisions requiring full disclosure of
information regarding such generation, transportation, disposal, or processing.
Conditions. The Department may impose conditions on any license, permit or
variance as deemed necessary to monitor the operation and ensure the public
health and safety. Violation of any condition imposed by the County on a license,
permit, or variance shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and subject to the
penalty provisions set forth in this ordinance.
False Information. Omission of any information or submission of false
information may be deemed a violation of this ordinance or may be deemed a
violation of Minnesota Statutes.
Listing, Delisting and Waste Classification. In the event the Agency modifies the
lists of wastes by listing or delisting, or classifies a waste as hazardous, the
County Board may, by resolution, amend the lists of wastes set forth in this
ordinance, or classify certain wastes as hazardous, to incorporate said Agency
action.
STANDARDS FOR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION
Standards Adopted. Minn. Rules ch. 7045, except for Minn. Rules pts. 7045.1000
through 7045.1030, relating to hazardous waste, which were in effect on AF~I 1,
1995 March l. 1998 are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this
ordinance.
Standards Amended. The above adopted rules are hereby amended as follows:
Wherever the term "Minnesota Pollution Control Agency", or "Agency",
appears in these adopted rules, it shall mean the "Department", except in
Minn. Rules pts.: 7045.0020, subps. 4-a~d. 9c. and 73h; 7045.0070;
7045.0075; 7045.0080; 7045.0125. subp. 9. item D; 7045.0129;
7045.0133; 7045.0135. subp. 1, paragraph 3; 7045.0139; 7045.0218;
'vn,~ n-~.n ,,,~,~ ~: ..... ~r~. 7047.024 su o, item D; .........,
Iq' o
Bo
Co
.... v. !, item E(5); 7045.0261, subp. 5, item B and subp. 6; 7045.0275,
subp. 2; 7045.0302; 7045.0361; 7045.0395; 7045.0397; 7045.0450, subp.
1; 7045.0452, subp. 2; 7045.0468, subp. 2; 7045.0498 through 7045.0524;
7045.0546: 7045.0552, subp. 3 item A; 7045.0554; 7045.0556, subp. 2;
7045.0574, subp. 2; 7045.0608 through 7045.0624; 7045.0655, subp. 1;
and where used with "Environmental Protection Agency", or "federal or
state agency", where they shall remain unchanged.
Wherever the term Cornrmssloner appears in these adopted roles, it shall
mean "Department" except in Minn. Rules pts.: 7045.0020, subp. 6a, item
B, subps. 9c ~,,nd zubF.. 13a. 43.b, and 73h; 7045.0075; 7045.0080;
7045.0125. subp. 4. item N and subp. 9. item D: 7045.0129; 7045.0131,
subps. 1 and 7; 7045.0218; 7045.0261, subp. 9; 7045.0265; 7045.0294,
subp. la, item B; 7045.0302; 7045.0310, subp. 3, items B, C and D, and
subp. 5, item C; 7045.0320, subps. 9 and 10; .~t~ 9:95, sub~. ' item A;
-m,~ r~ 0,,~., -~; 7045.0474; 7045.0476, subp. 3, item A; 7045.0498
through 7045.0524; 7045.0528, subp. 4, item D(4) and subp. 8, item D(1);
7045.0545. subps, l throueh 7: 7naq oqael, vc~ r~<,,9 sump. '~-
7045.0580; 7045.0582, subp. 3, item A; 7045.0608 through 7045.0624;
7045.06')8, subp. 4, item D(4) ~'~ ,,,~,~ 9 :,~.~,
- -, ..... v- ,,, ...... D(1); 7045.0652, subp. 2,
item B; 7045.0686; 7045.0875. subp. 8. item B: 7045.0990: 7045.1309;
7045.1315, subp. 2, item G; 7045.1360, where it shall remain unchanged.
Wherever the term "permit", "Permitee", "permitting" or "permitted"
appears in these adopted roles, it shall mean "license", "licensee",
"licensing" or "licensed" except in Minn. Rules pts.: 7045.0020, subp.
10b, subp. 15, item A(4), subp. 23a, subp. 24. item B. and subp. 58a;
7045.0121, subp. 2, item D;.7045.0208, subp. 2. item C, 7045.0210;
70~.5.02~0, sump. I, item E; 70:5.024,$, ~ub~. !,/tc.m E; 7045.0261, subps.
2, 5, and 6; 7045.0310, subp. 3, item D and subp. 6, item D; 7045.0320,
subp. 9, item C; 7045.0397; 7045.0450, subp. 1; 7045.0498 through
7045.0524; 7045.0545, subps. 5 and 7; 7045.0546; 7045.0552, subp. 2;
7045.0554, subp. 1; 7045.0608 through 7045.0624; 7045.0790. subp. 7~
7045.1380, subp. 1, item A; and where used with "National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit", "NPDES Permit", "State Disposal
System Permit", "Emission Facility Operating Permit", "permit-by-rule",
or "Air Quality Permit", where they shall remain unchanged.
The terms "Minnesota" or "State of Minnesota" shall mean "County of
Hennepin" in Minn. Rules pts.: 7045.0210; 7045.0212; 7045.0214;
7045.0240; 7045.0261, subp. 5 and subp. 6 (except the phrases "Specific
Minnesota" and "in Minnesota" which shall remain unchanged);
7045.0302, subp. 1; 7045.0351, subp. 1; 7045.0355 and 7045.0361.
Ho
Xo
Ko
Mo
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0020, subp. 66 is deleted in its entirety.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0060 is amended to read as follows: "No variance
may be ~anted if granting the variance would result in noncompliance
with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) rules for the generation, storage,
processing, treatment, transportation or disposal of hazardous waste or the
operation of hazardous waste facilities."
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0225, subp. 1 is amended by deleting the last two
sentences in their entirety.
The first paragraph of Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0230, subp. 1 is amended to
read "Information required. An application must be on a form provided
by the Department and must include the following information:".
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0230, subp. la is deleted in its entirety.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0240 is amended by the deletion of the second
~arr, grr,~k, sentence in subp. 3.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0243 is amended by the deletion of subp. 1 and subp.
3, item C.
The first paragraph of Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0248, subp. 1 is amended to
read as follows: "A licensed generator must submit a license renewal
application to the Department on forms provided by the Department. A
generator must submit the application and report by the December 15
preceding the expiration of the generator license. The application must
contain the following information for each hazardous waste produced, or
to be produced, during the current calendar year:".
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0248, subp. _-2--1, item B is deleted in its entirety.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0250 is deleted in its entirety.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0261, subp. 5 is amended to read as follows:
"Subp. 5. Permitted facilities. The facilities shall be licensed or
permitted by:
mo
the agency if the hazardous waste facility is located in Ivlinnesota;
or
the state agency with a ha?ardous waste program author/zed by the
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Code of Federal
2.03
Regulations, title, 40, part 271 (1983); or
C. the Environmental Protection Agency; or
D. having interim status.".
Po
In Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0292, subps. 1, 5, 6 and 8, the phrase "without a
permit" is amended to read "without a facility permit". The word "permit"
in these references remains unchanged.
The first paragraph of Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0302, subp. 2 is amended to
read as follows:
"Subp. 2. Notification. When shipping hazardous waste outside the state
of Minnesota to a foreign country, the primary exporter must notify the
Commissioner, the Department and the EPA of an intended export before
the waste is scheduled to leave the United States. A complete notification
should be submitted sixty (60) days before the initial shipment is intended
to be shipped off site. This notification may cover export activities
extending over a 12-month or lesser period. The notification must be in
writing, signed by the primary exporter and include the following
information:".
Ro
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0460, subp. 1, item A is amended to read as follows:
"A. Procedures are in effect which will cause the waste to be removed
safely before floodwaters can reach the facility to a location where the
wastes will not be vulnerable to floodwaters. The location to which
wastes are moved must be a facility which is either licensed by this
Department, or permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency, or by
a state with a hazardous waste management program authorized by the
Environmental Protection Agency, or which has interim status.".
S. The term "in Chapter 7001" is deleted wherever it appears.
T. The phrase "under chapter 7046" is deleted wherever it appears.
Standards for Minimal Generators,
Ao
Minimal eenerators must manaee their waste according to all applicable
rules and re.~ulations of the state and county
Minimal _oenerators that fail to comply with the waste management
_requirements of this ordinance may. at the discretion of the Department
lose their minimal ~oenerator status.
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
2.00
2.01
2.02
7)
8)
any amount o£ photographic fixer solution and x-ray film which is
shipped off site for recvclin~
any amount of photom'aphic fixer if treated on site to remove
eiehw (80) or more percent of the hazardous constituents
any amount of fuel/water mixtures that is not stored or
accumulated on site
Compliance. No person shall cause or permit the generation, transportation,
disposal, or processing of hazardous waste, or the consUmction or operation of
hazardous waste facilities, except in full compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance, including but not limited to all provisions requiring full disclosure of
information regarding such generation, transportation, disposal, or processing.
Conditions. The Department may impose conditions on any license, permit or
variance as deemed necessary to monitor the operation and ensure the public
health and safety. Violation of any condition imposed by the County on a license,
permit, or variance shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and subject to the
penalty, provisions set forth in this ordinance.
False Information. Omission of any information or submission of false
information may be deemed a violation of this ordinance or may be deemed a
violation of Minnesota Statutes.
Listing, Delisting and Waste Classification. In the event the Agency modifies the
lists of wastes by listing or delisting, or classifies a waste as hazardous, the
County Board may, by resolution, amend the lists of wastes set forth in this
ordinance, or classify certain wastes as hazardous, to incorporate said Agency
action.
STANDARDS FOR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION
Standards Adopted. Minn. Rules ch. 7045, except for Minn. Rules pts. 7045.1000
through 7045.1030, relating to hazardous waste, which were in effect on ~
4x)9-5-March l. 1998 are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this
ordinance.
Standards Amended. The above adopted rules are hereby amended as follows:
Wherever the term "Minnesota Pollution Control Agency", or "Agency",
appears in these adopted rules, it shall mean the "Department", except in
Minn. Rules pts.: 7045.0020, subps. ~, "~nd_. 9c. and 73h; 7045.0070;
7045.0075; 7045.0080; 7045.0125. subp. 9. item D: 7045.0129;
7045.0133; 7045.0135, subp. 1, paragraph 3; 7045.0139; 7045.0218;
'm'~5 0'~20 ~"~'~ ~: ..... E(6); 7045.0243, subp. 3, item D; -m~ ~'~49
4.
Bo
~,,~,~ ~ :,~.,, ~r~. 7045.0261, subp. 5, item B and subp. 6; 7045.0275,
subp. 2; 7045.0302; 7045.0361; 7045.0395; 7045.0397; 7045.0450, subp.
l; 7045.0452, subp. 2; 7045.0468, subp. 2; 7045.0498 through 7045.0524;
7045.0546: 7045.0552, subp. 3 item A; 7045.0554; 7045.0556, subp. 2;
7045.0574, subp. 2; 7045.0608 through 7045.0624; 7045.0655, subp. 1;
and where used with "Environmental Protection Agency", or "federal or
state agency", where they shall remain unchanged.
Wherever the term "Commissioner" appears in these adopted rules, it shall
mean "Department" except in Minn. Rules pts.: 7045.0020, subp. 6a, item
B, subps. 9c an~ zu~p.: 13a. 43.b. and 73h; 7045.0075; 7045.0080;
7045.0125. subp. 4. item N and subr>. 9. item D: 7045.0129; 7045.0131,
subps. 1 and 7; 7045.0218; 7045.0261, subp. 9; 7045.0265; 7045.0294,
subp. la, item B; 7045.0302; 7045.0310, subp. 3, items B, C and D, and
subp. 5, item C; 7045.0320, subps. 9 and 10;
-m~, ~ ,~.vt~-: ~.~., sub~. _~; 7045.0474; 7045.0476, subp. 3, item A; 7045.0498
through 7045.0524; 7045.0528, subp. 4, item D(4) and subp. 8, item D(1);
7045.0545. subps. I through 7: 7045.0546: -m~ r~Sr$ ~,,~ -~.
7045.0580; 7045.0582, subp. 3, item A; 7045.0608 through 7045.0624;
7045.0628, subp. 4, item Dra~ ~-~
item B; 7045.0686; 7045.0875. subp. 8. item B: 7045.0990: 7045.1309;
7045.1315, subp. 2, item G; 7045.1360, where it shall remain unchanged.
Wherever the term permit, Perm~tee, "permitting" or "permitted"
appears in these adopted rules, it shall mean "license", "licensee",
"licensing" or "licensed" except in Minn. Rules pts.: 7045.0020, subp.
10b, subp. 15, item A(4), subp. 23a, subp. 24. item B. and subp. 58a;
7045.0121, subp. 2, item D;.7045.0208, subp. 2. item C; 7045.0210;
-m~.~ ..... n,~ ~,,r,~ ~, ;*~m E' -m~ t~,~c, ~,,~,,, ~ ~,~ E; 7045 0261, subps.
2, 5, and 6; 7045.0310, subp. 3, item D and subp. 6, item D; 7045.0320,
subp. 9, item C; 7045.0397; 7045.0450, subp. 1; 7045.0498 through
7045.0524; 7045.0545, subps. 5 and 7; 7045.0546: 7045.0552, subp. 2;
7045.0554, subp. 1; 7045.0608 through 7045.0624; 7045.0790. subp. 7~
7045.1380, subp. 1, item A; and where used with "National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit", "NPDES Permit", "State Disposal
System Permit", "Emission Facility Operating Permit", "permit-by-nde",
or "Air Quality Permit", where they shall remain unchanged.
The terms "Minnesota" or "State of Minnesota" shall mean "County of
Hennepin" in Minn. Rules pts.: 7045.0210; 7045.0212; 7045.0214;
7045.0240; 7045.0261, subp. 5 and subp. 6 (except the phrases "Specific
Minnesota" and "in Minnesota" which shall remain unchanged);
7045.0302, subp. 1; 7045.0351, subp. 1; 7045.0355 and 7045.0361.
Lo
Mo
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0020, subp. 66 is deleted in its entirety.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0060 is amended to read as follows: "No variance
may be ~anted if granting the variance would result in noncompliance
with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) rules for the generation, storage,
processing, treatment, transportation or disposal of hazardous waste or the
operation of hazardous waste facilities."
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0225, subp. 1 is amended by deleting the last two
sentences in their entirety.
The first paragraph of Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0230, subp. 1 is amended to
read "Information required. An application must be on a form provided
by the Department and must include the following information:".
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0230, subp. la is deleted in its entirety.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0240 is amended by the deletion of the second
?aragraFk sentence in subp. 3.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0243 is amended by the deletion of subp. 1 and subp.
3, item C.
The f~rst paragraph of Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0248, subp. 1 is amended to
read as follows: "A licensed generator must submit a license renewal
application to the Department on forms provided by the Depa~unent. A
generator must submit the application and report by the December 15
preceding the expiration of the generator license. The application must
contain the following information for each hazardous waste produced, or
to be produced, during the current calendar year:".
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0248, subp. TI. item B is deleted in its entirety.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0250 is deleted in its entirety.
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0261, subp. 5 is amended to read as follows:
"Subp. 5. Permitted facilities. The facilities shall be licensed or
permitted by:
the agency if the hazardous waste facility, is located in Minnesota;
or
the state agency with a hazardous waste program authorized by the
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Code of Federal
2.03
Regulations, title, 40, part 271 (1983); or
C. the Environmental Protection Agency; or
D. having interim status.".
In Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0292, subps. 1, 5, 6 and 8, the phrase "without a
permit" is amended to read "without a facility permit". The word "permit"
in these references remains unchanged.
Qo
The first paragraph of Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0302, subp. 2 is amended to
read as follows:
"Subp. 2. Notification. When shipping hazardous waste outside the state
of Minnesota to a foreign country, the primary exporter must notify the
Commissioner, the Department' and the EPA of an intended export before
the waste is scheduled to leave the United States. A complete notification
should be submitted sixty (60) days before the initial shipment is intended
to be shipped off site. This notification may cover export activities
extending over a 12-month or lesser period. The notification must be in
writing, signed by the primary exporter and include the following
information:".
Ro
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0460, subp. 1, item A is amended to read as follows:
"A. Procedures are in effect which will cause the waste to be removed
safely before floodwaters can reach the facility to a location where the
wastes will not be vulnerable to floodwaters. The location to which
wastes are moved must be a facility which is either licensed by this
Department, or permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency, or by
a state with a hazardous waste management program authorized by the
Environmental Protection Agency, or which has interim status.".
S. The term "in Chapter 7001" is deleted wherever it appears.
T. The phrase "under chapter 7046" is deleted wherever it appears.
_Standards for Minimal Generators.
Ko
Minimal ~enerators must manage their waste accordin~ to all applicabk,
rules and regulations of the state and county.
Minimal ~enerators that fail to comply with the waste management
requirements of this ordinance may. at the discretion of the Der>a~ment
lose their minimal zenerator status.
7
Co
Minimal generators whose rate of waste generation exceeds that defined in
Section 1.03 Ca shall lose their minimal eenerator status.
Do
Waste Accumulation. Minimal zenerators that exceed fif-t-v five (55)
eallons of accumulated hazardous waste shall lose their minimal generator
status. The eeneration of used oil. used oil contaminated sorbents, used oil
filters, lead acid batteries, mercury bearing lamps, Special Hazardous
Waste included in the MPCA's Pilot Project as allowed bv County Board
Resolution. feedstock or by-product waste is not counted towards this
accumulation limit.
E. Containers and Tanks.
1)
Hazardous waste must be placed in a container or tank that is
compatible with the waste and that contains no material or residue
that may react with the waste. Hazardous waste must not be placed
in a container that previously held an incompatible material unless
the incompatible material has been entirely removed. Hazardottq
waste must be adequately separated from any other container or
tank holdinz an incompatible hazardous material.
2)
Containers and tanks must be kept closed unless addin~ or
removin~ wastes. Containers and tanks must be maintained in
~ood condition, w/th no mst. corrosion, or damage that may result
in a leak or release. If the container or tank is rusted, corroded, or
damaged, it must be repaired, or the waste must be moved to a
sound container or tank.
3)
Containers and tanks must be labeled with the words "Hazardou~
Waste" and a clearly understandable description of the type of
waste in the container or tank.
F. Storaee areas.
1)
Storage of liquid hazardous waste indoors or outdoors must be on a
surface impermeable to the hazardous waste.
2)
Outdoor storage areas must have secondary containment to prevent
release to soil or water. Ifi~nitable wastes are stored outdoors, the
wastes must be mana_oed to prevent overheatine and rupture of
containers.
3)
Storaee areas for hazardous wastes must have protection from
damaee includine vehicular accidents and vandalism.
4)
All ~enerators must comply with state fire regulations and local
rezulations.
Ho
Go
5)
Hazardous waste containers must have adequate aisle space to
allow unobstructed movement of personnel and equipment in an
emerffencv.
.Spills. The zenerator must clean up any spills or leaks ofhaTardous waste,
or hazardous material immediately. Upon discovering a spill or leak of a
hazardous waste or haTardous material, the zenerator must notify the State.
Duty Officer bv calline (612) 649-5451 or (800) 422-0798. When
reportin~ the spill or release, the ~enerator must be prepared to describe
the location, type of material, amount, and the cleanup activities. Thc.
generator must have the following emergency equipment and materials o,
site as appropriate for the wastes ~enerated to completely clean up any
spills and respond to any other emerzencies that occur: communication
ecluipment, fire extineuishers, spill control equipment, decontamination
.equipment, and adequate water supply.
Transportation. The eenerator must comply with all Department of
Transportation regulations when shipping ha?ardous waste. Use of.~
hazardous waste manifest versus a shipping paper will depend on
Department of Transportation regulations.
Disposal Standards. Hazardous wastes must be disposed of by one of the
followinu methods:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Treat on-site bv a method acceptable to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency or the Count-v;
Ship to a licensed or permitted hazardous waste facility using
hazardous waste manifest and ha?~rdous waste transporter:
Ship to a Very Small Quantity Generator Collection Site in
compliance with Minnesota Department of Transportation
reeulations:
Ship used oil, used oil filters, used oil contaminated sorbents, spent
lead acid batteries, silver only photographic fixer solution.
fluorescent lamps or special ha?~rdous wastes included in the.
MPCA's Pilot Project to a recvcler or consolidation site. in
compliance with Minnesota Department of Transportation
re_c, ulations:
3.00
3.01
Ko
Sewer with the approval of local publicly ov~med treatment works.
Waste Consolidation. A licensed ~enemtor may transport hazardous waste,
to another location approved bv the counw and owned b.v the same
generator for the purpose of consolidatin~ small amounts of hazardous
waste if the shipment is made in accordance with Minnesota Department
of Transportation regulations.
Prohibited actions. The following actions by minimal aenerators are
prohibited.
1) Abandonine or relinquishine control of hazardous waste if the
generator has reason to believe that the hazardous waste will not be
properly managed or the treatment, stora~,e or disposal facility
cannot le~allv take the waste.
2)
Relinquishing, control of manifested waste to a transporter who is
not licensed or permitted bv the Minnesota Department of
Transportation as a hazardous waste transporter.
3) Placine used oil in or on the ~ound or water.
4) Evapomtine ba?~ardous waste except as provided in Section 3.09 A
Lo
Recordkeepine. All hazardous waste mana,_,ement records including.
manifest copies, receipts, shipping papers or bills of ladine must be kept
on-site for at least three (3) years from the date of shipment.
LICENSING
License Required. Unless otherwise provided by this ordinance, no person shall,
within the County, make or allow property under his or its control to be used for
any activity which generates ha?~rdous waste except at an individual generation
site for which a hazardous waste generator license has been granted by the
Department. Unless otherwise provided by this ordinance, no person shall, within
the County, generate, store, deposit, keep, accumulate, process, treat, reclaim,
recycle, dispose of, or otherwise handle, process or cause to be transported,
ha?ardous waste except at a site or facility for which a license has been granted by
the County Board or the Department. On a case by case basis, the Department
may allow a person that does not possess a facility license to accept used oil, used
oil filters, waste mercury, bearing lamps or waste lead acid batteries if the facility
possesses a generator license, using the following criteria as a guide: the site
takes these wastes only from generators owned or operated by the owner or
operator of the receiving site, is receiving used oil pursuant to Minn. Statute
325E. 11, is operated in compliance with 7045.0310, or the volumes of the wastes
3.02
3.03
received or number of generators shipping waste to the receiving site are not
deemed to present a hazard requiring management standards over and above what
normally would be applied to that generator license.
Licensing Not Exclusive. The obtaining ora hazardous waste license shall not be
deemed to exclude the necessity of obtaining other appropriate licenses or permits
except as expressly provided herein. Compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance shall not relieve any person of the need to comply with any and all
other applicable roles, regulations and laws.
Fees.
3.04
The County Board shall, by resolution, establish fees, including fees for
the initial license and renewal of licenses for generators and for the initial
application, initial license, and renewal of licenses for facilities.
The County Board may, by resolution, establish such other fees as may be
necessary for the administration of this ordinance.
Fees for new licenses are due thirty (30) days after the invoice date.
Eeg/nning :-, *~-~ ~cm~ ,: ...../,'ear, iFees for renewal of licenses are due
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the current license. Hazardous
waste generators whose production of hazardous waste (volume and/or
types) exceeds that set forth in their license renewal application, and said
excess production places them in a higher license category, shall be
invoiced for the additional fee. The additional fee due for the current
license year must be paid within thirty (30) days of the invoice date, or
before the renewal of their license for the coming year. whichever comes
first. As used herein, fees include license fees, MPCA' statewide program
fees, application fees, and such other fees as may be prescribed by the
County Board.
Fees for license renewal shall be based on the past year's rate of
generation. If the license is for new waste generation, the fee shall be
based on an estimated rate of generation which is acceptable to the
Department.
E. Minimal eenerators sh~ll be exempt from fees.
License Term. Unless otherwise provided by the County Board, each license
granted pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be non-transferable and
shall be for a period of not more than one year, except that initial licenses may be
issued for a period of up to eighteen (18) months, unless earlier suspended or
revoked.
1_21
n=~;..;~ ;. ,~= ~oo< ~; ..... 3'ear, tThe license year for hazardous waste
generators shall be from May 1 through April 30. HaT_atria'az v.'~te generator
'; ......:" force "* '~'= ';~ cf ad~-';~ of this ordinance ~" ~ ...... a~.a ~,.~
r, ....t.~.:, 1 oc~ ,,~ ..... ~., _.~, ~.^ , ,~c~ The license year for hazardous waste
facilities shall be from July 1 through June 30, unless otherwise designated.
3.05 License Application.
io
Applications for license or Iicense renewal shall be submitted to the
Deparunent on forms provided by the Department. Applicants shall
provide such information as may be needed for the administration of this
ordinance. Such information shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to, the information specified in Minn. Rules pts. 7045.0230 or 7045.0248
as applicable. Applicants for a facility license shall submit to the
Department, on request, all of the documents and supporting information
required by the Agency in its permitting process.
Applications for a generator license received more than seventy-five (75)
days after first producing a ba?-rdous waste, or applications for license
renewal received after December 15 shall be considered late and subject to
the penalty provisions set forth in Section 6.06. Applications for license
modification shall be deemed late and subject to the penalty provisions set
forth in Section 6.06, if received later than as set forth in Minn. Rules pt.
7045.0243, subp. 3, item G. The date of receipt is the postmark date if
mailed or the Department date of receipt if hand delivered.
Unless interim operating approval has been ~anted under Section 3.10,
item-D_E, applicants for a facility license shall not commence any
construction or operation until the initial license application has been
approved by the County, nor shall they commence any operation until an
initial license is issued. A facility license shall not be issued until the
facility construction has been completed in compliance with this ordinance
and the approved plans, and has been approved by the Department.
3.06 Incomplete or Non-Conforming Application.
Ao
Generator. If an application for a generator license or license renewal is
not complete or otherwise does not conform with the requirements set
forth in this ordinance, the Department shall advise the applicant within
sixty (60) days of application receipt, in writing, of the reasons for non-
acceptance and may request that the applicant resubmit, modify, or
otherwise alter the application. The applicant shall comply with such
request within the time specified by the Department.
12
3.07
Bo
Facility.. If an application for a facility license or license renewal is not
complete or otherwise does not conform with the requirements set forth in
this ordinance, the Department shall advise the applicant within one
hundred twenty (I 20) days of application receipt, in writing, of the reasons
for non-acceptance and may request that the applicant resubmit, modify or
otherwise alter the application. The applicant shall comply with such
requests within the time specified by the Department.
Renewal.
3.08
Generator. Generator applications for license renewal shall be received by
the Department no later than December 15. Applications for license
renewal must be accompanied by a statement of any change in information
submitted in the last approved license or in the license renewal application
by indicating such changes on the application and must be signed by a
person responsible for ha?~rdous waste management for the generator. If
there are no changes, it shall be so stated in the license renewal
application. If the Department does not act on a generator license renewal
application, which is complete and submitted on time, the current license
shall continue in force until action is taken.
Bo
Facility. Facility applications for license renewal shall be received by the
Department at least one ~-,,n~-c-~ ~- .... "? (!20) ninety (90) days prior to the
expiration of the current license. Applications for license renewal must be
accompanied by a statement of any change in information submitted in the
last approved license or in the license renewal application and must be
signed by the responsible person listed on the license renewal application.
If there are no changes, it shall be so stated in the license renewal
application. Facility license renewal applications shall be subject to the
approval of the Department. If the Department does not act on a facility
license renewal application, which is complete and submitted on time, the
current license shall continue in force until action is taken.
Denial.
Ao
Bo
Generator. Failure by the Department to act on an initial generator license
application within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a completed
application shall constitute grounds for the applicant to request a hearing.
The request for a hearing shall be governed by Section 4.10 of this
ordinance. Failure to act shall be construed as denial without prejudice.
Facility. Except as provided in Section 3. I0, item-D_~,E failure by the
County to act on an initial facility license application within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the date of receipt of a completed application,
shall constitute grounds for the applicant to request a hearing. The request
for a hearing shall be governed by Section 4.10 of this ordinance. Failure
to act shall be construed as denial without prejudice.
3.09 Waste Management.
Ao
On-site Treatment. For licensing purposes, the Department may consider
on-site treatment by the generator of on-site generated hazardous waste as
part of the generator's licensure and may exempt such on-site treatment
from facility licensing requirements. Such exemption shall be limited to
the following types of treatment: the specific treatment activities allowed
in Minn. Rules pts. 7045.0450. subp. 3. item K: 7045.0652: and
7045.0855. subp 3:e!ement~
~, .............. ~, ...... sev.'e~ng; and/or recovery of reusable solvents by
distill ti
a on; ""~
treatment must be described in the generator license application and
approved by the Department. The Department may require generators-e~
........ ,~ ..... · .... h ....... ~,:~, ,,. ~,~;~ r~,,~. ~, -,O~ r n~.nc ho conduct
on-site treatment as identified above to comply with the requirements of
Minn. Rules pts. 7045.0558; 7045.0562, subps. 1 and 2; and 7045.0566
through 7045.0576 or may impose such license conditions as may be
deemed necessary to monitor the treatment operation and ensure public
health and safety.
Bo
Sewered Wastes. Generators utilizing any sewer system for the disposal
of hazardous wastes shall comply with all of the requirements of this
ordinance. They shall maintain, on site, a copy of any permits or reports
required by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) or
other Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), or as a condition of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), or State
Disposal System (SDS) permit concerning the character, concentration and
quantity of the sewered hazardous waste for inspection by the Department.
These reports shall be maintained for a period of three years from the
report date. Generators shall obtain written authorization from the
Department before treating or discharging hazardous wastes to Class V
injection wells as defined by 40 CFR 144.6.
3.10 Facilities.
Bonds. Unless otherwise provided by the County Board and/or the
Department, issuance of a hazardous waste facility license, pursuant to the
provisions of this ordinance, shall be contingent upon the applicant
furnishing to the Department a bond or letter of credit naming the County
as the obligee vdth sufficient sureties duly licensed and authorized to
transact corporate surety business in the State of Minnesota as sureties.
The amount of the bond or letter of credit shall be set by the Department
according to the following formula: estimated cost, submit-ted by the
applicant and approved by the Department, for a third party contractor,
unrelated to the applicant or to Hermepin County, to dispose of the
maximum inventory of hazardous wastes that will be on site at any one
time, and to decontaminate the facility and all equipment in the facility, or
dispose of any equipment that cannot be decontaminated, and to perform
any other activities necessary to ensure that the facility does not pose a
threat to human health or the environment; plus an additional thirty (30)
percent to cover unanticipated costs and administrative costs that the
County might incur. The condition of such bond or letter of credit shall be
that, if the principal fails to obey any of the requirements or do any of the
acts required by this ordinance, an order or notice issued by the
Department, or conditions of the license in the operation of the site or
facility; or if, for any reason, ceases to operate or abandons the site or
facility, and the County. determines that chemical analysis and/or testing
and remediation are required to restore the site or facility to the condition
and requirements as provided by the ordinance, notice, order, or license,
the principal and the sureties on its bond shall pay for any and all expenses
required for chemical testing and to remedy the failure of the principal to
comply with the terms of the ordinance, orders or notices of the
Department, or conditions of the license; and that the principal and its
sureties will indemnify and save the County harmless fi-om all losses, costs
and charges that may occur to the County. because of any default of the
principal under the terms of his license to operate and the ordinance of the
County. In the event the County is required to expend monies or expend
any labor or material to restore the site or facility to the condition or
requirements as provided by this ordinance, order or notice by the
Department, or license, the principal and the sureties shall reimburse the
County for any and all expenses incurred to remedy the failure of the
principal to comply with the terms of this ordinance, orders or notices of
the Department or conditions of the license. The applicant may satisfy the
requirements of this section by demonstrating that they pass a financial
test, the terms of which will be set on a case by case basis by the
Department. For facilities permitted by the ~__gency or having interim
status, or otherwise required by the Agency to establish financial
assurance for closure or corrective action, the license applicant, in lieu of
the above, shall submit to the Department for review satisfactory evidence
of compliance with the aA_.gency's financial assurance requirements.
Insurance. Unless otherwise provided by the County Board and/or the
Department, issuance of a license to a facility which requires an agency
permit or is operating under interim status pursuant to Minn. Rules pts.
7045.0552 through 7045.0648, pursuant to the provisions of this
ordinance, shall be contingent upon the applicant furnishing to the Coun~
15
Co
Do
Eo
transferable and shall be tbr a period of five (5) years be_oirmin~, January I
of years divisible bv five (2000. 2005, 2010, etc.). Minimal generators
licensed by the Department prior to JuN 1. 1998 wilt have their licenses
extended until December 3 I. 1999 bv the Department. The initial license
for a minimal ~enerator licensed after JuN l. 1998 will be effective from
the date of issue to the December 31 prior to the next year divisible by five
(2000. 2005.2010. etc.).
License Renewal. Minimal generators will be relicensed by the
Department every five (5) years in years divisible bv five (2000. 2005.
2010. etc.). Relicensing will not require the minimal generators to update
their license information. During an inspection of the site. minimal
generators will submit a statement of any changes in information. This
statement will be si~o~ned bv a person responsible for hazardous waste
management for the generator. If there are no chan,oes, it shall be so
stated. License information will be updated bv the Depafm,ent following
an inspection of the site.
License Modification. Minimal generators shall notify the Department
within thirtw (30) calendar days whenever any of the followin~ occurs:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
The business closes.
The business is sold or otherwise chan~es ownership.
The business moves to a new location.
The business produces other hazardous waste not included in their
current license.
The business assumes a new' name.
The generator's rate of waste generation exceeds that defined in
Section 1.03 G.
Loss of Minimal Generator Status. Any generator who loses minimal
generator status pursuant to Section 2.03 B, C and/or D shall be subiect to
the full generator licensing standards of this ordinance. The eenerator will
not be elMble to re,oain minimal ~enerator status until the next minimal
_oenerator license renewal year as defined Section 3.11 C. If the next
minimal generator license renewal year will begin in less than two (2)
calendar years from the date the ~oenerator is determined to have lost
minimal ,oenerator status, the eenerator will not be elMble for minimal
eenerator status until the followin~ renewal year as defined bv Section
3.11C.
In order to reeain minimal ~enerator status, the ~enerator must be in
compliance with the minimal ,oenerator standards defined in this
ordinance. An inspection bv the Department may be required to confirm
compliance with these standards.
is
Iq%
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Duties of the Department. The Department shall be responsible for the
administration and enforcement of this ordinance. The Department's duties shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
mo
Receive and review generator and facility license or license renewal
applications, issue generator licenses, approve or disapprove interim
operations of facilities, recommend action on initial facility license
applications for facility licenses issued by the County Board pursuant to
this ordinance, issue facility license renewals.
Inspect hazardous waste facilities and generators as provided in this
ordinance and investigate complaints of violations &this ordinance.
Recommend that legal proceedings be initiated by the County to compel
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
D°
Advise, consult, and cooperate with other governmental agencies in the
furtherance of this ordinance.
Right of Entry. Whenever necessary to perform an inspection to enforce any of
the provisions of this ordinance, or whenever the Department has reasonable
cause to believe that hazardous waste exists in any building cr upon any premises,
the Department or its authorized agent may enter such building or premises at all
reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty. imposed upon the
Department by this ordinance, provided that if such building or premises be
occupied, the authorized agent shall first present proper credentials and demand
entry; and if such building or premises be unoccupied, the Department shall first
make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or
control of the building or premises and demand entry. If such entry is refused, the
Department shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry
including administrative search warrants.
Orders and Notices. Whenever the Department or its authorized representatives
shall find in any building or on any premises hazardous waste whether at a site or
facility for which a license has been granted by the County or where no such
license has been issued, the Department shall issue such orders as may be
necessary for the enforcement of this ordinance governing and safeguarding the
health, welfare and safety of the public.
Compliance. Any person within said County who shall _oenerate. store, deposit,
keep, accumulate, process, treat, reclaim, dispose of, or otherwise handle, process,
or cause to be transported hazardous waste, in violation of this ordinance, or who
19
4.05
4.06
shall permit such hazardous waste to exist on the premises under his control or
who shall fail to take immediate action to abate the existence of the hazardous
waste when ordered or notified to do so by the Department shall be guilty ora
misdemeanor.
Any order or notice issued or served by the Department shall be complied with by
the owner, operator, occupant or other person responsible for the condition or
violation to which the order or notice pertains. Every order or notice shall set
forth a time limit for compliance depending upon the nature of the hazardous
waste and the danger created by the violation. In cases of extreme danger to the
health, welfare and safety of the public, immediate compliance shall be required.
If the building or other premises is owned by one person and occupied by another,
under lease or otherwise, and the order or notice requires immediate compliance
for the health, welfare and safety of the public, such order or notice shall be
complied with by the owner unless the owner and occupant have otherwise agreed
between themselves, in which event the occupant shall comply.
Inspection. Inspection and evaluation of hazardous waste facilities, short term
storage facility or generators may be made by the Department to ensure
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. The facility owner and/or
operator or generator shall be provided with written notice of any deficiencies,
recommendations for their correction and the date by which the corrections shall
be accomplished. The facility owner and/or operator or generator shall allow the
Department or its authorized agent access for the purposes of making such
inspections as may be necessary to determine compliance with the requirements
of this ordinance. The facility owner and/or operator or generator shall provide
samples of waste, free of charge, to the Department to allow for appropriate tests
and allow free access at all reasonable times to inspect and copy, at a reasonable
cost, all business records related to a facility owner's and/or operator's or
generator's generation, collection, processing and transportation of ba?:ardous
waste.
Financial Assurance. Whenever the Department has reasonable cause to believe
that hazardous waste has been mismanaged by a person upon any premises, the
Department may require that person to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
Hennepin County the availability of adequate financial resources as described in
Minn. Rules pt. 7045.0210. When a generator's site becomes tax delinquent the
Department may order its owner or operator to provide financial assurance in the
form of a bond or letter of credit naming the County as obligee with sufficient
sureties duly licensed and authorized to transact corporate surety, business in the
State of Minnesota as sureties. The amount of the bond or letter of credit shall be
set by the Department according to the following formula: estimated cost,
submitted by the owner or operator and approved by the Department, for a third
party, contractor, unrelated to the owner or operator or to Hennepin County, to
dispose of the hazardous wastes on site and to decontaminate the site, and to
20
4.07
4.08
4.09
perform any other activities necessary to ensure that the site does not pose a threat
to human health or the environment; plus an additional thirty (30) percent to cover
unanticipated costs and administrative costs that the County might incur.
Revocation of License. Any license issued by the Department or the County
Board pursuant to th/s ordinance may be revoked by the issuer for violation of any
provision of this ordinance. Revocation shall not occur earlier than ten (10)
calendar days, exclusive of the day of service, after written notice of revocation
has been served on the licensee. Such written notice shall contain the effective
date of revocation, the nature of the violation or violations constituting the basis
for the revocation, the facts which support the conclusion that a violation or
violations have occurred, and a statement that if the licensee desires a hearing he
must, within ten (10) calendar days, exclusive of the day of service, file a written
request with the Department. If the licensee fails to request a hearing, he shall
forfeit any opportunity for a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the revocation
shall be stayed pending the outcome of the heating.
Suspension of License. Any license required under this ordinance may be
suspended for not longer than sixty (60) days by the issuer for violation of any
provision of this ordinance. Suspension shall not occur earlier than ten (10)
calendar days, exclusive of the day of service, after written notice of suspension
has been served on the licensee. Such written notice shall contain the effective
date of suspension, the nature of the violation or violations constituting the basis
for the suspension, the facts which support the conclusion that a violation or
violations have occurred and a statement that, if the licensee desires a hearing he
must, within ten (10) calendar days, exclusive of the day of service, file a written
request with the Department. If the licensee fails to request a hearing, he shall
forfeit any opportunity to a hearing. If a heating is requested, the suspension shall
be stayed pending outcome of the heating.
Summary Suspension of License.
ho
If the Department finds that the public health, safety, or welfare requires
emergency action and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, a
summary suspension of a license may be ordered by the Department upon
notification of the County Attorney's Office and the County Board.
Written notices of such summary suspensions shall be served personally
on the licensee or by registered or certified mail to the licensee at the
address designated in the license application.
The written notice in such cases shall state the effective date of the
suspension, the nature of the violation or violations requiring emergency
action, and a statement that, if the licensee desires a hearing he must,
within ten (10) calendar days, exclusive of the day of service, file a written
request with the Department. If the licensee fails to request a heating, he
2_.1
shall forfeit any opportunity to a hearing. Any such suspension shall be
reviewed by the Department upon a written request of the licensee. The
Department review shall be conducted pursuant to Section 4.10 of this
ordinance.
Upon written notification from the licensee that all the violations for
which the summary suspension was invoked have been corrected, the
Department shall reinspect the site, facility, or activity within a reasonable
length of time, but in no case more than three (3) working days after
receipt of the notice from the licensee. If the Department finds on such
reinspection that the violation or violations constituting the grounds for
suspension have been corrected, the Department shall immediately
terminate the suspension by written notice to the licensee and the County
Board.
Do
If a hearing is requested, the summary suspension shall not be stayed
pending the outcome of the hearing.
4.10
Hearings. Whenever a hearing is requested in regard to an application, renewal,
suspension or revocation of a license, the procedure shall be governed by the
following:
ho
Hearing Officer. The hearing shall be before an impartial hearing officer
who shall conduct the hearing on behalf of the County Board. The
Department shall prescribe the duties of the hearing officer or contract
with the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Department shall
ascertain the availability and timeliness of scheduling the hearing through
the Office of Administrative Heatings. If it is determined that a prompt
hearing is not readily available through the Office of Administrative
Hearings, the Department may appoint an individual learned in the law to
act as the hearing officer.
Preheating and Hearing Notice. The Department shall schedule and
provide notice of the date, time and place of the preheating conference and
hearing. The preheating conference shall be held at least three (3) weeks
prior to the hearing. The hearing shall be held no later than forty-five (45)
calendar days after receipt of the request for hearing or by mutual
agreement of the parties, subject to scheduling by the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
Procedure. The prehearing conference and hearing shall be conducted in
the following manner:
1)
The preheating conference shall define the issues, schedule the
exchange of witness lists and documentary evidence, seek
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
agreement on the authenticity of documents and relevant
testimonial evidence, determine whether intended evidence is
cumulative and repetitive, and consider all other matters that will
assist in a fair and expeditious heating.
Each party shall exchange all relevant information and
documentary evidence at least one (1) week prior to the hearing
date. Such information shall include all evidence intended for
introduction at the hearing and includes but is not limited to the
following: exhibits; statements; reports; wimess lists including a
description of the facts and opinions to which each is expected to
testify; photographs; slides; demonstrative evidence. Evidence not
exchanged in accordance with this provision will not be considered
in the hearing unless good cause is shown to the hearing officer.
The hearing shall be public and shall be tape recorded or at the
discretion of the hearing officer, shall be recorded by a court
reporter.
All witnesses shall testify under oath or affirmation.
Hearings shall be informal and the roles of evidence as applied in
the courts shall not apply. Irrelevant, immaterial and repetitious
evidence shall be excluded.
The Department shall have the burden of proof through clear and
convincing evidence.
The Department, licensee or applicant, and additional parties as
determined by the hearing officer, shall present evidence in that
order. Each party shall have the opporumity to cross-examine the
witnesses of the other party. The heating officer may examine
witnesses.
9)
10)
Failure of an applicant or licensee to appear at the hearing shall
result in a waiver of the right to a hearing.
The hearing officer shall issue a report containing written findings
of fact and conclusions based upon the evidence presented at the
hearing and shall submit the same to the County Board.
Each party adversely affected may submit written exceptions and
present argument to the County Board.
23
The County Board shall consider the report of the hearing officer at
the next possible board meeting and may adopt or modify the
report and take action, reject the report of the hearing officer, or
remand for further hearing. The parties shall be notified of the
action of the County Board within thirty (30) calendar days
following its determination.
12)
Issuing, denying, suspending, modifying, imposing conditions
upon or revoking a license shall be subject to review by the
Agency. The Agency shall after written notification have fifteen
(15) days to review, suspend, modify or reverse the action of the
County Board. After this period the action of the County Board
shall be final subject to appeal to the District Court.
13)
Appeal of a decision by the County Board shall be made to the
District Court within thirty (30) calendar days following the review
by the Agency. The scope of review of the District Court shall be
governed by Minn. Statute §14.69. Filing an appeal does not stay
enforcement of the County. Board decision.
5.00 TERMINATION OF OPERATION
Any person who, for any reason, terminates operations at a site, must remove all
hazardous waste and materials contaminated with hazardous waste prior to
termination of operations. Termination of operations may include the sale of an
operation to a new entity, the simple shutdown of a business or site which is then
not operated or the relinquishing of lease or rental rights to a property. This
removal from the site must be accomplished in full compliance with this
ordinance and Minn. Rules ch. 7045. Materials remaining on the site of a
terminated operation shall be considered waste materials. The continued storage
of hazardous wastes on the site of a terminated operation shall be done in
compliance with the hazardous waste storage facility rules in Minn. Rules cbs.
7045 and 7001 and this ordinance.
6.00 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
6.01
Misdemeanor. Any person who willfully or negligently fails to comply with the
provisions of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor. A separate offense shall
be deemed committed upon each day during or on which a violation occurs or
continues.
6.02
Aiding and Abetting. As set forth in Minn. St. 609.05, a person is criminally
liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises,
hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the
crime. A person liable for such crime is also liable for any other crime committed
24 '
6.03
6.05
6.06
in pursuance of the intended crime if reasonably foreseeable by the person as a
probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit the crime intended.
A person who intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or
otherwise procures another to commit a crime and thereafter abandons that
purpose and makes a reasonable effort to prevent the commission of the crime
prior to its commission is not liable if the crime is thereafter committed.
A person liable under this section may be charged with and. convicted of the crime
although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted, or has been
convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the
same act, or if the person is a juvenile who has not been found delinquent for the
act. For purposes of this section, a crime also includes an act committed by a
juvenile that would be a crime fi.committed by an adult.
Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation or a threat of violation of this
ordinance, the County may institute appropriate actions or proceedings, including
requesting injunctive relief to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations or
threatened violations.
Civil Action or Cost as Special Tax. If a person fails to comply with the
provisions of this ordinance, the County may recover costs incurred for corrective
action in a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction or, at the discretion
of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County Auditor as a special
tax against real property,.
Citation Authority. Citations may be issued by the Department pursuant to
Section V. of the Ordinance Number 1 County Licenses, Procedures-Criminal
Penalty..
Penalty Provisions.
Ao
Existing Generators License Renewal. Generators not submitting
applications for license renewal by December 15 and continuing to operate
may receive a citation for failure to submit application for license renewal.
Generators not remitting all applicable fees by April 30 prior to the license
year may receive a citation for operating without a hazardous waste
generator license.
New Generators License Issuance. Generators not submitting applications
for a generator license with/n seventy-five (75) days of £zrst producing a
hazardous waste and continuing to operate may receive a citation for
operating without a ha?ardous waste generator license. Generators not
remitting all applicable fees within thirty (30) days after the invoice date
may receive a citation for operating without a generator license.
2~
6.07
7.00
7.01
7.02
7.03
Applications for License Modification. Generators submitting
applications for license modification later than as set forth in Minn. Rules
pt. 7045.0243, subp. 3, item G may receive a citation for failure to submit
modification to license application.
Embargo. The Department may embargo and forbid the removal, transport,
disposal, treatment or use of any material which is or is suspected to be a
hazardous waste and which is being mismanaged or which the Department has
reason to suspect is being or will be managed in violation of this ordinance. The
Department shall place a tag to indicate the embargo on the suspect material. No
person shall remove the tag or remove, transport, dispose, treat or use such
embargoed material except as authorized by the Department. Such action by the
Department shall not be considered to impute ownership or management
responsibility upon the County.
MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS.
Waivers or Modifications. The County Board may waive or modify the strict
application of the provisions of this ordinance by reducing or waiving certain
requirements when such requirements are unnecessary or impractical, or by
imposing additional requirements necessary to reduce risk of harm to persons,
property or the environment.
Agency Approval. No modification or waiver may be granted if it would result in
noncompliance with Minn. Rules ch. 7045 unless such modification or waiver has
been approved or granted by the Agency.
Closure/Post-Closure. For facilities permitted or granted interim status by the
agency, amendments to the facility closure/post-closure plans and the extensions
to the closure/post-closure period shall be granted by the Department only where
said amendments or extensions have been approved by the agency.
8.00 EFFECTIVE DATE
8.01
8.02
This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage by the County Board.
This ordinance shall not be construed to hold the Department or the County of
Hennepin or any officer or employee thereof responsible for any damage to
persons or property by reason of the inspection or re-inspection authorized herein
provided; or by reason of the approval or disapproval of equipment or licensing
herein; nor for any action in connection with the inspection or control of
hazardous waste or related business records or in connection with any other
official duties.
26
9.00
9.01
10.00
SEVERABILITY
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the County Board that the provisions of
this ordinance shall be severable in accordance with the following:
Ao
Validity of Provisions. If any Court of competent jurisdiction shall
adjudge any provision of this ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall
not affect any of the provisions of this ordinance not specifically included
in said judgment.
Application to Site or Facility. If any Court of competent jurisdiction
shall adjudge invalid the application of any provision of this ordinance to a
particular structure, site, facility or operation, such judgmem shall not
affect the application of said provision to any other structure, site, facility
or operation not specifically included in said judgment or action.
PROVISIONS ARE ACCUMULATIVE
The provisions of this ordinance are cmnulative to all other laws, ordinances and
regulations heretofore passed, or which may be passed hereafter, covering any
subject matter in this ordinance.
Passed by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County this 12~day of
c .....k~. ~ oo~9n,~ day of June. 1998.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVED:
BY:
Chair of the County Board
Assistant County Attorney
ATTEST:
Clerk of the County Board
27
ORDINANCE NUMBER SEVEN
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
Ordinance Number Seven, Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance for Hennepin
County is being revised, in accordance w/th Minnesota Statute 473.811, which specifies
that the County have an Ordinance which embodies the State hazardous waste rules.
Provisions of this statute require revision of the County Ordinance when the State rules
are modified or new rules adopted.
This amendment incorporates modifications to allow for the regulation of a subcategory
of Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQGs) called "Minimal Generators". Minimal
generators are the smallest of the VSQGs in terms of the wastes generated. They
generate one or more of the following low risk wastes: ten (10) gallons or less of
hazardous waste per year, used oil, used oil filters, used oil contaminated sorbents, lead
acid batteries, photographic f~xer, fluorescent lamps, special hazardous wastes included in
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Pilot Project, and fuel water mixtures.
Minimal generators will be required to follow the same management requirements as
other generators, however, they will not be subject to the annual relicensing process.
They will be licensed for a five (5) year period and will provide updated waste
information during inspections rather than submitting such paperwork every year.
In addition to the modifications to address the regulation of minimal generators, the
current revisions include the adoption of state rules which have been passed since the last
ordinance amendment. New state rules which are being adopted include:
Optional Federal Corrective Action Management Units
Used Oil and Miscellaneous Amendments
Ha?ardous Waste Licensing and Container Management
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is required, as a condition of their
program authorization by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to modify state
rules whenever the federal rules are changed. The MPCA has one year from the date
federal rules are published to adopt the modifications. Because of State statute and State
authorization, the County is tied into this rule making process.
The State Register citations and a summary of each of the rules being adopted is provided
in Appendix I.
The current revisions also include a number of housekeeping modifications including the
deletion of transitional language which was added in the 1995 amendment and which is
no longer necessary,. Also, a few modifications were made with regard to sections of the
ordinance that apply to facilities in order to better clarify those sections and the section
SUMMARY OF STATE RULES ADOPTED
There are three rule "packages" adopted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) which are being adopted in these ordinance amendments. These rule packages
are federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules that the MPCA must adopt for
their program authorization. State statutes require the County to adopt these changes.
The rule packages include:
Optional Federal Corrective Action Management Un/ts - This rule package
adopts federally promulgated hazardous waste regulations governing corrective
action management units and temporary units.
Used Oil and Miscellaneous Amendments - This rule package is primarily about
the management of used oil and also contains miscellaneous hazardous waste
amendments. A separate section of rules governing used oil related wastes has
been developed based on standards issued by EPA. The section includes a set of
definitions related to the management of used oil. Standards are specified for
used oil generators, transporters and transfer facilities, processors and refiners,
burners, and used oil fuel marketers.
Hazardous Waste Licensing and Container Management - This rule package
includes miscellaneous rule amendments that range from minor corrections and
clarifications to siodfificant changes in the way specific wastes are regulated.
Some of the changes include modifying when a generator must apply for an
identification number, clarification of the requirements for protection of stored
waste, deletion of the requirement for very small quantity generators to notify
local authorities, changes to initial and renewal license application procedures,
and a reduction in the amount of regulation of one time generators. The changes
also address treatment of hazardous waste in accumulation containers by
generators. The regulation of petroleum spill material and recyclable fuels is
addressed and is reduced provided certain requirements are met.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Tuesday
May 19, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. for the purpose of adopting amendments to Ordinance
Number Seven, Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance for Hennepin County. The
meeting will be before the Environment and General Government Committee of the
County Board in Room A2400 of the Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South
Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487. Information related to this public hearing is
on file with the Clerk of the County Board. Requests for additional information can be
directed to the Environmental Protection Division, DeparUnent of Environmental
Services at 348-8100.
RECEIVED APR 2 1 1998
MINUTES OF T~E QUARTERLY
MEETING OF TI{E
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
April 15, 1998
Pursuant to due call and notice, the quarterly meeting of the
Suburban Rate Authority was held at the Maple Grove Municipal
Center in the City of Maple Grove, Minnesota, on Wednesday,
April 15, 1998, commencing at 4:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair
Jim Keinath.
2. ROLL CALL:
Bloomington
Burnsville
Circle Pines
Eden Prairie
Edina
Fridley
Hastings
Hopkins
Maple Grove
Mound
New Brighton
Robbinsdale
Savage
Jim Gates
Steve O'Malley
Jim Keinath
Ron Case
John Wallin
John Flora
Dave Osberg
Jim Gessele
Jerry Butcher
Mark Hanus
Matt Fulton
Maria D'Andrea
Ron Hedberg
Also present was counsel for the SRA James Strommen of Kennedy
& Graven. It was determined that a quorum of the votes of the
Suburban Rate Authority was represented at the meeting.
financial
attached.)
accepted.
REPORT OF TREASURER: Mr. Wallin reported on the
status of the SRA as of March 31, 1998. (Report
Mr. Gates moved that the Treasurer's report be
Mr. Fulton seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Strommen reported that he received
two notices of withdrawal for the year 1999. One from St. Louis
Park ahd the other from North St. Paul. Mr. Strommen also reported
that the City of Lino Lakes had expressed interest in SRA
membership and that information on the SRA had been sent.
5. PUC ROW RULEMAKING UPDATE: Mr. Strommen reported that
the PUC Rulemaking on the 1997 right-of-way ("ROW") legislation was
proceeding. The work of the ROW Task Force formed the basis for
this rulemaking process, expected to be completed by January 1,
1999.
JMS141666 1
SU160-3
Mr. Strommen reported that there will be rules issued on
matters such as indemnity, construction performance bonds or other
security, street permit fees, restoration standards, mapping
requirements and cost recovery and accounting principles.
Mr. Flora also reported on the process, in which he is
participating, of establishing model fee schedules together with
other local government unit engineers. Regarding full restoration
of a street following a cut, Mr. Flora reported there is agreement
between government and industry that city-provided restoration
templates will be followed as a standard. Restoration requirements
vary depending on the length of life remaining in the street and
repaying plans of the city. The "degradation" fee approach to
calculating the reduction in useful life of the street from a cut
has been abandoned in favor of the restoration approach. If the
user is not willing or able to restore in a manner required by the
city, the user pays the city to cost of restoration and the city
carries it out.
Mr. Flora also discussed the cost recover schedules, still a
work in progress. Information gathered by the engineer group
reveals that many cities charge only nominal fees for permits. If
management costs are included, the legitimate cost recovery through
a permit increases significantly.
Another comment made by the Board was that it is a challenge
to coordinate the Model ROW Ordinance with preexisting permit
ordinances because of significant overlap. Once completed,
however, a uniform and comprehensive ROW Ordinance would be in
place and easy to administer for all ROW users.
6. US WEST COST PROCEEDING: Mr. Strommen reported on the
status of the ongoing US West wholesale cost of service proceeding.
The SRA has pared back in its involvement in this extremely complex
and comprehensive case. The issue is the true cost of the "local
loop" for US West (and other local providers). Testimony has been
submitted and hearings will be held in which witnesses advocating
certain cost models will be cross- examined. Due to budget
considerations, the SRA will not actively participate in these but
monitor progress. The issue for SRA cities is whether rates for
outer-ring suburban areas would increase as a result of a finding
that the cost of service in less densely populated areas is higher
than the existing assumed rate underlying residential rates. The
outcome of this case will affect retail rates
7. AREA CODE PROCEEDING: Mr. Strommen reported on the PUC's
reaffirmation of its original November 13, 1997 order drawing area
code splits along municipal boundaries. The PUC established a
significant policy acknowledging the importance of municipal
concerns. As it expressed in its April 15, 1998 order, finally
reaffirming previous orders:
Through its consideration of the issues in this docket,
the Commission has come to recognize the value of
JMS141666
SU160-3
2
municipal boundary alignment to the overall process of
area code numbering relief.
A geographic split along municipal boundaries is the most
consistent with the public interest and the least
confusing and inconvenient for customers. A municipal
boundary alignment lessens the possibility of disjuncture
between neighbor and neighbor and between seats of
municipal government and their constituents.
Ail cities that responded and communicated with the PUC in
this matter assisted greatly in establishing this important policy.
8. US WEST RATE FILING: Mr. Strommen reported on an issue
that the SRA is watching closely in a proposed Alternative Form of
Regulation sought by US West. Mr. Strommen confirmed that a
proposal to include "other special charges" as a line item on
customer bills sought by US West, could include a cost recovery fee
that US West believes is a revenue generating measure rather than
cost recovery. This would allow US West, however, to threaten a
pro rata line item charge if a city were, in US West's view, overly
aggressive with a cost recovery fee. Cities are limited to cost in
charging of telecom fees. This additional means of objecting to a
city cost, however, could create the appearance of a city tax when
no tax is being imposed. A motion was brought by Mr. Case to
authorize the SRA to continue its opposition of this US West
proposal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fulton and passed
unanimously.
9. ELECTRIC-TELEPhONE UNDERGROUNDING ISSUE: Mr. Strommen
reported on a recent development in the determination of municipal
rights in the electric undergrounding issue. He explained that a
judge had rejected NSP's challenge of the City of Oakdale's
undergrounding ordinance requiring electric facility undergrounding
where new lines of 15,000 volts or less were installed,
reconstructed or if there were a relocation due a street widening
or other public project. A Washington County District Court
affirmed the city's authority to require undergrounding over NSP's
objection and included language that a city may not need to pay for
the incremental cost of undergrounding over and above overhead
installation.
The Board discussed the general issue of undergrounding as it
effects cities, including the recovery of an undergrounding
surcharge over an extended period of time from the customer and the
standard of utility line installation changing to underground
rather than overhead. A change in such a standard would require a
PUC proceeding. If undergrounding were the standard, it was
suggested that overhead installation could then result in a credit
for the city or a customer who has overhead lines. Mr. Strommen
observed that undergrounding authority of cities may be a subject
in the 1999 legislature.
JMS141666 3
SU160-3
A motion was brought by Mr. Fulton to survey SRA members
regarding the amount of undergrounding in their city, the cost to
the city and other consideration relating to underground versus
overhead wires. This survey could include information regarding
electric and telephone overhead and underground wiring. The motion
was seconded by Mr. O'Malley and passed unanimously. Counsel was
directed to prepare survey information and distribute it to SRA
members.
10. SRA PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET: Mr. Strommen described the
process of preparing the proposed 1999 budget. He noted that in
recent years there has been a great deal of activity by the SRA on
a number of issues. It has lived within its means but has some
carryover from 1997 activities that is payable in 1998.
The needs and focus of the SRA were discussed by the Board.
It was noted that the new and multi-faceted utility issues facing
cities in a deregulated environment is moving away from the
traditional ratemaking before the PUC and into issues of right-of-
way use, undergrounding, wireless telecom and antenna siting,
franchises and deregulation, to mention some. Traditionally, the
SRA has focused most of its budget on one or more large rate cases.
These are prohibitively expensive in light of the SRA budget.
Given the resolution to pursue the undergrounding issue among
SRA members, the anticipated 1998 expenses were modified to reduce
the US West Cost investigation allocation by $5,000 and allocate
that amount to the undergrounding issue. In addition, $10,000 for
the undergrounding issue was added to the anticipated 1999
expenses, bringing the total anticipated expenses for 1999 to the
same level as 1998. The motion to adopt to recommend this budget
as amended was brought by Mr. Osberg and seconded by Mr. Fulton.
The motion passed unanimously. The modified proposed 1999 budget
will be distributed among SRA members for final approval at the SPcA
meeting of July 15, 1998 in New Brighton.
11. LOCATION AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING: The consensus was
that the 4:00 time for quarterly meetings was a good time for most
SRA delegates. Mr. Fulton offered to provide New Brighton's
Community Center for the July meeting.
12. CLAIMS: Kennedy & Graven, Submitted a claim for
$29,636.49. This included a carry-over from 1997 of $17,499.44.
Mr. Strommen noted that he had written off approximately $7,000 in
legal fees from the ROW Task Force time, given the expense of that
undertaking, the SRA budget and the active participation in the
process by others within the SRA. Mr. O'Malley moved to accept the
claim. Mr. Gates seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
JMS141666
SU160-3 4
13. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 5:45.
ATTEST:
Chairman
Secretary
JMS141666
SU160-~
5
1999 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY PROPOSED BUDGET
1998
Assets:
Cash and Investments (12/31/97)
Membership Assessments~
$9,638
77,600
TOTAL
$87,238
Anticipated 1998 Expenses: Utility Undergrounding
US West Cost Investigation/Retail Rate Deaveraging
612 Area Code Proceeding2
US West Rate Case
PUC Right-of-Way Rulemaking
Electric-Gas Deregulation
ROW Task Force3
General (fees and disbursements)
$5,000
15,000
23,000
5,000
3,000
3,000
8,000
15,000
TOTAL
($77,000)
Reserve at December 31, 1998:
Assets:
Carryover from 1998
Membership Assessments4
1999
$10,238
72,800
$10,23. 8
TOTAL
$83,038
Anticipated 1999 Expenses:
Right-of-Way Issues (Legislation/PUC)
Telephone Rate Geographic Deaveraging
Electric-Gas Issues (Rate Cases or Deregulation)
General Matters (fee and disbursements)
Utility Undergrounding
$5,000
25,000
22,000
15,000
10,000
TOTAL
($77,OOO)
Estimated Reserve at December 31, 1999:
$7,038
'This is calculated at $400 per vote established in 1995 (for every 5,000 in population or
fraction thereof). This calculation is based on full year assessments from the 40 SRA members.
2This includes unpaid carry-over from 1997.
3This is upaid carry-over from 1997.
4This number is based on assessment of 38 members. (minus St. Louis Park and North St.
Paul).
JMS141006
SU160-3
RECEIv',::5 2 2 tgg8
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 19
Excelsior, MN 55331
471-9588
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S NEWSLETTER
Gregory S. Nybeck
April 21, 1998
1998 EWM Harvestim, Pro_iect: This project is scheduled to commence on 6/15 and
continue through approximately 8/21. The entire crew from 1997, including EWM Project
Manager Gene Strommen, has indicated they will be back to assist in the management of
this exotic. Consistent with 1997, harvesting priorities in 1998 will be based upon
impediment to public boat navigation on the open water. The crew will assist Hennepin
County and affected cities in public access clean-up on weekdays and weekends.
Herb Suerth, Chair of the EWM/Exotics Task Force, Strommen, and I attended a 4/1/98
meeting in Hudson, WI regarding the Management and Ecology of EWM and other
Aquatic Plants in the Upper Midwest. I can report that there has been some limited success
with weevils and Fluoridone in controlled research environments; however, there has been
little or no documented success in uncontrolled research environments.
Special Events: LMCD staff is processing special event applications that require a permit
for Lake Minnetonka. With the adoption of LMCD Ordinance 153 by the Board of
Directors on 12/10/97, all special events need to be permitted by the LMCD in addition to
the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, the MN DNR, and the municipalities affected
by the event. One key point for the LMCD getting involved again in the permitting
process for special events on Lake Minnetonka is LMCD Ordinance 145.
This ordinance is a proactive step to prevent the infestation of zebra mussels into Lake
Minnetonka. The ordinance requires all p.~ticipating boats in special events to have their
boats washed by LMCD approved personnel if they have been in DNR identified zebra
mussel infested waters and they do not comply with the requirements of the ordinance.
The wash station will also be open to the general public, during established hours and by
appointment, who have been in infested waters and need to have their boat washed. _
1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey: In compliance with the Management Plan
for Lake Minnetonka, Schoell and Madson was awarded the contract to prepare and
conduct this survey this summer. This survey is conducted every two years and is a joint
effort of the LMCD and the MN DNR. Copies of this survey will be available in late
1998.
· 1998 LCMR Application: An application for $5 million of Legislative Commission on
Minnesota Resources (LCMR) funds was submitted on 2/13/98 by the LMCD, with
· cooperation by the MN DNR, for blanket funding of land acquisition and development of
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S NEWSLETTER, 4/21/98, PAGE 2
1-2 public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. This project, if funded, would build on .the
successful completion of thee Maxwell Bay public access, wtiich was partially funded by
LCMR funds in 1993-94, and would be available in July of 1999.
Any project considered for this would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force Report. A key aspect of this Report is
that the MN DNR agreed to contact the LMCD and the affected cities within five working
days once a written option has been signed with a willing, seller. Public input on the
project would then gathered from all interested parties with regards to the proposed project.
The LMCD Would not support a project unless it is a "win-win" for all parties involved.
The goal of this project is to increase the quality of car/trailer around the lake, not the
quantity. The role of the LMCD in this project is to assist in securing funding for it while
the MN DNR investigates for willing sellers identified in the Plan.
Management Plan Review: LMCD Board and staff has continued to meet on the first
Wednesday of each month to review the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka which
adopted in December, 1991. The purpose of these Workshop/Planning Sessions is to
review the Management Plan and decide where updates need to be made. The next
scheduled Workshop/Planning Session is at 6 p.m. at Shorewood City Hall on 5/20/98 to
jointly review the Environmental Protection and Management section with the MCWD.
On-going Licenses/Permits: Staff is close to completing the processing of all new and
renewal without change applications for licensed multiple docks, charter boats, and
associated liquor, wine, and beer licenses/permits on Lake Minnetonka for 1998. As
mentioned previously, the LMCD is permitting special events again on Lake Minnetonka
and this be will be an on-going process. Feel free to call the office if you have questions or
concerns regarding a specific license/permit.
1999 LMCD Budget: Staff is preparing to begin work on the 1999 LMCD budget. In
accordance with Minnesota State Statutes 103B.635, the Board must on or before July 1 of
each year prepa,-e and submit a detailed budgct of the district's needs for the next calendar
year to the governing body of each municipality in the district with a statement of the
proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. There will be opportunity
for cities to comment on the proposed budget through their representative on the LMCD
Board and a meeting in early June.
Bil Hawks Boathouse: The civil lawsuit flied by Mr. Hawks against the LMCD
challenging LMCD Code Section 2.12, Subd. 2, and the countersuit by the LMCD seeking
an injunction requiring the storage boat to be removed from Lake Minnetonka, are still
pending. Further details will be provided when available.
WebPaee: The LMCD WebPage address is: http://www.winternet.com/-lmcd/
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 22, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES - 4/1/98 Workshop/Planning Session 4/8/98 Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one
motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item
will be removed from the consent agenda.
1. FINANCIAL
A. Review of 1997 draft Audit (Previously handed out at 4~8~98 meeting);
B. Audit of vouchers for payment (4/16/98 - 4/30/98);
C. March financial summary and balance sheet;
D. Additional Business;
2. WATER STRUCTURES
A. Baycliffe POA, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new
multiple dock license, with minor change, and variance applications to add 30" to
one dock finger for better boat access;
B. Bayview Apts., staff update on the new multiple dock license application to
reconfigure a non-conforming facility under LMCD Code Section 2.015;
C. Groveland HOA, staff update on the new multiple dock license application to
convert seven slide BSU's to seven slip BSU's under LMCD Code Section 2.015;
D. Minnetonka Yacht Club (Lighthouse Island), Consideration of new multiple
dock license application, with minor change, for changes identified in 4/16/98 staff
memo;
E. Minnetonka Yacht Club (Carson Bay Facility), Consideration of new multiple
dock license application, with minor change, for changes identified in 4/16/98 staff
memo;
Em
Sailors World, Inc., Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of
new multiple dock license application to accommodate 79 BSU's, and variance
application for variances from 40' side setback required by LMCD Code to zero
feet and for length from 100' to 200' (note: one slip appears to be out beyond
200');
G. 1998 Multiple Dock Licenses, approval of 1998 multiple dock license
applications, w/o change, as outlined in 4/15/98 staff memo;
H. Additional Business;
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. (*) BeerNVinelLiquor license renewals, Staff recommending approval of 1998
renewal Beer/Wine/Liquor license applications as outlined in 4/16/98 staff memo;
B. Additional Business;
· ~ EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. (*) Minutes of the 4/10/98 meeting;
B. 4/10/98 meeting report;
C. Additional Business;
5. SAVE THE LAKE
A. Review of draft 1998 "Save the Lake" Budget;
B. Additional Business;
ADMINISTRATION
A. Update on Planning/Special Projects Intern position;
B. League of MN Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), consideration of liability
coverage limits;
C. Staff recommending the 5/6/98 Workshop/Planning Session be cancelled and
rescheduled on 5~20~98 for a joint Board meeting with the MCWD;
D. Update on scheduling phosphorous-free fertilizer issue at Mayor's meeting;
E. Additional Business;
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
RECEIVED 2 0 lgg8
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 8, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. John Goodman, Lafayette Bay, Consideration of a new multiple dock License application
for five boat storage units (BSU's).
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
Bill Rolandelli, representing the applicant, stated they had submitted a letter to address and
clarify some statements and concerns regarding the proposed dock. He explained the intent of
Mr. Goodman is to be able to keep all his boats at his home. He assured the board that all boats
are owned by Mr. Goodman, that the docks have been kept in impeccable condition, and that he
is not aware of any noise problems. He recommended Board approval because he believed the
proposed dock complies with LMCD Code.
Dahlen asked if the heighth of all of the canopies is the same?
Rolandelli stated he believed one of the canopies, slip 4, is taller to allow for the storage of a
Sea-Ray and the others are shorter and all the same.
Martin Left, 2325 Huntington Point Road W., stated he was opposed to the proposed dock
because there are enough boats in the area, and it would create additional traffic.
There being no further comments, Babcock closed the pubic heating at 7:06 p.m.
Jennings Cove Dock Owners Association, Jennings Bay, Consideration of a
new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conforming structure under LMCD
Section 2.015.
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
Jeff Schulte, President of Jennings Cove DOA, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
proposal is to reconfigure some slips under the envelope concept ordinance by maintaining the
same number and same size of slips consistent with LMCD Code Section 2.015. He noted the
proposed application would locate slips from the outside of the structure to the inside to address
water depth concerns and to alleviate a problem with a tree. He stated the staff memo from
Randall pretty much explains the proposed slips changes and added the City of Minnetrista
approved the proposed changes at the 4/6/98 city council meeting. He entertained questions
from the Board.
Babcock asked Schulte for clarification from the approved site plan that states boats would be
prohibited from docking in the interior space.
1'51o
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 2
Schulte stated the association placed that condition on the site plan to assure boats would not
park in that area at unauthorized locations.
There being no further comments, Babcock closed the pubic hearing at 7:08.
Baycliffe POA, Smithtown Bay/South Upper Lake, Consideration of a variance application
from LMCD side setback requirements. The proposal is to add 30 inches to one dock finger for
better boat access.
Babcock opened the public heating at 7:08 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
There was no one representing the applicant.
Babcock asked if them was anyone from the public who would like to comment on the proposed
application.
There being no comments, Babcock closed the pubic hearing at 7:09 p.m.
Bayview Apartments, Spring Park Bay, Consideration of a new multiple dock license to
reconfigure a non-conforming structure under LMCD Code Section 2.015.
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
Virginia Faulkner-Thiesse, Resident Manager for the property, spoke on behalf of the applicant.
She stated that the proposal is to reconfigure slips under LMCD Code Section 2.015 by adding
three slips to the east of the main dock. She added these three slips are proposed to be moved to
the east because the dock structure is close to the shoreline on the west and shallow water depths
at that end of the bay has made it difficult for larger boats to get to the inside slips. She
concluded she believed the City of Spring Park has approved the proposed plan.
Babcock asked the applicant if them was an as-built survey done for this facility when it was
approved?
Faulkner-Thiesse stated she was unaware if one had been done. She added she had been
property manager for four years and that them had numerous management companies before
her.
Rascop asked the applicant what water depths they have'?
Faulkner-Thiesse stated that varies and noted the inside slips are very shallow.
Rascop asked the applicant what water depths they need?
Faulkner-Thiesse stated they would like to have Y- 4' at all times but she understood that is not
ilways the case.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998
Page 3
There being no further comments Babcock closed the pubic hearing at 7:12 p.m.
Sailors World, Inc., Smiths Bay, Continuation of 3/11/98 Public Hearing to consider a new
multiple dock license application to accommodate 79 Boat Storage Units (BSU's), and variance
application for variances from 40' side setbacks required by LMCD Code to zero feet and for
length from 100' to 200'.
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had comments
or would like to provide background at this time.
Walter Baker spoke on behalf of the applicant. He reviewed a series of overheads and provided
the following background and comments on the proposed application based on his review and
interpretation of the files:
· He stated the proposed variance and new multiple dock license applications are for 79 slips
and variances from side setbacks. He clarified in 1988, the LMCD entered a Variance Order
that required 10 of these 79 slips that were temporary to be removed after the 1997 boating
season. He stated after conferring with staff, they were instructed the proper procedure to
convert these 10 slips from temporary to permanent were to complete new multiple dock
license and variance applications.
· He stated while the public hearing notice may state that 10 slips are to be added, they believe
the proposal is to convert the 10 slips from temporary to permanent. He noted the marina
has been operated as one economic unit since the 1988 Variance Order.
· He stated from the 1960's to the mid 1980's, this facility was operated as Paul's Landing
that consisted of rental fishing boats, a repair facility, a gas dock, and large storage ramps.
He noted the facility was licensed for 83 BSU's consisting of 20 buoys, 56 rental slips, and 7
company slips. He added there were 62 additional fishing boats on the ramps, plus 11
inventory boats, for a total storage of 156 boats at Pauls Landing.
· He stated Gary DeSantis purchased Paul's Landing in 1979 with Richard Anderson and John
Vogt as partners. He added they cleaned up the marina to what exists today. He noted in
1985, the facility was licensed for Ill boats and that discussions began with the LMCD to
convert the buoy field.
· He stated the Sailors World partnership made application in late 1985 or early 1986 for a
new dock license for 111 slips that was held until 8/27/96 when the Board issued a license
for 59 BSU's'and 20 moorings. He added on the license, a condition stated that a plan for
revision must be received by 10/1/86. He noted a variance application was submitted on
11/13/86 in connection with the construction of the new dock structure to convert the 20
buoys to slips. He reviewed the site plan submitted noting the LMCD has stated that
converging lot lines was a hardship at that time and he believed continued to be a hardship
today.
· He stated a public hearing was held for these applications on 12/10/86 with John Vogt and
Gary DeSantis in attendance. He noted the matter was set over for final review in 2/97.
He added at the 1/28/97 Water Structures Comlnittee meeting, they had approved the
concept of the changes and sent it back to the Board. He noted it was unclear whether Mr.
DeSantis attended this meeting because in 12/96, the Sailors World parmership had sold the
facility to Gerry Toberman on a contract for deed.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 4
· He stated in early 1987, Mr. Toberman assumed negotiations with the LMCD rather than
Mr. DeSantis. He added Mr. Toberman filed for bankruptcy in 1992 and the marina was
taken back by Mr. DeSantis in 1994. He stated Mr. DeSantis had little or no involvement
after early in 1987.
· He stated the Variance Order approved in April, 1988 provides for the variance setbacks and
the 10 temporary slips.
· He stated in the 16 months from when the application was submitted in December of 1986 to
April of 1988, they determined that Mr. DeSantis was not notified of with regards to
changes in the approved plan from what he had applied for.
Babcock stated in March of 1987, the Water Structures Committee took action to deny
approving any boats on a permanent basis in the 100' to 200' side setback zone.
Baker continued his presentation:
· He stated on 4/1/87, the application was denied by the Board with the stipulation that boats
'hot be allowed in the 100'-200' zone. He added in August of 1987, the Water Structures
Committee returned the plan advising the applicant that all slips constructed in the 0-100'
zone could be considered permanent and that slips constructed in the 100-200' zone could be
considered temporary. He added it was tabled to allow for a more workable plan.
Babcock stated on the 4/11/87 Water Structures Committee minutes, there is a note that Mr.
DeSantis had involvement at that timeframe. He added he believed that this documents that Mr.
DeSantis had some involvement in the 100'-200' concerns.
Baker continued his presentation:
· He stated he believed the issue is not that slips were constructed in the 100'-200' zone, but
that the original application was not for construction of temporary slips.
· He stated the marina is in a low traffic area, it is a significant area for milfoil growth, and
that neighbors are present who support allowing Mr. DeSantis to continue the marina in its
'Current configuration.
· He stated the majority of other marina's on the lake do not comply with LMCD Code
regarding side setbacks.
Babcock stated he would prefer the presentation focus on Sailors World Marina, not the other
marina facilities, because they all had unique features when these variances were considered.
Baker continued his presentation by addressing the staff memo regarding density showing that
there are other marina facilities that are as dense or denser than Sailors World. He stated Sailors
World has a density of I BSU for every 3' of shoreline.
Babcock noted staff had evaluated the calculations regarding density of marina facilities on the
lake with boats being stored in the water. He added staff believed there were misrepresentations
on the density provided by the applicant and he reported that Sailors World is the densest marina
facility on Lake Minnetonka when you take dry-stacking slips away from calculations.
· Baker introduced the neighbors in the vicinity of the marina and also customers who would like
tO speak on this issue.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeling
April 8, 1998
Page 5
Babcock asked for comments or questions from the Board.
Partyka suggested the 200' line on the site plan needs to be clearer. He asked whether the
existing docks fall within the 200' zone.
Baker stated the 200' line is at the edge of the doc'ks.
McMillan asked when the docks were constructed.
Baker stated he believed they were constructed in the winter of 1987-1988.
Wert asked DeSantis if he was aware the Variance Order was prepared in April of 1988.
Woody Love, 5460 Teal Circle, stated he might have some background to clarify that. He
stated he was employed by Toberman Properties through the Spring of 1988. He reviewed
conditions that existed at that time including cars parked all over, a gas station across County
Road 15, excessive impervious surfaces, and shoreline erosion. He reviewed improvements
made by Mr. DeSantis stating it has been dramatically improved. He stated he recalled they
never agreed to the 10 temporary slips and he believed Mr. DeSantis had no awareness of this.
He concluded reminding the Board that they never agreed to the 10 temporary slips and that
there was a procedural problem in how this was approved. He encouraged the Board to correct
what he believed to a process violation by approving the proposed applications.
Wert asked DeSantis when he was aware of the 1998 Variance Order.
DeSantis stated he became aware of it in 1992 when he received the multiple dock license.
Babcock asked for other input from the public.
Dan Krear, 2105 Lake Road, stated he has known Mr. DeSantis since childhood and spoke of
his integrity. He discussed what problems existed when Mr. Toberman owned the marina and
he stated he was happy when the DeSantis' reassumed the marina. He concluded this is a good
marina and he encouraged Board approval.
Babcock clarified for the audience that a hardship needs to be proved for the LMCD to grant a
variance. He added the proposed hardship by the applicant, economics, is precluded by State
law and he believed the Board cannot consider it.
Bill Denton, a resident from Minnetonka, stated he has been a customer of Sailors World for
four years. He stated the economics involved would cause a financial hardship to him if Mr.
DeSantis is required to remove the 10 slips. He stated this would reduce the income from the
marina approximately 12% and that would be forwarded to the customers. He reviewed the
impact these I0 slips would have on public access on Lake Minnetonka and the possibility of
introducing another exotic into the lake. He asked the Board to give this thought.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 6
A1 Nettles, 1940 Shoreline Drive, stated he is an abutting neighbor to Sailors World. He stated
since 1986, changes have been made to cleanup the facility. He noted he took a chance in the
late 1980's with regards to not contesting the side setback variances. He stated with the
increased cash flows, it has become a beautiful marina, there is less congestion and traffic on the
lake in that area, and that they are good neighbors. He attributed the improvements to Mr.
DeSantis and encouraged the Board to approve the proposed applications.
James Haugen stated he had rented a slip since 1994 and stated he felt it is the best run and
safest marina on the lake. He added the elimination of the 10 slips would put a hardship on
him.
Bob Shear stated he has been a customer for two years and he concurred that Sailors World is
one of the safest, quietest, and cleanest facilities on the lake. He added he believed it is an asset
to Lake Minnetonka and the boating community. He concluded he hoped the Board would not
take action affecting the current configuration.
A1 Coleman stated he has been a customer for about four years. He voiced his concern about
losing his slip and encouraged the Board to allow them to keep their current configuration.
There being no further comments, Babcock closed the pubic hearing at 8:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 8:30 PM.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Douglas Babcock
Deephaven; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Bert Foster, Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Tonka Bay Greg
Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Craig Nelson, Spring Park. Gene Partyka,
Minnetrista, Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth,
Woodland; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood; Also present Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel;
Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician; Diane Samis,
Administrative Assistant.
Members Absent:
There were no members absent.
LeFevere administered the Oath of Office to Craig Eggers.
representative on the LMCD Board from the City of Victoria.
Board.
He was seated as the new
Babcock welcomed him to the
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock had no announcements.
READING OF MINUTES - 3/25/98 Regular Board Meeting
-- 4/1/98 Workshop/Planning Session
MOTION: Foster moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the minutes of the 3/25/98 Regular
Board meeting as amended.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998
Page 7
Babcock recommended the following changes for the minutes from the 3/25/98 Board meeting:
· In the third to the last sentence on page 2, to delete "they would remain the same and that".
· In the second sentence on the top of page 4, to note that "this change cannot be used to alter
boat density allowance for either site, and that this condition should also be included in the
Order".
· A few typos that he would forward to staff.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (6, Weft, Gilman, Ahrens, Partyka, Dahlen, McMillan.);
Motion carried.
Babcock stated the 4/1/98 Workshop/Planning minutes would be reviewed at the 4/22/98 Board
meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
A resident from Mound, suggested LMCD Board meetings be televised on cable television. He
asked for feedback from the Board.
Babcock stated a difference between the LMCD and the cities is that the District does not
receive any direct funding from cable television revenues so tax dollars would be used. He
added it is a valid request but it needs to part of the budget planning process.
Weft stated all meetings are open to the public.
McMillan noted the District has a web page where minutes are published.
Babcock noted he is unsure if it is cost-effective to do this.
Rascop stated this had been explored within the last four to five years. He noted the big expense
is the camera operator who would have to be paid an hourly rate.
Kitchak noted this is a large undertaking because of the multiple cable companies in the lake
area. He added with a limited staff, it is difficult to do the research required for this project.
The resident from the City of Mound stated he would assist in this research and get back to the
Board and staff.
CONSENT AGENDA Nelson moved Gilman seconded to approve the consent agenda as
submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include the following: 2A Deicing
deposit refunds, staff recommending full refund of 1997-98 de-icing application refunds per
staff memo; and 2B Beer/Wine Liquor license renewals, staff recommending approval of
1998 renewal Beer/Wine/Liquor license applications as outlined in 4/1/98 staff memo.
1. WATER STRUCTLrRES
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 8
A. City of Wayzata/Boatworks Development, Inc., Consideration of the Findings of Fact
and Order for approval of variance and new multiple dock license applications.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Weft seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for
approval of variance and new multiple dock license applications.
VOTE:
Motion carded unanimously
B. Mr. John Goodman, Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock license.
MOTION: Ahrens moved, Foster seconded to approve the new multiple dock license
application from John Goodman.
Dahlen stated he was opposed to the proposed project because of the lack of interest the
applicant has had with working with the neighbors.
Babcock noted the proposed project complies with the 1:50' rule outlined in Code.
Nelson asked if all the boats at this proposed project would need to be owned by the
applicant?
LeFevere stated the two and four boat rule applies to where there is not sufficient
shoreline to comply with the 1:50' rule. He noted in the case where there is sufficient
shoreline, such as this, ownership of watercraft does not become an issue.
Kitchak stated although the applicant may not be the best of neighbors, the proposed
project meets Code and he stated he would support it.
Babcock recommended a friendly amendment to the motion to require the applicant to
maintain a survey, which shows at least 226' of shoreline. Ahrens and Foster agreed to
this friendly amendment.
VOTE: Ayes (12)~ Nayes (2; Nelson and Dahlen), Motion carried.
C. Jennings Cove DOA, Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock license.
Babcock stated one condition he would like to see on any approval is that boat length at
slip 15 be limited to 36' or less.
Schulte stated they would agree to that.
MOTION:
Ambrose moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the new multiple dock license
for Jennings Cove DOA, subject to boat length at slip 15 be limited to 36' or
less.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998
D. Baycliffe POA, Discussion on Public Hearing for variance from LMCD Code.
Page 9
Babcock stated the one issue that staff wanted resolved was the side setback question next
to slip 11. He added this should be resolved with the proposed side setback variance
application.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Dahlen seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and variance
applications.
Babcock recommended a friendly amendment to the motion that the approval be tied to
the existing boat and residence associated with this slip. Foster and Dahlen agreed to this
friendly amendment.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously
E. Bayview Apts., Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock license.
Babcock stated he had discussed this with staff and he believed there is a discrepancy
between approved cumulative slips square footage on the site plan approved in 1984 and
the slips size report included in the packet. He suggested the Board send this back to
staff and allow them to resolve it.
Faulkner noted when the dock was reconstructed some years ago, the fingers on the site
plan increased from 2' wide to 3' wide. She expressed a concern in sending it back to
staff because staff provided the square footage proposed in the slip size report.
Nybeck clarified that staff had difficulty determining square footage because the
approved site plan did not have width dimensions. He noted because of this, staff had to
work with a slip size report from the 1980's and it appears that slips were not installed
properly then. He added the facility has not been installed in compliance with the
approved site plan for many years and that staff put them on notice to install it properly
in 1998.
Babcock stated he believed that this could be worked out but that the number should be
correct before anything is approved.
Faulkner-Thiesse stated a problem that would be created by tabling this to the 4/22/98
Board meeting is that contracts with their tenants state the docks would be installed by
4/15/98.
Wert suggested approving the facility and allowing staff to work with the applicant
provided there is not an increase in cumulative slip square footage.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Suerth seconded to authorize Nybeck to work with the
applicant on the reconfiguration of its multiple dock facility, to allow
Nybeck to authorize the installation of its multiple dock facility once he is
161%
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 10
satisfied the plan is at or below the approved cumulative square footage of
the slips, and to direct him to bring the plan back t'or final approval at the
4/22/98 Board meeting.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
F. Sailors World, Inc., Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock license and
variance applications.
Babcock stated he believed it is clear based on his review of Water Structures Committee
and Board minutes that they did not want to see any new permanent slips created beyond
100'. He added the application from Sailors World was complicated with the change in oxvncrship:
however, he believed it had not changed significantly frotn when it was submitted in December of 1996
when Mr. DeSantis was on the application. He noted three aspects were approved for this facility by the
Board in April of 1988. They were I) 79 BSU's were approved, 2) txvo permanent side setback variances
were granted to zero feet within the 100' zone. and 3) txvo tempomD' side setback variance were granted to
zero feet between the 100' and 200' zone to be removed ,after 10 ),ears. He stated the 10 )'ears temporary
variances were granted to offset the costs in the buoy conversion. He added the applicant had the option in
the 10-year time period to relocate these 10 slips, provided they are within the 100' zone. He noted they had
the right to retain 79 BSU's based on his review and he questioned xvhcthcr there is a valid hardship for the
proposed variance application.
McMillan stated she concurred with Babcock that the application is not to change these
10 slips from temporary to permanent. She added the initial approval of 1988 was a
temporary solution and that she believed the intent of the Board was not to allow these
slips on a permanent basis. She noted it is unfortunate that DeSantis was unaware of the
Variance Order until 1992; however, he made a business decision. She concluded the
she believed Variance Order should stand as approved in 1988.
Babcock stated he believed Mr. DeSantis runs a nice facility; however, the maximum
number of variances has been granted to this site under Code. He added granting a
variance out beyond 100' may be tough to justify with other marinas based on economic
hardship and that he believed it is not a precedent he believed in the best interest of the
lake. He concluded based on this, he does not support the application.
Kitchak asked for clarification stating if the Board requires the applicant to remove these
10 slips, it appears that there will still be slips in the side setback that do not comply with
Code.
Babcock stated those slips could continue because the facility is considered a legal, non-
conforming facility.
Gilman stated he did not see how removing these 10 slips would impact the lake and side
setback issues. He stated he believed they should be allowed to keep the slips because
it's a win-win situation.
Foster stated when a person reconfigures under the envelope concept ordinance, they are
. .._.
allowed to reconfigure in the 100' to 200' zone.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998
Page 11
Babcock clarified that is true provided that the previous non-contbrming side setback is
not expanded. He added there is no variance in effect beyond the 100' because it has
expired.
LeFevere clarified in an envelope concept application, the Board determines the total
square footage of the slips and the perimeter within which changes can be made. He
added there has been one application that was within the 100' zone where Board
established the entire authorized dock use area as the envelope.
Nybeck clarified in the envelope application referred to by LeFevere, the entire dock use
area was for length and not side setbacks.
MOTION:
Gilman moved, Foster seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact and Order for approval of the new multiple dock license and variance
application from Sailors World, Inc.
Foster asked for clarification from Rascop regarding the claim that were procedural
problems back in 1988 when the temporary side setback variance was approved.
Rascop stated he did not recall too many details; however, the philosophy of the Board
was very protective and to get all facilities back to within 100'. He added nothing was to
be approved beyond 200' and that area between 100' and 200' was to be grandfathered
and not enlarged. He concluded he was surprised the Board allowed for the 10-year
temporary side setback variance beyond I00' because he believed what the Board is
considering tonight could happen.
Foster stated he believed the Board at that time was wrestling with how to deal with the
grandfathered marinas. He added at that time, they were not allowed to move one post.
Babcock stated there is no precedent to allow a marina to expand their facility beyond the
100' zone.
Partyka asked if there is an opportunity for solution for both parties. He reviewed the
idea of adjusting the acute angle of the extended lot lines.
Rascop stated the Board discussed with the City of Orono adjusting the extended side site
line to the south. He noted they were clear they did want the ability to launch boats
there.
Babcock stated there may be zoning issues and that the City of Orono would need to
review them.
Weft questioned if this approved, what other marinas have similar issues that have been
grandfathered in the Board would the Board be opened up to.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 12
Babcock stated if the Board desires to approve the applications, they have to determine
what the hardship is. He added the Board has already approved two variance within the
100' for converging lot lines and the Board needs to determine whether the convergence
supports a permanent variance in the 100' to 200' zone.
LeFevere stated staff has treated this as though the 10 slips have been removed. He
added it is more than just a side setback variance because these 10 slips are beyond the
100', which requires a length variance. He noted adjusting the lot line would not address
the issue of the length variance.
McMillan asked if staff is looking at this as a totally new application?
LeFevere stated staff has treated this as a new application because the 1988 Variance
Order has expired and these 10 slips were to be removed. He added staff has treated this
facility in review of these applications as a facility consisting of 69 slips rather than 79.
Babcock recommended the Board base their decision on the life of the facility and not on
the fact that Mr. DeSantis has run a nice operation. He noted this is not a hardship to
grant a variance.
Nybeck suggested before the Board votes, they need to consider how this vote would
effect precedent on other marinas. He stated if the Board makes approval for a facility in
non-conforming side setbacks and beyond the 100' zone, it will difficult to deny other
marina facilities who make similar applications.
Partyka stated there needs to be a solution, such as adjusting the angle of the extended
side sit line, or he concurred with Nybeck that it would be difficult to deny the next
application. He stated he believed some of the circumstances have changes since 1988.
Love clarified one issue he believed that is unique to this facility is that the conversion of
buoys to slips was done at the request of the District. He stated he believed it was not
challenged by Mr. Toberman because he was going bankrupt and that he would have
challenged the Variance Order otherwise.
McMillan questioned why it has taken 10 years to complain about the process used in
reviewing the application.
Kitchak stated he belieyed the circumstances presented are unique to this property that he
is not concerned with variances moving forward and the precedent set for other marina
applications. He added he does not thinks this Board should be bound to what a previous
Board did 10 years ago.
Babcock stated if the Board desires to approve this application, he suggested the Board
should allow similar changes at all marina facilities.
Gihnan recommended a friendly amendment that dry-stacking not be allowed to this site.
Foster agreed to this.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998
Page 13
Baker stated he believed there are no other marinas that have temporary situations that
would factored in the precedent question.
Babcock stated the conversion that Sailors World was allowed for the applicant is more
generous than what Code currently allows today. He added he believed there are
precedent issues because buoys have not been allowed to be converted beyond 100'.
VOTE:
Ayes (9), Nayes (5; Babcock, Nelson, McMillan, Partyka, Rascop);
Motion carried.
Babcock recessed the Board meeting at 10:00 p.m. to 10:05 p.m.
G. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance amendment relating to the
conversion of slides to slips.
Babcock introduced the agenda item noting at the 3/25/98 meeting, staff was directed to
bring back proposed conversion rates for slides to slips. He noted LeFevere provided
two options with a 122 square foot conversion and a 2:1 conversion using 150 square
feet.
Partyka asked how the two proposed conversion rates were derived.
Babcock noted for the proposed conversion rate of 112 square feet, that would work out
to 7' by 16'.
LeFevere noted this is staff's first attempt at a conversion rate and it could have been left
blank.
Babcock stated at the 3/25/98 meeting, two proposals discussed were a conversion rate of
100 square feet and a 2:1. He noted nothing was directed back to staff and this is what
they have proposed.
Nybeck stated the 100 square foot proposal was factored in by staff and the fact that the
association limits boat lengths on slides to 16'. He noted it is an arbitrary figure and
could possibly use Board discussion.
Babcock stated if the Board is not comfortable with the proposed conversion rates, staff
could either inventory boat sizes on the slides at Groveland HOA or boat sizes at other
facilities that have approved slides.
Partyka stated he would like to see some rationale in approving a conversion rate of 112
square feet.
MOTION:
Seurth moved Gilman seconded to approve first reading of the
ordinance amendment allowing for a conversion rate of 112 square for
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 14
slides to slips, to waive second and third readings, and adopt the
ordinance.
MOTION TO
AMEND:
VOTE ON
AMENDED
MOTION:
Foster moved, Partyka seconded to amend the original motion to
allow for a conversion rate of 100 square feet rather than 112.
Ayes (13), Nayes (1; Suerth); vote on motion to amend carried.
MOTION
TO AMEND:
Babcock moved, Gilman seconded to add a condition, letter (e),
stating if a conversion is done, the slide must be removed as part of
the conversion.
VOTE ON
AMENDED
MOTION:
Ayes (13), Nayes (1, Suerth); vote on motion to amend carried.
Suerth stated when Groveland HOA converted five buoys to slips around 1989, they used
a conversion rate of 10' x 20'. He requested the Board to honor the conversion rate of
1 I' x 24' outlined in the Code to get the extra square footage to work in the envelope
concept ordinance.
Foster noted the vote on the floor is with regards to an ordinance amendment.
VOTE ON
ORIGINAL
MOTION:
Ayes (13), Abstained (1, Suerth); vote on original motion, as
amended, carded.
He
Groveland HOA, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval to convert
two buoys to two slips; discussion of 3/25/98 public hearing for new multiple dock
license to convert 7 slides to 7 slips.
MOTION:
Ahrens moved, Ambrose seconded to approve Findings and Fact and
Order to convert two buoys from the DMA to two slips.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Rascop, Kitchak, Gilman, and Weft left at this time.
Babcock stated the applicant would need to submit a new slip size report because the
square footage of the proposed application would exceed the square footage of the
approved site plan with the new standards approved in the ordinance amendment.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 15
Nelson asked how the Board could consider what Suerth suggested because it has some
merit.
Jo
Suerth stated what Groveland HOA is trying to accomplish is not increase slips but to
allow residents to store boats that are 20' long.
Babcock stated the problem he had with the suggestion from Suerth is that when they
converted the five buoys in 1989, the rate of conversion they selected became
grandfathered in at that time.
Partka stated he had a problem with changing something retroactively that has already
been done. He added the Board should making determinations now rather than on
something that was done six or 10 years ago.
McMillan stated Boards need some continuity in philosophy, otherwise the decisions of
the Board is based on a whim because of the makeup of the Board.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Ambrose seconded to authorize Nybeck to work with the
applicant on the reconfiguration of their multiple dock facility, to allow
Nybeck to authorize the installation of their mutliple dock facility once he is
satisfied the plan is at or below the approved cumulative square footage of
the slips, and to direct him to bring back for final approval at the 4/22/98
Board meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
1998 Multiple Dock License, approval of 1998 multiple dock license applications,
without change. Staff recommends Board approval.
MOTION:
Partyka moved, Foster seconded to approve all 1998 Multiple Dock
License applications, as outlined in 4/2/98 staff memo.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Excelsior Park Tavern, staff recommends approval of 1998 renewal w/o change
multiple dock license application, as outlined in 4/3/98 staff memo.
Babcock reviewed the 4/3/98 staff memo noting staff recommended approval with two
conditions. He noted these two conditions are 1) the side setback variance for the one
slip that abuts the Excelsior Park Pavilion property should be terminated unless the
applicant can document unified ownership between the two properties, and 2) the
remaining seven BSU's along the shoreline that have not been constructed should be
deemed abandoned if they are not constructed by 9/25/98. He added one condition he
would like to add is that public amenities continue to be provided.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 16
.... MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan seconded to approve 1998 renewal w/o change
multiple dock license application for the Excelsior Park Tavern with the
three conditions outlined above by Babcock.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Ke
Discussion of licensed Boat Storage Unit (BSU) slip size and watercraft length as it
relates to the authorized Dock Use Area (DUA). It has been brought to the District's
attention that portions of larger watercraft are being stored outside of the authorized
DUA (and beyond 200' in some cases) although the slip structure is in compliance
(contained within the DUA).
Babcock stated it has been brought to his attention by staff that that portions of watercraft
are stored outside of the dock structure in slips which they are approved to the outer
limits of the authorized dock use area. He added although the slip structures are in
compliance with Code, the storage of watercraft outside of the authorized dock use area
does not comply with Code. He noted staff has not been actively enforcing this and that
there is a need to be more active in enforcement. He opened it up for Board discussion.
Nelson asked if the Code prohibits boats from being longer than the slip length.
Babcock stated the Code does not prohibit boats from being longer than the slip length;,
however, it states both the structure and watercraft must be located within the authorized
dock use area.
LeFevere stated the District does not know the magnitude of the problem. He added any
boat that sticks out beyond the slip that is at the edge of the authorized dock use area
would not be complying with Code.
Babcock suggested that staff observe this during inspections and resolve the situations
where there are flagrant violations. After Board discussion, this was the consensus of the
Board.
L. Additional Business.
There was no additional business
0
LAKE USE & RECREATION
C. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Report on 4/1/98 Management and Ecology of EWM and Other Aquatic Plants in the
Upper Midwest meeting;
Suerth stated one observation he had was that there were reports on using weevils and
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 17
killing milfoil in the field. He added on this basis, he would like to check with Dr. Ray
Newman, U of M Fisheries, regarding "Save the Lake" funds tbr development of
weevils for research on Lake Minnetonka.
B. Additional Business;
There was no additional business.
e
SAVE THE LAKE
Nybeck reviewed the request made by the Sgt. Ken Schilling for purchase of Public Safety
equipment using "Save the Lake" funds. He noted the three requests made by the Water
Patrol were:
1) Portable Multimedia Projector and Laptop Computer
2) Night Vision Equipment
3) Folding Backboards & Head Immobilizer
The consensus of the Board was to approve items 2 and 3 because they involved safety issues
on the lake.
MOTION: Nelson moved, Partyka seconded to grant funds for the purchase of the Night
Vision Equipment and Folding Backboard & Head Immobilizer as requested by
the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
e
A. Audit of vouchers for payment. · 4/1/98 - 4/15/98
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. He noted there were
discrepancies with the amounts identified on the vouchers and the amount written for
checks 12060 and 12064. He stated the audit of vouchers should be amended to identify
that check 12060 was written in the amount of $331.38 and that check 12064 was written
in the amount of $213.62.
MOTION:
Dahlen moved, Foster seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for
payment for the period of 4/1/98 - 4/15/98 as amended.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Additional Business.
Nelson stated a copy of the draft 1997 LMCD audit was included in the handout folder
and that it will be reviewed at the 4/22/98 Board meeting.
6. ADMINISTRATION
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998
A. Discussion on Public Hearing format.
Page 18
Babcock stated Kitchak brought this agenda item to his attention. He added Kitchak
believed discussion of public hearings should be heard by the Board immediately after the
hearing is closed. He noted there are pros and cons with either format and he opened it
up for Board discussion.
Ahrens and Ambrose stated the Cities of Mound and Wayzata use the format suggested
by Kitchak and that it works well.
The consensus of the Board was to schedule agenda this way in the future.
B. Request for $1,000 to purchase a new computer to replace existing computer system.
Babcock stated he worked with Randall and has had no success with making the 486
Computer operate correctly. He added that the purchase of additional memory has not
been done and with the cost of computers coming down, it makes the most sense to
replace it with a new computer at a cost of around $1,000.
MOTION: Foster moved, Ambrose seconded to approve up to $1,100 for the
purchase of the new computer.
VOTE:
Motion carded unanimously.
Babcock stated he would work with staff on this purchase.
C. Additional Business.
Randall informed the Board that a list of approved charter boat licenses with approved
port of calls was in their handout folders.
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
There was no Report from the Executive Director.
8. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS
Babcock stated he recently had attended a hearing regarding proposed personal watercraft
legislation changes. He distributed some legislation that would allow residents to issue civil
citations and have them heard by an arbitration law judge. He encouraged Board members
to review the legislation and stated he intended to have it placed on a future agenda.
Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour complimented the efforts of District staff in his dealing with
them. He noted the staff has been responsive, accurate, and responsive.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 1998 Page 19
The Board continued the discussion of the idea of broadcasting the Board meetings through
the local cable stations. The consensus of the Board was to have staff wait for feedback
from the resident of Mound who was researching the idea.
· 10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 11:14 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
DRAFT
RECEiVE ,' 2 1998..
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
w- XOTi S FOR¢
MINUTES
8:30 a.m., Friday, April 10, 1998
Gray's Freshwater Center, Suite 19, Navarre, MN
Present: Herb Suerth, Chair; Gene Partyka, LMCD Board; Lili McMillan, LMCD Board; Chip
Welling, MN DNR; Dr. 'Ray Newman, U of M Fisheries; Mike Halverson, MN DNR;
John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Pat Wulff, Lake Independence & Mille Lacs
Associations,
Nancy Randall, LMCD Administrative Technician; Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive
Director.
Minutes.
The minutes from the 3/13/98 meeting were accepted with the following changes:
· In the first paragraph under 1997 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report, Batten noted
that "the water clarity is generally poorer which is not conducive for weed growth".
· In the third paragraph of the same section, Barten noted that internal loading takes place
when there is a transfer of nutrients to the soil "to" the water column rather than
"through".
Summary of 4/1/98 Management and Ecology of EWM and other Aquatic Plants in the
Upper Midwest meeting.
Discuss and Brainstorm long-term improvement projects for Lake Minnetonka and other
bodies of water.
Discussion on efforts that need to be made to encourage the use of phosphorous-frcc
fertilizer.
The EWM/Exotics Task Force consolidated these three agenda items and discussed them together
as one. A summary of what was discussed is detailed below.
Welling provided a brief summary of the Management and Ecology of EWM and other Aquatic
Plants in the Midwest meeting in Hudson, WI. He noted:
· There was significant discussion regarding the control of milfoil using weevils in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other states out east. He noted future testing results needs to
be obtained to determine the viability of using this biological control of milfoil. He
expressed some reservations with the potential use of weevils to date and noted it is in the
research stage.
· New information came out from Michigan from the Corp of Engineers regarding the use
of Fluoridone. He stated a concern of the DNR is to enable residents to treat leafing
problems of milfoil and other native plants in the immediate area where the problem is
caused by using chemical treatments or mechanical harvesting. He noted this differs from
the use of Fluoridone because it requires treatment of the whole lake. He added the DNR
would need to see evidence of selectivity before they are comfortable with this treatment.
EWNUEXOTICS TASK FORCE, 4/10/98, PAGE 2
He questioned the application of Fluoridone on an operational basis because the feedback
from Michigan is being conducted on a research basis. He concluded he believes there
are technical complications and practical shortcoming with the use of Fluoridone.
McMillan questioned how the application of Fluoridone would affect native plants.
Welling stated there are native plants that axe as susceptible to Fluoridone besides milfoil. He
used the treatment of Lake Zumbra with Fluoridone in 1994 as an example, noting there was a
general tendency to error on the high side because of the money invested in the project and the
desire to control the milfoil. He noted this had an impact on the native plants and the fish
population.
Suerth questioned Welling whether the use of Fluoridone will eventually fall to the wayside.
Welling stated he believed it is already on the wayside. He added one interesting idea the Corp
of'Engineers has not investigated is the Fall application of milfoil using Fluoridone. He noted
milfoil is not dormat over the winter while most native plants are. He added by applying
Fluoridone in the Fall, it is possible that it could work on the milfoil over the Winter and have
low levels in the Spring to where it would have limited impact on the native plants.
Partyka asked for feedback on the use of weevils and where research on them is going.
Welling stated he had reservations on the reliability of the control of milfoil using the weevil in
uncontrolled environments. He noted there has been some success with the weevil in controlled
environments. He added current research is being done to investigate the success of weevils on
milfoil in uncontrolled environments. He concluded the State of Wisconsin is conducting
extensive research on 12 lakes in uncontrolled environments and he reported the initial results are
less than conclusive.
P~h'ty~ questioned whether the use of weevils in the future has any promise.
Welling stated he believed the results are mixed now. He stated the use of weevils is promising
because the advantages of biological control of milfoil are huge.
Newman stated in sites with dense milfoil growth, you cannot view the use of weevils as a
replacement for chemical control of the milfoil. He added the use of weevils need to be viewed a
longer term suppression of the milfoil. He stated he was not convinced in the investment of
weevils and expecting some control from them until it has been determined what controls
populations.
Halverson stated on Otter Lake when milfoil first colonized, it grew extremely fast and was wall
to wall. He noted currently, there is only a few plants with hope it becomes one of the plants in
the lake because of the weevil.
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 4/10/98, PAGE 3
Wulff stated on Lake Independence, the growth of milfoil has suffered from poor water quality.
Bm'ten added the growth of milfoil on Lake Independence is also affected by the growth of
coontail.
Halverson stated it is important to not be discouraged by the use of weevils because as lakes reach
equilibrium in the future, they might assist in the control of milfoil.
Wulff stated as the water clarity of Lake Minnetonka improves because of the treatment of Long
Lake and other measures taken, it will have an affect the native plant community. She noted
excessive plant growth might become a problem in addition to the growth of the milfoil.
Barten stated the diversity of plant growth has value.
Newman stated in lakes where they have been treated with alum, you will observe an increase in
the growth of milfoil in the short-term. He added it is questionable what will happen in the long-
term with the possibility of either heavier growth of milfoil or a green lake.
Welling stated excessive plant growth is in the eyes of the beholder. He noted there is value to
the environment where lake are wall to wall vegetation.
Barten stated from a liminologist perspective, water clarity was viewed as a nutrient issue until
recently. He added if plants could be returned to shallower lakes, there should be an
improvement in water clarity. He noted lakes either have one of two states. They are plant
dominated or algae dominated and he reported there is no in between.
Halverson stated once you shift a lake from plant dominated to algae dominated, it is difficult to
shift it back.
McMillan asked if the plant community improves the water clarity or do they exist because of the
water clarity.
Barten stated both because plants improve water clarity because they reduce the internal cycling
and they exist because of improved water clarity. He concurred with Welling that excessive
macrophyte growth is in the eye of the beholder and is a recreational term. He noted sustainable
management is the key in balancing this otherwise the lake will convert algae dominated.
McMillan stated there appears to be a need to point out some of the beauties of aquatic
vegetation.
Wulff suggested the LMCD coordinate taking interested residents out to view the macrophytes in
the lake for educational purposes.
Suerth asked Newman if there is anything the LMCD could do to assist him and the DNR in
getting our arms around the weevil such as funding?
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 4/10/98, PAGE 4
Welling asked Suerth to approximate how much funding the LMCD would be willing to
contribute?
Suerth suggested up to $10,000.
Welling stated the DNR is currently spending $75,000, half of it from the LCMR and the other
half from the surcharge on boat licenses. He noted the DNR has committed a majority of their
primary research funds on biological control of milfoil and purple loofstrife and he indicated the
DNR would need to assess what they have been getting with this research and where to go with
these funds.
Nybeck stated the LMCD could make an application for LCMR funds in 2000 to supplement the
efforts of Newman and Welling. He added an application could possible be leveraged with "Save
the Lake" funds.
Suet'th stated it might enhance solicitations for "Save the Lake" contributions if the LMCD had
goals and priorities on how these funds would be spent. He stated he believed the LMCD would
entertain a proposal from Newman and Welling in the area of $10,000 with a finite start and
finish, summary, and conclusions by establishing a bay for investigative research.
Newman stated on Grays Bay, them has been weevil monitoring along County Road 101 on the
west~end of Grays Bay where there has been no harvesting. He added there has been some
limited monitoring by Shady Island, Veterans Bay, and St. Albans and there could be additional
monitoring.
Suerth stated what he was thinking is could one area be intensified rather than spread the funds
throughout the lake with the idea it will impact the growth of milfoil in that area.
Welling stated this is a basic research effort and that public expectations may exceed where it is.
He added this is basic research at this time and that the weevil not be oversold. He stated from
his perspective, $10,000 would provide for limited field augmentation that would get some data.
Suerth asked the Task Force for feedback on possible long-term improvement projects for Lake
Minnetonka. The following .projects were identified and discussed:
· McMillan suggested an idea for an annual "State of the Lake" conference to where
pending issues could be addressed by the experts. She noted that this could possible be
shown on the local cable stations live or by tape delay.
· Wulff suggested a stronger working relationship with the Lake Minnetonka Association to
educate the residents and advocated the Shoreland Volunteer Workshop.
· Batten suggested designating a bay or bays on the west end that have poorer water quality
and convert them to macrophyte dominated bays.
· Newman stated he believed there is merit to renew the University of Minnesota approach
regarding the Freshwater Foundation.
· Partyka suggested education of impervious surface reductions and awareness.
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 4/10/98, PAGE 5
· Halverson suggested encouraging residents to aqua-scape their shoreline and work on a
good buffer strip.
A~,encv Reports
There were no agency reports.
Area wide lake association reports
There were no area wide lake association reports.
Old Business
There was no old business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gregory S. Nybeck
Executive Director
E0'd q~101
,ennepin County
County Assessor Division
A-2103 Hermepia County Government Ccnte:
Mirmeapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213
PHONI~ ii: (612) 345-$046
FAX #: (612) 348-8751
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
Tl't~ DOCLTM~NTS ARE:
( )
I~SPONSENEEDED: ( ) YES ( ) NO
TO:
FACSIMILE
AGENCY NAM~
ATTEN/qON
FROM:
NAME
DEPAR~T
DATE
SUBJECT:
Hennepin County.Assessor
E0/E0'd Ifi£8 8~£ EI9 9E:9I 866I-IE-~d~
Mound
1998
Open Book Meeting
April 20, 1998 4:00PM- 8:00PM
What does the Assessor do?
· Appraisals
· Sales Analysis
· Classification
· Review Appraisals
163'~
Schedule of Events
1997 Pay 1998 Assessment Cycle
Local County Proposed Court
Sales Study Period Assessment Board of Board of Tax Tax Filing
Date Review Equalization Statement Statement Deadline
10/1/95 9/30/96 4/9/97 6/16/97 11/10/97 3/1/98 3/31/98
1/2/96 1/2/97 1/2/98
1998 Assessment
for
Taxes Payable in 1999
The Estimated Market Value is established
as of January 2, 1998 based on sales activity
that has occurred from 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.
Market Value, generally speaking, is the
typical price that an informed buyer and
seller would agree to after adequate
exposure to the market.
Who Estimates The Values?
· The City of Mound has a contract with the
Hennepin County Assessor's Office to
provide the assessment services.
· The Residential and Commercial appraisers
inspect the properties and estimate the
market values based on actual sales activity.
· Sales in the 12 month study period
determine the value.
The Assessment Process
· Analyze Sales vs. 1997 Values
· Revaluation inspection of 1/4 of properties
· New Construction inspection and valuation
· Statistical Analyses of the assessment
· Value Notices sent to Property Owners
· Calls are taken from concerned Owners
· Review Appraisals are done where appropriate
· Assessor's Open Book Meeting
Some Properties are Exempt
· Public Buildings
· Churches
· Schools
· Charitable Institutions
· Parks
· etc ....
Revaluation
Quadrants
2000
1997 1998
1999
Each Year 1/4 of the Residential Properties are Inspected
How Many Homes Are There?
· There are 3,220
single family homes in
the City of Mound.
· Also there are 350
apartment units.
· And 590 Multi
Family Doubles, Tri-
Plexes, · Townhomes &
Condominiums
History of Residential ~Values
110
1~3 1994 1~5 1996 1~7 1~8
Y~r
1998 Assessment Statistics
Total Value
$480,259,200
Total Improvement Value Included
$4,503,500
Number of Residential Sales
156
Residential Assessment Analysis
Midpoint
Mound Estimated Market Value
RESIDENTIAL
94%
Distribution
COMMERCIAL
APARTMENT INDUSTRIAL
NURSING HOME
1998 Assessment Statistics
(continued)
Growth by Property Type
Residential 4.2%
Townhouse 1.3%
Condominium 3.9%
Apartment 4.3%
Commercial 3.0%
Industrial 3.9%
Or
Step 2
Step 3
County Web Page
(Address = co.hennepin.mn.us)
The Appeal Process
Do you think your property is valued or classified incorrectly? I
I
After you receive your value notice I
I
Step I i Talk to your assessor I
I
I Appeal At the Local Open Book Meeting i
I
i Appeal to the County Board of Equalization I
I
Appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court
1__ I
Regular Division ] Small Claims DivisionI
Mound Tax Chart (Pay98)
SOLID WASTE RATE 0.0184 %
TAX CAPACITY RATE 137.054 %
EDUCATION HOMESTEAD CREDIT '12.167 %
~IARKET REFERENDUM RATE 0.04965 %
MARKET HOMESTEAD NON~HOMES~D
TAX ;
50,000 658 1,336
60,000 790 1,603
70,000 922 1,870
75,000 988 2,004
80,000 1,107 2,151
90,000 1,344 2,446
100,000 1,582 2,741
125,000 2,177 3,477
150,000 2,807 4,214
175,000 3,457 4,950
200,000 4,108 5,687
225,000 4,759 6,423
250,000 5,410 7,160
275,000 6,061 7,896
300,000 6,712 8,633
325,000 7,363 9,370
350,000 8,014 10,106
375,000 8,665 10,843
400,000 9,315 11,579
MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1998
MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
APRIL 9, 1998
Members present: Pete Meyer, Tom Casey, Bev Botko, Leah Weycker, Rita Pederson. Others
present: Park Director Jim Fackler. The following interested citizens were also present: Jean
Stortz.
APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 15, 1998 DCAC MINUTES
Motion by Botko, seconded by Casey to approve the minutes of the March
12, 1998 POSC minutes as amended: page 2, add to following motion:
"...prepping/painting the frames...". Page 6, add before adjournment:
Meyer discussed the pebble problem at Sorbo Park and additional ties will
be added this sununer. Motion carried. Weycker abstained from voting.
AGENDA CHANGES
Information on tax forfeited parcels will be added to the agenda. Further information on IP Hall
will be added to discuss architect visit. Jeannie Stortz added additional items to the agenda
relating to WesTonka. Casey added additional costs related to Lost Lake project. Update on
the March for Parks. Music in the Parks and Earth Day/Earth Week event were also added to
the agenda.
WESTONKA COLLABORATIVE UPDATE
Seannie Stortz discussed several issues including the skate park. She explained how it has
developed over the years. She stated visits were made to the three other skate parks in the
Metro area. Stortz explained the purpose and mission of WesTonka Collaborative and its focus
on healthy families. She discussed how the community programs are funded. Stortz discussed
the proposed skate park in detail including what it will look like, admission, location,
concessions, and insurance. She noted the park will be for rollerbladers, skateboarders, and
bikers. Commissioners discussed admission for the facility.
Casey asked what the age range is of those using the facility. Stortz stated they ranged from
11 and up to adults. She asked for the Commission's support and funding. She asked for
$6,000 which is 1/2 the proposed cost.
Casey asked if the facility could also be used for track skating. Stortz indicated it could.
Pederson asked if the $6,000 would be an investment into sharing the profits or if it would just
be paid back. Weycker believed it could be an investment.
Motion by Meyers, seconded by Casey that the POSC request the City of Mound to
recommend to the City Council to invest $6,000 towards the skate park project.
Commissioners discussed the motion.
Pederson stated in order to continue to do great things for kids, she would like to have the
money paid back. Meyers stated he wouldn't like to add that to the motion.
MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTE8 - APRIL 9, 1998
Casey suggested a friendly amendment to recommend the allocation of $6,000 and enter into a
joint powers agreement to insure that both parties adequately recoup their investment on a pro-
rata basis. He stated he would like to go visit an existing site first but was willing to take a risk.
After further discussion, Casey withdrew his amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Stortz discussed the need for Commission representation on the WegTonka Collaborative.
Meetings are held the third Friday of the month. She also discussed resource directory
development and the plan to include all park locations.
Stortz stated she would like to develop a site for plantings in Mound as part of a summer
environmental camp project. She suggested a site near the railroad tracks. Fackler suggested
contacting Jodi at City Hall to find an appropriate site.
DISCUSS REQUF_ST FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON PARKS
Meyers noted a public heating will be held on this item at the May meeting. He stated he would
like to have a workshop before the meeting to prioritize the list.
Commissioners reviewed the hearing notice. Casey suggested changes to the notice.
Weycker suggested waiting for the workshop until after the public input. Commissioners
discussed when the workshop would be held. Weycker agreed to have a workshop prior to the
May meeting if another one after the May meeting is not held. Commissioners decided to hold
the workshop after the May meeting. Monday, May 18 at 7 p.m. was selected.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION - ISLAND PARK HALL
Fackler stated other bids have not been received and will be available at the next meeting.
Weycker stated the roof does not need to be replaced, and the architect has indicated it should
last in its present condition for five years. Meyers stated it will need to be done within five
years, and he was interested in getting a price for what it would cost.
Weycker discussed the review of the building with the architect. He believed the building
structure is sound. The basic work which needs to be done is cleanup and mechanical. He was
concerned about the water in the basement. Commissioners discussed the needed work. The
list will be reviewed in detail at the May meeting.
Casey stated he would also like to know why the building is so unique in historical terms.
Meyers agreed the standing water in the basement is a major issue. Commissioners discussed
their concerns. Meyers suggested a plumber come out and check where the water is coming
from.
Meyers believed some green-space should be added around the building and asked for a
commissioner to do some research on what the building used to look like.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Meyers noted there will be a Comprehensive Plan report the end of April to the City Council
and the Committee as a Whole.
MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1998
POSC AGENDA
Fackler reviewed items proposed for future agenda items in May and June.
discussed agenda items for the meetings and work session.
Commissioners
TAX FORFEIT PARCELS
Fackler stated a parcel of land has become available in Block 23 and will be reviewed at the City
Council meeting on April 14.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Pederson to withhold the two parcels from public
auction and be retained as green-space. Motion carried unanimously.
PARKS BUDGET - LOST LAKE PROJECT
Casey noted the dredging for the Lost Lake project has doubled and was concerned about
funding.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Meyers to requesting City staff to provide POSC with
detailed information on why the cost was doubled and where funding will come from
and how it would impact the POSC budgeting process. Motion carried unanimously.
UPDATE ON MARCH FOR PARKS
Meyers distributed brochures on the March for Parks. He asked for commissioners to assist the
day of the march. He explained how the pledge forms would be used to designate what city
would get funds.
MUSIC IN THE PARKS
Meyers stated he has received a letter requesting $2,500 from the POSC. Fackler stated the
letter has been provided to the City Manager and City Council. He stated the City Manager has
indicated the City will not provide any funding.
Motion by Meyers, seconded by Botko to recommending the City of Mound's
support of the Music in the Parks program in the amount of $2500 as requested in
the letter.
Casey was concerned whether this has been prioritized in the capital outlay and what would be
sacrificed if this funding is approved. Meyers noted the park budget has been completed, and
funding would be from other sources.
Commissioners discussed other sources of funding for the Music in the Parks program.
Motion carried. Casey voted against the motion.
NCA CLEAN UP
Meyers stated he would like to do this Sunday, April 19 from noon to 4:00 p.m. and asked for
help from the other commissioners. Fackler stated staff can pick up trash on the 20th of April.
MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1998
MAY AGENDA
Commissioners added items to the May agenda which included: Depot rental and inspection
process following rental, quarterly report on park dedication fees, City property on northeast
comer of Lake Langdon being designated as an NCA, Crescent Park discussion, background
information on long grass areas in the parks, March for Parks review, mosquito control
discussion, and update on current plans for the Babe Ruth field and proposed community skating
rink.
FYI
Informational items were reviewed.
REPORTS
Weycker and Fackler updated the Commission on recent City Council and park activities.
ADJO~
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Botko to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m..
Motion carried unanimously.
April 12, 1998
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Hello, we are students from the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School in Orono
and we are helping to plan the March for Parks event. It will be held on Sunday, April 26,
from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. It will start at the Orono City Hall and bikers will travel
the Luce Line Trail to the Ox Yoke Inn and the walkers/runners will go to Green Glen
Park in Long Lake. We are hoping that you would join us in this wonderful event.
We think that organizing and participating in this event is a great school activity because
we think it's a good learning experience. It will also help raise money to preserve parks
around this area. We are excited to participate in this activity and hope you share our
enthusiasm.
Hope to see you at the 'March for Parks' on April 26, 1998.
Sincerely,
Delora Meyer, Trevor Ilse, Maggie Kelley, Larissa Nelson, and Cody Holst
LMES Students
Lake Minnetonka Environmental School
2180 North Shore Drive, Wayzata MN 55391
612-475-3107
Apr-16-98 02:04P P.02
April 16, 1998
Mr. Ed Shukle
City, of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ed:
.As this Multiple Dock Issue comes to a close, ! wanted to send this letter to wrap up my issues with
the city.
During the past few months I have called the city (various staff) with requests for information related
to: physical locations, resolutions, minutes, financial information and other various data. I want to
thank you and everyone who was asked to do things that they probably hadn't planned to do that day.
Each request was processed both courteously and responsively.
! appreciate the difficult position you and the staffwere in, being asked to provide information to
different individuals on different sides of an issue, you alt handled it well.
My wife and l wish all of you the best of luck and thank you for your assistance.
Jo~,.~bos
CC: John Dean
Page 1 of 1
From: Dr. Pam Myers <myersp@westonka.k12.mn.us>
To: edwardshuklejr@email.msn.com <edwardshuklejr@email.msn.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 3:12 PM
Subject: Leaf composting site
4/23/98
Ed:
After reviewing the requirements for a leaf composting site with Greg Robbins, our
Coordinator for Buildings and Grounds, I find that we do not have an appropriate site to
offer to the City of Mound.
It is a high priority in our five-year outdoor facilities plan to grade and seed the site north of
Sunnyfield Road for the purpose of relieving the heavy use of our athletic fields. Once this
is accomplished the only site available for leaf composting would be the Iow land, adjacent
to the new housing development on the east end of the school property. This site would
not be acceptable for leaf composting, as I understand it, because it is a wetland.
In the longer term, this is the only site which the school district owns which is large enough
for building an additional school. With the population projections received recently by the
City of Minnetrista, building a school might become a plan, rather than an option, though no
planning has been done in this direction at this time.
You can report this finding to the City Council. We're sorry not to be able to help the City of
Mound find a leaf composting site. I'm certain there will continue to be other needs, of the
city and the schools, which will lead us to explore additional ways the school district and the
city can share resources, and we look forward to doing so.
Pam
c. Bill Pinegar
1551
4/22/98
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 28, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Ch_ambers 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., City
Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens:
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance
was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
ADD ON TO CONSENT:
1) EXECUTION OF RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT.
2)
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING FOR MAY 12, 1998.
,, -
1.0
*CONSENT AGENDA
21.1 APPROVE THE MINUTFS OF THE APRIL 14, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
1280-1301
'1.2 CASE 98-15: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER. JORI AYAZ, 4844
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON, PIDS//25-117-24
11 0046 & 25-117-24 11 0047,
1302-1321
'1.3
CASE 98-16: VARIANCE, LAKF$1DE SETBACK, KYLE COSKY, 1932 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOT 9 AND PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID//18-117-23 23 0069.
1322-1342
*1.4 CASE 98-18: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, CRAIG A.
ROSE, 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LP CREVIERS SUB
LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID //13-117-24 42 0006.
1343-1358
'1.5
CASE 98-04: MINOR SUBDIVISION, MARK & VAL STONE, 6380 BAYRIDGE ROAD,
PART OF GOVT LOT 5 AND PART OF ROLLING SHORES, PID//23-117-24
32 0037.
1359-1392
*1.6
1393
PROCLAMATION - MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK - MAY 3 - MAY 9, 1998.
2
~1.7 PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT - USE OF MOUND BAY PARK- MINNETONKA
CLASSIC BASS CLUB, 11:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M., WEIGH-IN ONLY, JUNE 6, 1998.
1394
*1.8
MISCEI.LANEOUS PERMITS: 1395
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT - JUNE 6, 1998, FISH FRY
MOUND CITY DAYS - JUNE 19-21, 1998.
AMERICAN LEGION/VFW - PARADE PERMIT - MAY 25, 1998.
ONE DAY OFF SITE GAMBLING PERMIT - AMERICAN LEGION FOR
MOUND CITY DAYS BINGO.
'1.9
RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
1396-1414
*110 Rlz. gOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
998 MUNICIPAL RECYLING GRANT AGREEMENT WITH HENNPIN COUNTY.
*1.11 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING - P & Z CASE //98-06. JAMES
JOHOSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, PID //13-117-24 44 0032 -
SUGGKgTED DATE - MAY 12, 1998,
1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
1415-1430 ~ ~ g"" q q 2 ~
1.13~C_ONTINUEr~ DISCUSSION.- RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS
ADVISORY CDlvf~*~q,gtaON REGAlinG A PROPOSED FISHING SITE OFF WILSHLIE
BLVI~{t~g~LE HANDO~~DAY. EVENING.}
1431-145~ -
3
1.14
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
4
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Financial Report for March 1998, as prepared by Gino Businaro.
1438-1439
B. Planning Commission Minutes - April 13, 1998.
1440-1451
C. Notice of Annual League of Minnesota Cities Conference - June 16-19, 1998, Duluth, MN.
Please let Jodi know if you plan to attend, ASAP.
1452-1462
D. Notice from Hennepin County of a Public Heating on Amendments toOrdinanceNumber Seven-
Hazardous Was~Management Ordinance forHennepin County. This will be held on May 19,
1998.
1463-1499
E. Minutes of theQuarterlyMeeting of the Suburban RateAuthority.
1500-1505
F. LMCD m~lings.
1506-1534
The results of the Open Book Meeting that was held on April 20, 1998, and a handout done by
the Hennepin County Assessor's Office
H. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes - April 9, 1998.
1535-1544
I. Invitation from the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School to participate in the March for Park's
event - April 26, 1998.
1545-1548
5
· $.
1549
1550
Thank you letter from John Gabos.
Reply from Westonka Schools regarding a leaf compost site.
for another spot.
Looks like we are back to looking
6
PAGE
SECONDED A MOTION
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously / ~ in favor, with nays.
ITEM
MOVED AND
SECONDED A MOTION
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously / C~. in favor, with
nays.
ITEM #
MOVED AND
SECONDED A MOTION
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously /
in favor, with
nays.