Loading...
1998-07-28AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1998, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA. *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 14, 1998 REGULAR MEETING. . . 2792-2799 *B. CASE 98-39: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, DON & TERRI BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION, LAKESIDE PARK, PID# 13-117-24 31 0052 ................................. 2800-2822 *C. CASE 98-40: STEPHEN 7 LOTS 1 & 2, 14-117-24 32 MINOR SUBDIVISION, RELOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE, ELIZABETH ANN FARLEY KAKOS, 6381 MAPLE RD., BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID #14-117-24 32 0024 & 0025 .......................................... 2823-2838 *D. CASE 98-42: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ADD AN ADDITION, MICHAEL & SONJA SCHULZ, 4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE LOT 14, SUB LOTS 1 & 32 RAVENSWOOD, PID# 13-117-24 41 0043 ....... 2839-2862 *E. CASE 98-44: VARIANCE EXTENSION, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & P/7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-117-24 11 0005 ................................. 2863-2879 *F. CASE 98-43: VARIANCE, BLUFF LINE SETBACK AT 6407 BAYRIDGE ROAD, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME, FRED JOHNSON, 3510 TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 5, BLOCK 3, THE BLUFFS, PID# 22-117-24 44 0012 ......... 2880-2911 *G. CASE 98-46: SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS AND MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD 2789 o BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277/US WEST WIRELESS, UN- PLATTED 14 117 24 PID# 14-117-24 41 0011. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 11, 1998. *H. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING AMENDMEN - ZONiNt/L~iS~O STATIONS WITHOUT TOWERSO BY COND SE PERMIT. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 11 *I. PAYMENT OF BILLS ....................................... 2912-2924 CASE 98-38: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1sT DIV., PID# 19-117-23 24 0029. (PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL) .................................... 2925-2937 PRESENTATION BY CITY ENGINEER RE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING/ FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, NORWOOD LANE. (INSERT). APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SETTING OF BID OPENING DATE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, NORWOOD LANE. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 11, 1998. ( TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING). COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATIONS: a) GREGORY KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE ...................... 2938 b) JOHN & LINDA VERKENNES, 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE (THIS CASE WAS TO BE HEARD AT THE DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION BUT WAS CANCELED DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM) .... 2939-2951 MULTIPLE DOCK APPLICATION: a) FINE LINE DESIGN, STEVEN BEHNKE, SETON BLUFF (STAFF REPORT TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING) ......... 2952-2959 10. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: mo B. C. D. E. Financial Report for June 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. 2960-2961 LMCD Mailings ............................................ 2962-2983 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of July 9, 1998 ................ 2984-2990 Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 16, 1998 ............. 2991-2992 Mound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 1998 ........... 2993-3006 2790 F. Minutes and related information from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) ...... 3007-3017 Peter Meyer, Chair, POSC, asked that two editorials published in the Star Tribune be distributed to the City Council. They are included for your information ...... 3018-3019 Ho REMINDER: WCCB Meeting, Wednesday, July 29, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. 2791 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 14, 1998 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 14, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Audri Schwarz, Dennis and Carolyn Leininger, Dianne Edwards, Brad Nordgren, Becky Cherne and Greg Knutson. The Acting Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda..: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. Applicant Bradley Nordgren asked to have Case g98-36 removed from the Consent Agenda. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 23, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. *1.1 MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. CASE 98-37: VARIANCE LAKESIDE SETBACK AUDRI SCHWARZ 5621 .BARTLETT BLVD. SECTION 23 pID#23-117-24 14 0002_______: RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL. RESOLUTION//98-73 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A CONFORMING PORCH, PATIO, AND IN-GROUND POOL, AT 5621 BARTLETT BLVD, MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 14, 1998 PART OF GOVE~NT LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID # 23- 117-24 14 0002, P & Z CASE t/98-37 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.2 CASE 98-32: VARIANCE FRONT YARD SETBACK SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A SUN PORCH DENNIS & CAROLYN LEININGER 3065 DUNDEE LANE LOT 5 BLOCK 12 ARDEN PID#24-117-24 44 0134. RESOLUTION//98-74 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING SUN PORCH, AT 3065 DUNDEE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID # 24-117-24 44 0134, P & Z CASE g98-32 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.3 .APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS, AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND .SETTING BID OPENING DATE OF WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1998, 11:00 A.M. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.4 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT RE: 1998 STORM RELIEF WiTH FEDERAI, _EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)~ MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. _PUBLIC GATHERING PERMITS *1.5 SEPTEMBER 20 1998 OPERATION BASS RED MAN EVENT. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.6 REOUEST TO USE MOUND BAY PARK FOR A OCTOBER 4, 1998, VIKING BASSMASTERS WEIGH-IN ONLY, SUNDAY '1.7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1998 MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. MOTION ~ g ° 9 ~ Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.8 PAYMENT OF BILLS, MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. 1.9 CASE 98-36: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, TO.. BRADLEY NORDGREN 5661 BARTLETT BLVD. SECTION z3 PID #23-117-24 14 0004,. The applicant asked for clarification on what the Planning Commission did at its meeting July 13th. The Building Official explained that the question is about hardcover and whether this lot is entitled to 30% or 40%. Because it is a lot of record, it is entitled to 40% hardcover with an approved drainage plan. Councilmember Hanus asked about item 1.b. in the proposed resolution which reads as follows: "b An agreement be entered into by the applicant with the city to reduce the hardcover to 30 % (or 40 % with an approved drainage plan) within a one year period of time and be approved by the City Attorney." Hanus questioned the 1 year time period that was discussed at the Planning Commission and if it was still valid? The Building Official stated yes and explained that the applicant is entitled to 30% just like any normal lot unless he comes up with a drainage plan that staff would approve, or he creates a filter strip to catch some of the excess water from the impervious surface on that site which would allow 40% hardcover. Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-75.~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE, AT 5661 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID # 23-117-24 14 0004, P & Z CASE//98-36 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1998 APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS. 1.10 GREGORY KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking a permit to replace a light that was previously approved by the Council and was damaged in the recent storms. The light serves security and safety purposes and also lights the City stairway on Devon Common. The Staff and DCAC have recommended approval. The Building Official submitted a survey from 1971 of Mr. Knutson's property and a drawing of approximately where the light is located on the Commons. The Council discussed relocating the light pole onto private property because it needs to be replaced totally and brought up to the code electrically. Councilmember Hanus pointed out that in the Public Lands Permit Book, there is a section specifically dealing with guidelines for lights on public property, page 97, item #4 which asks reads as follows: "If there is an alternate location for the light on private property, it shall not be allowed on public property." This section also requires site plans to show where it is. A site survey showing the light has not been provided and Knutson's property irons have not been located at this time. Hanus stated he felt this light could be functional and be on private property. He further stated that he voted in favor of this light in 1995 because it was an existing situation, but now it has to be replaced entirely and should be located on private property. Mr. Knutson stated that if the light were moved onto private property, it would be too far back for any functional use. The Council discussed the fact that, for permit approval, it takes 4/5ths vote of all Councilmembers and there are only 4 members present tonight. The Council discussed the application as not being an application to maintain this light. It is an application to replace it, because the two other times the light was approved, it was supposed to have had an electrical inspection which did not take place until 1997, and shows the light has deficiencies. Hanus suggested tabling this item until it can be determined exactly how far onto public property this light encroaches. This would involve finding the applicant's property stakes. The Building Official stated he did not think it would be difficult to find the applicant's property stakes and determine the exact footage. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to table this item to July 28, 1998, to allow staff to determine the footage that the light currently encroaches onto the Commons. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 14, 1998 1.11 BARB · CASEY 4704 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. The Building Official pointed out that the DCAC recommended denial of the application for tree removal on a 3-2 vote. He then reviewed the application. A petition was also submitted and signed by 10 residents which read as follows: "We would all like to be able to enjoy the commons area. We respectfully request the trees be removed in front of dock site #41956 (Casey)." He also referred to a letter dated May 20, 1998, from the DNR. The following are staff's recommendations: 1. allow the tree removal and sod as requested; or 2. relocate the dock site and not approve the tree removal request. The Building Official stated that in discussions with Ms. Casey, she has stated that in addition to approving her access to her dock site, she would like to address the safety concerns that have been raised at previous City Council Meetings. The applicant was not present, but the Building Official stated she is not in favor of relocating her dock site which was an option that was pointed out in the Planner's report, dated June 12, 1998. There was also a letter from the abutting property owner, Mr. Frank Ahrens, objecting to the removal of the trees. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to approval the Public Lands Permit to remove 6 small trees, as requested. Councilmember Hanus expressed concern about the applicant removing the trees and maybe damaging any private property. The Building Official stated the applicant would not be allowed to remove the trees herself. Any tree removal would have to be done by a licensed tree removal service. The Building Official explained that in his conversations with the applicant, she thought that tree removal would not be necessary, just trimming of branches. The Council discussed not being able to tell which trees in the pictures were to be removed. Jensen stated there are two unknowns now: 1)Whether the applicant wants to move forward knowing that she cannot to the work herself; and 2)It would appear appropriate that she mark the trees which she wishes to have removed. Therefore Councilmember Jensen withdrew her motion because of the fact that Casey has to have a contractor and she mark the trees, suggests that this needs to be tabled. No vote. Hanus asked how Ms. Casey intended to maintain (water) the area she is proposing to sod since she does not live there. He would like to see some kind of proof that the sod will be watered and taken maintained. The Building Official stated that he felt this is a minor issue, but if the request is approved, a $500 bond could be added to address this concern. Hanus commented on the DNR letter. The letter recommended leaving the two most lakeside trees and remove the others. He did not think this was good planning, because the reason most of the trees along the lakeshore have gone down recently is that they do not have a good root system in the rip-rap and to him it is just setting the next generation of trees to go down in a future storm. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 14, 1998 Weycker stated she needs more clarification from the applicant. Ahrens stated she feels this is not a good precedent, because any dock site holder could request cutting down trees to place their dock when there are other options available. MOTION made by Ahrens to approve the applicant's request to remove all of the trees. Hanus seconded, for discussion. Councilmember Hanus stated he is really not in favor of this. He further stated that he has spoken to the Park Director, and it is not Staff's policy that people can move their docks around at will. However, he does not see this, as the case. There is a clear option that does not require trimming of the trees and that is moving her dock away from the trees. Hanus stated he completely disagrees with the DNR letter. Councilmember Weycker stated that she agrees with not removing trees, but in this case she is more concerned about the access and if it is going to block the access ..... Acting Mayor Ahrens, gaveled Councilmember Weycker, stating that she was out of order. A " · hrens stated, The request is to cut down the trees. It is not for access. She is talking about locating her dock." Councilmember Hanus, stated, "Not locating her dock, but access for her dock and the point is she doesn't have to be where she is. That's the option." Councilmember Weycker state she thinks that is part of access. The vote was none in favor with Ahrens, Itanus, Jensen and Weycker noting nay. Motion Councilmember Jensen stated that since the application was not to cut down all of the trees, she was not going to vote for it. Weycker agreed. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Public Land Permit application as described on page 2675 of the Council Packet which is to remove 6 trees. The vote was 2 in favor with Ahrens and Hanus, voting nay. Motion fails. 1.12 MICHAEL & DIANE EDWARDS 2805 HALSTEAD LANE. The Building Official explained the request and report that Staff and the DCAC unanimously recommended approval. The Council asked if the applicant had seen the recommendation. Dianne Edwards stated she had and was comfortable with it. Ms. Edwards stated they would like to donate this stairway to the City when it is finished, since it is on Park land. The City Attorney suggested the following language be added to the resolution, after the Now, Therefore: MOUND CITY COUNCIZ, MINUTES- JULY 14, 1998 1. b. Upon completion of the stairway, all fights, title and interest in the stairway, together with the right and obligation to maintain the stairway shall be transferred to the City of Mound. Ahrens moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: 1. remove the 4th Whereas; the 7th Whereas to read as follows: Whereas, there are sevevat- currently two docks at this location; and -' - remove//2 under the Now, Therefore and replace it with the City Attorney's suggestion as follows: U on corn letion of the stairwa ali ri hts title and interest in the stairwa to ether with the ri ht and obli ation to maintain the stairwa shall be transferred to the Cit of Mound. RESOLUTION//98-76 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR MICHAEL AND DIANE EDWARDS, 2805 HALSTEAD LANE, FOR NON- ABUTTING PROPERTY ON PARK LAND KNOWN AS IDLEWOOD ACCESS, 2990 HIGHLAND LIFT ACCESS - DOCK SITE 60640 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. _INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. A. Department Head Monthly Reports for June 1998. B. DCAC Minutes of June 18, 1998. Ce Thank you note from a resident regarding the excellent job the Public Works Department did during the recent storms. Notice from the National League of Cities (NLC) regarding the fall conference in Kansas City, MO. Please let Fran know ASAP if you wish to attend. Letter from Jan DenBeste regarding her dispute with Triax Cablevision. REMINDER: HRA MEETING 7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1998, PRIOR TO COUNCIL MEETING. Go REMINDER' REMINDER' MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 14, 1998 NO COMMIT'FEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING THIS MONTH. WCCB MEETING, WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1998, 7 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL. Announcement of Skatepark Grand Opening. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 8:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk July 28, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, AT 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS S & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 31 0052 P & Z CASE #98-39 WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Terri Bonnicksen, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17.5 feet in order to construct a second story addition; 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 applicants applied for this project previously which was approved by Resolution #94-10 but has expired; and, WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as this project represents a substantial improvement to the property, improvement of the existing front yard encroachment, and the proposal is conforming to the Zoning Ordinance; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 2.5 foot front yard setback variance. 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. July 28, 1998 Bonnicksen - 2156 Centerview Lane Page 2 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following improvements: Construction a second story addition to the existing dwelling. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKE SIDE PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 5. 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. 6. 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, On/Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-39: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, DON & TERRI BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 8&31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION LAKESIDE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 31 0052 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicants, Don and Terri Bonnicksen, are seeking a front yard variance to build a second story addition to the existing house. The project was previously approved by Resolution #94-10, but the house portion of the project was never completed. The request is listed below. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Existinq/Proposed. Required. Variance Front Yard 17.5' 20' 2.5' The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setback. All code requirements are conforming except the front yard setback. Hard¢over is under requirements and is not an issue. The first application outlined the second story addition, porch and garage as the project. Currently the porch and garage are complete. The second story project has been started and will reflect the plans approved by the previous resolution. The project is a substantial improvement to the property and will increase the livability of the property. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. DISCUSSION: Mueller commented that it is the same request as before. Don Bonnicksen stated that he had not finished the proposed work. Sutherland stated that the applicant had not filed for an extension therefore he needed to go through the whole process again. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff's recommendation, Motion carried ?-0. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 0PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Don and Terri Bonnicksen - 2156 Center-view Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-39 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5gg LOCATION: 2156 Centerview Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a front yard variance to build a second story addition to the existing house. The project was previously approved by Resolution #94-10, but the house portion of the project was never completed. The request is listed below. Existing/Proposed RequireO Variancq Front Yard 17.5' 20' 2.5' The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setback. All code requirements are conforming except the front yard setback. Hardcover is under requirements and is not an issue. The first application outlined the second story addition, porch and garage as the project. Currently the porch and garage are complete. The second story project has been started and will reflect the plans approved by the previous resolution. The project is a substantial improvement to the property and will increase the livability of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 ~FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT DNR City Planner City Engineer Other Public Works PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER Lot Subdivision F C01Y ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER [ress THAN Phone (H) OWNER) (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 reso/J~tions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~v. 11 II 419 7) Variance Application, p. 2 ., Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations ~or 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 Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ft. / ~-- ~-/'ft. ,'~', 7" ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. _sq ft _sq ft _sq ft .sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~,No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 0 Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage '{~existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: (Rev. 11 I1419 7) ' - qB- V.ri~n¢e Applio~ion, P. ~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone .ha~ng property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)7 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 yo/u request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (V)~. 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 Date Date Applicant's Signature (Rev. 11114/97) CITY OF MOUND _HARDCOVER CALCULATIONE (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERA(~E) LOT AREA ~-~/'0 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. X = TOTAL HOUSE (GARAGE/SHED) 2/¥ X 3 ~/ = AREAS, SIDEWALKS, X ETC. X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. ~%~[ ~'~ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. _ ~ ~-- X_ ~ ~' _- /~.~ opening between boards) with a X _- pervious surface under are X = not counted as hardcover TOTAL ............ DECK - ........... OTHER ,~l~_ X = TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) PREPARED BY DATE CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: Planning Commission Agenda of January 10, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official - ') i,- ;I~\ SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Don & Terri Bonnicksen CASE NO. LOCATION: 94-02 2156 Centerview Lane, Lots 8 & 31, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, 13-117-24 31 0052 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17.5 feet in order to accomplish the following: 1. Remove existing front entry roof and nonconforming shed. 2. Add 2 feet to existing rear porch that is currently being converted into a laundry room. Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage. Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck. Construct a future second story addition (note sketch plans), this addition steps back from the footprint of the existing dwelling setbacks and is also conforming. printed on recycled paper January 11, 1994 RF~OLUTION ,~.-10 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-117-24 31 0052, P&Z CASE//9402 WHEREAS, the owners, Don and Terry Bonnicksen, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17.5 feet in order to accomplish the following: 1. Remove existing front entry roof and nonconforming shed. 2. Add 2 feet to existing rear porch that is currently being converted into a laundry room. 3. Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage. 4. Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck. 5. Construct a future second story addition (note sketch plans), this addition steps back from the footprint of the existing dwelling setbacks and is also conforming. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both streets and 6 foot side yard setbacks, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as this project represents a substantial improvement to the property, improvement of the existing front yard encroachment, and the proposal is conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 2.5 foot front yard setback variance upon the condition that the nonconforming shed and existing front entry roof be removed. January 2. 11, 1994 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 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: a. Add 2 feet to the existing rear porch that is currently being convened into a laundry room. b. Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage. c. Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck. d. Construct a future second story addition as shown on the sketch plans submitted with the application. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 8 and 31, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, PID//13-117-24 31 0052. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Tides 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. Applicant's sketch plans are attached hereton and made a part of this resolution. The shed shown on the survey will be removed by the applicant after completion of the garage or by May 1, 1994. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, lessen, and Johnson. ]4 January 11, 1994 The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Smith was absent and excused. ~yo~ ~ Attest: City Clerk MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TIlE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI qSION JANUARY 10, 1994 C~SE ~94-02~ DON & TERRY BONNICKSEN 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE LOTS S & 31t BLOCK ?~ ABRAHAM LINCOLN ~DDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK~ PID ~13-117-24 31 0052. VARIANCE FOR GkRAGEa Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17.5 feet in order to accomplish the following: 1. Remove existing front entry roof and nonconforming shed. 2. Add 2 feet to existing rear porch that is currently being converted into a laundry room. 3. Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage. 4. Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck. 5. Construct a future second story addition (note sketch plans), this addition steps back from the footprint of the existing dwelling setbacks and is also conforming. The front yard setback would actually be improved by the removal of the front entry roof (this roof is not shown on the survey), and the construction of the decorative 2 foot entry gable. the oncoming winter weather and time constraints of the Due to · ' 's installed the · ce rocess the applicant has, at his own FI k, .... varlan .p --'..~ ~~ for p Der setbacks an~ construction garage slab. ~t w~= ~..~ ........ ~ro_ prior to pouring. Staff recommended th~ Planning C~mmi~s~ ~mm~dtha~%~%~aelr ~T this project represents a substantial ~mp~uv=,~,=, .... = ~ t_ improvement of the existing front yard encroachment, and the proposal is conforming to the Zoning ordinance, upon the condition that the nonconforming shed and existing front entry roof be removed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously- This case will be heard by the city Council on January 11, 1994. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 1994 1.13 CASE ~4-002: DON & TERRY BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANEj LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 91 0052, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-10 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 9 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 31 0052, P & Z CASE g94-02 Councilmember Jensen asked the an Item #7 be added to the proposed resolution: o Applicant sketch plans are attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. The City Attorney stated he feels there should be an Item//8 added also referring to the shed that is to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant asked that he not be required to remove the shed until after the garage is in place. He stated he has money tied up in this building and would like to sell it after he has his garage built so that the storage can be moved then. The Council agreed upon the following wording for Item//8: The shed shown on the survey will be removed by the applicant after completion of the garage or by May 1, 1994. The applicant agreed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Certificate of Survey for Don Bonnicksen of Lots 8 & 31, Block ?, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park Hennepin County, Minnesota :.9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lots 8 and 31,Block 7, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside ~ark, Mound, Minnetonka" This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house and shed thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed garage. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Iron marker found Iron marker set Denotes distance shown on record plat of "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka" 0 C~ C.V£r ! cL:F'.T r,.--I b Don Bonnickson o PHONE 472-1717 Don Bonnickson ..', PHONE 472-1717 Don Bonnickson PHONE 472-1717 ' Hennepin County Property Information by PID No. Page 1 of 3 Hennepin County, MN Property Information Search Results Property Information is updated at the beginning of each month. Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 1998 Property ID: 13-117-24 31 0052 Municipality Name: MOUND Construction Year: 1923 Owner Name: TERRI A KLEIN Property Address: 2156 CENTI~RVIEW LA School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 Sewer Dist: i iParcel Size: 50 X 170 [~xpayer Name & Address: TERRI A BONNICKSEN 2156 CENTERVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 ------- * Most Current Sales Information · Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. _ Sale Date: July, 1992 Sale Price: $ 55,000 Transaction Type: Warranty Deed Tax Parcel Description Lot: Block: 007 IAddition Name: __ IABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDN LAKE SIDE PARK__ i Metes & Bounds: LOTS 8 AND 31 Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 1998 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1997 · http ://WWW2.co.hermepin.mn.us/servlet/PidSrchMD 6/24/1998 GENERAL ZONTNG ENFORMATION SI{EET Required Lot Width: /~(~ / (frontage on an improved public ~xis~ing LO% Wig%h__ ~ / , Depth ~O / SETBACKS REQUIRED: PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT: /_N,_ $ · SIDE: ~$HO~: 50' (measured from XISTING ~/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: ~/' ' PRINC~ PAL BUILDING FRONT: N S FRONT: N S E W SIDE: , N ~ E W SIDE: ~ W PEAR: N $ Z W LAKES HOR~: IS TH~~ONFORMING? YES Lot of Record? yes~%, no__ ?__ ~CCESSORY BUILDING / FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W ~/~' 9F 6' SIDE: N S E Wl,%,~./91. ~' ~: N S E W ~SHO~: 50' (measured from O.H.W. } FRONT: N S E W ~: N S E W LAKESHORE: NOx~ ~/. WILL THE PROPOSED IJ4PROV~M~NTS CONFORM? ----%-~ / YE~ NO July 28, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 6381 MAPLE ROAD, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PIDS 14-117-24 32 0024 & 14-117-24 32 0025, P & Z CASE #98-40 WHEREAS, the applicants, Steve and Elizabeth Ann Farley Kakos, have submitted a Minor Subdivision request for a boundary adjustment that is in full compliance with the City Zoning Code, Section 330:20, Subd. 1 .B; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the property located south of Maple Lane, north of Walnut Lane and west of vacated Forest Lane and is recorded as two separate tax parcels; and, WHEREAS, the lot line separating the parcel is proposed to be moved 20 feet south of its present location and would maintain two (2) parcels that meet all zoning code requirements for lot area; and, WHEREAS, lot 2 h~s recently been granted a street frontage variance with the approval Resolution # 98-66 which would provide the opportunity for residential development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subd. 1 .B. with the following conditions: 1. A drainage easement be provided for the gully on lots 1 and 2. 2. Drainage easements be provided along all lot lines of lots 1 and 2, 5 feet in width on interior lot lines and ten feet wide abutting platted right-of-way. July 28, 7998 Kakos - 6381 Maple Rd Page 2 This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: LOT 1: LOT 1 AND THE NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE AND THAT PART OF THE WESTERLY HALF OF VACATED FOREST LANE WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE EASTERLY EXTENSIONS OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PID # 14-11 7-24 32 0024 ' LOT 2: LOT 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, EXCEPT THE NORTH 20 FEET OTHEREOF AND INCLUDING THAT PART OF THE WESTERLY HALF OF VACATED FOREST LANE WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE EASTERLY EXTENSIONS OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 20 FEET OF SAID LOT 2 AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PID # 14-1 17-24 32 0025 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-40: MINOR SUBDIVISION, RELOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE, STEVEN & ELIZABETH ANN FARLEY KAKOS, 6381 MAPLE ROAD, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117-24 32 0024 & 14-117-24 32 0025 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicants, Steven and Elizabeth Ann Farley Kakos, are requesting a minor subdivision to lots 1 and 2, Block 4 of Mound Terrace including the vacated portion of Forest Lane located between Maple and Walnut Lane. The proposal is to shift the lot line separating the parcels 20 feet to the south for purposes of gaining additional yard space for the existing house located on lot 1. As proposed the parcels would meet the minimum zoning requirements for lot area as prescribed by the R-1 District. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Lot 2 just received a variance for a private driveway with conditions as stated in Resolution #98- 66. The cases are related however, the conditions for approval should be separated out to address those issues specific to each action. This will prevent items like street and utility assessments that are specific to lot 2 from being construed to apply to lot 1. As required as a condition of approval of the driveway permit was a drainage easement for lot 2 along the gully. Lot 1 is also absent an easement and would be appropriate to continue the easement from lot 2. The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions: A drainage easement be provided for the gully on lots 1 and 2. Drainage easements be provided along all lot lines of lots 1 and 2, 5 feet in width on interior lot lines and ten feet wide abutting platted right-of-way. DISCUSSION: No discussion on this case. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff's recommendation of approval as stated. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Elizabeth Ann Farley Kakos and Steven Kakos - 6381 Maple Road CASE NUMBER: 98-40 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5hh LOCATION: 6381 Maple Road ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to lots 1 and 2, Block 4 of Mound Terrace including the vacated portion of Forest Lane located between Maple and Walnut Lane. The proposal is to shift the lot line separating the parcels 20 feet to the south for purposes of gaining additional yard space for the existing house located on lot 1. As proposed the parcels would meet the minimum zoning requirements for lot area as prescribed by the R-1 District. Lot 2 just received a variance for a private driveway with conditions as stated in Resolution #98- 66. The cases are related however, the conditions for approval should be separated out to address those issues specific to each action. This will prevent items like street and utility assessments that are specific to lot 2 from being construed to apply to lot 1. As required as a condition of approval of the driveway permit was a drainage easement for lot 2 along the gully. Lot 1 is also absent an easement and would be appropriate to continue the easement from lot 2. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. 1. A drainage easement be provided for the gully on lots 1 and 2. 2. Drainage easements be provided along all lot lines of lots 1 and 2, 5 feet in width on interior lot lines and ten feet wide abutting platted right-of-way. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CASE NO.: MFRA FILE NO.: July 8, 1998 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Minor Subdivision, Kakos Property 98-40 12112 As requested, we have reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Both of these platted lots are well above the minimum lot size as required by the City's zoning code; therefore, the proposed lot line adjustment will not adversely affect the square footage of either parcel. In fact, it would make the proposed parcels closer to the same size. The same conditions need to be attached to the approval of a minor subdivision as were required in the variance approval for the private driveway under Case #98-34 and Resolution #98-66. This would include, but not limited to the following conditions: a. Drainage easement to cover the area of the gully which runs from south of Lot 2, northerly to the storm sewer inlet at Maple Road. b. Street extension of Walnut Road would be required if (1) the new parcel formed from Lot 2 is ever subdivided or (2) more than 2 private driveways are ever requested from the end of improved Walnut Road. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. M/nne$ota· 55447 pi?one 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-marl, rnfra~ nTfra.com Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning July 8, 1998 Page 2 The City watermain would need to be extended if (1) the new parcel formed from Lot 2 is ever subdivided or (2) more than 2 services are ever requested from the end of the existing City watermain in Walnut Road In addition to the drainage easement previously mentioned for the exiting gully, utility and drainage easements should be provided along all lot lines, five feet in width on interior lot lines and ten feet wide abutting platted right-of-way. Resolution #98-66 approving the lot frontage variance contains a condition under If. which states "No Building Permits shall be issued for improvements on the property until the Fire Marshall is satisfied that there is sufficient water pressure to fight a fire". We have not heard if the fire department has determined whether the existing hydrants in this area have sufficient pressure and volume to meet the recommended standards. About 10 to 12 years ago flow tests were taken which indicated some of the hydrants in this area had flows that were borderline. At that time it was determined the most feasible solution to low pressures was to finish looping the 10" main in West Edge Boulevard. This would give a direct connection between the Dutch Lake area and the water tower on Evergreen Lane and should greatly improve the water pressure and volume as required by the fire department. We believe the burden of providing fire-fighting capabilities should be the responsibility of the City and not one individual residential property owner; therefore, the aforementioned condition should not be a requirement of the approval. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group Greg Skinner, Public Works, City of Mound e:\main:\\12112\suther7-7 Rev. 11-14-97 Application for ,i ~, I, ,, MINOR SUBDMSION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: ~E) L Distribution: City Plamner Public Works City Engineer d t_w t //979~ q't~D NR Application Fee: $75.00 Escrow Deposit: $1,000 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? J~ D VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subiect Address DISTRICT Circle: R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~r~ other: Address OWNER Name (if other than applicant) Address Phone {H) (W) SURVEYOR/ Phone(H, Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. ~;)~. (~o.C-~ :-¢- q~-~q ~ ......... ~ , , '~ / .... ion ~e signed' by ~ow~ of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. 'wner'~;~ignature )~e CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA '~'"""" LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ~z_~ = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 40% 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 betv~een boards) with a LENGTH WIDTH sa FT x : 174 X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER qO&U." TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE 23 June 1998 TO: City of Mound Planning Commission FROM: ELIZABETH FARLEY KAKOS and STEPHEN KAKOS RE: Application for minor subdivision Attached, please find the application (with $1075.O0 check) and survey for the subdivision of the property known as: Lot 2, BIk 4. Mound Terrace. The applicant seeks to add 20' of the North end of Lot 2, BIk 4. Mound Terrace to the South end of to Lot 1, BIk 4. Mound Terrace to enlarge the back yard of the existing house on Lot 1, BIk 4. Mound Terrace. Please call me at work: 474.0625, if you have questions and/or comments. Respectfully, Elizabeth A.Farley Kakos ¸-;% Certificate cf Su~zey ."or St~ phen :'~. Kakes of ~t !, !'lcck 4, Mound Terrace Hcnr;e:~in Ccm~:ty, MJ. nneseta / / RECEIVED J U N 2 ~ 1998 MOUND PLANNING & tNSP, ti: n of ail. ~:j_?~r:~: t t:ii~in:,.:~ if ~-.riy, third, r:, and the 'L-~cat. ier. nf n ;)rrr,c;r,t~ ::~:il':in,-. It ~?oes ~.(.:t :)urz. r, rt to snow other' GCR!X,F h. CCFFIk C(:., S 89°23, E 61.0 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR STEPHEN A. KAKOS OF LOT 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA '-- R=26.91 '.:'.:: .... A=28°02' 16" '"- ' L=13.2 "-. '--._ ~ x x \ x x ,, ,\ ° ". '. '.. x ', ', , ', x', .4f ' . I ,' ' , , ~7 ' , '. , ,' . , , , , . , ,, /,. ,,,,,.., / , . ,' _"~ l<f~.,), , ,' ~., , ,' ,, ~.,, ,' , / , ,. . ' ,, Y.~'~' .,' ,' I ,' ,' ........ / ,.,,,,, ,~ ~_,,' ,, ,, 6=98"30' ' ,' " / ,' ,' ~ L=2g.63 MEAS. ,,' , / ,' ~ ~ L=22.2' , / ,' 0 denotes ~ro~ marker ~F( ~~' mean ~a level datum ~ .... * : denotes distance os shown on the plat of Mound Terrace JUN 2 q 1998 Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the bounderies of the above described property. It does not purport to show any MOUND PLANNING & INSF. other improvements or encroachments. 97- 478 ' - Proposed'L~t Division for Stephen & Liz Kakos in Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, MOUND TERRACE Bennepin County, Minnesota Existing Legal Description. Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, MOUND TERRACE and that part of the westerly half of vacated Forest Lane which lies between the easterly exten- sions of t~e Southeasterly line of said Lot 2 and the South line of the North 30 feet of said Lot 1. ~roposed Legal Description~ Lot 1 and the North 20 f~t of Lot 2, Block 4, MOUND TERRACE and that part of the westerly half of vacated Forest Lane which l~e~ between the easterly extensions of the South lin~cftheN~f~oC~z~ Lot 2 and the South line of the North 30 feet of said Lot [. Lot 2, Block 4, MOUND TERRACE except the North 20 feet thereof and including that part of the westerly half Of vacated Forest Lane which lies between the easterly extensions of the South line of the North 20 feet of said Lot 2 and the Southeasterly line of said Lot 2. RECEIVED JUN 2 q 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Hennepin County Property Information by PID No. Page 1 of 3 ........Hennepin County, MN Property Information Search Results Property Information is updated at the beginning of each month. Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 1998 Property ID: 14-117-24 32 0024 Municipality Name: MOUND Property Address: 6381 MAPLE RD School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 Sewer Dist: Construction Year: 1984 Owner Name: S & E KAKOS i Parcel Size: IRREGULAR I Taxpayer Name & Address: STEPHEN & ELIZABETH KAKOS 6381 MAPLE RD MOUND MN 55364 * Most Current Sales Information * Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. NO SALE INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY. Tax Parcel Description i i Addition Name: ]i MOUND TERRACE Lot: 001 Block: 004 Metes & BoUnds: INCL ADJ 1/2 OF VAC STREET SUBJECT TO ROAD Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 1998 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1997 http://(vww2.co.hermepin.mn.us/servlet/PidSrchMD 6/24/1998 Hennepin County Property Information by PID No. Page 1 of 3 Hennepin County, MN Property Information Search Results Property Information is updated at the beginning of each month. Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 1998 Property ID: 14-117-24 32 0025 iProperty Address: 6381 MAPLE RD Municipality Name: MOUND i School Dist: 277 [Watershed: 3 i Sewer Dist: Construction Year: i Parcel Size: IRREGULAR Owner Name: S & E KAKOS Taxpayer Name & Address: STEPHEN & ELIZABETH KAKOS 6381 MAPLE RD MOUND MN 55364 * Most Current Sales Information * Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. NO SALE INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY. Tax Parcel Description il Addition Name: ii MOLrND TERRACE Lot: 002 Block: 004 Metes & Bounds: INCL ADJ 1/2 OF VAC STREET Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 1998 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1997 http://(vww2.co.hermepin.mn.us/servlet/PidSrchMD 6/24' CITY ()F MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO YARD DIREC~FION J ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~~ 7,soo/o R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/B0 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTII: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT N S E W N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W P, EAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' l'OP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' SIIEll ..... DETACI1ED BUILDINGS )NT N S E W N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' REAR N S E W AKE N S E W OF IIIMFF 1 IARDCOVER qFORMING? YES / NO Planning Department at 472-0600. 50' 10' OR 30' 30% OR 40% ? pi,': 1DATED: This Zoning Inhumation Shcct tuffy summarizes a portion of Oxe requirements outlined in fl~e City of Mound Zoning Ozdinance. For further information, con,ct the City of Mound t (9: '- ,3.6 i 0 O. (s oo ,~0 ..~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~4 I~ I cq ~0 ~ 00 July 28, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A CONSTRUCTION OF LIVING SPACE AND GARAGE ADDITIONS TO THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING, AT 4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 14, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS I & 32 SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-24 41 0043 P & Z CASE # 98-42 WHEREAS, the applicants, Michael and Sonja Schulz, have applied a side yard setback variance to allow for construction of living space and garage additions to the front of the house at 4878 Edgewater Drive; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requiresaa~minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of ~,feet, and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record and Lakeside setback of 50 feet; and, WHEREAS, the existing structure is 4.8 feet from the side yard, requiring a 1.2 foot side yard setback variance; and, WHEREAS, the property received a variance for an attached garage addition and received Resolution 90-99 recognizing the 4.8 feet side yard setback; and, WHEREAS, the current proposal is to add a 24' x 26' addition to the street side of the house to be used as a 2"d story garage and 1st floor hobby shop; and, WHEREAS, the proposed addition would continue the existing 4.8 feet side yard setback variance; and, WHEREAS, the hardcover is under the 40 percent allowable for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with conditions; and, July 28, 1998 Schulz - 4878 Edgewater 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 1.2 foot side yard setback variance as recommended by the Planning Commission with the following conditions: A. The applicant provide a complete grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit as required by the~. ~',~ 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 nonconforming addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 14, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD, 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0, BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-42: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ADD AN ADDITION, MICHAEL & SONJA SCHULZ, 4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 14, SUB LOTS 1 & 32 RAVENSWOOD, PID # 13-117-24 41 0043 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicants, Michael & Sonja Schulz, are requesting a variance to allow living space and garage additions to the front of the house. The variance request includes the following. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 4.8' 6' 1.2' Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 The property received a variance for an attached garage addition in 1990 as approved by Resolution #90-99 which recognized the 4.8 feet side yard. The current proposal is to add a 24 feet by 26 feet addition to the street side of the house to be used as a 2nd story garage and 1st floor hobby shop. The existing parking area would be used as the driveway to the new garage. The existing garage would be converted to a mud and dining room. The existing driveway would be removed and converted to green space. A retaining wall would be extended for an additional parking space adjacent to the road. The roof line of the home would be modified the new garage addition. The addition would maintain the existing 4.8 feet side yard setback. Hardcover is under the 40 percent allowable for lots of record. Total hardcover is 3244.2 square feet which is under the requirement by 215.8 square feet. The City Engineer would like to see an updated survey at the time of building permit that shows the elevations of the parking area and retaining wall as required by code. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height require an engineered wall and the survey is needed to determine proper design. The water drainage on the driveway will be diverted to the lake rather than running into the street. The improvements will not expand the existing nonconformity of the house and should increase the livability of the property. The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request with the following conditions: The applicant provide a complete grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit as required by the building permit survey requirements. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned if the new addition would further encroach on the setback. Sutherland stated that the addition would be following the existing line and would not further encroach in the setback. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to recommend Staff's recommendation to approve the variance request for the addition. Motion carried 7-0. The applicant stated that the chimney box will be removed with the construction of the addition. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 3 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Michael and Son. ja Schulz - 4878 Edgewater Drive CASE NUMBER: 98-42 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5jj LOCATION: 4878 Edgewater Drive ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow living space and garage additions to the front of the house. The variance request includes the following. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 4.8' 6' 1.2' The property received a variance for an attached garage addition in 1990 as approved by Resolution #90-99 which recognized the 4.8 feet side yard. The current proposal is to add a 24 feet by 26 feet addition to the street side of the house to be used as a 2na story garage and 1 st floor hobby shop. The existing parking area would be used as the driveway to the new garage. The existing garage would be converted to a mud and dining room. The existing driveway would be removed and converted to greenspace. A retaining wall would be extended for an additional parking space adjacent to the road. The roof line of the home would be modified the new garage addition. The addition would maintain the existing 4.8 feet side yard setback. Hardcover is under the 40 percent allowable for lots of record. Total hardcover is 3244.2 square feet which is under the requirement by 215.8 square feet. 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): 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-42 Shultz Variance Request duly 13, 1998 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. 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 City Engineer would like to see an updated survey at the time of building permit that shows the elevations of the parking area and retaining wall as required by code. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height require an engineered wall and the survey is needed to determine proper design. The water drainage on the driveway will be diverted to the lake rather than running into the street. The improvements will not expand the existing nonconformity of the house and should increase the livability of the property. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request with the following conditions. 1. The applicant provide a complete grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit as required by the building permit survey requirements. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 ,I .,J ml ill ~, VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: Case No. City Council Date: Distribution::'~Z~J-'-'I~~ City Planner ~ DNR - ~ ~ City Engineer Other -~--~ Public Works PROPERTY Lot LEGAL Block PID~ /,~-//¢-~ 'g/ ~~ ...... Plat ~ OWNER Address ~.~?~ ~,o~',-~ i~¢ ~~ ~/~/ Phone (H)//~-~7~-,~I~ (W) &/~-?~-~to ? (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 I, , lit 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 SETBACKS' reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard' (N S E ~) ~.~ (.~ ft. ~r-.~ ~ ft. Side Yard: (~;i~S E W ) ~ ft. ~, ~ ft. Side Yard: (N~W) '~ ft. /~.%~ ft. Rear Yard: (N~) ~O~ 'ft. ~ ~--ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. : (N SEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~ ft. ft. Lot Size: ~,C~ sq ft ~GS~ sq ft Hardcover: ~(~ sqft ~~,~qft 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? Yest~, 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? ~X~'too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (X~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ('7~'shape ( ) other: specify 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 JX~. 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 ~X~, 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. (Rev. 11/14/9 7) 164 August 28, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90-99' RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE ADDITION AT 4878 EDGEWAI~ER DRIVE LOT 14, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS I & 32 SKARP & LINDOUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24-41 0043 (P&Z CASE NO. 90-925) WHEREAS, the applicant has applied For a vartance to recog- nize an existing nonconforming slde yard setback of 4.8 Feet the principal building to allow construction of a 24' x 20' one story garage addition 4.8 Feet From the stde property line at 4878 Edgewater Drive, Lot i4, Subdivision of Lots ! & 32' Skarp & Llndqulsts Ravenswood, PID #13-117-24-41 0043; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a 20 Foot Front yard setback, a 6 Foot side yard set- back, and a 50 Foot setback From the Ordinary High Water; and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al- teratlons may be made to a bulldlng contalnlng a lawful, noncon- Forming residential property when the alterations w!11 Improve the Ilvabllity thereof, but the alteration may not Increase the number of units; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval due to the shape of the parcel and to afford the owner reasonable use of their land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as Follows: The City does hereby authorize the nonconforming setback to the north side property line of 4.8 Feet For the property located at Lot 14, Subdivision of Lots I & 32 Skarp & Lindqulsts Ravenswood, PID #J3-JJ7-2414J 0043. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violations and authorizes the alteration set Forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) 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. 165 August 28, 1990 It Is determined that the Ilvabfllty oF the residential property will be Improved by the authorization oF the lowing alterations to a nonconforming use oF the property to aFFord the owner reasonable use oF hls land. To construct a 24' x 20' one story garage addition 4.8 Feet From the north side property line onto an existing nonconforming principal structure which Is setl~mck Feet From the north side property line. This variance Is granted For the Following legally described property: Lot 14, Subdivision oF Lots I & 32 Skarp & LIndqulsts Ravenswood, PID #13-117-24-4! 0043. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar oF Titles In Hennepln County pursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used· ® The property owner shall have the responsibility oF Filing this resolution wlth Hennepln County and paying all costs For such recording· The building permit shall not be Issued until proof oF recording has been Filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jess·n, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Atf~st: City Clerk Mayor CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULA TION,~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = TOTALHOUSE TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER .................. X = X X = X = X TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ',.~,~ ,Z-/-/-/: ~_,~1 /OVER (indicate difference) ....... BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 The apl3ticant is: Xowner __contractor __tenant LEGAL Lot /~ Block Plat, DESCRIPTION Subdivision ~"~ S [ ~ 3 ~ PlO# CON~CTQR Company Name Mcense Contact Person Address Phone (H) (W) ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) .(M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: ~0.__ 'o~,~~¢ x,~:~,/Jf-' . , , (':?)~-~¢ VALUATION ~~~C> - ~_~?~ 0~ VALUE APPROVED: 0F WORK: SEP~AT[ ~ERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ~ECTRICAL, PLUMBING, H~TING, VENTI~NG 0R AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS ~EOOME NULL ANQ VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC~ON AU~ORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED ~THIN 180 DAYS, 0R IF CONSTRuc~ON OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR FOR A P~RIC0 OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME A~ER WORK tS COMMENCED. TIME LIM~TS ON BUILDING 0OMPL~ION. ALLWORK TO BE p~FORMED PURSUANT T0 A BUI~ING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR N~CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS. REMODELING. ~ ALTERATIONS TO T~ ~=~ICRS ~ ANY 8~ILDIN~'OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL ~E COMPL~ED ~IN ONE (li Y~ FROM ~E DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCe. ~E PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPER~ SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPL~ION. A VIO~TION OF THIS ORDINANC~ IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CCUNC:L MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPL~ION UPON WRI~EN REQUEST OF THE PERMISEt. ESTABUSHING TO ~E R~SONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE C~ CO~NC[L THAT C=ROUMSTANCES B~ON~ THE CONTROL OF THE P~MI~E PR~ENTED COMPL~ON 0F THE WORK ~R ~IOH THE P~MIT WAS GRANTED. THE ~T~SION SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN THIR~ (30) ~USINE$S DAYS PRIOR TO THE ~O OF THE ONE-Y~R P~IOO. I HEREBY ~ ~AT I HAVE R~D AND ~AMINED ~IS APPLICATION AND KNOW ~E S~E T0 BE TRUE ANO CORRECT. ALL p~OVI~IONS OF LAWS AND OR01NANCES GOVERNING THIS ~P~ 0~ WORK ~LL BE COMPLIED WITH WH~HER SPEC[RED HEREIN OR NOT, ~E GRAN~NG 0F A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORI~ TO VIOLAT~ CR =AN~L THE PROVtSICN$ 0F ANY OTHER STATE 0R LOCAL ~W REGULATING CONSTRUCTION 0R THE P~FORMANC~ 0F CONSTRUCTION. x (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP I OlV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED I ZONING BLDG S~ZE (SO PT) ,f STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? I CITY ENGINEER # UNPrS YES / NO I PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVED JUN 2 5 !998 PLANNING & INSR JUN 24 '98 14:05' 612 824 2631 Z ~ 0 ~ Z '0 °0 ~J ~J ( Hennepin County Property Information by PID No. Page 1 of 3 Hennepin County, MN Property Information Search Results Property Information is updated at the beginning of each month. Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 1998 Property ID: 13-117-24 41 0043 Property Address: 4878 EDGEWATER DR Municipality Name: MOUND School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 i~ Sewer Dist: Construction Year: 1920 Parcel Size: 40 X 192 Owner Name: M D SCHULZ & S M SCHULZ Taxpayer Name & Address: i MICHAEL D SCHULZ & SONJA M SCHULZ 4878 EDGEWATER DR ' MOUND MN 55364 * Most Current Sales Information · Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. _ .. Sale Date: September, 1997 Sale Price: $197,000 Transaction Type: Warranty Deed Tax Parcel Description Lot: 014 Block: I Addition Name: ~ SUBD SKARP LINDQUIST RAVEN-LOT 1 & 32 Metes & Bounds: Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 1998 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1997 http ://¢~vw2.co.hermepin.mn.us/servlet/PidSrchMD 6/25/1998 ADDRESS: CII'Y OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIlEET SURVEY ON F/LE'?~ NO LOT OF RECORD? ~1 NO YARD I DIREf?TION I IIOUSE ......... FRONT ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10tO00/60 BI 7,500/0 ~ B2 20,000/80 R2 ~,000/40 B3 10o000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N $ E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOf OF BLIIFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W N S E W FRONT SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE TOP OF BLUFF IIARDCOVf~R CONFORMIN(;? YES / NO N S E W 30% OR 40% IBY: 50' 10' OR 30' JDATED: EXI~:!'!NG I.OT T ¥1DTIt: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE 'FIdSPlanningZOningDepartmenllnfimnational 472-0600.Sheet 9n1¥ sununarizes a portion of d~e requiremcnt.s outlined ill the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further reformation, contact the City of Mound -- ARBOR LA ~ o · ---% O~ I I C) r--. July 28, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #97-58 FOR 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & PART OF LOT 7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-117-24 11 0005 P & Z CASE #98-44 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Sue O'Hearn, have requested a one year extension of the variance granted by Resolution #97-58 on June 24, 1997; and, WHEREAS, Resolution # 97-58 approved a variance requesting a front yard setback variance and a side yard setback variance of 6 feet and .2 feet respectively to allow the construction of conforming deck addition; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have not yet finished the hand and guardrail portion of the construction; and, WHEREAS, City Code Section 350:530, Subd. 2.E. states that a variance shall become null and void if the use as permitted by the variance has not been completed within one year after granting the variance, unless a petition for extension is submitted; and, WHEREAS, all variances are limited to one extension; and, WHEREAS, a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance has been provided; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed to request for the extension and unanimously recommended approval; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to hereby approve of a one (1) year extension of the variance originally granted by Resolution # 97-58 on June 24, 1997 with the following condition: 1. This variance will expire on July 28, 1999. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orr Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-44: VARIANCE EXTENSION' FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, JIM & SUE O['IHEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8, & PI7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 13-117-24 11 0005 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicants, Jim & Sue O'Hearn, are requesting a variance extension to Resolution #97-58 to finish a deck project. The home sits 14 feet from the front lot line and 5.8 feet from the side lot line. The deck maintains a 69 feet setback from the lake. Improvements made to date are in conformance with the previous resolution and a hand and guardrail are left to finish. The applicants site the reasons for the Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance extension as requested. The variance would be valid for one year from the date of the resolution. DISCUSSION: No discussion was made on this case. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff's recommendation of approval for a one year extension of Resolution #97-58. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 2 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Extension OWNER: Jim and Sue O'Heam- 1786 Shorewood Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-44 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5hh LOCATION: 1786 Shorewood Lane ZONING: Residential District R-IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are requesting a variance extension to Resolution #97-58 to finish a deck project. The home sits 14 feet fi.om the front lot line and 5.8 feet fi.om the side lot line. The deck maintains a 69 feet setback fi.om the lake. Improvements made to date are in conformance with the previous resolution and a hand and guardrial are left to finish. The applicants site the reasons for the RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance extension as requested. The variance would be valid for one year fi.om the date of the resolution. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Jim & Sue O'Hearn 1786 Shorewood Lane Mound, MN. 55364 June 26, 1998 City of Mound Building Permit Division 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Gentlemen: As you know, the building permit application at this address will soon expire. Please consider this letter a request for an extension of the required completion date. The following are a number of reasons why this project has not been completed: A late start in construction due to the permit approval process, required survey, and variance. The necessity of we the homeowners correcting the guardrail and handrail installation because the contractor's work did not meet your code requirements. Considerable resources spent clearing debris from several storms including two large (65 ft.) oak trees. Loss of my job with all time off benefits, starting a new job with long hours, and no immediate time off benefits. Due to economic necessity I plan to complete this work myself. However, if I can not complete it this summer I will contract the work to be done this fall. We would appreciate your favorable consideration in this matter. Respectfully, RECEIVED J U N 3 0 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION//97-58 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD & SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOIl A CONFORMING DECK AT 1786 SttOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & P/7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE//97-21 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on June 24, 1997 . WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the sale of said City, this 25th day of June, 1997. CITY CLERK seal June 24, 1997 RESOLUTION #97-58 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD & SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR A CONFORMING DECK AT 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & P/7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE//97-21 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Sue O'Hearn, are seeking setback variances as described below, in order to construct a conforming deck addition, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the existing home sits within 14 feet of the front lot line and 5.8 feet of the north side lot line, this results in a setback variance of 6 feet to the front and .2 feet to the north side lot line respectively, and: WHEREAS, the proposed construction consists of an elevated deck that measures 19.6' x 8' and will tie into an existing deck and provide a stairway connection to the rear of the yard, and; WHEREAS, the existing non-con fori'ning aspects will likely remain into the future and the proposed constructions conforms to all zoning requirements, and; WHEREAS, the proposed deck addition is conforming to the 50' setback to the lake and the existing shed is also conforming to setbacks. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance of 6 feet and a north side lot line variance of .2 feet to allow construction of a conforming 19.6' x 8' deck addition. 95 o June 24, 1997 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 8 & P/7 & 9, Block 3, Shadywood Point o This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (I). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. Tile property owner shall have the responsibility of filing ti'ds 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 Councihnember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. Tile following Councihnembers voted in tine affirmative: Hanus, Ahrens, Jensen, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Bone. SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor Attest: City Clerk 96 *1.1 '1.2 Mouml City Council Mimttes - June 24, 1997 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ,JUNE 17, 1997 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously. CASE 97-21: VARIANCE FOR DECK. ,JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 7 & 8 P/8, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0005. RESOLUTION#97-58 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD & SIDEYARD VARIANCE FOR A CONFORMING DECK AT 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & p/7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE #9%21 Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #97-21: VARIANCE FOR DECK, JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 7 & 8 P/8, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24. 11 0005. Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report. The applicants are seeking setback variances in order to construct a conforming deck addition. The existing home sits within 14 feet of the front lot line and 5.8 feet of the north side lot line. This situation results in setback variances of 6 feet and .2 feet respectively. The lot is in compliance with all other zoning requirements including impervious cover limitations. Comments The existing non-conforming home is in very good condition. The proposed construction consists of an elevated deck that measures 19.6 feet by 8 feet. The new deck will tie into an existing deck and provide a stairway connection to the rear yard. The proposed deck addition observes a 69 foot setback from the O.H.W. of Lake Minnetonka. Recommendation The non-conforming aspects of the existing property are likely to remain well into the future. The proposed construction conforms to all zoning requirements. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow the new deck construction due to the "practical difficulty" that results from the setbacks of the existing home. Hanus questioned why a detached garage needs to be farther from the street than a detached garage. He then stated, an attached garage could easily become a part of the house. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma, and carried 6 - 0, to approve a 6 foot front yard variance and a .2 foot side yard variance for a existing non- conforming structure to allow the construction of a conforming 19.6 x 8 foot deck addition. Weiland commented about the existing shed being conforming, and it was. Chair Michael stated this item would be on the June 24, 1997 City Council agenda. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Jim and Sue O'Hearn CASE NUMBER: 97-21 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5k LOCATION: 1786 Shorewood Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- 1 A) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are seeking setback variances in order to construct a conforming deck addition. The existing home sits within 14 feet of the front lot line and 5.8 feet of the north side lot line. This situation results in setback variances of 6 feet and .2 feet respectively. The lot is in compliance with all other zoning requirements including impervious cover limitations. COMMENTS: The existing non-conforming home is in very good condition. The proposed construction consists of an elevated deck that measures 19.6 feet by 8 feet. The new deck will tie into an existing deck and provide a stairway connection to the rear yard. The proposed deck addition observes a 69 foot setback from the O.H.W. of Lake Minnetonka. RECOMMENDATION: The non-conforming aspects of the existing property are likely to remain well into the future. The proposed construction conforms to all zoning requirements. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow the new deck construction due to the "practical difficulty" that results from the setbacks of the existing home. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 A VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: 6Y/~'/~ "7 City Council Date: ~ -0 q~- 9 7 Distribution: ~-3-7-q '7 City Planner Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: Case No. Please type or print the fonowing information: Address of Subject Property ,r" '? ,[~(: ('~'f C/~: t ~--" C: C: (--'f / n ^/-~' / ( :,'x-,~-'n 4 / Block (/'" ' -/-~,?c~/~/ Day Phone Owner's Name Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address kc H .~y-Phone ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ / Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property'?. ( ) yes, (~y~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): /¢5× q Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, an~ ~et~k £egulations for the zoning district in which it is locat _eqJ?~Yges (), No ~. If no, specify each nbn-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i,e~. setbac.k,, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: ~ reqmrea requested- ' - Front Yard: (1~. S F_~,-) , .~,-'~(-'" ft. / ~: ft. Side Yard: (oN $ E W ) ~-- ft. ,..C' ,Y' "' ft. Side-Y_ard:. ( I~i E W ) ~, ft. ..~II~- ~, ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. ff. '~_~__~s~_de.'- ' ( N S~E W ) , CC ft. ~ (2 ' ft. ' (NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. /// ft. Lot Size: sq ft /,..~. 5'-/>/sq ft Hardcover: sq ft 't/.-~gV(.'. &?'sq ft VARIANCE fro ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (.-y/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 ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: ]:'~ 7~/ C It ..~' ri _-.~ ] W~ ~.,.~-_, ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soi.1. (-.-)-(~dsting situation ( ) other: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyon%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? No (). If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this pefiton? Yes (), No (ff.'If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? / / ?/:,, / Comments: ) I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. CZTY OF MOUND HARDCOVER (IMPERVICUS SURFACE COVERAGE} PROPERTY ADDRESS: /7~g OWNER'S NAME: ~ = (for all lotsl .............. I = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I = (for detached buildings only) *E×isting Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided tibet techniques are utiiized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submit:ed and approved ~.y/.he Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/S HE~,) DRIVEWAY, PAAK]NG AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. ~ Open decks (1/4" min. ol~enin~ between boards) with ~e~iou~ surfac, under not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ lq' zo x ¢7 = II ~/o z~ ,4., x ~.s = IO?'/~'z X = TOTAL HOUSE X ? x // TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS /¢- x 50,7 x 41 TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC /¢ 7 ~'5-' x /---/-¢ x .~ Z277. = -' '742 = 75- = /~2 X /~.~ _x e~ = i¥-~.~ ......................... - TOTAL'-I~E~ ~ 4 f TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 8 and the Southeasterly 27.50 feet of Lot 7 also the Nodhwesterly 5 feet of Lot 9, Block 3, Shad~ood Point, Hennepin Count, Minnesota. I here~y ce~ify that this plan, su~ey, or repo~ was. JO~ SCHOBORG prepared bY me or under mY direct supe~ision end that I am a duly Registered Land Su~eyor under the laws of the State [ND SURVEY! NG ~ Minnes _ ~ Boo~ - PaGe ~.~.13SE Date: ~ /,/~ Registration No. 14700 ~2~1 ~1~o, MN ~ ' GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? YES /N~O'~ IEXIST. LOT AREA: · 4" so I' ,ooo/_ REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT WIDTH: 40' "70' e/_ REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BU)~-~ING/ HOUSE / FRONT: N S(~W ~'~.0 FRONT:/,~ S W ~' SIDE: (2J, s E W SLUE: ~ S)E W ~ ' REAR: N~ E W 11~ LAKESHORE: ~~. a ured TOP OF BLUFF: ~ from O.H.W.) ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED 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 LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: 4' or 6' 4' or 6' 4' 50' (measured from O.H.W.) EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE 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 LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HARDCOVER CONFORMING? BY:J~ YES I NO /o ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED 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 LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES / NO /f~) This General Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. VC o o ' O July 28, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BLUFF LINE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AT 6407 BAY RIDGE ROAD, LOT 5, BLOCK 3, THE BLUFFS PID 22-117-24 44 0012 P & Z CASE # 98-43 WHEREAS, the applicant, Fred Johnson, has applied for a variance to construct a new single family two story walkout home within a bluff impact zone on the property located at 6407 Bay Ridge Road; 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 side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record and Lakeside setback of 50 feet; and, WHEREAS, the slope varies from 25 to over 50 percent and is on average between 31 and 41 percent in the area between the front of the proposed house location and the lakeshore; and, WHEREAS, at no place does the slope average 18 percent or less which is used to determine the top of the bluff; and, WHEREAS, according to surveys of other developed properties along Bay Ridge Road the slopes are similar; and, WHEREAS, the Shoreland Management Ordinance had not been adopted when the subdivision was platted consequently, bluff regulations did not apply; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that because the property was a conforming lot when it was platted that there is a demonstrated hardship present and has recommended approval of the variance for this reason; and, July 28, 1998 Johnson - 6407 Bay Ridge Road Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant permission to build within a bluff impact zone 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: Construction of a new single family two story walkout home. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 5, BLOCK 3, THE BLUFFS, 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. ,i ,mL , ,~lll ,! a, Mound Planning Commission Minutes July iA, l§0j~, MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting, Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-42: VARIANCE, BLUFF LINE SETBACK AT 6407 BAY RIDGE ROAD, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME, FRED JOHNSON, 3510 TUXEDO BLVD, LOT 5, BLOCK 3, THE BLUFFS, PID # 22-117-24 44 0012 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant, Fred Johnson, is requesting a variance to build a home on a bluff. The property is a vacant lot located at 6407 Bay Ridge Road. The requested variances as listed on page 2 of the application are incorrect. What should be considered by the Commission is a variance to build a home on a bluff. The entire buildable area on the lot is considered a bluff under the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance meeting all four characteristics listed in the definition. Also, the lot meets the 60 feet street frontage requirement prescribed by the R-1 District. The Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 applicants 44 feet measurement was taken at the property line rather than at the 30 feet building setback line. All proposed lot area, width, setbacks, and hardcover would meet code requirements. The applicant is proposing to build a two story walkout home (see building plans). The house would have the following setbacks: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 35.5' 30' Side Yard (west) 10.5' 10' Side Yard (east) 17' 10' Rear Yard 61' 50' The survey delineates a bluff line shown in the rear yard of the home. There is in fact a visible steeper slope at this location but it does not meet the definition of a bluff. The slope on the lot varies from 25 to over 50 percent in some areas closer to the shoreline. On average, the slope is between 31 and 41 percent from the front of the house to the lakeshore. In no place does the slope drop below 18 percent that could be used to determine the top of the bluff. A grading plan for the Bluffs subdivision was not prepared when it was platted in 1974. We have reviewed available surveys of other lakeshore lots along Bay Ridge Road and found that the slopes are similar. It appears that the Shoreland Management Ordinance had not yet been adopted when the subdivision was developed so these homes did not fall into bluff regulations. Easements on the property include a drainage and utility easement along the northeast side yard line and a 10 feet utility easement at the street. The easement along the side property line also serves as overflow for the storm sewer intakes. Utilities are proposed to tie into existing lines in the street. As proposed, the baSement could be served with sewer service. There are a couple options the Planning Commission has in weighing the merits of the case. The first option is to deny the variance request maintaining the intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Planning Commission would determine that the proposal violates the bluff criteria. The second approach would be to determine a variance is warranted due to the fact the lot could have been built with the rest of the homes on the neighborhood and grand fathered into the Shoreland regulations. If this approach is taken, a detailed grading and erosion control plan will need to be prepared to minimize impact to the bluff. The new home should disrupt the least amount of soil as necessary by using proper grading techniques. To further stabilize the bluff the Commission may want to stipulate a tree preservation plan be prepared along with the grading plan. Maintaining as many trees as possible will help stabilize the slope and minimize visual impact from the lake. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 A related issue with this case is the development covenants. When the development was platted in 1974, development covenants were prepared to regulate, among other things, the height of homes to close to the lake to 15 feet measured from the street to protect views. There is also some question if the original covenants have been renewed. If they are in force, and the applicant is forced to build a one-story home it could potentially change the footprint of the home. This would require resubmittal of the information for review by the Planning Commission. Staff brings this up as a point of courtesy as the City does not enforce these private land use matters. The Planning Commission weigh the merits of the case and make an appropriate finding of fact to support a recommendation to Council. DISCUSSION: Hanus commented that it is a takings issue. That if the property is not developed, the city would be purchasing it. Mueller commented that this lot was platted before the shoreline management ordinance went into effect. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the bluff setback variance for a structure to fit on the building pad not to extend into the easement and not to exceed hardcover. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to City Council on July 28, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Fred Johnson- 3510 Tuxedo Road CASE NUMBER: 98-42 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5jkk LOCATION: 6407 Bay Ridge Road ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to build a home on a bluff. The property is a vacant lot located at 6407 Bay Ridge Road. The requested variances as listed on page 2 of the application are incorrect. What should be considered by the Commission is a variance to build a home on a bluff. The entire buildable area on the lot is considered a bluff under the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance meeting all four characteristics listed in the definition. Also, the lot meets the 60 feet street frontage requirement prescribed by the R-1 District. The applicants 44 feet measurement was taken at the property line rather than at the 30 feet building setback line. All proposed lot area, width, setbacks, and hardcover would meet code requirements. The applicant is proposing to build a two story walkout home (see building plans). The house would have the following setbacks: ~xisting./Proposed Required Frout Yard 35.5' 30' Side Yard (west) 10.5' 10' Side Yard (east) 17' 10' Rear Yard 61' 50' Variance The survey delineates a bluff line shown in the rear yard of the home. There is in fact a visible steeper slope at this location but it does not meet the definition of a bluff. The slope on the lot 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-43 Fred Johnson Variance Request duly 13, 1998 varies from 25 to over 50 percent in some areas closer to the shoreline. On average, the slope is between 31 and 41 percent from the front of the house to the lakeshore. In no place does the slope drop below 18 percent that could be used to determine the top of the bluff. A grading plan for the Bluffs subdivision was not prepared when it was platted in 1974. We have reviewed available surveys of other lakeshore lots along Bayridge Road and found that the slopes are similar. It appears that the Shoreland Management Ordinance had not yet been adopted when the subdivision was developed so these homes did not fall into bluff regulations. Easements on the property include a drainage and utility easement along the northeast side yard line and a 10 feet utility easement at the street. The easement along the side property line also serves as overflow for the storm sewer intakes. Utilities are proposed to tie into existing lines in the street. As proposed, the basement could be served with sewer servie. COMMENTS: A vafianc~ can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under3he Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Co That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. There are a couple options the Planning Commission has in weighing the merits of the case. The first option is to deny the variance request maintaining the intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Planning Commission would determine that the proposal violates the bluff 123 North Third Slxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-42 Schulz Variance Request July 13, 1998 criteria. The second approach would be to determine a variance is warranted due to the fact the lot could have been built with the rest of the homes on the neighborhood and grandfathered into the Shoreland regulations. If this approach is taken, a detailed grading and erosion control plan will need to be prepared to minimize impact to the bluff. The new home should disrupt the least amount of soil as necessary by using proper grading techniques. To further stabilize the bluff the Commission may want to stipulate a tree preservation plan be prepared along with the grading plan. Maintaining as many trees as possible will help stabilize the slope and minimize visual impact from the lake. A related issue with this case is the development covenants. When the development was platted in 1974, development covenants were prepared to regulate, among other things, the height of homes to close to the lake to 15 feet measured from the street to protect views. There is also some question if the original covenants have been renewed. If they are in force, and the applicant is forced to build a one-story home it could potentially change the footprint of the home. This would require resubmittal of the information for review by the Planning Commission. Staff brings this up as a point of courtesy as the City does not enforce these private land use matters. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission weigh the merits of the case and make an appropriate finding of fact to support a recommendation to Council. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 C,: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 City Council Date: ~-~[~\~.J X('"~'. Iq'q~'~ Distribution: ~-~< ~. City Planner ~'~q~ DNR f .~.._C.~ City Engineer ~,~. ~ tc-~. ~ . ~ Other ~"~ Public Works / ~,~,.~ ~ SUBJECT Address ~Oq ~~ ~i~e. ~~ PROPERTY Lot ~- ~-' I ' "-'~ ' ' LEGAL Block .ESC. Subdivision OWNER Address ~ i ~ ~~ Phone (H) qT~ ~%/0 (W) ~S~ ~M~ APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for.zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (-~"o. 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.): Variance Application, P. 2 o Do the existing structures comply with a~l area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~,No ('~)~d'f 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: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakesi~dA: NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW : NSEW Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. 3~. ~J- ft. ft. [O , ~- ft. ft. IS "/- ft. ft. ft. ft. '~ ft. ft. ~( ~ ft. sqft Io~Gi¥ sqft sqft '~--~ 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 (~,£No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow describe: ~ ..~ (--)'~-~ography ( ) soil ( ) drainage (//)~isting situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify c..~~] (Rev. lI/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone h/~ving property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was the hards/hip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (v)'. 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? 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 ~[~~_~ C,, Applicant's Signature Date Date Engineering · Planning , Surveying MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FILE NO.: Jon Sutherland, Building Official John Cameron, City Engineer May 29, 1998 City of Mound Building Permit Application/Survey Review 6407 Bay Ridge Road Lot 5, Block 3, The Bluffs 12069 The following is a list of deficiencies we have noted when reviewing the survey submitted with the building permit application for subject property. This list includes items we discussed during our site visit on Wednesday, May 27. I have also discussed the accuracy of the bluff line as shown on subject survey with Mark Koegler and we concur it is not correct. We agree it should be much further up the slope, probably within the footprint of the proposed house, which will require a variance. Additional elevations will be required on the following list, which will enable us to more accurately determine the top of the bluff. 1. See attached copy of survey requirements. 2. Show all City utilities, both in the street right-of-way and in the easement. The sanitary sewer and storm sewer, including structures will need to be field located in the easement. (Requirement No. 6.) 3. Need existing elevations of adjacent buildings at both front and rear comer of the structures. (Requirement No. 8.) 4. Proposed driveway cannot interfere with existing catch basins. This is mountable curb; therefore the driveway can be moved west to miss these catch basins. Maximum allowable width of a driveway by code is 22 feet. (Requirement No. 10.) 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Jon Sutherland May 29, 1998 Page 2 5. (Requirement No. 12, a, c, e, and f.) We need many more existing elevations to allow for a complete review of the proposed grading. In addition, and as previously mentioned, the present survey does not have enough elevations shown to accurately define the bluff. On a lot such as this, contours need to be used in addition to the required spot elevations. 6. Our preliminary review of the proposed elevations for the house and garage indicate a more in-depth design by the builder and surveyor may be required. The 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the easterly property line cannot be regraded to alter the present drainage pattern. Without sufficient existing and proposed elevations, it is impossible to determine what is proposed. If retaining walls are required, as indicated on the house plans, then these must also be shown on the survey. (Requirements No. 13 and 14.) 7. We do not believe the 25-foot drainage and utility easement is shown correctly on the survey. It is drawn parallel to the lot line, whereas the plat indicates it is not parallel. This is probably the reason the comer of the house as staked in the field appears to be in the easement. We think it is. Attached is a copy of the original plat, which shows this easement. (Requirement No. 4.) Enclosure cc: Milton Hyland e:\main:\12069\sutherland5-28 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 Phone (H) &tOR Address ~GINEER Phons (H} CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: VALUATION OF WORK: VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE ~ERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING. HEATING. VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS ~ECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ~UTHORIZF.~ IS NOT COMMENCED W~THIN 180 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED O~ ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 OAYS AT ANY TIME A~ WORK IS ~M E LIMITS ON 8UILDIN G COMPL~ION. ALL WORK TO 8E PERFORM ED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT ~BTAIN ED FO~ N ~ CONSTRUCTION. REPAIRS. REMODELING. ~O ALT~ATIONS 7Q ;m~ ~7:~10R5 OF ANY 5UILDING 0R STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING 0ISTRICT SHALL ~E COMPLIED ~THIN ONE (1) Y~ FROM ~E DATE OF ~ERMIT iSSUANCE. ~E PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPER~ SHA~ BE ~ESPONSIBLE ~R COMPL~ION. A VIO~ON OF ~1S ORDIN~CE IS A MISOEMEANQR OFFENSE. THE COUNCIL MAY ~TEND THE ~ME FOR COMPL~ION UPON WRI~EN REQUEST OF ~E ~MI~EE. ESTABLISHING TO THE R~SONABLE SATISFAC~ON OF ~E CI~ C=UNClL ~AT CIRCUMSTANCES 8~OND THE CONTROL 0F THE ~MI~EE ~R~ENTED COM~L~ION OF THE WORK ;OR ~ICH THE P~MIT WAS GRANTED. THE ~TENSIQN SHA~ 8E REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIR~ (301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ~O OF THE ONE-Y~ P~IO0. I HERE~Y CER~ ~AT ~ HAVE READ AND ~AMINED ~lS APPLICA~ON AND KNOW ~E ~E T0 BETRUE ANO CORRECT. ALL ~RO~SlONS OF ~WS AND ORCfNANCE$ GOV~NING THiS ~PE 3F WORK ~LL 9E COMPLI ED ~TH WHINER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. ~E GRANTING 0~ A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORI~ TO VIO~TE CR ;ANCEL THE P~G~SICNS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL ~W ~EGU~TING CONSTRUCTION 0R THE P~FORMANCE 0F CON,RUCTION. ~/~/~~~~~~~/~/~/~~~j~[~~(~ OFF N ~, ~ ~ ~ ~( ~ ( C.EUSE~LY) ~PECIAL CONDTIO S&COMMENTS: . ~-~ ~ ~[,~ ~ '1, :.: ' ~ ' ' ' CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP I DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APf~ROVED I ZONING .5' '2"~--(:~"~' .s.,.o.. m,:,-,.,,.,,,,,, .,.,,., ,,,,.,,,,,:, .,.,.,.,,:wo,,,... ,,,.,.ov.,,,,,o..,.,.,: m C C: EXTERIOR ENVELOPE ENERGY CODE COMPUTATION WORKSHEET To Determine Compliance with the Minnesota Energy Code (Section 502 of the State Amended 1983 Model Energy Code) Project Title Site Address I. EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS A. Opaque I. B. Glazing 1. Doors 1. Wall Masonry/Concrete a. ~<r- ~o.ac b. ¢. Foundation Wall (Above Grade) a. 12"Z,,,.,~.-~,.,, ~,/Z'~4 tu°/,. b. IZ"r-.=.,4- ~,-~ ,.-,1 ~'/z."4:'.q Wood Frame Wall a. Insulated Area b. Framing Area (Ave. 15% at 16" oc) ¢. Framing Area (Ave. 10% at 24" oe) Peripheral Floor Edge/Rim Joist b. Windows a. Doors I -q t I '-'~ Wood a. Solid b. With storm door Metal Other AREA "U" VALUE AREA x "U" X · X 7-0 x., t~ = ~.~:z. Io5" x .oc,~, = ~.9~ g:$Sz- x .o4-1 =. 445 x . ~ ~ k= X d-IZ. x ,o~ = 18~. X 7..0 x . 3 + = 1'7 x .e,~ .= I.~ D. TOTAL WALL AREA, sq. ft. E. TOTAL OF AREA II. ROOF/CEILING CALCULATIONS B. C. D. Roof/Ceiling Insulated Area Roof/Ceiling Framing (Ave. 15% at 16' oe) RooUCeiling Framing (Ave. 10% at 24" oe) Skylight I I t~- x .~z"l = ~. e,&> X = TOTAL ROOF/CEILING AREA sq. ft. TOTAL OF AREA x "U" 15 III. IV. BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS TOTAL REQUIRED AREA (From I.D & II.E) (From V.) A. Exposed Wall: 'Za~9~;... x .. I(. = B. Roof/Ceiling: ]{%~b x .o2.~ .= C. TOTAL ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE (Total of A & B above) ACTUAL BUILDING ENVELOPE Exposed Wall (From I.E) Roof/Ceiling (From Il.F) TOTAL ACTUAL BUILDING ENVELOPE (Total of A & B) *(Meets code requirements if less than IH.C) REQUIRED "U" VALUES ALLOWABLE (Area x 4%2 ACTUAL (Area x "U") WALLS ROOF/CEILING Detached one and two family dwellings .11 *Multi-Family Residential Buildings .238 (3 stories of less in height) *All other Construction Types (3 stories or less) .238 *All Other Construction Types (More than 3 stories) .28 *Based on 8007 heating degree days 0Mpls/St. Paul) Adjust "U" values accordingly for other locations .026 .033 .O6 .06 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that I have completed the above information and that it complies with the Minnesota State Energy Code. Date BCSD 3-89 CC/SM6574 16 UALL CONSTRUCTION R VALUE FR~HING SECTION: (I Interior air film (.~ .~'/~. inches sof~ wood G.~ (~ '/~" o~~ S~ .~,. (5 ~o ~ . Z~ (~ Exterior ~lr film fl.17 TOTAL u - 1/R - o h~ALL SECTION (IITSULATED) (I Interior alr film (2 _Vz" c~.r~,u~.q-E~,~,~- .~.~ --~ E~terJor ~lr film ~.17 TOTAL R u- !/R = .o~q IST SECTION: :(I Interior air Film (2 '~'/~" ='~~*~ (fi .Exterior ~ir film n.17 ~.].~' x..' ~FOUh'DATIOH SECTIOH: · (I Interior air film TOTAL R FOUNDATION INSULATION REQUZRED: Nih. R-5 on entire wall OR U - 1/R = o ~.. Nih. R-lO down to frost de---pth (2 ~x4- ,~T~-, lt."°/,-, 4.-~ (3 _lZ" -'-,~..-I~,.u,..., 1.~..,~ ~(/4 Exterior ~ir film n.17 ~ (5 "g'6. 4=.q l*l's,~,... · · (~ TOTAL R = ~.~1 SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCT ION R VALUE- CEILIHd SECTIOII (IIISULATEO): - ' I Inter'l~i: alt film ~ Exterior alr film (still) O.kl TOTAL CEILING FRAHINC SECTION: 1 Interior air film d.f,l ~ Interior air film (still) O.~1 inches soft wood 4-.~:~ TOTAL VENTED CEILING SECTION (IHSULATED): I' Interior air film 0.61 4 Exterior air film (still) ri.f1 TOTAL'R = u - i/R = CEILINR FRAMIHC SECTIOtI: 1' Interior air film 0.~1 3 4 Exterior air film (still) ri. Ri' Inches soft wood TOTAL U - 1IR 1 .Inside air film n.~i 2 Outside air film n. 17 TOTAL R ' U ' ilR = 1.1.. - · 4.1 '1 ' I1 · \ C~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOTAREA 10/ (z~/d SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I 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 WIDTH SQ FT /3- x ~- = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = ~-7 x >r, : ~-~b TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x ? : ¥~ X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~OVERpREPARED BY (in~~__~:nce) ............................... DATE C7 HY-LAND /]'~0,"~ Proposed Top of Block /')~0_.~)_ Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor 1 ype of Building - W+]:q CALIBER SURVEYING, LAND SURVEYORS 8700 Jefferson Highway Osseo, Minnesota 55569 495-5761 P.a. INVOICE NO. ~4,5g0 F.B, NO. 211-85 SCALE I"= 20' O Denotes iron Monument I-I Denotes Wood Hub Set For Excavation Only xOOO.O Denotes Existing Elevation ~ Denotes Proposed Elevation ~ Denotes Surface Drainage PROPOSED RESIDENCE 955.50 o 45'-0" 953.28 o 95g.15 52.41 DR~NAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT ~51.0~ 948.54~,,, 949,4;:) 947.90 ~)JqJ; L g34.6~ J e940'10 ~ ~31 62 rSHORELINE " w' ?2f~ ~Z~SUew93~.04 I, hereby cedi~y mot this survey was prepared by me or under ~ -- Sur ~oy of JUNE , 19 98 Milton E. H~and, MI~ Reg. No. 20262 ~eu. &o~ z6, Iq~8 THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DIVERSIFIED ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS )k,0 ,, · 4' 2 15 14- 12 lO ..? & AKE LAKE ELEV.'928.20 FEET NOV. 25, 1974 MINNETONKA O-IALSTED BAY} i!i.5']'R ICl 1VE OF '£H1. BLU I;'1.'5 state of Minnesota, is tt,e owner of the property describe0 as follows: ; Part of th~ following describec property, ~hich lies, between County Road and ~ke Mimnetonka, Beginning at a point in Nortk~ linc of Southeast. I/4 of Sect$on 22, Township 117, Range 24, which point is 2h.59 chains East ~'~ cent, r of ~aid section; thence rtmnir.~ aoutb and parallel witt~ west line of said Southeast l/4 to shore of Lake }.~innctonka; t!,t-nce East along sho~ 6f said lake.to Last linc of sai~ Souti~east 1/4; ti~ence North ~' =tong said East lin~ to Northeast carrier of said Southeast 1/6; thence West along , .said North line to beginning. Bein~ part c)f Lot 1 said section according to United States Government Survey thereof. . Said property mo,(: ~ec,.ntly has 'L{(..n platted a~; T!tE BLUFFS. Halcstead- Cres~ a~ t~,e o~ner of t},c c, bove d(:.,;cribnd i)rot~e'rty~ doe:, hereby establis~ ~nd create the followins prot ccLive c(.,w.nant.:., t,:scricti(ms and casements affecting ~11 of the lots and blocks of ~hc abuue described pro~;~rty: ' .~. Ail l'ot~ in said Addition shall be re~;idential ]oc~ and shall be 2. No dwelling :;h~].l be erected) a]cer'ec, placed or perm~cc~u Co remain ~>n any r'~lid~Bgi~l lot Ocher than one detached single-family dwelling nog kxceed 15.0 ~t rn hezqht as measured irom the street elevation ~n front of tlc lot with.an attached ~arage for nor less th,n~ 2 cars m, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6,.~Block 2; Lo~s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and g, Block 2; and Lots 3, 4, 11 $. No dwelling shal! be permitted to be co~cructed on an} residential lot ~i~h '~ill co~ less than $30,000.00 based u~on co~t levels prevail'ing on the date these' covenants are re~orded, it being the intention and purpose t[~e covenants to, assure that all dwellings shall be of a quality of wor~anship and mterial~ substantially the same, or better than, that ~hich can bc pro- duced on the date these cowenants ar( recorded at the minim,~m cost stated herein fcr the minimum permitteJ dwelling size. The ~round floor area including split eh[fy designs of the main structure exclusive of one-story open porches and garages; shall not b~ less titan 1,200 square feet. for a one-story dwelling.. Houses of m6re than one-story in he~ghth shn]l be in acco:'~ance with curr~nt City ~f Mound ~rdinanct[s, with 2 stary houses hnving not 'less titan 700 square ~eet per floor for a total of 1,400 square feet minimum, Page One of Thrc~: 4. Buildings 'shz:ll be i,J..~L~ t; ¢,u re~,Jdcht.al lot:~ Jn conformance.w~th C!L)' cf .~iound's aFFro~i'iat, t ordii~ance,~. F,~r the ~urposes of this tovenant, ~.avcs, ~t~/~s and %,eh ~.Y,c_'les ara no[ consic~red as a z~-'..r~ of t, he building. 5. No structure of a tem~or.~r,' ¢'haracter, traJlcr, basement, tent, ~hack, garage, barn or otLer oL'tbt~i'di;lg shall be used on any lot 'at any time as a residence, eir.~er t,:in~ora: ily or pern;aneutly~ a~d no trailers~ co~mne~'cial.vehicles, t. an~s, or coaa~ercinl e. quip. mt-nt of ;my kind shall be 1.,cared, stored or p,trked upon m~ ,f the above ~t at ~state unless located, ~. No buildil~g shall be CF~2t'C, pl..'cd or alto. red on any builcin~ ~]ot in this subdivis~n unzil the buildi,L; i~l~ns, s~,ccif~catiol~s and plot plan showin~ ti~e loc~io;~ of zuch 'u~ld:n.j, 1,ave bee~ approved Jn writing as to conformity ~nd harmo~'¢ ¢:] extc~'na] d,::i ,' %,itl; t:..i,;tin~5 sLructures in the 0ubd/visim~, ,md as t(, ;c,c&~ion o; t~'~e k',u;i~inb wit;~ ~,.~spec't to topography and fin i sbeti ground ¢,leva~ ion, by a (:o~a~i :tt~c o~mposed .c, f Halestead-Crest. in ghe event, said co~,,mittee, or ~rs :]e:;Jg~.ated. represe,,tat'ivc, fails to ~ppr~e or di~approvc such dvsigr, and ]ocation within thiriy days after said plans, and specifications.~ have bccn ~ubtaitt.,,d to i.t or, in any event, if no. ...' s,k, Jt I:o enjoin the ~reCtibn' of ~tlch buildin5 or the making of such alterations i,ave been con~enced priO&, t~ tl,e con,i~iet.it,,, ti,creof, such al,proval Will not 'be requires and this cOvenant v:ill ~e o.m:r, cd~o have been fully complied with. ~cither the members of sucl'; co,m~ittce, nor tl~e, designated' representative shal'l '~ - be entitled to any cc.n,peusatiot~ far ~ar,.,ic, s ~erformcd pursuant to this covenant. %'h~ ~owers an~ duties ot suet, coma,ittec, and of its dcBignl;ted representative~ :al;all cease ott and after January. l, ]985. %'Lere'~itcr the approval described in.;:his covhnaDt shall not be require6 unless, prior to the satd~te and effective thereon, a written instrument shall be executed by the then record owners of ~ . the~n;ajority.of the ]ot~ in this subdJ, visi,m and duly recorded appoimKing a repr~'sent'~cive~ of representatives, who shall thereafter exercise the s~me -.',' powers previously cxercJsed by s~,id cm~;il:kee. '7. Outlots desisnated as out].ot A, and outlot B, shall be conveyed to ti.e City of Mound, Minnesota; by m,:.,mt. ;,~ a '.,.arra~lt:y deed c. xccuted by the aforementioned partnership. P:lge l'wo of Thre~-, ~. ti,ese covenant.: acc L,, rm~ .-.itt, ~!:, lu~:d ar, d ai,a}t be binding on all oarr~es ~n6 al~ per~.~:,~ cl~si:at,;..; tmdei tnc.:~ Jot a i~eriod oi ten years from the rhe~e c~vcnants ar~' r~o~dec. q. Enforcement shall be by ?lOfeO{liIl~S at ia~ o~- in equity against any ~erson or ~erson~ vi,,]'ati~t~ ,>t a,.zemF, tinb t,~ violate any covenant either to restrain violaLion or to recov,.r 1'0. Invalidation o~ any o~lc ,~f ti,e~e c~,venants by judgment or court o~de~ shall ~n no ~ise afiect any ~c the ,t~... ~3rov(zioD~ v. hiciz shall remain in full force and effect. ~ . , C Fartner l,~ichard M. Smith STATE OF ~,IINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On tFfis ~,~' day of Richard M. S:ai~h, Gary t3. Nelson and Floyd Feikema to me personally known, '~ who being d~ly sworn, did say that they are partners respectively of Halestead-Crest, a partnership; [hat the sea] affixed to the foregoing. ::" i~.~rument is Lhe corporate seal of said partnership~ and that sair2. · i~strument was executed by autl~ority of its Board of Directors; and the ~ said Richa['d M. Smith, Gary B. Nelson and Floyd Fcikema acknowledged s~i~ '~ ~n~trum~.nt to be the free act and deed of said partnership. /" 19 "~, 'before me personally appeared May18,1998 John Southefland Mound Building Inspector 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear John, Jerry and Carol Laurie 3040HighviewLane Mound, MN 55364 612-472-5935 OPPOSITION TO A VARIANCE FOR THE BLUFFS DRAINAGE EASEMENT There is a proposal for a house a6~07 Bay Ridge Roe- Block005, Lot 005 THE BLUFFS. The eastern edge of this lot adjoins a water drainage easement which is for the entire BLUFFS neighborhood. The proposed house corner stakes look like they are at least 10 feet into the drainage easement. The water problem at this easement is a real problem many times each year - winter and summer. The water jumps the curb at this easement many times each year - winter and summer. If this house is allowed to be built closer into the easement than was previously established by the designers of THE BLUFFS subdivision, the building will divert the neighborhoods water into our house, which adjoins the other side of the drainage easement. The originally established drainage easement must be maintained as it was intended by the engineers of the plat. The drainage culvert, which runs directly in the center of this drainage easement, has been repaired in the past and will require normal maintenance periodically in the future. Greg Skinner and the water department have done culvert work, just last year (June 1997), in the exact position of the proposed house's eastern corner. The hole they had to dig in order to access the culvert was six feet, or more, into the area of the proposed house. Ask them and they will verify the accuracy of this statement. If this house is allowed to be built as proposed, normal maintenance will be drastically impaired or will be impossible. Greg and the other city workers will also verify that during the winter months this drainage easement area is very critical. Each year the city workers plowing the streets have to be extremely careful at this drainage point because of the snow/melting water drainage problems. Ed Shukle, the City Manager and a resident of THE BLUFFS, also tried to help with this problem last year. If the snow is not plowed correctly at this area, the melting water from the street, at this drain'age easement, overflows the curb. That is not a major problem if the drainage easement is allowed to remain as it has always been in the past, with enough area to let the water flow down into the lake. But if this area is reduced and the water is diverted by a building, it will flow into our house. When we purchased this house we were told by the city building inspector that the drainage easement settings couM never be changed. We never would have purchased this property if we were told anything different. We believe we have a valid concern about the water problem that will be created if this proposed house is allowed to be built with a variance into the drainage easement. We strongly oppose any drainage easement variance because it will create an increased water problem onto our prope.rty and into our hous~ We encourage you to review this situation before making any decisions. We also will be more than happy to supply any additional information, or other BLUFFS neighborhood residents c,.who know about and will testify about this problem. We would like to be notified and included in any meetings or discussions concerning a variance of this water drainage easement. Jerry Laurie C~ CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE7 YES / N~ ( LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: 7,soo/o -~z~ ~, 000/4% n~ ~o, ooo/0o R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60. R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. ~1 30,000/100 YARD [ DIRECTION [ REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 15' 50' 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SliED ..... DETACItED B01LDINGS FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' REAR N $ E W 4' ~ LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF i0' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% · J ' , sununarlzcs a portion of the re~luire~ cnL~ outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further inf nation, contact the City of Mound ~ills July 28, 1998 Batch 8072 Total. Bills $233,392.64 $233,392.64 C ,J r oo ? ,I, .II, , ,Ill ,I a ,, | ooogooooo~oopoo Z~' al. z 4._ C 1 ~L~o ~,~,, Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-38: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH RD, LOT 94, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1sT DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23 24 0029 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant, Jack Cook, has requested a variance to allow a one car garage to remain on a lot without a principal residence. The property is located at the corner of Cardiff Lane and Denbigh Road on a 50 feet by 152 feet plus lot encompassing 7750 sf. The property owner recently built two new homes on lots 30 and 31. Located on the subject lot 29, is the one stall garage which is setback approximately 20 feet from Denbigh and 6 feet from the side lot line. The remainder of the property is undeveloped but is currently used for storage and parking of miscellaneous construction equipment. C Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Section 350:435 Accessory Buildings, states that, "No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. The only way an accessory building could be located on a residential lot is if it were combined with an adjacent property. Lot 30 is the only opportunity for such a combination. The garage was originally on another lot along Denbigh Road and just recently was moved to the site. No building or moving permits were issued by the City for this project. The garage is sitting on wood studs that do not meet building code requirements. If the garage were legally existing, it would be required to have a concrete foundation and tied down. There are a couple other building methods for the foundation that could be used but tie downs would be required with any approach. The applicant stated that he has thought about constructing a home on the lot similar to the homes on lots 30 and 31. The lot is buildable and if developed could accommodate a 34 feet wide house. Staff was aware of the situation when the building was moved and contacted the owner to discuss the situation. The applicant has decided to take the variance approach as a possible remedy to the code requirements. Staff has not received any complaints from the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission could address the case in a couple of different manners. In considering if a hardship of practical difficulty is present, the Planning Commission should use the above findings as reason for recommendation. Options could include the following: 1. The Planning Commission could find that there are no unusual circumstances or conditions present that would support a practical difficulty or hardship thereby recommending the garage be removed from the property. 2. The Planning Commission could find that the garage is a reasonable use of the property and although not combined with the adjacent property is a reasonable use of the property which could occur through the combination of lots 29 and 30. 3. The Planning Commission could put a time limit for the removal of the garage. Given the intent of the code to limit accessory structures to lots with a principal building it is difficult for staff to recommend any option but adhering to the code. This case is the reason garages are not meant to be freestanding uses. This is not to say that if the garage were removed, the equipment storage would go away. These activities are best removed from this neighborhood and carried on in a commercial setting. The approach staff has taken with these Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 situations is to handle them largely on a complaint basis. Because there have not been any complaints, the remedying the parking and business activities administratively was not pursued. Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the variance request and have the applicant remove the building and other equipment using the property for parking. DISCUSSION: Mueller asked Gordon if the Commission has ever grated a use variance. Gordon stated that he was not aware of any. Sutherland stated he also was unaware of any. Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Road, stated that Jack Cook allows the neighbors to use the lot as overflow parking. He stated that he was not aware of any neighbor that is opposed to the variance. He stated that Mr. Cook stores his bobcat and trailer in the garage. Glister stated the garage does not need to be there for the neighbors to park there. Hanus stated that the applicant uses it as an accessory building and puts gardening tools and supplies in it. There was question if the parcel could be deemed buildable. There was discussion on whether this parcel could be attached to the applicant's home parcel. Gordon stated that usually the two parcels are adjacent to each other. He was not aware that two parcels could be combined two parcels separated by a road way. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to recommend Staff's recommendation of denial. Motion carried 6-0. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 Mark Hanus rejoined the Commission. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. klH TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Jack Cook - 4452 Denbigh Road CASE NUMBER: 98-38 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5 LOCATION: 2754 Cardiff Lane ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential C BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested a variance to allow a one car garage to remain on a lot without a principal residence. The property is located at the comer of Cardiff Lane and Denbigh Road on a 50 feet by 152 feet plus lot encompassing 7750 sf. The property owner recently built two new homes on lots 30 and 31. Located on the subject lot 29, is the one stall garage which is setback approximately 20 feet from Denbigh and 6 feet from the side lot line. The remainder of the property is undeveloped but is currently used for storage and parking of miscellaneous construction equipment. Section 350:435 Accessory Buildings, states that, "No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory." The only way an accessory building could be located on a residential lot is if it were combined with an adjacent property. Lot 30 is the only opportunity for such a combination. The garage was originally on another lot along Denbigh Road and just recently was moved to the site. No building or moving permits were issued by the City for this project. The garage is sitting on wood studs that do not meet building code requirements. If the garage were legally existing, it would be required to have a concrete foundation and tied down. There are a couple other building methods for the foundation that could be used but tie downs would be required with any approach. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-38 Cook Variance Request July 13, 1998 The applicant stated that he has thought about constructing a home on the lot similar to the homes on lots 30 and 31. The lot is buildable and if developed could accommodate a 34 feet wide house. Staff was aware of the situation when the building was moved and contacted the owner to discuss the situation. The applicant has decided to take the variance approach as a possible remedy to the code requirements. Staff has not received any complaints from the surrounding neighborhood. 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): 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. 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 Planning Commission could address the case in a couple of different manners. In considering if a hardship of practical difficulty is present, the Planning Commission should use the above findings as reason for recommendation. Options could include the following: 1. The Planning Commission could find that there are no unusual circumstances or conditions present that would support a practical difficulty or hardship thereby recommending the garage be removed from the property. 2. The Planning Commission could find that the garage is a reasonable use of the property and 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-38 Cook Variance Request July 13, 1998 o although not combined with the adjacent property is a reasonable use of the property which could occur through the combination of lots 29 and 30. The Planning Commission could put a time limit for the removal of the garage. RECOMMENDATION: Given the intent of the code to limit accessory structures to lots with a principal building it is difficult for staff to recommend any option but adhering to the code. This case is the reason garages are not meant to be freestanding uses. This is not to say that if the garage were removed, the equipment storage would go away. These activities are best removed from this neighborhood and carded on in a commemial setting. The approach staff has taken with these situations is to handle them largely on a complaint basis. Because there have not been any complaints, the remedying the parking and business activities administratively was not pursued. Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the variance request and have the applicant remove the building and other equipment using the property for parking. 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 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: J ~,~1~/ City Council Date: Distribution: ~ City Planner ~~ ~ DUB City Engineer Other ~ Public Works SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot fl ~l _ _, LEGAL Block DESC. Su divisio e[ ZONING DISTrICT ~-1 ~ ~-2 ~-3 B-1 8-2 B-3 P OPE W OWNER Address Phone (H) ~72 ~7 (W) (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an opp,,~adu,, ever been made f",, 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.): (R~v. lll14/97) Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~lr, 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) (_~L,S E W ) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) Front Yard: '~ I~ ft. Side Yard: ~ ft. Side Yard: ~ ft. Rear Yard: ft. Lakeside: ft. : ft. Street Frontage: ft. Lot Size: ~2~ sq ft Hardcover: ~ sq ft ft. '" ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft .sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: C Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: /~/ Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. qS'~_ o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)7 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 t~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: - ,'~j~ ~l/F~:2~)~ ~D Y:~ '~~ ~~~ V . I ce~ify that all of~he above statements and the statements contmned in any requ're papers plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Date Date "'~' ~ (Rev. ll/14/97) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: ,,~ ,/4 ¢....1 (..: C LOT AREA ~ )~ ~::~'- (~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA /7 ~O SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA /7'7 S~O 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 TOTAL HOUSE ......................... 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 ~ifference) ............................... PREPARED BY ~ _ ~ DATE ~c Hennepin County Property Information by PID No. Page 1 of 3 Hennepin County, MN Property Information Search Results Property Information is updated at the beginning of each month. Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 1998 Property ID: 19-117-23 24 0029 i Propertv Address: 2754 CARDIFF LA Municipality Name: MOUND School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 Sewer Dist: Construction Year: Parcel Size: S 46X161X45X153 Owner Name: JACK D COOK Taxpayer Name & Address: JACK D COOK 4452 DENBIGH RD MOUND MN 55364 * Most Current Sales Information * Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale Date: September, 1994 Sale Price: $ 35,000 Transaction Type: Sale Excluded from Assessment Analysis Tax Parcel Description Lot: 094 Block: Metes & Bounds: EX ROAD Addition Name: PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1 ST DIV Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 1998 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1997 http://WWW2.co.hennepin.mn.us/servlet/PidSrchMD 6/24/1998 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET FILE? ~ / NO SURVEY ON LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 R1A 6,000/4~2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: IIOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT SIDE N S E W N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETAClIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BI.UFF 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING7 YES /(~ II Z. I OATEI : This Zoning h,formation Slice! only summarizes a portion of file requirements oullined ill d~e Cily of Mouud Zoning Ordinance. For furd)er information, contacl the City of Mound Planning Deparlmenl at 4724}600. ! II 1, Il ,,Il ' I ,~, I, ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS CITY OF MOUND NORWOOD LANE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00AaM., Tuesday, August 11, 1998 at the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials to construct Norwood Lane, including installation of City utilities. The estimated quantities of major items are: 250 LF - 8" sardtary sewer, 480 LF - 6" DIP watermain, 600 LF - concrete curb & gutter, 350 TN - Class 5,200 TN - bituminous paving and related work. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 1998. All proposals shall be addressed to: Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, M/nnesota 55364 and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "Norwood Lane Street and Utility Improvements" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payment of $20.00 per set (includes MN sales tax), which is NON-REFUNDABLE. Individual sheets of the plans and sections of the specifications may be purchased at the rate of four dollars ($4.00) per sheet (includes MN sales tax) of plans and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per page (includes MN sales tax) of specifications, which is NON- REFUNDABLE. Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informal/ties or irregularities therein. City of Mound, Minnesota Robert Polston, Mayor ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk PROPOSED RESOLUTION ~98- RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT Jly 28, 1998 WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution//98-72A of the Council adopted June 23, 1998, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the improvement of Norwood Lane, between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd., and this report was received by the City Council on July 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The Council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report, dated July 23, 1998, and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated cost of the improvement of $63,600.00. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 1 lth day of August, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. and the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. PROPOSED RESOLUTION//98- July 28, 1998 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution//98-72-A passed by the Council on June 23, 1998, the City Engineer (McCombs Frank Roos, has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd. and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper, The Laker, and the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened on Tuesday, August 11, 1998, at 11:00 A.M., at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364. Bids will be considered at the August 11, 1998, City Council Meeting st 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check, payable to the City of Mound for 5%of the amount of such bid. CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT OF NORWOOD LANE NOTICE, is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound will meet in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 5341 Maywood Road at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 11, 1998, to consider an improvement of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd., pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is both sides of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd. The estimated cost of the improvement is $63,600.00. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk Publish in The Laker - August 1, 1998 1, ~ ,~l~ & ,~, I, for Ray L. 3e~lden of Lot 1, Block 7, Devon Hennepin County, Minnesota Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct represen- T- tation of a survey of the boundaries' ~)~... /o~ of Lot 1, Block 7, Devon. It does ~ ~/~/ . e~rtoaP~~.to show improvements or c : 1 = 30 ~ordon R. Coffin 'i~g. No. 6064 Date : 6-L6-71 Land Surveyor and Planner o : Iron marker Long Lake, Minnesota MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 14, 1998 APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS: 1.10 GREGORY KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking a permit to replace a light that was previously approved by the Council and was damaged in the recent storms. The light serves security and safety purposes and also lights the City stairway on Devon Common. The Staff and DCAC have recommended approval. The Building Official submitted a survey from 1971 of Mr. Knutson's property and a drawing of approximately where the light is located on the Commons. The Council discussed relocating the light pole onto private property because it needs to be replaced totally and brought up to the code electrically. Councilmember Hanus pointed out that in the Public Lands Permit Book, there is a section specifically dealing with guidelines for lights on public property, page 97, item/?4 which asks reads as follows: "If there is an alternate location for the light on private property, it shall not be allowed on public property." This section also requires site plans to show where it is. A site survey showing the light has not been provided and Knutson's property irons have not been located at this time. Hanus stated he felt this light could be functional and be on private property. He further stated that he voted in favor of this light in 1995 because it was an existing situation, but now it has to be replaced entirely and should be located on private property. Mr. Knutson stated that if the light were moved onto private property, it would be too far back for any functional use. The Council discussed the fact that, for permit approval, it takes 4/5ths vote of all Councilmembers and there are only 4 members present tonight. The Council discussed the application as not being an application to maintain this light. It is an application to replace it, because the two other times the light was approved, it was supposed to have had an electrical inspection which did not take place until 1997, and shows the light has deficiencies. Hanus suggested tabling this item until it can be determined exactly how far onto public property this light encroaches. This would involve finding the applicant's property stakes. The Building Official stated he did not think it would be difficult to find the applicant's property stakes and determine the exact footage. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to table this item to July 28, 1998, to allow staff to determine the footage that the light currently encroaches onto the Commons. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 12, 1998 MEETING DATES: July 16, 1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C) July 28, 1998 City Council TO: Dock and Commons Commission and Applicant FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official APPLICANT: John and Linda Verkennes, 4771 Island View Drive LOCATION: Dock Site #42691 SUBJECT: Public Lands Permit Application to Replace Retaining Walls Background: The applicants are seeking a Construction on Public Lands Permit as described in the attached application in order to replace the existing retaining walls that have been damaged in the recent storm, and also to replace the existing metal stair with wood to current code standards. The retaining walls are otherwise in poor condition and are in need of removal or replacement. In discussions with Ms. · Verkennes regarding the application I noted the plans and site plan are inadequate for staff review however it is obvious the work needs to be done. I have discussed the concept and proposal with the Parks Director and we find it is workable and with a revised plan staff is confidant the work can be completed in a workmanship like manner with the usual conditions that go along with our recommendation for approval. One option I discussed with the applicant is to re grade the area back to a slope that would tie into the adjacent properties. This option may result in a cost savings and fewer retaining walls which is a benefit over the long term. Prior to the meeting the applicants will consider this option and will amend their request if needed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends a five (5) year permit be approved for either option of the retaining walls as proposed or the regrading to match the adjacent properties with the following conditions; /: PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION ' CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 DISTRIBUTION: "/-O SUILDING OFFICIAL '"/-.-(.¢ PARKS DIRECTOR -"]-(aY DNR 'I-e, MCWD <']-(~ PUBLIC WORKS DATE RECEIVED ~. ~A-a'~- DOCK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to enow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). '. LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance k, hieh means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new ~ermit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Phone (home) ~7.,~ I~'3 ~t (work) ~utt in~ Address Property O~er Legal Lot Block Descript ion Subd. Pub ! i c Name Property Dock Site g Shoreline T~e Contractor Name VI ~l~ Address ~~--J~e ~:~ ~ m~ n%ne · ['ho.ne .. .~ .q-Q ~ VALUATION/PRO~O~ ~ ~ - · DESC~BE QUES~ P~OSE' ~~C ~/~ ~~ ~[]~r~ INC PHONE: 420-3593 Name 3¢/'~ Phone Number 7001 LAWNDALE LANE MAPLE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55311 NURSERY LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 10 3 MILES WEST OF 494 Job # Special Inst. Retail Installed Payment Plan on Completion Acce.~ for ¥iking Nurse~, In¢~ ~'~/7 ?erring Date Approximate Guarantee ~her Informatio~ Date Date ~/~,/~ ~ TOTAL Paid Down Balance Date Due 'Ce~tl~leeee e~' leto7 le~ :._ ~mx ,/,t- . ' e ~/¢no/'e"$ //",~/ monument /go- 2~ May 13, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86-57 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THREE COMMONS MAINTENANCE PERMITS AS REQUESTED WHEREAS, according to Chapter 26, Section 26.9302, Subdivision ], of the City Code, special Maintenance Permits are required for any maintenance on public lands; and WHEREAS, the following special Maintenance Permits have been applied for: Robert & LaDonna Dybing 1737 Canary Lane Abutting Lots ~10, 11 & 12, Block 10, Dreamwood on Wiota Commons PID ~13-117-24 24 0012 Request: Repair steps and trim sumachs. Andrew Brookman Mahoney 4645 Island View Drive Abutting Lot 13, Block 1, Devon on Devon Common PID 930-117-23 22 0005 Request: Replace staircase. Michael Blunt 4771 Island View Drive Abutting Lots 14 & 15, Block 7, Devon PID #30-117-23 22 0082 Request: Install railroad ties to hold bank and landscape. WHEREAS, the Park Commission has recommended approval of these Maintenance Permits· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby concur with the Park Commission and approves the issuance of Maintenance Permits for the Commons areas as requested and listed above. The foregoing .resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith· The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk Mayor Minutes of MOUND ADVISORY PARK COI,2.!ISSION July 27, 1978 PRESE~T: Lynott, Dock Insp. Don Rother, Sec. Karene Uhe This meeting was a continuation of the 7/20/78 meeting, Chairman Hal Larson, Pat Shay, Toni C~se, Cathy Bailey, Jon.-..i-_ CO;.~40NS MAINTE~.,[ANCE PEP3.~ITS '. . · Followed thru Additional to flow chart # Co~L,nents 16 · ° 16A Chain on commons to'be-remoYed.'.. .. ~:: . . ." .. .,.:,." 16t Needs railing~ on both sides .:~.~., ': "" ",::-" .'.S:: ' ..... . '~'.f'.' _ 16A ~ .~-'-~ '.~~ ' :. '..,~,' ...f.'..:%.."' '":"~'. ? . . ': "'-'~:.~'~. . 16A To be lminted eartht:one' color. 16A Needs r~lings on both si'des. '" .-. 16A ..'" ': .... "" · ;- .. ~:~-.:- .. ;'...',.. ":¥~ Address on Encroachment Island View Dr. on Co=.~ons _~547 Retaining wall Iron Post Boat wench 460~ Stairway 4617_ Stairway 4625 Stairway ~4635 Playhouse ~645 Stairway Retaining wall Light post (No permit was requested, however a shed does exist on commons and should be removed.) ."...- Storage rack 16B Flower box 16B Lamp post 16A Concrete walkway 16A Sidewalk 16A Stairw8~ 16A Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 .Stairway Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 Structure 16A · ' · . . . .. ,._~. ~,-.~.- -~- ~,~.~ Needs ra~ngs on .... . .... ~.'~ -~-~. .. . . .... .......... Needs . . r~l~ngs on bo~h sid~s:.:.~t~i$. ~eeds railings on bogh s~des...'-- ' all tho wa7 Stairway 16A Guest house 2A Needs railings on both sides.' o.Z-:-- - ~~'2-~'' . · .,2-' · . .~j.;.' .....: , Page 2 Park Minutes 7/:>7/78 4743 474? 4723 Deck 16A Pumphouse 16A Stairway 16A Playhouse Boathouse 16A Stairway Retaining wall 16 Boathouse 16A Stairway 16A Patio 16A Stairway '16A Stairway 16A Stairway ~Retaining wall 16 4727 Stairway 16A ~763 Stairway 16A -e ' :." '::- - '~..' , "' '7::':'.?.' To be painted earthgone color. Needs railings on both sides. To be painted, earthtono color. " To b~ painted earthtone To be painted earthtone color. :.- . .~.~::: TO be painted earthtono color.';_~.'.~;; Needs railings on both sides. "-'}'+.."': . ....... ~ .~._~---r · .. , . .~:..-..W...-~...~-~.~ -. ... . '; :y~'. ~:...c~.'~z~' -:." o *.-.., .? -. Needs railings on both sides. . -j '..o..-., Needs railings on both.. Sides; '..- :.~:.: ,.':: .-. Needs railings on bot~ si~e~' 'T~e::'.. . ... :~.%.-.:: ,., ... -,._....~.... Needs railings on bo'th sides~ ..... "~ Stairway Boathouse 16A Retaining wall Stairway 16A 4815 4817 Stairway 16A ~ Stairway 16A Walk ~6A 4849 Retaining wall 16 (No permit request has been received. by City Council to enforce Ordinance.) Needs railings on both sides and break to allow passage through. To be painted earthtone color. ~ Wall is in non-repairable conditio Needs railings on lower part on ' both sides. :<.~ ~....; .'~.~'~:,:, Needs railings on both sides, '~'"~ · ,.. ... ,: '~:..~.,- .... :. -- _-~.o,-~.-..~: Recommend action":':'-' Fish house Remove from commons. Stairway 16A Needs railings on both sides and repair work. Retaining wall 16 Needs repair work done. (General clean-up is recommended as soon as possible.) 4865 Pag, e 3, Park Minutes 7/27/78 4921. Stairway Shed Stairway Stairway Stairway Stairway Retaining wall Stairway Shed Stairway Stairway 'Stairway Boathouse Fence Flag pole 16A To be painted an earthtone c01~ 16A .- --.?~ ' · .".~ ~.: _ 16.-1. ' ':'-: ': 161 . ::...:..-... · · ..... 16A ..... ~"?.':~" 16 To be painted an earth torte'color,' · " · :-'. l~a . ' -t-' 'v-~-' .+.',~. Remove fr°m commons. '-'. 16A Needs railings on both sides', .' ..:. ~'.:.'..' >.~.~ 1'.61 Needs railings on both sides.: 161 Needs railings on both sides. 161 ""' i'!.j-" ~':::~" 16B Permit for up to one year only,. 16A """:" '- " **Larson moved that the above list be recommended to the City Council as 'listed for their action on the Maintenance Permits from Devon Commons. Shay seconded and vote was unanimous, . -. ~low Chart Action ' ' ' i-6 Grant permit up to 5 yrs, and renewable, · .:,..- 16A Renewable up to ~ yrs, contingent upon the City's use plan, No~ .-.-'-..,.~ owners may make application for maintenance permits, -' - [18BEstablishing maintenance permits for structures on public land~ ..-." up to 3 yrso non-renewable, Permit to be checked annually, j '-'.:i:~%-: 2A Seperate legal revie~v, / os CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-1155 FAX (612/ 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 24, 1998 City Council, Applicant, and City Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~. Request for Multiple Dock for the Seton Bluff Development Please note the attached request for a Multiple Dock from Mr. Steve Behnke. I am filling in for Parks Director Jim Fackler and Fran Clark because they are on vacation. The applicant would like to get started as soon as possible on the multiple dock in order to promote their new development, Seton Bluff. The proposed Dock is defined as a Commercial Boat Dock and a license is required by City Code Section 436:00. And is also subject to the regulations in section 437:00. COMMENTS: My comments are based on a review of the related sections of the City Code as follows. I will only highlight the issues that I feel have not been addressed or will need special attention. Any issue is subject to variance as permitted by section 436:40. 1) 426:20 Subd. 7(d). Lighting is required based on section 426:20 Subd. 7(d), lighting guidelines related to public waters have been established by the Park Commission (and other agencies) and are attached. The installation of lighting will trigger a Construction on Public Lands Permit According to City Code Section 320. Another related issue is the need for an improved pathway in order to traverse the area from the base of the stairway to the dock. A plan for lighting and for the pathway needs to be prepared by the developer and approved by staff. The plans should be reviewed in conjunction with the anticipated Public Lands Permit for both issues. Memo to City council printed on recycled paper Ju~24, 1998 Page 2 2) The City Council when granting or denying the license should consider the factors identified in Section 436:20, Subd. 7(g), these issues relate to the various impacts the Multiple Dock may have on the surrounding properties, lake, and wetlands. The Council may wish to refer this issue to the Dock and Commons Commission for input. 3) 436:25. License Fee and Applications. Fees are applicable according to section 510 (consultant expenses related to any special circumstances could be included by resolution), once the initial application is approved by the Council an annual application to the Dock Inspector (through the Parks Director's Office)is needed. Posting of the license is required. 4) 436:30. The Council may impose reasonable conditions and the license must contain a statement or listing of the conditions, and the license and the conditions shall be conspicuously posted. Issuance of the license shall not violate any of the City Zoning Regulations. 5) 437.00. The request is subject to the regulations of City Code Section 437.00 relating to licencing. The Dock License has specific requirements note section 347.05. Subd. 2, f. which requires a specific removal agreement where the applicant agrees to pay any and all costs incurred by the City if removal is needed. The new dock and its location must be approved by the Dock Inspector and if approved will require a modification of the City Dock Location Map. The Map is subject to annual review. 6) 436:45. Issuance of a permit is subject to requirements of other agencies such as, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), and possibly the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The City and the applicant are jointly responsible as the Dock Location Map is subject to the approval of the LMCD. CITY OF MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION Guidelines for Allowing Lights on Public Lands 7. 8. 9. Lights are allowed only to illuminate substantial safety hazard areas such as stairways with an excessively steep incline, and for substantial security reasons. The light shall be limited to illuminate only the area specified and must be shielded or otherwise directed to prevent direct illumination out across public waters. Lights must be installed by a licensed contractor and installed to code. If there is an alternative location for the light on private property, it shall not be allowed on public property. The applicant must provided the City with a survey or a scaled site plan showing the location of the light after it is erected. The light is to be maintained by the applicant. Abutting neighbors shall be notified of meeting date when a request is proposed to be heard. The light shall conform to Zoning Ordinance Section 350:730 relating to Glare (copy attached). The character of the commons shall be taken into consideration. CITY OF MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE: "Section 350:730. Glare. In all districts, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign or other structure, shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights which as light on a public street shall not exceed one (1) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the centerline of said street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 foot candles (meter reading) as measured from said property line." LMCD REGULATIONS: "Subd. 12. Lighting. Multiple docks or mooring areas and commercial docks shall be suitable and adequately lighted in accordance with district regulations. No oscillating, rotating, .flashing or moving sign or light may be used on any dock. Dock lighting shall not be directed toward the Lake in such a manner that it impairs the vision of or confuses operators of watercraft. No lighting in the area of the Lake shall be installed or directed so as to affect adjoining dock use areas or create a hazard to navigation. (rev. 10/10/91) - 97 - Id I~rom: $1even Sehflke To; Jim I:ockle[ 7/15/78 Time; 07;33:27 rage 2 of 3 July 15, 1998 John Suthcrland Building h~spection-City of Moused 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Ixd/xT 55364 Dear John, Enclosed please find the submittal for the public lands/dock permit revised per our discussion of June 4, 1998. B) c) D) Dock/Stair plan - shown on plat, to scale Construction details for thc dock and stairs Photographs of project (from across Scion Channel) Statement of project follows STATEMENT OF PRO,rECI This plan shows thc dctaits and ovc~icw for thc site improvements at Scton Bluff. These improvements arc similar to what has been approved at Planning Commission and Council as part of the overall project approval, These improvements are for the benefit of the Seton Bluff Ilomeou~uers association and are to be ox~ed and maintained by The following changes from the Planned Development approval have been made: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) The stair access to the dock has been verified not to encroach onto the city ROW at Langford Road. This removes the stairway from the Public Lands permit. The second stair has been eliminated. Thc Trail at thc shoreline is no longer necessary and has bccn eliminated. The dock has been located where the existing reeds make their closest approach to the defined shoreline. The dock request has been reduced to 5 slips. We look forward to having this item placed on the Docks Commission agenda £or the earliesl consideration Sincerely, Stcvcn K. Bchnkc S 5 10' x 2~' Boat Sli~s Approximate 70' Walkway }o 5 Slip Dockage Seton Bluff Homec 21 ..__.L-'O N G£.._ 1 I 1 1 ii m~ ,mi I i, , From: Sleven Behnke To: Jim Fackler Dale: 7/15/78 Time: 09:27:53 rage 3 o! 3 m. F- KERR'( LANE ~...~ $ _ KIN E T 0 N ,, _ __1,aL _ KINGS L A N E ~ ~ LANI- 30 ag KFRRY LANL © F- -- z From: $1even Behnke To: Jim Fackler Dale: 7/15/98 Time: 09':26:42 Page 2 of 3 I L_ o o __ --1 Kerry Lane --] u, GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT June 1998 June 1998 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,271,520 475,975 475,975 4,780 254 3,804 105,300 10,964 52,198 950,850 6,087 50,819 50,650 1,095 6,885 85,000 7,842 41,860 71,000 4,020 24,282 43,500 0 0 194.350 1.342 6,780 ~ 507.57~1 662.603 VARIANCE (795,545) (976) (53,102) (900,031) (43,765) (43,140) (46,718) (43,500) (187.570) 50.00% PERCENT RECEIVED 37.43% 79.58% 49.57% 5.34% 13.59% 49.25% 34.20% 0.00% 3.49% 360,220 39,353 218,389 (141,831 ) 60.63% 118,920 22,052 64,352 (54,568) 54.11% 1,530,000 150,685 761,793 (768,207) 49.79% 451,000 32,245 198,430 (252,570) 44.00% 924,000 72,929 498,289 (425,711 ) 53.93% 5,100 830 4,150 (950) 81.37% 77,300 1,246 71,898 (5,402) 93.01% 07/15198 rev97 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT June 1998 50.00% June 1998 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 71,610 8,117 40,384 31,226 56.39% Promotions 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 100.00% Cable TV 3,000 1,343 3,228 (228) 107.60% City Manager/Clerk 210,970 15,140 107,093 103,877 50.76% Elections 13,200 39 1,848 11,352 14.00% Assessing 62,450 15 188 62,262 0.30% Finance 172,710 15,563 78,913 93,797 45.69% Computer 18,550 1,291 12,757 5,793 68.77% Legal 86,460 11,452 49,007 37,453 56.68% Police 990,170 64,180 467,667 522,503 47.23% Civil Defense 4,250 197 958 3,292 22.54% Planning/Inspections 173,280 16,561 78,151 95,129 45.10% Streets 420,820 37,023 214,360 206,460 50.94% City Property 103,380 7,372 59,888 43,492 57.93% Parks 192,380 23,803 114,550 77,830 59.54% Summer Recreation 37,290 0 0 37,290 0.00% Contingencies 45,000 885 9,628 35,372 21.40% Transfers 167.430 13.953 83.715 83.715 50.00% GENERAL FUND TOTAL ~ ~ ~ 1,450,615 47.76% Area Fire Service Fund 360,220 53,179 157,923 202,297 43.84% Recycling Fund 126,830 18,380 71,921 54,909 56.71% Liquor Fund 215,200 23,172 109,065 106,135 50.68% Water Fund 445,400 45,779 179,257 266,143 40.25% Sewer Fund 981,020 100,937 552,146 428,874 56.28% Cemetery Fund 6,710 716 1,699 5,011 25.32% Dock Fund 76,660 23,379 55,228 21,432 72.04% Exp-97 07115~98 G.B. l, ~k ,~1~ i .~, BECEiVE0 JUL '2 (] 1998 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 22, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES - 6~24~98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting . 7/!/98 Board Workshop/Planning Session 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS Lady of the Lake, Inc., Consideration of new on-sale Beer License application for the charter boat Lady of the Lake; Custom Charters, Consideration of new on-sale Beer License application for the charter boat Driftaway; EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A) 1998 EWM Harvesting Program, update from Project Manager Gene Strommen; B) (*) Minutes from 7/10/98 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting; C} 7!!0!98 E\^!M/Exotics Task Force meeting repo.'t; D) Additional Business; WATER STRUCTURES A) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to docks owned and operated by law enforcement agencies, amending LMCD Code by adding new Subd. 6 to Section 2.02; B) Hennepin County Environmental Services, Spring Park Bay, Continued discussion to consider a new multiple dock license, a special density license, and a variance application to accommodate 72 Boat Storage Units (BSU); c) (*) Meadowbrook Boat Club, staff recommends approval of 1998 renewal w/o change multiple dock license application; D) Consideration of draft Resolution 96, which would waive fees for law enforcement docks; E) Additional Business; $. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (711198 - 7/31/98); June financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; 4. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) (*) Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; B) Ordinance Amendment, First Reading of an Ordinance relating to motor vehicles, '" snowmobiles, ATV's, motor boats, and personal watercraft, amending LMCD Code Sections 3.041 and 3.17; C) Additional Business; 5. SAVE THE LAKE 6. ADMINISTRATION A) Discussion on potential District office spaces; B) Update on vacant Administrative Technician position; C) Additional Business; 7. '- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9, NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT I, It ,~,, RE.C.,EiYEL ..... ,, RECEIVED JUL 2O 1998 · LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD WORKSHOP/PLANNING SESSION 6:00 P.M., Wednesday, July 8, 1998 Grays Freshwater Center CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director. Members Absent: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland. 1. Review of Management Section (pages 65-84). The Board reviewed this section of the Management Plan. The following comments were made, with the following updates/changes recommended: · The Role of the Cities The coordination of trash collection at public accesses with the County was discussed. There was debate whether this role should be deleted. The Role of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 0VlCWD) · The role of assisting cities and DNR regarding state-wide standards for management of shoreland areas was discussed (page 68, # 5). The Board discussed how the Hennepin Conservation District has gotten active in this role and stated the Plan should be updated to identify this. · The roles developing and implementing programs to control and minimize the use of phosphorous fertilizers and pesticides in the watershed (page 68, # 7 and 8) were reviewed by the Board. They believed these roles needed to be updated. The Role of the DNR · The Board noted a coordinated dredging permit program for Lake Minnetonka with the MCWD and LMCD has been accomplished (page 69, # 1). · The Board noted the development of shoreland ordinances has been accomplished with the exception of the City of Spring Park (page 69, # 2). · The Board noted that Hennepin Conservation District should be added to the role of surveying and protecting wetlands (page 69, #4). Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Workshop/Planning Session July 8, 1998 Page 2 · The Board noted that Hennepin Parks should be added to the agencies to develop water quality criteria and to measure water quality (page 69, # 6). · The Board noted that "eradicate" should be changed to "control" regarding eurasian watermilfoil and other exotic marine plants and animals (page 69, # 8). The Role of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District The Board noted the role of planning, acquiring and developing, public boat accesses, swimming beaches, scenic lookouts, and fishing piers should be updated to identify the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park has been constructed and opened (page 69, # 2). The Board also noted that fishing pier responsibilities should be moved to the DNR. The Role of Hennepin County The Board noted the Management Plan should elaborate more on the role of the Hennepin County Public Works Department (page 70). The Role of the LMCD · The Board noted the District needs to emphasize more that the LMCD is to provide focused view and advocating for the lake (page 70, # 1). It was noted' the lake needs to be treated as one entity. · The Board questioned whether the LMCD could facilitate and assure that other agencies are meeting their objective outlined in this Plan (page 71, # 5). The Board recommended this be softened up. · The Board noted the paragraph on page 71 that refers to LMCD staff and consultants should be updated. · The Board noted on page 72, the LMCD should "encourage and support" safe boating education programs rather than "coordinate" them. THE COSTS AND FUNDING OF LAKE MANAGEMENT Cities The Board noted that the preparation of new shoreland ordinances with the cities has been completed (page 73, # 1). Lake Minnetonka Conservation District The Board questioned whether it is feasible to explore increasing its current permit fees as well as user fees including a permit fee for boat ramp users. 2. Discuss next Section to be Reviewed. The Board decided to continue discussion of this section of the Management Plan starting with "Management Structure Policies" on page 77 at the 8/5/98 Workshop/Planning Session scheduled. Lak~ Minnetonka Conservation District Workshop/Planning Session July 8, 1998 e e Additional Business. There was no additional business. Page 3 Adjournment. There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary RECENEO JUL 1998 DRAFT LAKE M]NNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 24, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. ROLL CALL Members present: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Douglas Babcock Tonka Bay; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Bert Foster, Deephaven; GregKitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician. Members Absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Craig Nelson, Spring Park. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no Chair announcements. READING OF 1VHNUTES - 6/10/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Ahrens moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 6/10/98 LMCD Regular Board meeting as submitted. voTE: Motion carried unanimously PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. tim EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Update on 1998 EWM Harvesting Program. Nybeck updated the Board on the 1998 EWM harvesting program. · He noted: The harvesting crew started on 6/12/98 with training in the District office. · Three of the four harvesters were launched into the lake on 6/15/98 from Spring Park Bay. He noted the fourth harvester was not launched into the lake because there was a hydraulic spill on the lake when one of the harvesters was started. · The crew did a commendable job of cleaning the spill with booms and toweling made Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page 2 specifically for these types of spills. He added the spill was reported to the MN PCA and the booms and toweling were disposed of properly. · Harvesting started in Phelps Bay and is planned in the near future for Cooks Bay, Seton Lake, Black Lake, and Emerald Lake. He added when these areas are complete, the harvesters will be moving towards Gideon Bay. · Gene Strommen, EWM Project Manager, has provided a summary report for the first two weeks. He added Strommen planned on attending the 7/22/98 Board meeting. · Overtime has been authorized for the crew provided it fits within the budget and that there are sufficient weeds to cut. Eggers asked how the weed growth is this year in comparison to past years? Nybeck stated that question is difficult to answer. He noted he and Randall had been working on the shoreline inventory count and that he believed it is relatively dense where it is growing. He stated public inquiries relating to milfoil have not been too heavy so fax this year. Suerth stated he believed after discussing this with Strommen, that milfoil growth so far this year is a little lighter. , Partyka state~ he believed Strommen suggested that where it is growing, it is matted and heavy. He added Strommen stated there are areas where it has grown historically that are not real heavy yet this year. Kitchak asked when there is bad weather or there are breakdowns with the equipment, is the crew sent home so their hours could be extended at a later time? Nybeck stated when weather is a concern, Todd Grams, EWM Project Supervisor, coordinates calling crew members to notify them of planned hours for that day. He added crew members assist in other areas of the operation when there is downtime because of breakdowns with the equipment. Randall clarified that overtime is authorized only when the crew works more than 40 hours per week. Rascop arrived at 7:10 P.M. Suerth expressed some concern with current breakdowns of the existing equipment this year. He added he believed the equipment needs an extensive evaluation of its condition. He noted that Strommen is working with staff to get this assistance to the mechanic who works on the equipment. Babcock stated he concurred that there needs to be more preventive maintenance on the equipment. Lake Mifinetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page 3 Suerth described the discussion he and Partyka had with Strommen regarding the potential purchase of either a harvester or transporter in the future. He stated a current load of weeds takes approximately two hours to accumulate. He stated based on this discussion, he believed the District should proceed getting our facts together before deciding to pumhase a new harvester. Partyka stated he concurred with Suerth and expressed concern with the downtime of the current harvesters. He agreed there needs to be a preventive maintenance as suggested by Babcock. He concluded based on the meeting, there is a need to purchase a new harvester for 1999. Suerth stated Strommen would put together his thoughts and observations regarding the purchase of a transporter. He noted that one harvester is currently being used as a part-time transporter. He added with the number of off-load sites around the lake, there might not be a need to purchase a transporter. He concluded he believed there is a need to improve service on the equipment in the future. Partyka stated based on the discussion with Strommen, he believed there is a less of a need to purchase a transporter. He noted this is based on the potential number of off-load sites around the lake and the minimal travel time for the harvesters to them. Babcock suggested the District might want to consider purchasing t~vo harvesters rather than one in 1999. Kitchak stated he believed it might make sense to commercially refurbish the machines outside of the District in the off-season. Suerth stated Strommen is currently checking on this. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. WATER STRUCTURES A. Meadowbrook Boat Club, Staff update on 1998 renewal w/o change multiple dock license application. Randall stated the Meadowbrook representative contacted the office and stated they needed more time to allow their Board members to review the renewal without change application. ' She noted they stated an application should be received in the District office by Tuesday, 6/30/98. She added staff believes they have been delaying submitting this application because they have been provided sufficient time. She concluded staff recommends a letter be sent from LeFevere or from the office requiring an application be submitted by a set date. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page 4 Nybeck stated he believed this association does not agree with staff's interpretation of boat storage at this site. Rascop stated he believed a letter stating a specific date for submission of the application that is relatively soon should be sent out to them. The Board directed staff to send them a letter if an application is not received in the District office by Tuesday, 6/30/98. The application is to be forwarded to the Board at the next meeting. They noted failure to submit this application would result in operating without a multiple dock license in 1998 and that the Board would consider further action. Hennepin County Environmental Services, Spring Park Bay, Continued discussion of 5/13/98 public hearing to consider a new multiple dock license, a special density license, and a variance application to accommodate 72 Boat Storage Units (BSU). Babcock introduced the agenda item stating he believed two issues need to be resolved by the Board. First, to determine how the existing special density license was issued and to determine whether it can be reissued. Second, to determine how to license the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks. He stated he believed that law enforcement docks should be treated as a public amenity and not count them towards the 1:50' density and that a code amendment might be appropriate. He added he believed that fees should be waived for docks that consist of law enforcement boats. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to direct LMCD attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment that treats law enforcement docks as a public amenity and does not count the Boat Storage Units (BSU) towards the 1:50' Code allowance. Staff was also directed to prepare resolution to amend the fee resolution waiving fees for law enforcement docks. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Babcock stated he believed the second issue the Board needs to address is how to deal with the existing 65 BSU special density license approved in 1984. He questioned how it was initially approved and whether it could be modified. He stated that the problem is that some of the dockage rights at the site are restricted to persons having an interest in specified riparian and non-riparian property. He concluded the Code prohibits special density licenses under these circumstances. Ahrens asked what would occur if special density licenses were granted for docks that restricted the use of them to specified riparian residents? Babcock stated on outlots, that would increase potential density on them by a factor of five. He noted the purpose of the ordinance was to provide destination points for the public. La~e Mirinetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page 5 Foster stated he believed both Wayzata and Deephaven have been issued special density licenses. He questioned how they were approved. LeFevere stated for these two cities, it is a matter of degree to whom the docks are restricted. He noted the number of members of the public who can use the BSU's is much larger than the one in question on Spring Park Bay. McMillan asked for clarification on how Hennepin County is currently licensed? Babcock stated they are currently license for 65 BSU's on 650' of continuous shoreline. He noted this breaks down to 40 transient and 25 for overnight storage. He added that LeFevere has clarified the parcel actually has 1,160' of continuos shoreline and should be licensed as one. He noted this is how the Hennepin County Water Patrol docks became involved. LeFevere stated this situation is unique because it does not qualify for and should not have been permitted for a special density license. He added because it was permitted for a special density license, he believed it is probably not realistic to require them to come into compliance with the 1 BSU per 50' of continuos shoreline. He noted he believed the Board needs to determine whether to allow for the conversion of transient to overnight this last time. He stated the Board might want to approve the pending request and hold the line down the road. He concluded the facility should then be grandfathered because it is a non- conforming facility. Babcock questioned whether it would be easier to defend because the Board has not taken any action on the proposed applications. LeFevere stated the lots in question where the conversions would take effect might have been purchased under the assumption the District would allow for them to have private dockage. He noted District has the ability to impose reasonable restrictions even though the deed provides for dockage on these properties. Kitchak asked how many parcels of property are in questions? Mike Brandt, Hennepin County Conservation Division Manager, stated there are 26 parcels. He noted they have requested for 31 overnight storage BSU's because there are multiple dwellings on some of these parcels. Foster asked how many living entities are on these 26 parcels? Brandt stated there are 31 living entities. Babcock stated he was unclear on who was at fault when the special density license was granted in 1984. He noted either the information was presented correctly and the District I, m ,&~ A ,L, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page 6 made a mistake by issuing the permit or the District might not have been aware of the restriction of the docks to the properties across Shoreline Drive. Foster stated it appears that Hennepin County has obligations to provide 31 overnight BSU's. He added he does not want to reduce transient slips down from 40 to 34. He stated he believed that both overnight and transient slip demands could be accommodated because they have 1,160' of continuous shoreline. Babcock stated he believed that should not be done because they did not apply for that. He added he could not support for approving more than 65 BSU's. LeFevere stated he was unsure of Hennepin County's position but he noted that a County attorney years ago stated they did not have justification for limiting the number of watercraft after reviewing the deed. He added if the District decides to limit the number of BSU's on this property, this does not hurt Hennepin County because they are not in breach of their contract. He concluded requiring six additional BSU's above the 65 proposed at this site might not be reasonable because they might not want to do this. Kitchak stated the best solution might be to admit a mistake was made but maintain the BSU's at 40 transient and 25 overnight. He suggested the neighborhood might need to establish a homeowners association to determine who gets them. Ahrens asked because of the language in the deed, has the District modified the number of transient and overnight storage as development occurred'?. Babcock stated he believed it had not been done. Nybeck suggested staff conduct a historical research on conditions of the special density license when it was approved in 1984 and track it to the present to see if there were changes to overnight and transient storage when development occurred. Partyka stated in getting resolution to this situation, he believed 1,150' of lot should be noted and that the Water Patrol docks should be included. He suggested the Board consider a compromise to resolve the situation. Kitchak asked who puts the docks in? Brandt stated the residences and businesses put the docks in themselves. He noted Hennepin County makes application for the permit and reported they do not make any money on them. Nybeck stated staff is looking for Board direction on two issues before it can proceed with the pending applications. He noted these issues were the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks and how to deal with the special density license issued to Hennepin County. He stated the Board needs to decide whether or not to convert the proposed six BSU's from transient to overnight I~ke Mihnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page 7 and then to grandfather them at that. He concluded staff would like to meet Hennepin County officials with this Board direction and bring back this agenda item for Board consideration at the 7/22/98 meeting. Foster restated he believed the 40 transient BSU's should remain. Babcock stated he had concern that a message was sent to developers that conversion of BSU's was an absolute right. He added he believed the District should admit a mistake was made but that the Board should consider grandfathering this multiple dock in at 40 transient slips and 25 overnight storage slips. LeFevere stated he was unsure what the property owners presumed when they developed on parcels that are slated for overnight storage. He added he believed the District should take a proactive step and record the resolution against the titles of all the properties so they are properly notified regarding dockage rights. McMillan stated she believed the consensus of the Board is that 65 BSU is the correct number. She added the question she believed still needed to be resolved is whether to allow the conversion of the six slips. Foster stated he believed the consensus is to not allow for less than 40 transient slips. LeFevere stated what existed in 1978 would the number of slips grandfathered in whether or not a special density license was granted. He noted they might have had close to this number approved in 1978. Kitchak stated he believed the District is looking for trouble if they take docks away that have been historically used. Partyka questioned whether 65 BSU's is the proper number for the Board to be looking at. Babcock stated he believed staff needed to check into four things. These include were conversions previously allowed from transient to overnight storage, whether the specific property interests were brought to the LMCD's attention when the special density license was initially granted, what the County has historically built on the site, and transient versus overnight storage in 1977. Ahrens left at 8:30 p.m. MOTION: Rascop moved, Kitchak seconded to table further discussion and to direct staff' to conduct the historical research outlined by Chair Babcock. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 - C. Additional Business. Page 8 There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (6/1/98 - 6/15/98). Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Be Foster moved, McMillan seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment for the period of 6/1/98 - 6/15/98 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. May financial summary and balance sheet. Nybeck reviewed the May financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve the May financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. Ce VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Review and adoption of 1999 draft LMCD Budget. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to adopt and certify the 1999 LMCD Budget. McMillan questioned the line-item of $20,000 for Access/Channel Signage. She asked if there are cost estimates associated with it or if these are ballpark figures. Babcock stated they are estimates and that they will be used to leverage a LCMR grant submitted by the Lake Minnetonka Association. McMillan questioned the line-item of $7,500 for Recodification. Babcock stated it was envisioned as a two-year project with $7,500 to be spent in 1998 and 1999. McMillan questioned the $15,000 expenditure for zebra mussel management in 1999. Nybeck stated the majority of that is projected to be spent on public education utilizing billboards and poster boards. McMillan stated she believed some of the zebra mussel funds could be taken from "Save the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page'9 Lake" funds. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (1, McMillan); Motion carried. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 1, LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Fantasia Charters, Inc., Staff recommends Board approval of 1998 renewal w/o change beer and wine license applications for the charter boat Fantasia. Randall stated staff is recommending Board approval with an authorized port of call in the City of Wayzata. She noted the City of Spring Park has not authorized the port of call for All-Stars in the City of Spring Park. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve the 1998 renewal without change beer and wine licenses for charter boat Fantasia, with the City of Wayzata as an authorized port of call and subject to the applicant receiving approval from the City of Spring Park to authorize All-Stars as an authorized port of call. Rascop expressed concern with authorizing All-Stars as a port of call because of navigational concerns. Myma Toivanen, owner of Fantasia, stated she is familiar with the dock and she stated she believed docking the boat at this location would have limited impact on navigation in Seton Channel. Babcock asked how long traffic could be backed up when using this dock as a port of call? Toivanen stated it could possibly take two to three minutes. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (1, Rascop); Motion carried. B. Additional Business. Babcock introduced a letter from Mike Brandt who expressed concern with the on-going costs and maintainenance of placing a "minimum-wake" buoy as approved for Jim Zimmerman. He added Brandt has requested that a policy be established for special requests prior to placing the buoy in the lake. Brandt expressed concern about Hennepin County being required to place and take the buoy out each years with the associated costs their responsibility. He expressed concern about setting a precedent. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page 10 Babcock stated when the decision was made to approve the Zimmerman buoy request, the costs for Hennepin County was addressed. He noted the Board fled in conditions with the approval identifying why this area is unique and merited a buoy. Nybeck stated he talked with Brandt after these buoys were approved and asked how to resolve this issue. He noted the letter being discussed was prepared based on this discussion. He reported Brandt agreed to place the buoy in the lake provided that Mr. Zimmerman purchase the buoy; that he agree to pay for the placement, removal, and cleaning of the buoy on an annual basis; and that a payment of $50 be made annually in an escrow account to pay for buoy replacement. He concluded this was proposed to Mr. Zimmerman and that he expressed concerns with this. ~. Brandt stated that Mr. Zimmerman agreed to pay for the buoy and the replacement of the buoy in the future. He noted Mr. Zimmerman has expressed concern with the other costs. Foster asked what it costs Hennepin County to put a buoy in? Brandt stated it costs $94 annually to put a buoy in, to take it out, and clean it. Babcock asked if Hennepin County would be willing to consider eliminating the $50 escrow account, provided Mr. Zimmerman agrees to pay for future buoy replacements? Brandt stated he believed that could be considered. Kitchak suggested Hennepin County forward the County resolution that identifies the channels where navigational buoys are being placed. He added he believed a Task Force needs to be established to identify buoy placement in the future on an on-going basis. MOTION: Foster moved, Wert seconded to rescind the previous motion which approved a minimum-wake buoy for Mr. Jim Zimmerman and required Hennepin County to maintain the buoy on an annual basis. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Foster moved, Weft seconded to approved the minimum-wake buoy for Mr. Zimmerman, subject to Hennepin County purchasing and maintaining it with Mr. Zimmerman agreeing to pay these costs on an annual basis. VOTE: Ayes (6), Nayes (3; Rascop, McMillan, Kitchak); Motion carded. SAVE THE LAKE There was no business. I~ke Mi~netonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 24, 1998 Page 11 e 10. ADMINISTRATION Nybeck recommended the Board cancel the 7/8/98 Board meeting. He suggested the Board might want to consider moving the Workshop/Planning meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Grays Freshwater on 7/1/98 to 7/8/98. The Board concurred with this recommendation. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: A handout from the Army Corp of Engineers was distributed with information on test plot sites established for the triclopyr research. · The 1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey and the ShOreline Inventory Study are currently being conducted. · Dr. Ray Newman, U of M, informed the District office that some buoys being used in conjunction with the weevil research on Smiths Bay have either been damaged or are missing. He added staff recommended Newman forward this to the Sheriff's Water Patrol. · A July calendar of events was circulated for the Board. · Press releases on the 1998 EWM Harvesting Season and the zebra mussel boat washdown station were circulated. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary DRAFT ' RECEIVE5 "!' · ,- 0 1991]': LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE 8:30 a.m., Friday, July I0, 1998 Gray's Freshwater Center, Suite 19, Navarre, MN Present: Herb Suerth, LMCD Board; Gene Strommen, EWM Project Manager; Todd Grams, EWM Project Supervisor; John Batten, Hennepin Parks; Dr. Ray Newman, U of M Fisheries; Wendy Crowell, MN DNR; Nancy Randall, LMCD Administrative Technician; Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director. Minutes. The minutes from the 5/8/98 Task Force meeting were accepted as submitted. 1998 EWM Harvestine Program update. Strommen provided Task Force members a progress update for the milfoil harvesting season. reported: He · There was significant down time the first two weeks with the harvesting equipment. · Harvesting began in Phelps Bay and has continued through Cooks Bay, Black Lake, Seton Lake, Emerald Lake, Carman Bay, Old Channel Bay, Gideon Bay, Excelsior Bay, St. Albans Bay, and Lafayette Bay. He noted the equipment has been working better with less downtime for equipment malfunctions. · Harvesting will continue through 8/22 with a skeleton crew working on that week. He noted the crew is working nine and 10 hour days to make up for some lost time. · He reported the crew is a cohesive group that appears to enjoy working together. · He reported the amount of milfoil being harvested is generally down from past years. He noted; however, it is generally miserable where it is growing. · He noted fragment cleaning has been emphasized with the crew before leaving a bay or area of the lake. Nybeck stated he was on the west-end of the lake recently and reported that water quality in Harrisons Bay was terrible. Batten stated that the bays with historical bad water quality are terrible this year and the bays with historical good water quality are incredible this year. Newman stated he believed water quality in Smiths Bay is not good this year. Strommen circulated photos from a recent fly-over to evaluate milfoil growth. He noted these photos illustrate poor water quality and algae growth on areas of the lake. He asked Grams to comment on harvesting progress the past few weeks. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 7/10/98, PAGE 2 Grams stated harvesting has improved the past weeks because there has been less down time with the equipment. He noted the success of the crew is a direct correlation with the equipment operating. Suerth asked what are the plans for maintenance on the equipment when the machines are pulled from the water this year? Strommen stated based on experience this year, it is planned to have an overall equipment check when it is pulled this year. He noted he had been in contact with three potential companies that have hydraulic and diesel background. He added he would be preparing a RFP sometime in August with the idea of working on the equipment in September. He concluded this might require significant investment; however, should be beneficial in the long run with less down time. Nybeck asked Strommen to update the Task Force on the purchase of new equipment. Strommen stated he believed it is time to consider purchasing a smaller harvester, with paddle wheels, for 1999. Suerth stated when the equipment is being worked on this fall, he suggested a pressure loss system be devised on them to minimize potential spills in the lake. He asked Grams for his input on the purchase of new equipment? Grams stated he believed there is more merit to purchase a new harvester rather than a transporter. He noted this because he believed there would be a lot of down time with a transporter because of the vicinity of off-load sites. He added he believed either the new harvester or one of the existing harvesters should be converted to have the flexibility of having two harv6sters that can transport weeds if needed. He concluded one of the existing harvesters already has this flexibility. Suerth asked Grams to estimate how much percentage of the time is the existing harvester used as a transporter? Gram~ stated that depends on the location of the off-load site and the amount of weeds. He added that a transporter assist in truck management and keeping costs down. Discussion of Transporters and the risk of introducing zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka. Suerth stated he believed the District has not received full cooperation with this user group in cooperating with spraying boats down before they are launched in the lake if they are coming from the Mississippi River. He asked for suggestions from the Task Force. Nybeck used Kings Cove as an example. He noted they have a facility in infested waters on the Mississippi River in Hastings. He questioned what is being done when boats are being transported from that facility to Lake Minnetonka. Suerth stated the District might need to add on to the existing ordinance that requires boat transporters to certify the boats that are being transported are not infested with zebra mussels. added existing state law prohibits the transporting of water from zebra mussel infested waters. He I, m ,,Ii& it ~,, EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 7/10/98, PAGE 3 Newman stated he believed the DNR would be focusing on educating boaters that are leaving infested waters. Crowell stated a lot of the public access inspectors focus on the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. She added more enforcement activity would assist in the addressing the District's concerns. Nybeck stated it might be time to coordinate a meeting with the boat transporters. Crowell stated she believed contact should be made with Gary Montz because some of these discussions have already taken place. Newman asked if the educational pamphlet was circulated to the public? Nybeck stated the pamphlet has been disseminated to all city halls and marinas around the lake. He added a press release offering service at the boat washing station has been forwarded and published in the three local newspapers. He noted he believed increased efforts could be done to educate the public. Crowell stated the DNR has recently put out both radio and television ads directed specifically towards zebra mussels. She added the message needs to continually be driven home. Discussion of Chara algae in l.ake Minnetonka. Suerth asked Strommen to update the Task Force on his observations of chara algae in Lake Minetonka this year. Strommen stated he has observed a significant growth of chara algae in St. Albans Bay this year. He noted is has grown in the bay in past years but he believed it was much thicker this year. Suerth asked if it is new concern for this Task Force? Crowell stated it has been in the lake as long as she can remember. She noted some years it grows much heavier and she reported this year falls in that category. Barten stated this is the first year there has been some problem with chara since he has worked for Hennepin Parks. Newman stated you do not want a problem with chara on a long-term basis. He noted warmer weather and clearer water might have allowed it to grow earlier before it was shaded out by other plants. Strommen stated he believed the growth of chara in St. Albans Bay has had a direct impact on milfoil growth. Suerth concluded the discussion noting that chara algae has existed on Lake Minnetonka for many years and that it is in a bad cycle currently because of climatic conditions. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 7/10/98, PAGE 4 Agency Reports. Batten reported Hennepin Parks has done very limited chemical treatments for milfoil this year. He noted the only treatment that has been done is at the beach and around the fishing pier on Lake Auburn. He added he believed Lake Independence is dealing with the issues themselves this year. · He concluded there might be more areas that could be treated chemically; however, they have a policy that states they are to treat only where there is a recreational impact. Newman reported that other than the buoy concerns, things are progressing relatively well. He noted milfoil growth in June on Smiths Bay was relative low at 815 grams per square meter. He added there has been more species in Smiths Bay this year including northern watermilfoil and chara. He stated on Otter Lake where milfoil had declined in recent years, milfoil is coming back some in either clumps or single plants. He noted water clarity in Cedar Lake was excellent and that it was poor in Lake Auburn. He concluded there has been no weevil activity Cedar Lake. Crowell updated the Task Force on the Army Corp of Engineer study on Lake Minnetonka regarding the t`se of triclopyr. She noted they recently conducted a field study on a test plot in Carson Bay that applied .5 ppm. She stated the plant appeared to be dying but that the stem might be re-sprouting. She added there were similar results on Lake Minnewashta where test plots have been established for triclopyr research. Area wide lake association reports. There were no area wide lake association repons. Old Business. There was no old business. New Business. There was no new business. Ad|ournment. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Gregory S. Nybeck Executive Director " RECEiVE ,JUL 2 2 1998 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 19 Excelsior, MN 55331 471-9588 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S NEWSLETTER Gregory S. Nybeck July 21, 1998 1998 LCMR Application: LMCD representatives testified before Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) committee members on 6/9/98 in St. Paul. Chair Babcock, Vice-Chair Foster, Orono Mayor Gab_Hel Jabbour, mhd myself rcprcsented the District on the application submitted. The proposed application is for $5 million in LCMR funds, with cooperation by the MN DNR, for blanket funding of land acquisition and development of 1-2 public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. This project would build on the successful completion of the Maxwell Bay public access in Orono. District representatives testified to the LCMR committee that any project considered would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the 1992 Lake Access Task Force Report. It was also testified that State and Regional funds were appropriate for public access projects on Lake Minnetonka because they have State and Regional impacts, not just local. We anticipate receiving feedback by early August on whether the proposed project will be funded by the LCMR. If funded, these funds would not be available until July of 1999. As I noted in my 4/21/98 Newsletter, the goal of this project is to increase the quality of car/trailer parking on Lake Minnetonka, 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 1992 Lake Access Task Force Report.' " Exotics Management: With the majority of the crew returning from 1997, including Project Manager Gene Strommen, this project was starte~ on 6/15 mhd is planned through 8/21. To date, harvesting has been done in Phelps Bay, S. Upper Lake, W. Upper Lake, Cooks Bay, Emerald Lake, Seton Lake, Black Lake, Carman Bay, Old Channel Bay, Gideon Bay, Excelsior Bay, St. Albans Bay, Lafayette Bay, Echo Bay, Crystal Bay, North Arm, and Maxwell Bay. Currently, we are harvesting in Grays Bay with future plans to harvest in Wayzata Bay and Browns Bay. Potential second cuts will be analyzed upon completion of these bays. Strommen has stated that harvesting priorities are based upon impediment to public boat navigation on the open water. There are many areas of the lake where the milfoil does not look very appealing. In many of these cases, either the milfoil is sparse and well under the water or there is a build-up of floating algae. Feel free to have your office staff or residents call the office if we can be of assistance. The LMCD Board is giving serious consideration to purchasing a new harvester for 1999. A fifth harvester will serve as a back to the current fleet of four harvesters. The harvester EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S NEWSLETTER, 7/21/98, PAGE 2 would be purchased with Equipment Depreciation funds that have been set aside equipment purchases. Staff is also preparing a proposal to present to the Board in August to conduct a major overhaul of all harvesters. The current fleet is ten years old. All moving parts would be rebuilt or replaced as needed during the off-season. Equipment Depreciation funds may be used for this purpose as well. 1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey: Schoell and Madson is currently conducting this survey in compliance with the Lake Minnetonka Management Plan. 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 forwarded late in 1998. Planning/Special Projects Intern: Pat Lynch was employcd with the District for this three-month internship to assist staff in completing two Lake Minnetonka Management Plan related projects. A Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Watercraft Storage Count and car/trailer inventory are currently being conducted for 1998. Copies of these projects will be forwarded when they are completed. 1999 LMCD Budget: The 1999 LMCD Budget was approved by the Board at the 6/24/98 meeting and forwarded to member cities before the 7/1/98 deadline. The approved budget forwarded a total levy of $151,208 to the 14 member cities, well below the levy forwarded in 1998 ($174,140). Reserve fund balance projections for 12/31/99 indicate the adopted budget will meet agreed upon levels of 6 months for Administration and 12 months for EWM/Exotics. On-going Licenses/Permits: LMCD staff has processed all new and renewal applications for multiple docks; District Mooring Areas; charter boats; and liquor, wine, and beer licenses. LMCD staff has also licensed special events on Lake Minnetonka, in addition to the Sheriff's Water Patrol, in 1998. This has provided'for greater coordination in the zebra mussel spraydown efforts for special event participants. This service has also been available to the public on Friday's from 4-7 p.m. during the months of June, July, and August. Staff continues to follow-up on complaints received including docking issues, the number of boats stored, lighting complaints, and an assortment of other complaints. Management Plan Review: LMCD Board and staff have continued to meet on the first Wednesday of each month to review the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. The purpose of these Workshop/Planning Sessions is to review the Management Plan and decide where changes/updates need to be made. Further details will be provided when available. Bil Hawks Boathouse: The civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Hawks against the LMCD challenging LMCD Code Section 2.12, Subd. 2 was dismissed in Hennepin County District court on 5/26/98. Also, the Court ruled favorably for the countersuit filed by the LMCD seeking an injunction requiring the storage boat to be removed from Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Hawks was directed to either remove the storage boat from Lake Minnetonka or to convert it into a houseboat. Further details will be provided when available. · . WebPage: The LMCD WebPage address is: http://www.winternet.com/-lmcd/ MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE CONi~ISSION MINUTES - July 9, 1998 MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 9, 1998 Members present: Pete Meyer, Tom Casey, Bev Botko, Rita Pederson, and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Others present: Park Director Jim Fackler and Jodi Ralm. The following interested citizens were also present: Lois Adams. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 14, 1998 POSC MINUTES Motion by Weycker, seconded by Botko to approve the minutes of the May 14, 1998 POSC minutes as amended: page 5, March for Parks should read $335.00 which will be split between the Parks. Spelling correction to be made on page 2 and 5, Sanders should be Saunders. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Added to the agenda: 2. a) Park Tour Statement o a) Comp Plan update b) Dredge c) Park Spruce Up d) City Sand Pile 9. c) Misc Park Commission Questions. PARK TOUR STATEMENT Peter Meyer stated he has a statement and itinerary requested by the Mound City Council regarding the canceled 1998 Park Tour. And asked that they be put into the POSC minutes word for word: "The goal of this year's Park and Open Space Commission parks tour was to give the Mound City Council a hands on tour of Mounds parklands and buildings, highlighting areas and needs on the 1999 Park and Open Space Commission park improvements recommendation, we just passed on to Mr. Fackler and the 1999 City budget process. The tour was meant to show a cross-section of Mound's parklands and their problems. Emphasizing because of insufficient staff, funding and PRIDE, their general neglect and down- right shabby condition as a whole, compared to parklands and public areas in other cities in the western suburbs. On Monday June 8th I found out from city staff that Mayor Polston and Council members Ahrens and Hanus (a majority of the city council) would not be attending the Park Tour. I was ve~'y disappointed and had no recourse but to cancel the June 11~ Park Tour. Afier trying to feschedule the Park Tour with no success, Mr. Shukle directed me, the Park MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE CO~ISSION MINUTES - July 9, 1998 Commission Chair to give the City Council a written itinerary of the June 11th Park Tour for the City Council's information. Here is the itinerary of the canceled June 11th 1998 Park Tour. Ok, the Park Tour was going to start at City Hall and then we were going to drive to Three Points Park. Between the Lost Lake entrance and the Post Office on the South side of Shoreline Blvd. there are two dead spruce trees and four and one half dead eight to ten ir~ch diameter cottonwood trees. And this looks shabby and at the end of each one of these items I am listing one of the higher priorities request from the Park Commission is more Park staff. (LOOKS SHABBY, (MORE PARK STAFF) The chokecherry trees between the Farmers Market parking lot and the Rail Road Tracks planted about 12 years ago and have never been trimmed. LOOKS BAD, (MORE PARK STAFF) The Christmas tree lighting ceremonial tree across from John's Variety, base is weedy and needs woodchips. LOOKS SHABBY, (MORE PARK STAFF) THREE POINTS PARK Three Points Park the infield agri-lime surface is rough and needs to be smoothed out. Weeds and grass are growing into the agri-lime surface around its perimeter. LOOKS BAD, (MORE PARK STAFF) Dragging the infield regularly would solve both these problems. The Parks Department has two of these dragging rigs at the IP Hall. The tennis court surface has two large cracks running the entire width of the court, from last winter. Makes it hard to play a tennis match and how about player safety? Pile of old leaves in the South East corner of tennis court from last fall. The tennis court entry door needs to be adjusted. It only opens part way and is digging into playing surface. Needs a simple adjustment to move it up. THESE ITEMS LOOK BAD AND TELL ME THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON THE CITY OF MOUND DOES NOT CARE ENOUGH FOR ITS PARKS TO MAINTAIN THEM. ~ Weeds at the base of the retaining wall between the tennis court and the playground, need to be trimmed. LOOKS SHABBY, (MORE PARK STAFF) Sand in the playground gets pushed to the outside, needs to be raked/shoveled back to the center. (Evened out). (MORE STAFF) Door or cover on the time clock has been open all spring. Plant several trees, (native hardwoods) north of basketball court for shade and elsewhere in Park to replace mature trees lost the last couple of years. (SHADE TREE REQUEST) CRESENT PARK The area at the end of the peninsula, demonstrates in a small area both good and bad shoreline management. The areas with a more natural shoreline with its untrimmed brush and trees holds on to the shoreline compared to adjacent areas of cut turf to the waters edge and how that part has eroded away. REPAIR SHORELINE AND RESTORE NATURAL PLANTS ALONG ERODED AREAS OF THE SHORELINE. MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE CO~ISSION MINUTES - July 9, 1998 The Park and Open Space Commission is requesting posts and a chain gate to limit access to the Park and to allow for natural planting. Remove several loads of street sweepings in the brush on the West side of the lower entrance. That was left there several years ago. (MORE PARK STAFF AND MORE PARK DOLLARS) DRIVE FROM THREE POINTS PARK TO SORBO PARK. Just after turning South on Commerce Blvd. from Three Points Blvd., please notice the City of Mound sign. Why are branches allowed to go untrimmed to the point where our beautiful sign is obscured from view? (MORE PRIDE? MORE PARK STAFF?) SORBO PARK The playground retaining wall on the Basketball Court side needs to be built up one rail road tie higher to slow the movement of playground pebbles and sand onto the basketball court. HIGHLAND PARK Grass and weeds grown deeply into sand playground area. Sand pushed to the outside of the playground area. Grass needs to be removed and the sand leveled out. LOOKS BAD (MORE PARK STAFF) There are several deep ruts (holes) in between the playground and the swing areas that need filling. LOOKS BAD, DANGEROUS? (MORE STAFF) Several of the street signs around the Park need to be straightened. LOOKS BAD (MORE PARK STAFF) Several dead and broken tree branches that need to be trimmed. LOOKS SHABBY (MORE PARK STAFF) A new concrete curb was poured and a storm sewer grate was repaired this spring in front of the sign at Highland Park. Just behind the curb there is a big hole, why wasn't it filled after the storm water street problem was repaired? LOOKS SHABBY (MORE PUBLIC WORKS STAFF OR DID THEY JUST NOT FINISH THE JOB?) In an effort to improve Mound's Park system. On Thursday evening July 2nd the Park and Open Space Commission scheduled a workshop at Highland Park and spent the evening sprucing up the park. This amounts to about half of what I wanted to cover on our Park Tour. I look forward to discussing the remainder of the Park Tour and other Park improvements recommendations with you at the August Committee of the Whole meeting. I hope this statement and itinerary has given you a feel for the Parks and Open Space Commission frustrations for not being able to reverse a slow downward spiral of our park system standards the last five to ten years." MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE COFi~ISSION MINUTES - July 9, 1998 Sincerely yours, ; Peter C. Meyer Mound Park and Open Space Commission Chair. 1999 PARKS BUDGET Jim Fackler asked for any questions regarding the budget. Meyer had some concerns about the basketball hoops at Three Points Park and if they were going to be replaced next year. Fackler stated both hoops will be replaced along with the one at Seton Park Weycker addressed the following concerns: a. Lifeguard program costs. b. Would like to see request regarding lifeguard stand. c. Music in the Parks Casey stated other than the Music in the Parks what of our improved improvements has actually been incorporated in the 1999 Budget request. Fackler stated he had talked with Meyer and some of the improvements he could not put a figure on. After a lengthy discussion regarding the 1999 improvements the Park and Open Space Commission and Staff decided to go over the 1999 Park Improvements Recommendations and put a dollar amount on each item and prioritize the list and make any revisions. REVISION PARK & OPEN SPACE 1999 PARK IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDATION 1. IP HALL RESTORATION (VEDI ASSOCIATES) .................... $ 25,000 (ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND INTERIOR DESIGN FEES) 2. COMMUNITY SKATING RINK ............................... $ 5,000 (UPGRADE OF THE EXISTING FACILITY. JOINT PROJECT WITH THE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES) 3. MORE PARK STAFF (QTY. 1) ............................. $5,000 4. INVENTORY PROPERTY (ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) (PRIVATE AND PUBLIC) 5. LIFEGUARD JACKETS AND SHIRTS (REGULAR BUDGET) 6. CRESENT PARK (POST & GATE OR CHAIN) .................. $1,000 7. MUSIC IN THE PARKS (ALREADY IN BUDGET) 8. MOUND BAY (CHARCOAL ASH CONTAINER) (REGULAR BUDGET) 9. THREE POINTS PARK (NATIVE HARDWOOD -2) ........... $ 800 10. ADOPT-A-GREEN SPACE (REGULAR BUDGET) (LOAD OF BLACK DIRT) 11. RESCUE TUBES - NEW (REGULAR BUDGET) 12. THREE POINT PARK & SETON PARK (BASKETBALL HOOPS) .... $3,600 13. DEPOT INFORMATION SIGN (POSSIBLE PURCHASE 1998) 141 CRESENT PARK (RIP RAP) ................................... $6,000 MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE COPI~ISSION MINUTES - July 9, 1998 15. PARKLAND ACQUISITION ................................. $ 10,000 10,000.00 PER YEAR INTO DEDICATED FUND 16. THREE POINTS PARK (OPEN SHELTER) ...................... $ 20,000 17. AVON PARK ( TWO MORE SWINGS) .......................... $ 2,500 MOSQUITO CONTROL Information is not available yet. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: ISLAND PARK HALL Fackler stated that he has received about six calls regarding stories of Island Park Hall and asked if they would put them in written form and mail them in along with any pictures they my have. Casey asked if anyone has looked into the historic status of Island Park Hall building. Weycker stated we have not received a proposal from the architect as of yet. Casey discussed that from the Washington office he received a copy of the guidelines for inclusion of buildings as a national historical site if less than fifty years old. Casey stated that he will put a copy of the guidelines in the August packet. Weycker asked about the packet she received from the national historical site and suggested filling it out and mailing it in because it may take up to two years to get that classification. Pederson asked for more information regarding the LCMR grant money and Fackler stated he would look into it. LOCAL MATCHING GRANTS Casey suggested Fackler also look into Local Matching Grants information. Fackler stated he would also look into that. OPEN MEETING LAW Meyer asked if the Park Commission could meet at a location just to review something not to make any recommendations or discussions but just to review a item as a group. Fackler stated that yes it could be done but the City Clerk needs 10 days so it can be posted. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/DREDGE Fackler stated he had sent a note to the City Manager and at this time has not received any information back from him. PARKS SPRUCE UP MeYer stated he would like to schedule a workshop at Swenson Park on Thursday to clean up the area. MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE CO~i~ISSION MINUTES - July 9, 1998 Weycker stated that a notice will have to be put up if more than three people show up. Commissioners discussed painting of the depot railing. Fackler suggested the Commissioners pick out a weekend and he will see if it is available. Fackler said he would supply all paint, brushes, rollers and pans. Swenson Park spruce up will be held Thursday July30, 1998 at 7:00pm. Fackler stated he would notify Fran Clark of the date and time. CITY SAND PILE Meyer suggested that the sand pile located at the Public Works building be covered with a tarp to help prevent the salt and sand from going into the storm sewer. MISC Pederson asked why the weeds and other debris have not been picked up by the dock located at the depot. Fackler stated that they cannot get over to that location with the bobcat and will have to clean it up by hand. Botko addressed concerns about the weeds located by John's Variety and the Rail Road tracks. Fackler stated it is not city property it is Dakota Rail and all concerns need to be addressed with them. Botko suggested that the city clean out the area by the Christmas tree because it is so weedy. Fackler stated it is not city property and believes it to be Hennepin County. Meyer suggested to put woodchips under the pine tree. (Christmas Tree) Botko also addressed concerns about the weeds along Lynwood Blvd. Fackler stated the portion the city owns has been cut and the remaining area is owned by Tonka Toys. AUGUST POSC AGENDA 2. 3. 4. Buckthorn Management Update on Comp Plan from Hoisington Koegler Depot Painting of Railing (Sat.?) Skating Rink Update INFORMATION Handouts from Peter Meyer. REPORTS Weycker stated a architect has been chosen for the Community Center. Ca'sey asked about the status on the Woodland Point suit and asked to be notified on the date. MOUND PARK & OPEN SPACE CO~i~ISSION MINUTES - July 9, 1998 ADJOURNED Motion by Botko, seconded by Weycker to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION- JULY 16, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Members Present: Meisel, Pietrowski, Brewer, Weber, Drahos, Jensen and Longpre. (Drahos had to leave as the meeting got started). Also Present: Cook, Chamberlain, Businaro and Shukle. Upon motion by Longpre, seconded by Brewer and carried unanimously, the minutes of the June 18, 1998 meeting were approved. Lost Lake Improvement Project Ed Shukle indicated that the construction plans are under review by MNDOT. It will be about 2 weeks before the final plan review will be completed. Shukle indicated that he is trying to expedite the review process by making some phone calls. Also discussed was the relocation of the Post Office and the possible location of the post office at another location in the same block as previously proposed. Staff is working with the post office to find out if the latest version of the concept is realistic and acceptable. Auditor's Road Improvement Project Shukle indicated that the final plans for the Auditor's Road Improvement Project have been submitted to MNDOT, Hennepin County and other effected agencies. He indicated that Hennepin County is likely to sign off on the project shortly. The City Council has set a bid date of August 5, 11 a.m. to open bids on this project. .. Update on Westonka Community Center Shukle updated the commission on the status of this project. ATS&R and E & V Consultants have been selected as the architect and construction manager respectively on this project. Contract negotiations with these firms has begun and a recommendation from the WCCB will be made at their July 29 meeting and subsequent action by the School Board at their August 10 meeting. Other Business Mark Brewer asked about local input regarding the type of development design that may occur as a result of the possible development along Commerce Blvd. and Auditor's Road. Although local input is important and necessary, it is premature, at this point in time, to be overly concerned. The developer selected will be made aware of the City's interests in developing property in a suitable and reasonable manner that will fit with the City's goals for its downtown. It was noted that the next meeting of the EDC is scheduled for August 20, 1998, 7:00 a.m. at Mound City Hall. Paul Meisel is scheduled to bring the rolls. EDC Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 2 It was moved by Brewer, seconded by Pietrowski to adjourn the meeting. unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at §: 18 a.m. Ed 8/nukle City Manager The motion carried Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja $chulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-32: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A SUN PORCH, DENNIS & CAROLYN LEININGER, 3065 DUNDEE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID # 24-117-24 44 0134 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant, Dennis and Carolyn Leininger, have submitted an updated survey as requested by the Commission at the June 8th meeting. The survey shows the side yard to exceed 1.6' for the house and as conditioned in the motion is back on the agenda for further review. Again, the request to add a conforming sun porch in the front yard. The associated variance request is listed below. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Existing/Proposed Required Variance Garage Front Yard 18' 20' 2' Side Yard 4.2' 6' 1.8' Existing/Proposed Required Variance House Side Yard north 0.6' 6' 5.4' Side Yard south 5.1' 6' 0.9' The detached garage shows an 18 feet setback from the property line and 22 feet from the back of the curb measured at the southeast corner of the garage. The northeast corner is 23 feet from the property line. The survey also shows that portion of vacated Kinman Place which has been combined with the parcel. Hardcover as proposed for the property including the sidewalk not indicated on the survey, is 2916 sf, which is under the 3077 sf limit for this 7693 sf lot of record. The updated survey shows the house and garage setbacks as listed above which are different than those shown on the previous site plan. The survey does not show the sidewalk on the north side of the house or the retaining wall on the south side of the house that encroach onto the adjacent properties. I have drawn them on the survey for reference. The sidewalk appears to encroach approximately 3 feet onto lot 6 along with a corner of the concrete patio in front of the house. The retaining wall is about 4 feet in height and encroaches onto lot 4 approximately 4 feet. A site inspection of the property would not suggest that the sidewalk or retaining wall are encroaching. The property has been maintained such that the trees along the north and south property lines appear to define the property boundary. The initial siting of the house and garage are probably to blame for property boundary assumptions. The sidewalk along the north side of the house was probably poured when the house was constructed. It is difficult to determine when the retaining wall was built, but it too may have been built in some form when the house was constructed. Subsequent property improvements to planting beds have relied on the house orientation for property boundaries rather than an accurate survey. The property has existed in this condition for many decades and outside relying on adjacent property surveys, this may be the first time the property has been surveyed. Given the circumstances, there are a couple options the Commission could look at to address the encroachments. The first would be to remove the encroaching sidewalk, patio, and retaining wall. Removal of that portion of the encroaching retaining wall will require additional grading on 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 lots 4 and 5 to prevent erosion. The second option would be to obtain easements for the encroachments on lots 4 and 6. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. This option would prevent disruption of the property but assumes the neighbors will agree to the easements. Input from the neighbors should be considered before any motion is made. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the options and determine which approach best fits the situation. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned the easement, he believes that would be an agreement between the two property owners and not something the City could require. Gordon stated that in the past, a copy of the easement would be on record at the city. Mueller stated that if the applicant could not obtain the easement agreement from the adjacent property owner then the applicant would not receive his variance. He stated that the retaining wall has been there prior to the applicant owning the property. He stated that from the information provided in the application that the adjacent property owner would not likely grant the easement to the applicant. He stated he didn't see why the city was getting in between the issue of the easement, he feels it is between the two property owners. Sutherland stated that the city has been involved in other cases such as the Meisel's on Bartlett Blvd, where the City Attorney advised that the encroachment could be removed. Mueller asked the applicant if he asked his neighbors about granting the easements. Dennis Leininger stated that the abutting property owners do know that there are encroachments on their properties. Carolyn Leininger questioned what do the other issues have to do with the addition and why there are concerns with the encroachments on adjacent property when the addition they want to put on is in a conforming location. Michael and Mueller explained the reasoning behind the encroachment questions and that the city has a right to deny the addition due to the non conforming issues. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Voss to recommend staff's second option recommendation which states, "The applicant would obtain easements for the encroachments on lots 4 and 6. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. This option would prevent disruption of the property but assumes the neighbors will agree to the easements. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 There was further discussion on the retaining wall encroachment easement. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Mueller. This case will go to City Council on July 14, 1998. CASE # 98-36: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BRADLEY NORDGREN, 5661 BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID # 23-117-24 14 0004 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. Since the June 22nd Planning Commission meeting, staff has visited the property to confirm the survey and revised hardcover calculations. The property has a number of mulch and rock planting beds that are lined with poly located within the loop driveway, at the rear and east side yard of the house, and in front of the detached garage. The survey does not delineate the planting areas with poly underlay however, staff estimates there may be 1,500 sf or more of additional hardcover. This increases the hardcover substantially further complicating the hardcover issue. Additionally, the calculations are in error and should be corrected to show the following: Hardcover w/o poly Hardcover w/poly (est.) Existinq/Proposed Required Variance 7955 sf (36%) 6674 sf 1281 sf 9455 sf (43%) 6674 sf 2781 sf There are couple options the Planning Commission could pursue to address the hardcover situation. The first would be to require that the hardcover meet the 30% required by code which would mean the poly and driveway or structure would need to be removed. A second option would be to find that there is a practical difficulty present with the additional hardcover added by the driveway that provides access to lot 5. An access drive for a lot without street frontage is not typical however, there are a small number of similar lots in the city that gain access through an adjacent lot. If the loop drive and bituminous apron were not present, the property would gain approximately 3300 sf of hardcover which would put the property into conformance with hardcover requirements even with the poly planting areas included. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the options presented and make a recommendation based on the merits of the case. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned the blacktop that is at the south end of the property. The applicant stated that it benefits the homeowner to the south. The applicant stated that the poly will be removed. He also stated that he intends to remove some of the blacktop that extends to the south to reduce some of the hardcover on his property. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to recommend approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1) The poly be removed or perforated to the requirements set by staff. 2) An agreement be entered into by the applicant to reduce the hardcover to 30% within one year period of time and be approved by the City Attorney. Motion carried 7-0. Sutherland stated that according to Zoning Code Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6, B. up to 40% hardcoYer is permitted with an approved drainage plan. There was further discussion of the lot of record hardcover interpretation. This case will go to City Council on July 14, 1998 Council Liason Mark Hanus stepped down from the Commission for this case as he is a neighbor to applicant and the site. CASE # 98-38: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH RD, LOT 94, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1sT DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23 24 0029 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant, Jack Cook, has requested a variance to allow a one car garage to remain on a lot without a principal residence. The property is located at the corner of Cardiff Lane and Denbigh Road on a 50 feet by 152 feet plus lot encompassing 7750 sf. The property owner recently built two new homes on lots 30 and 31. Located on the subject lot 29, is the one stall garage which is setback approximately 20 feet from Denbigh and 6 feet from the side lot line. The remainder of the property is undeveloped but is currently used for storage and parking of miscellaneous construction equipment. Section 350:435 Accessory Buildings, states that, "No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. The only way an accessory building could be located on a residential lot is Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 if it were combined with an adjacent property. Lot 30 is the only opportunity for such a combination. The garage was originally on another lot along Denbigh Road and just recently was moved to the site. No building or moving permits were issued by the City for this project. The garage is sitting on wood studs that do not meet building code requirements. If the garage were legally existing, it would be required to have a concrete foundation and tied down. There are a couple other building methods for the foundation that could be used but tie downs would be required with any approach. The applicant stated that he has thought about constructing a home on the lot similar to the homes on lots 30 and 31. The lot is buildable and if developed could accommodate a 34 feet wide house. Staff was aware of the situation when the building was moved and contacted the owner to discuss the situation. The applicant has decided to take the variance approach as a possible remedy to the code requirements. Staff has not received any complaints from the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission could address the case in a couple of different manners. In considering if a hardship of practical difficulty is present, the Planning Commission should use the above findings as reason for recommendation. Options could include the following: 1. The Planning Commission could find that there are no unusual circumstances or conditions present that would support a practical difficulty or hardship thereby recommending the garage be removed from the property. 2. The Planning Commission could find that the garage is a reasonable use of the property and although not combined with the adjacent property is a reasonable use of the property which could occur through the combination of lots 29 and 30. 3. The Planning Commission could put a time limit for the removal of the garage. Given the intent of the code to limit accessory structures to lots with a principal building it is difficult for staff to recommend any option but adhering to the code. This case is the reason garages are not meant to be freestanding uses. This is not to say that if the garage were removed, the equipment storage would go away. These activities are best removed from this neighborhood and carried on in a commercial setting. The approach staff has taken with these situations is to handle them largely on a complaint basis. Because there have not been any complaints, the remedying the parking and business activities administratively was not pursued. 6 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the variance request and have the applicant remove the building and other equipment using the property for parking. DISCUSSION: Mueller asked Gordon if the Commission has ever grated a use variance. Gordon stated that he was not aware of any. Sutherland stated he also was unaware of any. Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Road, stated that Jack Cook allows the neighbors to use the lot as overflow parking. He stated that he was not aware of any neighbor that is opposed to the variance. He stated that Mr. Cook stores his bobcat and trailer in the garage. Glister stated the garage does not need to be there for the neighbors to park there. Hanus stated that the applicant uses it as an accessory building and puts gardening tools and supplies in it. There was question if the parcel could be deemed buildable. There was discussion on whether this parcel could be attached to the applicant's home parcel. Gordon stated that usually the two parcels are adjacent to each other. He was not aware that two parcels could be combined two parcels separated by a road way. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to recommend Staff's recommendation of denial. Motion carried 6-0. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 Mark Hanus rejoined the Commission. CASE # 98-39: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, DON & TERRI BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVlEW LANE, LOTS 8&31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION LAKESIDE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 31 0052 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicants, Don and Terri Bonnicksen, are seeking a front yard variance to build a second story addition to the existing house. The project was previously approved by Resolution #94-10, but the house portion of the project was never completed. The request is listed below. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Existinq/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 17.5' 20' 2.5' The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setback. All code requirements are conforming except the front yard setback. Hardcover is under requirements and is not an issue. The first application outlined the second story addition, porch and garage as the project. Currently the porch and garage are complete. The second story project has been started and will reflect the plans approved by the previous resolution. The project is a substantial improvement to the property and will increase the livability of the property. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. DISCUSSION: Mueller commented that it is the same request as before. Don Bonnicksen stated that he had not finished the proposed work. Sutherland stated that the applicant had not filed for an extension therefore he needed to go through the whole process again. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff's recommendation. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 CASE # 98-40: MINOR SUBDIVISION, RELOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE, STEVEN & ELIZABETH ANN FARLEY KAKOS, 6381 MAPLE ROAD, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117-24 32 0024 & 14-117-24 32 0025 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicants, Steven and Elizabeth Ann Farley Kakos, are requesting a minor subdivision to lots 1 and 2, Block 4 of Mound Terrace including the vacated portion of Forest Lane located between Maple and Walnut Lane. The proposal is to shift the lot line separating the parcels 20 feet to the south for purposes of gaining additional yard space for the existing house located on lot 1. As proposed the parcels would meet the minimum zoning requirements for lot area as prescribed by the R-1 District. 8 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Lot 2 just received a variance for a private driveway with conditions as stated in Resolution #98- 66. The cases are related however, the conditions for approval should be separated out to address those issues specific to each action. This will prevent items like street and utility assessments that are specific to lot 2 from being construed to apply to lot 1. As required as a condition of approval of the driveway permit was a drainage easement for lot 2 along the gully. Lot 1 is also absent an easement and would be appropriate to continue the easement from lot 2. The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions: A drainage easement be provided for the gully on lots 1 and 2. Drainage easements be provided along all lot lines of lots 1 and 2, 5 feet in width on interior lot lines and ten feet wide abutting platted right-of-way. DISCUSSION: No discussion on this case. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff's recommendation of approval as stated. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 Commission took a five minute break. CASE # 98-42: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ADD AN ADDITION, MICHAEL & SONJA SCHULZ, 4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 14, SUB LOTS 1 & 32 RAVENSWOOD, PID # 13-117-24 41 0043 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicants, Michael & Sonja Schulz, are requesting a variance to allow living space and garage additions to the front of the house. The variance request includes the following. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 4.8' 6' 1.2' The property received a variance for an attached garage addition in 1990 as approved by Resolution #90-99 which recognized the 4.8 feet side yard. The current proposal is to add a 24 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 feet by 26 feet addition to the street side of the house to be used as a 2"d story garage and 1st floor hobby shop. The existincj parkin9 area would be used as the driveway to the new (:jarage. The existing garage would be converted to a mud and dining room, The existing driveway would be removed and converted to green space. A retaining wall would be extended for an additional parking space adjacent to the road. The roof line of the home would be modified the new garage addition. The addition would maintain the existing 4.8 feet side yard setback. Hardcover is under the 40 percent allowable for lots of record. Total hardcover is 3244.2 square feet which is under the requirement by 215.8 square feet. The City Engineer would like to see an updated survey at the time of building permit that shows the elevations of the parking area and retaining wall as required by code. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height require an engineered wall and the survey is needed to determine proper design. The water drainage on the driveway will be diverted to the lake rather than running into the street. The improvements will not expand the existing nonconformity of the house and should increase the livability of the property. The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request with the following conditions: The applicant provide a complete grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit as required by the building permit survey requirements. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned if the new addition would further encroach on the setback. Sutherland stated that the addition would be following the existing line and would not further encroach in the setback. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to recommend Staff's recommendation to approve the variance request for the addition. Motion carried 7-0. The applicant stated that the chimney box will be removed with the construction of the addition. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 10 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 CASE # 98-44: VARIANCE EXTENSION: FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8, & PI7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 13-117-24 11 0005 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicants, Jim & Sue O'Hearn, are requesting a variance extension to Resolution #97-58 to finish a deck project. The home sits 14 feet from the front lot line and 5.8 feet from the side lot line. The deck maintains a 69 feet setback from the lake. Improvements made to date are in conformance with the previous resolution and a hand and guardrail are left to finish. The applicants site the reasons for the The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance extension as requested. The variance would be valid for one year from the date of the resolution. DISCUSSION: No discussion was made on this case. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff's recommendation of approval for a one year extension of Resolution #97-58. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998 CASE #98-42: VARIANCE, BLUFF LINE SETBACK AT 6407 BAY RIDGE ROAD, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME, FRED JOHNSON, 3510 TUXEDO BLVD, LOT 5, BLOCK 3, THE BLUFFS, PID # 22-117-24 44 0012 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant, Fred Johnson, is requesting a variance to build a home on a bluff. The property is a vacant lot located at 6407 Bay Ridge Road. The requested variances as listed on page 2 of the application are incorrect. What should be considered by the Commission is a variance to build a home on a bluff. The entire buildable area on the lot is considered a bluff under the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance meeting all four characteristics listed in the definition. Also, the lot meets the 60 feet street frontage requirement prescribed by the R-1 District. The applicants 44 feet measurement was taken at the property line rather than at the 30 feet building setback line. All proposed lot area, width, setbacks, and hardcover would meet code requirements. 11 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 The applicant is proposing to build a two story walkout home (see building plans). The house would have the following setbacks: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 35.5' 30' Side Yard (west) 10.5' 10' Side Yard (east) 17' 10' Rear Yard 61' 50' The survey delineates a bluff line shown in the rear yard of the home. There is in fact a visible steeper slope at this location but it does not meet the definition of a bluff. The slope on the lot varies from 25 to over 50 percent in some areas closer to the shoreline. On average, the slope is between 31 and 41 percent from the front of the house to the lakeshore. In no place does the slope drop below 18 percent that could be used to determine the top of the bluff. A grading plan for the Bluffs subdivision was not prepared when it was platted in 1974. We have reviewed available surveys of other lakeshore lots along Bay Ridge Road and found that the slopes are similar. It appears that the Shoreland Management Ordinance had not yet been adopted when the subdivision was developed so these homes did not fall into bluff regulations. Easements on the property include a drainage and utility easement along the northeast side yard line and a 10 feet utility easement at the street. The easement along the side property line also serves as overflow for the storm sewer intakes. Utilities are proposed to tie into existing lines in the street. As proposed, the basement could be served with sewer service. There are a couple options the Planning Commission has in weighing the merits of the case. The first option is to deny the variance request maintaining the intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Planning Commission would determine that the proposal violates the bluff criteria. The second approach would be to determine a variance is warranted due to the fact the lot could have been built with the rest of the homes on the neighborhood and grand fathered into the Shoreland regulations. If this approach is taken, a detailed grading and erosion control plan will need to be prepared to minimize impact to the bluff. The new home should disrupt the least amount of soil as necessary by using proper grading techniques. To further stabilize the bluff the Commission may want to stipulate a tree preservation plan be prepared along with the grading plan. Maintaining as many trees as possible will help stabilize the slope and minimize visual impact from the lake. A related issue with this case is the development covenants. When the development was platted in 1974, development covenants were prepared to regulate, among other things, the height of homes to close to the lake to 15 feet measured from the street to protect views. There 12 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 is also some question if the original covenants have been renewed. If they are in force, and the applicant is forced to build a one-story home it could potentially change the footprint of the home. This would require resubmittal of the information for review by the Planning Commission. Staff brings this up as a point of courtesy as the City does not enforce these private land use matters. The Planning Commission weigh the merits of the case and make an appropriate finding of fact to support a recommendation to Council. DISCUSSION: Hanus commented that it is a takings issue. That if the property is not developed, the city would be purchasing it. Mueller commented that this lot was platted before the shoreline management ordinance went into effect. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the bluff setback variance for a structure to fit on the building pad not to extend into the easement and not to exceed hardcover. Motion carried 7-0. This case will go to City Council on July 28, 1998 INFORMATION: Add-On Item: Orv Burma commented that h.e attended another commission meeting and wanted to commended the Planning Commission and Staff for their dedication to the Commission. He is proud to be a part of the Planning Commission. A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 23, 1998 Mueller asked about the 15 year agreement with Triax. He wanted to know when the addition of the channels will be added. Hanus commented that Triax stated by the end of the year but for sure by the year 2000. There was more discussion on the cable system. Hanus stated that when Triax is all done, they will offer a total of 80 channels. 13 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 B. DOCK AND COMMONS MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 18, 1998 There was some discussion on the encroachment policy. There will be a packet handed out at the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting for further discussion. Mueller proposed to talk about the Encroachment Policy at length at the July 27th Planning Commission Meeting. Add On: Mueller brought up the 30 % and 40 % Hardcover issue. There was some length discussion on the difference of 30% - 40% hardcover. It was brought up that maybe the Commission should revisit the ordinance on hardcover at a future workshop meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Voss to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:45 p.m. Consensus. 14 RECEIVED JUL 2 1 1998 MINUTES OF THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY July 15, 1998 Pursuant to due call and notice, the quarterly meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority was held at the New Brighton Family Service Center in the New Brighton, Minnesota, on Wednesday, July 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: Bumsville Circle Pines Columbia Heights Edina Fridley Shoreview Charlie Crichton Jim Keinath Kevin Hansen John Wallin John Flora Thomas Landwehr Also present was legal counsel for the SRA, James Strommen of Kennedy & Graven. It was determined that total SRA votes represented at the meeting did not constitute a quorum.. The group was declared to be a committee of the whole. All actions taken at this meeting are subject to ratification by a quorum of the board at the next quarterly meeting. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the previous quarterly meeting were approved on motion by Mr. Flora, seconded by Mr. Landwehr and unanimous vote. 4. REPORT OF TREASURER: Mr. Wallin reported on the financial status of the SRA as of June 30, 1998. (See attached.) Mr. Strommen noted the financial condition of the SRA was better now that it had been for approximately two years in that following payment of claims presented at this meeting, the SRA would be fully current on its obligations. During the last two years, there had been an arrearage on the obligations. That is, all second half assessments for 1998 will be available for future SRA issues rather than committed to pay for past services as had been the case in 1996 and 1997 because of heavy SRA involvement in utility matters. Mr. Landwehr moved to approve the report of the treasurer. Mr. Crichton seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 5. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Strommen reported that two members had given notices of withdrawal for 1999, the cities of Blaine and Medina. Mr. Strommen reported that he had been able to discuss the decision with Medina staff but not yet with the City of Blaine. Mr. Keinath offered to inquire further regarding Blaine's decision and report on a possible further communication with Blaine on its decision. 1Ms-146937 1 su160-3 6. US WEST GENERIC COST PROCEEDING: Mr. Strommen reported that this proceeding has been monitored only by the SRA. It has been repeatedly delayed due to the modifications to cost models and complexity of the case. The decision in this case will establish a cost of service for the "local loop" (fixed costs per customer) to business and residential customers, ultimately affecting rates. Mr. Strommen reported that a companion Universal Service case has established the cost of the local loop at approximately $18 per month. It is expected that the decision in this case will equal that approximate amount. Currently, US West residential customers pay $14.50 per month (without taxes and other charges) and business customers pay $43.50 per month (the required three to one ratio ). The SRA will continue to monitor this case only to preserve funds for other issues more directly affecting SRA ratepayers and-member governments. 7. 612 AREA CODE PROCEEDING: Mr. Strommen reported that he was invited to write an article for a national periodical on state and local telecommunications matters concerning the PUC decision to draw area code boundaries along municipal lines. A copy of the article was attached to the pre-quarterly meeting packet. It was noted that the transition period to establish the new area codes in the Twin Cities has begun and the municipal boundaries approach £m-nly established and apparently going smoothly. '8. US WEST "AFOR" PETITION: Mr. Strommen reported that the SRA has taken an active role in a petition by US West for Alternative Regulation (AFOR). Instead of starting a rate case (traditional rate of return regulation), US West has submitted a plan whereby basic rates are capped and optional features that are "competitive" may be raised during the five year plan. (See attached memorandum). Of direct relevance to municipal governments is a proposal by US West to allow line item pass through of franchise fees (which are not authorized under current law), local taxes (which are rare) and "other special charges" (which could be interpreted as most anything). The SRA has strongly objected to any interpretation of this that would allow cost recovery fees (e.g. ROW management) to be line items and is opposing the proposed language. Local governments should not be confronted with cost recovery fees appearing on residents' bill. There is currently a pending settlement proposal in which the SRA is now participating. The settlement may include a rate reduction of up to $1.00 a month for metro area residential customers, and a similar proportioned decrease for metro business customers. The line item pass through issue, however, is important to municipal governments. If acceptable provisions are included in this AFOR Plan, metro area residential and business customers will be assured of reasonable basic rates for the next five years. 9. ELECTRIC UNDERGROUNDING ISSUE: Mr. Strommen reported on the results to the electric undergrounding survey. Slightly over half of the SRA members responded (results attached). Mr. Strommen noted that many of the important issues in municipal undergrounding authority regarding electric utilities will be raised in connection with the NSP v. City of Oakdale appeal, including authority to require and who pays. Mr. Strommen is representing Oakdale in the case and will be able to inform SRA cities of any developments in that matter. Until that issue is resolved by the courts or in the 1999 legislative session, actions before the PUC may be premature. JMs-146937 2 SU160-3 It was also noted that an undergrounding ordinance raises issues of customer payment for the customer premises lines that would also be undergrounded. The law is clear that the utility may charge the customer for the cost of undergrounding to the premises. If a city requires undergrounding in the right-of-way, a premises charge would be imposed on the residents. The issue is further complicated by the needs of newer developing communities that are substantially undergrounded now, and older communities that are substantially overhead in utilities. Mr. Strommen also reported on the attempt of electric utilities to use the ROW rulemaking proceeding (see below) to establish roles eliminating municipal authority to require undergrounding of an electric utility. A PUC rule in the current ROW management proceeding would inevitably limit the current municipal authority over electric utilities in undergrounding. A motion was brottght by Mr. Flora to authorize the SRA to comment in the ROW rulenmking proceeding, opposing any such limitations in a primarily telecom proceeding. A limit of $2,500.00 was placed on the participation, subject to further authorization through the executive committee for necessary increases. Mr. Crichton seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 10. ROW RULEMAKING: Mr. Strommen reported on the ROW management rulemaking proceeding arising out of the 1997 legislation goveming local government units ROW authority over telecoms and now including electric, gas and cable utilities. The SRA has not participated actively in the proceeding because of the League of Cities representation. As noted above, however, the SPA has authorized participation in matters that may affect authority electric and gas utilities. Mr. Strommen reported that there will be additional comments received by the PUC on proposed rules and the proceeding is expected to last into the early part of 1999 before final rules are issued. There was discussion regarding the Springsted cost recovery formula for municipalities in ROW management. Mr. Strommen noted that cost recovery issues are among the most hotly contested in the rulemaking proceeding. Cities may be challenged on management fees charged to the extent that they are substantially higher than what has been customary. Mr. Flora also explained the "degradation fee" consensus in the rulemaking proceeding rather than using a present value of shortened life of the ROW approach used by Springsted. The repair templates established by the city engineers is the basis for payment by the utilities by a degradation fee. The templates are available upon request and reflect a repair process that is acceptable to the local government interests in the ROW rulemaking proceeding. 11. SRA PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET: Mr. Strommen presented the 1999 SRA Budget as modified due to the noticed withdrawals of Blaine and Medina. The reduction in 1999 assessments and expenses was balanced. Mr. Landwehr moved to approve the Budget. Mr. Crichton seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 12. INSURANCE--TORT STATUTORY LIMIT WAIVER ISSUE: Mr. Wallin reported that the League Trust Insurance of the SRA required an election on waiver of tort statutory limits versus non-waiver of limits under the policy. After discussion, it was agreed that the interests of the SRA and lack of reasonable anticipation of lawsuits against it compelled an election not to waive the statutory limits. Mr. Keinath brought a motion to elect non-waiver. Mr. Landwehr seconded the motion which passed unanimously. JMS-146937 3 SU160-3 13. LOCATION AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING: Mr. Crichton offered to arrange for the October meeting to be held a Bumsville City Community Center. After some discussion regarding the merits of continuing the 4 p.m. start time, it was agreed to continue with a 4 p.m. start time as per previous Board decision. The October 21, 1998 quarterly meeting will be held at 4 p.m. at the Bumsville Community Center. 14. CLAIMS: Mr. Wallin presented a claim from the League of Trust for insurance coverage in an anticipated amount of $950.00 and the Kennedy & Graven bill for costs and fees of $9,327.70. The League Trust premium will be due prior to the October meeting in this approximate amount, and Mr. Wallin sought authority to pay the premium. Mr. Crichton moved to accept the claims and authorized Mr. Wallin to pay the premium. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 15. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.. ATFEST: Chairman Attachments: Financial Statement AFOR Plan Memorandum Undergrounding Survey Secretary JMS-146937 SU160-3 H A R T E R E 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.co m .JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 c-mail :jstrommen~ kennedy-g tavern.corn MEMORANDUM MEMO g4 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Suburban Rate Authority June 30, 1998 US West AFOR Petition The SRA has intervened in a petition by US West to the PUC for an Alternative Form of Regulation (AFOR). In this petition, US West proposes to cap its residential and business rates in exchange for pricing flexibility in its competitive services. The SPA has objected to a pass- through provision US West's proposed, allowing US West to include as a line item on the bill of a residential or business customer, costs imposed by the City, potentially including permit fees charged in right-of-way management. The SRA, with the endorsement of the Department of Public Service and Office of the Attorney General, has made significant headway in its position. There may be a settlement to this proposal by US West which would include an elimination of any line item recovery for police power fees or local taxes. A settlement would allow a franchise fee, if enacted by the legislature in the future, to be included as a line item and charged back against the local customers. This is the procedure used for gas and electric franchises and would be ordered by the PUC in the normal course. If a settlement is reached, the above language would be endorsed by the SRA, the DPS and OAG. If a settlement is reached, the major points that would be included in the plan would be: Residential customer price caps for a five year period beginning with a $.50 a month reduction in metro area residential customers. 2. A five year cap on business rates beginning with a $3 a month reduction. JMS145710 A three year cap on services including call-waiting and directory assistance. The call-waiting charge would be reduced at the beginning of the plan from $4.65 to $4.20 per month. Additional service quality assurances and a better remedies for the customer than were initially proposed by US West. Reduced EAS surcharge rates from $16 down to $10 as a maximum (for outer tier calling areas--no SRA members). The alternative to acceptance of an AFOR settlement, or variation on the settlement, would be a general rate case. A general rate case carries-with it a greater risk of increase in residential rates than under the AFOR. US West has maintained that the cost of service to residential customers exceeds the rates now paid. It appears that with the above-safeguards, it is appropriate to support the AFOR as described. The PUC will be hearing comments on this matter as on July 1, 1998. JMS145710 SU160-3 SRA UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING SURVEY RESULTS 42 Surveys sent 19 Responses as of 6/10/98 Member Populations Responding = 588,931 Mean Population = 34,643 Median Population = 20,000 City w/most undergrounding (all utilities) = Maple Grove 80% City w/least undergrounding = Robbinsdale 3% Does city have ordinance requiring undergrounding? Yes = 9 No = 10 Circumstances where undergrounding is required: new facilities 9 reconstructed facilities 4 voltage limit' 3 relocated facilities 3 retirement of overhead 2 other 2 Underground ordinances apply to: electric facilities 9 telecommunications facilities 9 cable 9 Is an undergrounding ordinance contemplated by the current council? No = 7 Yes = 3 OTHER RESPONSE: 1. not yet, interested in requiring underground when possible 2. council is considering underground language in LMC draft row ordinance Requirement of payment by the City for additional cost in last ten years always 4 most of the time 3 seldom 4 never 4 If payment made, has the cost been negot!ated or is it a set non-negotiable fee established by the utility? Set fee 7 Negotiated 5 OTHER RESPONSE 1. difference between overhead relocation costs and burial costs Surcharge made to city residents receiving undergrounding in electric utilities? No = 13 Yes = 3 OTHER RESPONSE: 1. NSP $2 per month for service generally able to pass through to the developer underground costs required by the Is city utility in a new development? always most of the time seldom never OTHER RESPONSE: 1. 2. 3. 14 1 1 None developer always pays directly have no new large tract developments costs have been for municipal projects Has the city recovered those additional costs from following sources? developers in area 5 city residents (franchise fee) None other developers not in the area of the undergrounding None other 6 OTHER RESPONSE: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. city property owners-other funds TIF district paid for undergrounding part of special assessment portion of road projects involving state aid usually HRA TIF construction funds grants INTEREST IN SEEKING A CHANGE BEFORE THE PUC YES, VERY INTERESTED 10 YES, SOMEWHAT INTERESTED 6 NOT PARTICULARLY 2 NO OTHER 4. 5. 6. ISSUES OF INTEREST Would like to go underground in downtown area If not a standard, at least establish a uniform method of calculating the undergrounding charges How costs are recouped They should be required to underground existing lines at their cost Joint trenching should be required How 'costs are recouped REC, EIYED JUL Z 1 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY ANALYSIS OF CHANGE IN CASH BALANCE FOR THE SIX MOlqTI{S EAIDED J-U-N-E 30, 1998 1998 Balance at January 1 Additions: Interest income Insurance Rebate LMC Assessment Special Assessments -See attached schedule 10,754.93 3.41 0.00 0.00 37,400.00 Total Additions $ 37,403.41 $ 48,158.34 Deductions: Kennedy & Graven - services $ 34,844.00 Kennedy & Graven - costs 2,852.39 LMCIT -insurance 0.00 Audit 0.00 Dinner - guests 97.33 Total Deductions 1997 Balance at June 30 9,638.24 7.61 0.00 0.00 33,600.00 33,607.61 43,245.85 22,139.50 2,088.19 0.00 0.00 101.72 $ 37,793.72 $ 24,329.41 $ 10,364.62 $ 18,916.44 Note A: The breakdown of legal and expert fees and costs: General $ 4,778.79 $ 16,032.62 U S West 1,555.15 1,736.45 Minnegasco 0.00 1,040.00 Gas Unbundled 108.00 0.00 Legislative ROW 7,711.07 4,946.12 Electric Utility Investigation 0.00 283.50 Personal Communications Leases 0.00 189.00 1998 NSP Gas Rate Case 243.00 0.00 612 Area Code Docket 21,379.04 0.00 EAS Agreements 527.05 0.00 U S West - AFOR 1,394.29 0.00 Total Legal and Expert $ 37,696.39 $ 24,227.69 SD-BURBAN RATE AUTHORITY STATUS OF ASSESSMENTS RECEIVABLE AS of June 30, 1998 VOTES ASSESSMENT PAID Birchwood Blaine Bloomington Brooklyn Park Burnsville Circle Pines Columbia Heights Deephaven Eden Prairie Edina Fridley Golden Valley Greenwood Hastings Hopkins Lakeland Lauderdale Long Lake Maple Grove Maple Plain Maplewood Medina Minnetonka Minnetrista Mound New Brighton North St. Paul Orono Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale Roseville Savage Shakopee Shoreview Spring Park Spring Lake Park St. Louis Park Wayzata West St. Paul Woodbury i $ 8 18 12 11 1 4 1 8 10 6 4 1 4 4 2 1 1 9 1 7 1 10 1 1 5 3 2 1 11 3 7 2 3 5 1 1 9 1 4 5 400.00 3,200.00 7,200.00 4,800.00 4,400.00 400.00 1,600.00 400.00 3,200.00 4,000.00 2,400.00 1,600.00 400.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 800.00 400.00 400.00 3,600.00 400.00 2,800.00 400.00 4,000.00 400.00 400.00 2,000.00 1,200.00 800.00 400.00 4,400.00 1,200.00 2,800.00 800.00 1,200.00 2,000.00 400 00 400 00 3,600 00 400 00 1,600 00 2,000 00 $ 200.00 1,600.00 3,600.00 2,400.00 2,200.00 400.00 800.00 400.00 1,600.00 2,000.00 1,200.00 800.00 400.00 800.00 800.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 1,800.00 200.00 1,400.00 2,000.00 200.00 200.00 2,000.00 400.00 200.00 2,200.00 600.00 1,400.00 400.00 1,200.00 1,000.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 800.00 1,000.00 BAi~%NCE DUE 200 00 1,600 00 3,600 00 2,400 00 2,200 00 0 00 800 00 0.00 1,600.00 2,000.00 1,200.00 800.00 0.00 800.00 800.00 600.00 200.00 200.00 1,800.00 200 00 1,400 00 400 00 2,000 00 200 00 200 00 0 00 1,20000 400.00 200.00 2,200.00 600.00 1,400.00 400.00 0.00 1,000.00 200.00 200.00 3,600.00 200.00 800.00 1,000.00 190 $ 76,000.00 $ 37,400.00 $ 38,600.00 .,% / ~ ,f restore Kosovo's autonomy within me Yugoslav federation. In return for Milosevic's agreement to talk with Al- banian leaders i'n Kosovo, the United States last month got the European Union to hold off on new sanctions. But Milosevic took advantage of the most daunnng. But me lessons ot t~os- nia are compelling: Stand up to Milo- sevic early and powerfully, and you can have an effect. Delay, and the situation deteriorates, the options nar- row and the prospects of a wider war grow. Minneapolis parks system that didn't just happen City parks are such an integral part of Minneapolis that it's easy for those who live near them to forget what unique assets they are, or how envied the city's park system is in other parts of the United States. While the article in the June 8 issue of U.S. News and World Report praising Minneapolis parks may have been published for the enlightenment of readers in other places, it makes some points useful to people who live here. As the article -- part of a feature on cities that "work" -- explains, the Min- neapolis park system didn't just hap- pen. It's the result of foresightful ef- forts more than a century ago to set aside lakeshore and green space for public use before fast-spreading pri- vate development could gobble it up. And as the article also points out, the well-kept condition of Minneapo- lis' parks can be attributed in large part to the historic independence of the city's Park and Recreation Board, which over the years has helped as- sure that the parks would have ade- quate funding and not have to com- pete for tax revenues with other, more transient, city-government priorities. That independence does have a downside. The Park Board, with its single-minded concern for parks, doesn't always cooperate with the City Council or school district in meeting Minneapolis' overall needs. But Minneapolitans have made it clear that's a price they're willing to pay for what one observer calls "the best- located, best-financed, best-designed, best-maintained public open space in America." It's an ethic that has extended into Twin Cities suburbs as well, fostering development of fine local park systems in many outlying commu- nities. It's not a coincidence that among regional parks around the country, the splendid Suburban Hennepin system ranks just as high as Minneapolis' parks do among central-city systems. It's probably (and unfortunately) too late for most cities to emulate the Minneapolis parks experience. It may be enough that the article simply re- minds Minneapolitans of how rare and precious their parks are, and of what it takes to keep them in top shape. Celebration time.- .4 decade of enjoying Put a cherry on a spoon and you have what's become a popular symbol for Minneapolis. Surround the spoon and cherry sculpture Mth other sculp- tures -- whimsical, symbolic, mythi- cal, humanizing and even sometimes inexplicable -- and you have an urban sculpture garden, the biggest and best in the country. And you have cause for celebration, which is what the Walker Art Center will do this summer. The a cherry on a spoon and an image builder for Minneapolis. It helps people look at the arts in new, lib- erated ways -- outside, in the open, instead of artwork enclosed in a museum. The Sculpture Garden also has boosted attendance to the museum, which is among the 10 most-visited arts museums in the country. More than 3 million people have visited the garden, a successful public/private partnership between the Walker and the Minneapo- people ~'n newborn crime of' cans ma~ born bah States?" cent say, you remrr A pres. is in orde our child is the 'sar -- Ann An hon We a. Northern to study will neet now, it about bu As a tried to then-sta~ the ultin They reft now, to fr that mig Major ov as those costly to not be in. ing resu feeder trees, et Ins' trat from the overhea{ between Abort downing lines mu of reven per day even no cluded individu Apl What in his n- elected mentary nesota H the samt' ed a pr~ elected. has vetm The dem bad tax t. C July 16, 1998 Verkennes - 4771 Island View Drfve Page 2 1) A revised plan be submitted as required by the Building Official that is suitable for review. The applicant needs to provide a survey identifying the location of the utility easement between the home and shoreline. 2) In the event the project is not completed within one year of the date of approval of the resolution, the abutting dock permit will not be issued until compliance is achieved as required by the Building Official. JS:kl /qcrF 11 il.