Loading...
1998-08-25AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1998, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consen~ 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. *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 11, 1998 REGULAR MEETING. (THESE WILL BE SENT OUT MONDAY, 8/24/98) APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING.3215-3216 *C. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18, 1998 COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ....................................... 3217 *D. CASE 98-47: MINOR SUBDIVISION, 1642 HERON LANE, TO CREATE THREE (3) BUILDABLE LOTS, JOE LEMMERMAN, LOTS 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-117-24 11 0093 ........ 3218-3233 *E. CASE 98-48: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, FRONT AND SIDE YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK, HOUSE SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT A LAKESIDE DECK, CRAIG A. ROSE, 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L.P. CREVIER'S SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID#13-117-24 3234-3252 42 0006 ............................................ *F. CASE 98-49: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, ROBERT KIMBALL, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 42 0016 ....................... 3253-3312 *G. RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION APPROVING INCREASE IN PENSION BENEFIT FOR FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1998. . . 3313-3315 *H. RF__3OLU~ON 98- RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320 PUBLIC WORKS UNIT FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1998 AND ENDING 3213 e 10. 11. *I. DECEMBER 31, 1999. PAYMENT OF B/LLS .................................. 3318-3328 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTO~ SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATFED 14 117 24, PID# 14- 117-24 41 0011. (THIS MATFER IS BEING REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED AT THE AUGUST 24, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) ............... 3329-3400 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLATrED 14 117 24, PID//14-117-24 41 0011. (THIS MATTER IS BEING REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED AT THE AUGUST 24, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING).3329-3404 CASE 98-38: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1s'r DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23-24 0029. (PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL) ................................... 3405-3421 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PRESENTATION FROM JIM GRUBE, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, HENNEPIN COUNTY RE: COUNTY ROAD 110 IMPROVEMENT IN MINNETRISTA & INDEPENDENCE ........................................ 3422-3423 DISCUSSION: TERM OF REPRESENTATIVE ON LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS. .......................... 3424 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS: A. DWIGHT A. GARDSTROM, 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE ............. 3425-3431 B. ROBERT KIMBALL, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE .................. 3432-3436 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: At B. C. D. Et Financial Report for July 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. 3437-3438 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of August 13, 1998 .......... 3439-3441 Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 16, 1998 .......... 3442-3443 REMINDER: The next WCCB meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. REMINDER: The next Building Committee meeting for the Westonka Community Center is Tuesday, September 1, 1998, 7 a.m. - 9 a.m., at the Westonka Community Center. The meeting following this one will be on Tuesday, September 22, 1998, 7 a.m. -9 a.m., Westonka Community Center. The WCCB is specifically invited to attend this Building Committee meeting to hear a presentation regarding the preliminary schematic design on the project because the 9/24/98 WCCB agenda already has a number of issues on it for discussion. 3214 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 11, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Loren Gorden, Park Director Jim Fackler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Frank Weiland, Peter Meyer, Chris Loew, Deb Grand, Craig Gallol, Greg Robbins, Diane McCurry, Pam Meyers, Mike Mueller, Thomas Stokes, and Megan Johnson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Mayor asked for a moment of silence for the people who died in Africa at the hands of international terrorists. *Consent Agenda: Ali 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&ese 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. Councilmember Hanus asked that the Minutes from July 28, 1998, be removed from the Consent Agenda. *CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.0 APPROVAL OF SIGN PERMIT REQUEST, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE, INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. *1.1 APPROVAL OF LICENSES FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL - PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT & TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER PERMIT. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 · 1.2 APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 220, MOUND CITY CODE RELATED TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following: ORDINANCE #100-1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 220 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. '1.3 SET SPECIAL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1998, 7:00 P,M., BEFORE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOI.E MEETING, TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF LABOR RELATIONS STRATEGIES AND ISSUES. FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION, COUNCIL WOULD RETURN REPORT ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THEN ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AND MOVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. '1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. 1.5 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ,JULY 28, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Hanus stated that on page 3030 of the packet under Resolution $98-84, reads as follows: "Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels we will be seeing more of this type of permit request in the future." He would like this corrected to read as follows: "Councilmember Hanus stated the Council should be prepared to see this case over and over because he felt that it created a new standard that other cases are going to be measured against." MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the July 28, 1998, Regular City Council Meeting, as amended. The vote 4 in favor with Councilmember Ahrens abstaining because she was not present at the July 28th Meeting. Motion carried. 1.6 PUBLIC HEARING; CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID 14-11%24 41 0011. 2 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST I1, 1995 1.7 CASE 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLATTED 14 117 2,{. PID #1~-117-2z{ 41 0011. The Planner explained that Westonka School District //277 and U.S. West Wireless Telecommunications are requesting two items. New lighting standards at Hadorff Field. As well as a telecommunications antenna which is associated with the new lighting standards. The Planner explained that he would address these two requests together and then he would break them apart because they are somewhat independent of each other. The Planner presented a hand drawn sketch that he had done showing essentially what is being asked for. He did this because there was confusion at the Planning Commission with all the information that was submitted. The Planner reviewed the requests individually. The Planqer reported that what is being requested is to replace 8 existing light poles at Hadorff Field (4 on each side) with 4 poles (2 on each side). The existing poles are approximately 60 feet in height and would be replaced with poles that are approximately 70 feet in height. The new lighting would be an improvement to the existing lighting. In addition to the 4 lighting standards, there is a telecommunications antenna which would be located on top of one of the new poles in the northwest comer of the field. The request has some elements that do not meet the code. Lighting standards are just like a structure on the school district site. They require a Conditional Use Permit. There is no permit history on the previous poles. They estimated the height of the existing poles at 60 feet. The new poles at 70 feet would be an increase of approximately 10 feet. Also required with the lighting standards is a lighting plan to show how the lights would aeffect neighboring property. That has been submitted and meets the code. The second request is for a telecommunications antenna. Approximately 2 months ago the Planning Commission recommended and the Council adopted a telecommunications ordinance to address these type of situations, because we knew they would come to Mound eventually. The ordinance was adopted to prepare for their location and how they could operate within the City. This request did not meet the intent of that ordinance so the telecommunications company U.S. WEST is asking for a variance to allow this tower to exist at this location. When the ordinance was reviewed, the City identified two industrial areas where tower facilities could be located. The Planner reported that essentially what is being requested is a monopole tower which would only be allowed in the industrial (I-1) district. The company has asked for integration of the antenna onto this lighting standard. They are asking for a height variance to what height they could locate this antenna at on the lighting structure. Although it looks like a monopole tower, the request is to attach it to the lighting standard. The Planner explained that antennas are allowed to be located on lighting MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL o AUGUST 11, 1998 standards, utility poles, electric voltage lines, buildings, if the height does not reach above the height of the structure by more than 20 feet. They are asking for a variance of 30 feet which would allow this antenna to reach up to a height of about 120 feet. This assumes that the Conditional Use Permit for the lighting standards at 70 feet is approved. The Planner stated that essentially this is a monopole tower with lights attached to it. He stated that in reviewing this request, it was felt that this did not meet the intent of where the ordinance was going. This was a monopole and we wanted some integration of this tower to make it look more like a lighting standard than a tower because it seems to skirt the intent of the code. The recommendation that was made to the Planning Commission was to look at a height of approximately 90 feet for this antenna which would allow 20 feet above the top of the lighting standard. That would be in conformance with the code. U.S. West did not agree with this approach and stayed with their original application. The Planning Commission recommended a 30 foot height variance which passed on a 3-2-1 vote. The Conditional Use Permit for the 70 foot lighting standards was approved unanimously. The Planner reported that since the Planning Commission Meeting, the City Attorney, City Manager and himself have discussed the intent of the ordinance and how the lighting standards were addressed. Initially there were several approaches to address the lighting standards: 1. Because there was no permit history, should a permit be required? It was determined that we should require a permit. 2. Since we are going to permit it, how should we look at the height? The Planner recommended looking at it as a CUP encompassing everything that was being asked for. Since then, it has been determined that it is in the best interests of all the parties (school district, U.S. West, and the City) involved that we go back and ask for a variance for the light standard height from 45 feet to 70 feet so all interests are protected. For those reasons, he wanted to lay this out for the Council to consider possibly sending this back to the Planning Commission for the light standard portion of the request so that there can be further review, study and findings of fact determined. This would be a height variance showing practical difficulty and hardship to be included in the CUP. The City Attorney pointed out that 3 of the 4 light standards are 70 feet tall each and the ordinance permits, as a Conditional Use, light standards in that district, but no taller than 45 feet. This requires a variance for the 70 foot tall standards. That variance was not part of the application process that went before the Planning Commission. The variance that was considered was for the standard with the antennas. The City Attorney then stated that there is another provision in the ordinance that states that an antenna can extend only 20 feet above the antenna support structure. This proposed variance is for 50 feet above the antenna support structure. The other variance from 45 feet to 70 feet has not been requested. Basically, they need a Conditional Use Permit and a variance for the light poles. The Planner stated the replacement of the light poles is one request. The other request is for the telecommunications antenna. The height of the light poles is covered in the Zoning Code. The Planner then stated that what should have been done at the Planning Commission is to consider the following separately: MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 A CUP for the 4 lighting standards; A variance in the height of the 4 standards; and A variance for the height of the antenna tower. The Planner recommended that this be returned to the Planning Commission for their review. He suggested opening the public heating, hear comments, close the hearing, and have the Planning Commission review the variances at their August 24th Meeting. It could then come back to the City Council on August 25th. The Council asked the applicants if this would work for the applicants. Gregg Robbins, facility coordinator for Westonka Schools encouraged the Council to approve the CUP and variances. He stated they would like to have the project done by the first football game, September 1 lth and first soccer game September 8th. He stated the School District needs new lights and poles, reducing the number from 8 to 4 will create more light on the field and less spill and glare on neighboring properties. He also stated the existing poles are in poor condition and need to be replaced. U.S. West came in with this proposal for an antenna on one light standard. He stated U.S. West is funding 3/4 of this project. The estimated total cost of the project is $104,000. He then stated they do not want to use the old lights because the poles are rotting and the wiring is questionable. There was an incident last year where a person jumped on the guy line wire holding a pole and crossed the electrical lines up above causing sparks above the grandstand. the Council discussed the lighting. Councilmember Jensen stepped down from the Council because she is an employee of U.S. West. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke in favor of approving the requests: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Michael Mueller, resident and Planning Commissioner. Pam Meyers, Supt. of Schools. Craig Gallol, lighting consultant, for the School District. Keith Radcliff, Activities Director, Westonka Schools. Sally McCurry, School Board Member. Peter Meyer, resident, Park Commissioner. Scott Hoeschler, U.S. West, stated that they need the height of 120 feet for the antenna in this location in order to operate properly. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the requests. They asked if all the alternatives have been explored. The Council discussed the fact that there needs to be practical difficulty and hardship shown to grant the variances. The Council also discussed the telecommunications ordinance that was just adopted two months ago and U.S. West had input into. The Council asked that Mr. Hoeschler provide the City with some technical or engineering studies or reports showing that this the only 5 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 option available. Mr. I-Ioeschler stated that he was told this would be a continued item tonight. Therefore, he did not ask his engineers to come and was not planning on a big presentation with more information. MOTION made by Polston to deny the variances because there no sufficient hardship shown. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Hoeschler asked that these items be continued to the next Council Meeting to allow him to submit evidence of practical difficulty and hardship. The Council discussed sending this back to the Planning Commission for further review. MOTION made by Weycker to bring this item back to the next City Council meeting so that the applicant can prepare for their presentation. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to have the applicant present to the Planning Commission the engineering and technical data that they intend to present to the City Council with their hardship and practical difficulty. Also that the Planning Commission make a recommendation that includes what the hardship and practical difficulties are. This will go to the Planning Commission on August 24th and come back to the Council on August 25th. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Jensen returned to the City Council. 1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT- NORWOOD LANE. BID AWARD: NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. The City Engineer explained the background and stated that 2 bids were received as follows: Northdale Construction Co. $72,950.56 Midwest Asphalt Corp. $87,224.50 The Engineer's estimate was $52,461.00. The Engineer stated there are several reasons for the bids being 40 percent over the estimate: 1. the time of year and workload of the bidders; and 2. the small size of the project. The Engineer recommended that the Council reject all the bids and rebid the project next spring for completion in early summer 1999. He feels the bids in the spring will be much lower. The Mayor opened the public hearing on the proposed improvement of Norwood Lane. There was no response. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed what effect this rejection of bids will have on the developer of the twin homes and his preliminary plat. The developer has one year to file a final plat which would be June 23, 1999. If the preliminary plat needs to be extended, the developer would have to apply 45 days prior to that date, approximately May 1, 1999. The improvements need to be done 6 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 before final plat approval can be given. The Council asked that a certified letter be sent to the developer apprising him of the situation. The Engineer suggested going out for bids in March 1999, and then brought back to the Council the first meeting in April for consideration. The public hearing could then be reopened on the proposed improvement and assessment. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to reject all the bids for the improvement of Norwood Lane. This project to be rebid in the Spring of 1999. A decision on ordering the improvement will be deferred until after the improvement is rebid and new public notice is given. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Planner suggested that in the letter to the developer reference be made to extensions to the CUP and variances that will also be needed. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.10 APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 320, MOUND CITY CODE RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS ON LAKESHORE PUBLIC COMMONS. The Building Official stated the proposed ordinance is in the Council packet. Also in the packet are the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting where it was discussed. Planning Commissioner Mueller what the Council considers a "reasonable time period", as stated in Subd. 3 of the proposed ordinance. The City Attorney stated that was language the DCAC wanted in the ordinance. Their feeling was that the owner should have ample opportunity to correct whatever the problem may be. The Building Official stated if it was a life/safety issue it would have to be corrected immediately. The Mayor stated that is correct and if the owner did not take care of it then the City would. The Building Official did not have a problem with the term reasonable time period. That would leave it to his discretion. The Council agreed. Mueller then suggested replacing "fair market value" with depreciated replacement value". The Council agreed. Mueller stated that if an inspection is needed for a transfer of permit in Subd. 5, then the language should be changed as follows. "Requests for transfer shall be made in writing to the City Building Official who shall approve the transfer, after inspection, in writing unless conditions exist which would constitute grounds for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below." Hanus stated he would oppose this, because the permit was issued for a specified period of time and just because the property transferred doesn't change the condition within the permit that was already granted. The Council discussed how new residents would know they have an encroachment. There is no provision in the proposed ordinance for the permit holder to record the permit at the County on 7 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 their property. The Mayor stated it was the intent of the DCAC to create a mechanism to let the potential buyer of property know that they have an encroachment on public land. The City Attorney stated that the covenant mentioned in Subd. 6.b. doesn't say so but the covenant will be recorded against the abutting private property. The Council struck the current language in Subd. 6.b. which refers to the covenant. The City Attorney suggested putting language in the covenant that would extend the permit if the permit is extended. Then the covenant would only need to be filed when the permit is issued. This will need to be clarified before the proposed ordinance is published and becomes law. The Council agreed. There was a question about Subd. 5. The Council struck the last sentence in that subdivision. The following is the end result of ail the discussion, except for Subd. 6.b. which will be clarified as mentioned above. Councilmember Ahrens asked that the word "maintenance" be defined. The City Attorney suggested the following: "Maintenance for the purpose of Section shall mean The term "maintenance" as used in this Section shail mean "the use or keeping of any Subject Structure on the lakeshore public Commons of the City." This will be added to the Statement of Intent. Mueller asked about Subd. 6, a. which states, "a written agreement, backed with security deemed reasonable by the City Council, providing for the removai of the Subject Structure when it is no longer under permit, and acknowledging the structure owners obligation to remove the structure and/or pay for the cost of doing so." The City Attorney pointed out that the word "may" is used in the first part of Subd. 6, not "shail". Mueller asked that the first sentence in Subd. 7 be modified as follows: : ..... :~,~,: ..... :.,~_, ...:,~. ,~. ...... :~: .... ~, ,~.:~ t,~,:^~ Unless provisions under Subd. 3 apolv, repair, modification or aiteration of the Subject Structure will be treated as if the Subject Structure were a non-conforming structure located on private property in accordance with the provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8. The Council agreed. The Council made it clear that structurai alterations to encroaching nonconforming structures would go to the Planning Commission for their recommendations but that the intent of this is not to perpetuate encroaching structures. It is to eliminate them on public Commons. Chris Loew, 2181 Fairview Lane, stated that he is glad the Council is addressing this the way they are because he bought his home not knowing there was an encroachment on the property. He stated he is waiting for this ordinance to be adopted to do some repairs to his encroachment. Councilmember Weycker questioned Subd. 1, and the phrase "should be permitted to remain" because she felt this is jumping to a conclusion that we are trying to determine by this ordinance. She suggested it read as follows: "The City finds and determines that certain structures which were either constructed or placed on lakeshore public commons on or before April 1, 1976, ~'~"~'~,,-,-,--, *',-,- ..... v---,,,-,,,--,:'*~'~ ',,, ..... ,,.,,,,~,,:~ will be subject to the provisions contained or referenced in this Section." 8 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 Councilmember Hanus stated that his understanding of what was proposed is to allow them to remain under certain conditions. Councilmember Weycker stated it is not really to let them remain, it is to determine whether they should remain. Councilmember Ahrens stated her understanding is to let them remain until they meet one of the criteria in the ordinance to no longer remain. Councilmember Jensen stated that even though the Council has said many times we want to get rid of these structures, the purpose of this is to allow them to stay for as long as is reasonable. After discussion, the Council decided to leave Subd. 1., as is. Councilmember Ahrens asked what Subd. 3.e. means? The City Attorney stated that the structure is in the way. This says it hinders the use of the Commons by others. Ahrens stated she believes any structure could be hindering the use of the Commons by others. She stated there could be other reasons such as there is no public land to get to the Commons. She felt the encroachment would fall under this provision. She stated if this is the case, we are going to go out and start tearing down boathouses, guest houses, and decks because they are all significantly hindering the use of the Commons. The Mayor stated the verbiage was the collective suggestions from the DCAC. The Mayor stated he feels this is referring to a structure that significantly hinders access to the public Commons, and the owner is unwilling to remove it or to alleviate the hinderance, within a reasonable time. Findings by the City Council on these matters, shall be deemed conclusive, based on recommendations by the Staff. Councilmember Ahrens stated she does not feel this is what Subd. 3.e. says. Polston moved and Weycker seconded the following, as amended above: ORDINANCE//101-1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 320:05 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LAKESHORE COMMONS Councilmember Ahrens stated she cannot vote in favor of this because of Subd. 3.e. The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carded. SUGGESTED ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 320:05 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LAKESHORE COMMONS Section 320.05 Continuation of Certain Structures constructed on or before April 1, 1976. Subd. 1. Statement of Intent. The City finds and determines that certain structures which were either constructed or placed on lakeshore public commons on or before April 1, 1976, 9 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 should be permitted to remain subject to the provisions contained or referenced in this Section. The structures which are covered by this section axe to include buildings (including boathouses) ?,,c~'~:, decks, platforms, fences, flagpoles and birdhouse. ("Subject Structure"). Subd. 2. l',{a'intcnancc Special Permit for Subject Structure~. No person shall continue to maintain any Subject Structure on lakeshore public commons without first receiving a special maintenance permit from the City Council. Permit applications may be obtained from the city building official. Subd. 3. Criteria for Issuance. The City Council shall issue the special maintenance permit unless it finds any of the following conditions to be present: a. significant safety problems exist which the structure's owner is unable or unwilling to rectify within a reasonable time period; or b. safety hazards exist for which the cost of repair is equal to 50% or more of the f~,Ar market depreciated replacement value of the structure prior to repair; or c. the functional use of the structure is impaired such that restoration to functionality would cost 50 % or more of the frAr market depreciated replacement value of the structure before repair; d. aesthetic appearance of the structure has become so deficient that a restoration to an acceptable appearance would cost 50 % or more of the fr2r m~kct depreciated replacement value of the structure before repair. e. the structure significantly hinders the use of the public commons by others and the owner is unwilling or unable to alleviate the hinderance within a reasonable time. Findings by the City Council on these matters shall be deemed conclusive. Subd. 4. Permit Duration and Fee. Permits shall be for a five year period commencing on January 1 of the year of issuance. The fee shall be in an amount as set by the council in Section 510.[$75.00] which is payable in five equal annual installments of $15.00 each. The first annual installment is due at the time of application and subsequent installments are due on or before January ! the last day of February of each year during the term of the permit. In instances in which the permit holder is also the holder of a city dock license, the annual dock license will not be issued until the annual installment has been paid unless the Subject Structure permit holder provides the City with a written statement relinquishing all interest in the Subject Structure and consenting to its removal by the City. Subject Structure permit fees will be placed in a separate account which will be dedicated to expenditures incurred in the administration and enforcement of activities under this Section. Subd. 5. Transfer of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be transferred by the permittee to third parties who become the owner and occupant of the property primarily benefited by the Subject Structure. Such transfer shall not confer to the transferee any further rights than those held by the transferor at the time of transfer. Requests for transfer shall be made in writing to the City Building Official who shall approve the transfer in writing unless conditions exist which would constitute grounds for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below. Subd. 6. Conditions for Issuance. The City Council may attach conditions to permits granted under this section. Such conditions may include, without limitation: 10 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 Re a written agreement, backed with security deemed reasonable by the City Council, providing for the removal of the Subject Structure when it is no longer under permit, and acknowledging the structure owners obligation to remove the structure and/or pay for the cost of doing so. A covenant executed by the applicant in form acceptable to the City indemnifying, holding harmless and agreeing to defend the City against any claims based upon the continued maintenance of the Cc, uneil subject Structure. Subd. 7. Repair, Modification and Alteration of Subject Structure. ~: .... · '~ ~'^ ~"~'~v, ,'- .... extent ...................................... r ...................... n, Unless provisions under Subd. 3 apply, repair, modification or alteration of the Subject Structure will be treated as if the Subject Structure were a non-conforming structure located on private property in accordance with the provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8. Subd. 8. Termination of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be terminated and the transfer may be declined upon a determination by the City Council that any of the following conditions exist: a. Any of the criteria described in Subdivision 3 of this section are found to exist; b. The Subject Structure has been abandoned. c. The permit fee has not been paid. d. There has been a violation or lapse of any condition imposed on the permit. Following notice of such termination, the City may exercise whatever remedy is available to it either by contract or at law to secure the removal of the Subject Structure. 1.10 BID AWARD: AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, The City Engineer reported 3 bids were received as follows: Northdale Construction Co. $211,765.00 Buffalo Bituminous $283,086.50 Midwest Asphalt Corp. $334,302.00 The Engineer's estimate was $211,765.00. The bids were 23 % over the estimate. reasons for the high bids are the same as the bid for Norwood Lane: 1. Time of year;. 2. Contractors have more projects than normal; 3. The completion schedule; and 4. Weather conditions. He feels the The Engineer related the following options: Reject all the bids and rebid the project as soon as possible. With the three- week advertisement requirement, the earliest we could expect to open bids would be the week of September 14. The Council would not be able to award the contract until their meeting on September 22. This would not allow enough time to finish the project this year. In addition, rebidding at this time of year mostly likely will not result in lower prices. 2. Reject all the bids and rebid the project in February or March of 1999. This would probably result in a reduction of unit prices, but there is no guarantee. 11 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 The only sure thing to happen, is that the project would not be completed until approximately August 1, 1999. Award the contract to the low bidder. Northdale Construction tells us they are set to start the week of August 24. Unless we have an unseasonably wet fall, we should have substantial completion by the end of October. The Engineer recommended option //2. The Council discussed the options and the recommendation. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to reject all bids for the Auditor's Road Project and rebid the project in February or March of 1999. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 SETON BLUFF PROPOSED DOCK SITE. The Park Director reviewed the background. Staff recommends approval of the request as submitted based on staff having made contact with the DNR and the LMCD verifying that the dock falls within their guidelines and does not need a permit from these agencies. By the addition of this site, 220 lineal feet of shoreline would be added to the current 29,000 lineal feet of non-contiguous shoreline that the City uses for its LMCD Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License. Councilmember Hanus objected to adding this site for the following reasons. 1. The addition of 220 feet only allows 4.4 BSU's (boat storage units) and what is being requested is 6 BSU's. 2. What this addition does is drawing BSU assets from the Dock Program rather than contributing to the program. 3. Because it can only be used by the residents of Seton Bluff and the general public cannot use it, it should not be considered part of the public Dock Program. He felt the developer should get his own multiple slip license from the LMCD. The Park Director stated that currently the City is licensed for 590 BSU's and we are using 492 BSU's. He pointed out that the multiple dock program is reducing the number of BSU's because people are going from having two or more boats to one boat per site. The Park Director also pointed out that if there is concern about losing BSU's, we could include more footage in this by continuing on down the shoreline to Kerry Lane and down around the whole point which has not been included in the shoreline footage. Hanus did not agree. His contention is that all of this is currently included in the shoreline footage. There was discussion about vacating Longford Road. There was also discussion about approving this for addition to the Dock Program for the remainder of this season and 12 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 looking at other options, i.e. vacation, at a later date. MOTION made by Polston, ~econded by Weyeker to authorize the addition of 220 feet of unhnproved shoreline known as Longford Road to the dock location map. The Council also grants a temporary public lands permit for 6 docks and direct Staff to prepare a report on the possibility of vacating Longford Road. If the road is not vacated, this site would become a permanent part of the dock program. Hanus also disagreed with the amount to be charged for these slips, $150.00, because they are all U shaped slips and he has to pay $235.00 for his U shaped slip. The Park Director pointed out that Staff felt that a multiple slip dock in the Dock Program is charged $150.00 and Staff considered this as the same. The vote was 4 in favor with Hanus voting nay. Motion carried. 1.12 REOUEST FROM THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE ON MOUND'S POSITION ON THE UPGRADE OF COUNTY ROAD MINNETRISTA AND INDEPENDENCE. 110 IN The City Manager explained that the Cities of Independence and Minnetrista have been working with Hennepin County for an upgrade to County Road 110 north of Mound. There has been some opposition to the project by residents in Minnetrista. There was a resolution brought before Public Service Committee by these residents in July to make County Road 110 a Natural Preservation Route to halt this project. Independence is asking for Mound's support. The City Manager has spoken with Jim Grube, Director of Transportation from Hennepin County, who reported that the County Board met last week about this and is asking for Mound's position on the upgrade of County Road 110. The Council asked to have Mr. Grub to come to the next Council Meeting and bring them up-to-date on this project. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1998. B. LMCD Mailings. Notice from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding public information and Public Hearing Dates for Proposed Rule B Revision. Update from Hennepin County on the reconstruction of County Road 15 in Orono. Invitation from Hennepin County to the dedication and open house at Hennepin County's new Public Works Facility at 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN., Friday, August 14, 1998. 13 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 F. REMINDER: G. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, August 18, 1998, 7:30 p.m., City Hall or following the Special Meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 p.m. Next meeting of the WCCB is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 11:58 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 14 MINUTES- SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING-AUGUST 18, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Polston. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus and Weycker. Absent and Excused: Jensen. Also Present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Pam Galanter, Frank Madden & Associates; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Ed Shukle, City Manager indicated that the purpose of the special meeting was to move into Executive Session regarding labor relations issues and strategies. Following this discussion, the City Council would then return and adjoum the special meeting and then move into the Committee of the Whole meeting. The Mayor then called the City Council into Executive Session with the City Council, Ms. Galanter Gino Businaro and Ed Shukle present in the Executive Session. The City Council returned to the Council Chambers approximately ½ hour later following the Executive Session and the Mayor indicated that the Council was now back in session reporting that the Executive Session was held to discuss labor relations strategies and issues. Another item was on the special meeting agenda. Councilmember Ahrens asked to address the City Council regarding the City's Dock Location map. Ahrens indicated that City staffhas issued a dock permit to a non-abutting property owner in the Roanoke area. Ahrens indicated that the subject dock is in front of an abutter's house. She further stated that there are two locations in front of this abutter'~ house. She stated that it came to the abutter's attention that they had their dock and their boat in b0ih locations. The abutter's have requested to adjust their locations so that they are not "straddling" the line. Circumstances regarding a light and boat lift make it difficult for Mark Smith and Gina Anderson (abutter's), to move their dock location. Ahrens asked if the non-abutting dock could be shifted down toward Scott and Linda Mack so that Smith/Anderson could utilize the light pole that is in this dock area and not to be straddling the lot line. The Mayor asked if the staff has the authority to adjust the dock sites under city ordinances or if it has to go through City Council. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, responded by saying that these issues go through the City Council under the approval of the Dock Location map. Ahrens moved that the center of the Smith/Anderson location be located where their dock currently is with their light pole and that the center of the non-abutting dock site be placed on the lot line on their easterly lot line. The motion was seconded by Hanus. Further discussion was held on the matter. Ahrens then indicated she would amend her motion that the Mack's continue to have their 40' of water space through this suggested dock location adjustment. Hanus accepted the amendment to the motion. Weycker wanted to be assured that the Mack's do not have to move their dock. Polston wanted to be assured that neither the Mack's or the Smith/Anderson's would have to move their docks. " Special Meeting Minutes of August 18, 1998 Page 2 Ahrens added that if the non-abutter does not like this adjustment, that the City is prepared to give the non-abutter a refund. Hanus agreed to this amendment. The motion was now clarified by Ahrens: The center of the Smith/Anderson dock space is moved to where their light pole and dock currently exists; the center of the non-abutting dock is centered on the lot line between the Mack and the Smith/Anderson property provided that neither dock has to be moved; and that the non-abutting dock site holder is given a refund if they do not like the shift in the non-abutting dock site location. The Council then voted unanimously to approve the motion. There was no further business in the special meeting. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Attest: City Manager MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-AUGUST 18, 1998 The meeting was called to order following the special meeting at about 8:20 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus and Weycker. Absent and Excused: Jensen. Also Present: Jim Fackler, Parks Director; Peter Meyer, Chair, POSC; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Peter Meyer requested to address the City Council regarding POSC activities and budget items for 1998 and 1999. He reviewed a list of items from a recent POSC meeting. The Council indicated that these items would be taken into consideration as the Council reviews the proposed 1999 budget. The Council thanked Meyer for attending. Tree removal off commons properties was discussed. The idea from Councilmember Ahrens would be to have a tree replacement program to replace lost trees due to storm damage and other reasons. Other business included questions on the possible need for a full-time city planner and issues related to the use of Chester Park by A1 & Alma's. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager August 25, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 1642 HERON LANE, TO CREATE THREE (3) BUILDABLE LOTS, LOTS 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 13-117-24 11 0093 P & Z CASE #98-47 WHEREAS, the applicants, Joe Lemmerman, has submitted a Minor Subdivision request to create three (3) buildable parcels identified as Parcels A, B, and C from the existing parcel by relocating boundary lines that is in full compliance with the City Zoning Code, Section 330:20, Subd. I.B; and, WHEREAS, the property located between Crestview Road and Paradise Lane, east of Heron Lane, all of which are improved to City Standards; and, WHEREAS, the property includes lots 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, of Shadywood Point which are combined and identified as one tax parcel; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, current improvements include a residence, three outbuildings, and an incinerator that are proposed to be removed. The residence appears to be vacated at this time; and, WHEREAS, there is a large amount of junk and debris on the property which is also proposed to be removed; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is considered minor as defined by the Subdivision Code due to the fact that not more than three (3) lots are being created from an existing parcel with existing utilities and infrastructure in place; and, WHEREAS, the Parcels A, B, and C meet zoning and subdivision standards and new home construction will be subject to setback, hardcover, and grading requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff with alterations; and, August 25, 1998 1642 Heron Lane - Lernrnerman Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by tbs 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: All existing buildings, debris and the incinerator be removed on proposed parcel B and C prior to any building permits including water and sewer issuance or within a one year of the final approval from the City Council along with entering into a standard temporary easement agreement between the applicant and the City ensuring the removal of the buildings and debris to be filed at the Hennepin County Court House. Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Dedicated drainage and utility easements to the City, five (5) feet in width along all interior lot lines and ten (10) feet wide along both rear lot lines and adjacent to City right-of-way. All utilities serving neighboring lots be placed within that easement. Water services for Parcels A and B, either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided; such as cash escrow or performance bond. A revised site plan showing all City utilities and required easements be submitted. 2. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: PARCEL A: LOT 16 AND 15, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF AND SITUATED IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PARCEL B: LOT 14 AND THE NORTHERLY 25.00 FEET OF LOT 15, LING PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13, BLOCK24, SHADYWOOD POINT, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF AND SITUATED IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PARCEL C: LOT 12 AND LOT 13, EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 25.00 FEET OF LOT 13, LING PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF AND SITUATED IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 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 August 10, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Orv Burma Public Present: Joe Lemmerman, Darryl Dillon, Craig Rose, Rob & Mai Kimball, Jack Cook Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-47: MINOR SUBDIVISION,1642 HERON LANE, TO CREATE THREE (3) BUILDABLE LOTS, JOE LEMMERMAN, 5007 110TM STREET SE DELANO, LOTS 12, 13, 14,15 ,& 16, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 13-117-24 11 0093 Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to create 3 buildable lots. The property is located between Crestview and Paradise Lane, east of Heron Lane, all of which are improved to City standard. The property includes lots 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, of Shadywood Point which are combined and identified as one tax parcel. Current use of the property is a single-family residence and three outbuildings, although it appears that the property has been vacated. There is a large amount of junk and debris scattered throughout the site. Of note in an incinerator which is probably the only one left in the City. The proposed subdivision is considered minor as defined by the Subdivision Code due to the fact that not more than 3 lots are being created from existing parcels with existing utilities and infrastructure in place. The new lots meet area requirements and range in size as follows: Parcel A - 14,300 sf Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 Parcel B - 10,400 sf Parcel C - 10,928 sf Because there are no building plans pending, the applicant has submitted typical home and driveway footprints for review purposes. As non-lots of record, hardcover would be limited to 30 percent on each parcel. As a new subdivision, variances should be avoided if it all possible. It appears that there should be no problem in meeting hardcover standards. A three car attached garage and driveway is calculated in the hardcover and should serve as a good estimate for new construction. As proposed each lot would gain access from Heron Lane. There are a large number of mature trees located on the site. Those that are located within the building pads and portions of the buildable area of each lot will need to be removed to allow for construction. It would seem appropriate to retain as many healthy and viable trees along the perimeter of each new lot as possible to keep the integrity of the site. The City Engineer's letter dated August 4, 1998, provides additional comments and recommendations included in the recommendation. Staff Recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions: 1. All existing buildings, debris, and the incinerator be removed prior to the sale of any lot. 2. Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. 3. Dedicated drainage and utility easements to the City, 5 feet in width along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along both rear lot lines and adjacent to City right-of-way. 4. Water services for Parcels A and B, either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided; such as cash escrow or performance bond. 5. ^ revised site plan showing all City utilities and required easements be submitted. DISCUSSION: Weiland questioned if the lot would be cleaned up prior to construction. Gordon stated that it could be a condition and that it would be cleaned up prior to the sale of any of the lots. Weiland asked about the power line running along proposed parcel A. He asked if that could be part of the condition. Gordon stated that in Major subdivision the utilities usually go underground but since this is a minor subdivision there are no requirements to bury the line. The applicant stated that the residents serviced by the feed would like to see the utilities buried. He stated that every one that is involved would like to see the line buried. Gordon stated the City Engineer has requested utility easements be recorded along all property lines. Clapsaddle asked where the power line runs. The applicants stated the power line runs along the north side of parcel B. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 The applicant, Joe Lemmerman, stated that they have potential buyers for the lots already. Mueller questioned if the wording on the first condition be worded to say "All existing buildings, debris, and the incinerator be removed prior to any building permits issued." He also suggested a assurance bond to insure the buildings and debris be removed. Gordon stated that he feels that the approach staff took was the best option at the time. Mueller stated that the applicant stated the lots are possibly sold already and he would like to see a time limitation put on the resolution for the removal of the items. Mueller commented that the utilities should be placed in a utility easement and if there is not one existing then one should be set up. There was some discussion on the lot line placements. Mueller stated that on the survey Crestwood road should be state Crestview road. Gordon questioned if the utilities should be required to be placed underground. Mueller stated that we could require that. Michael stated that most of Mound does not have buried utilities. It discussed that the commission could not require other homeowners that are not effected by this subdivision be required to pay to have their utilities be buried. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to accept staffs recommendation with the following modifications: All existing buildings, debris and the incinerator be removed on proposed parcel B and C prior to any building permits including water and sewer issuance but not to exceed a one year period of time of the final approval from the City Council along with entering into a standard temporary easement agreement with the applicant to be filed at the Hennepin County Court House. Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Dedicated drainage and utility easements to the City, five (5) feet in width along all interior lot lines and ten (10) feet wide along both rear lot lines and adjacent to City right-of-way. All utilities serving neighboring lots shall be placed within the easement. Water services for Parcels A and B, either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided; such as cash escrow or performance bond. A revised site plan showing all City utilities and required easements be submitted. Motion carried 8-0. This case will go to City Council on August 25, 1998 3 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-4H TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Joe Lemmerman - 5007 1 l0th Street S.E., Delano, MN CASE NUMBER: 98-47 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 98-500 LOCATION: 1642 Heron Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to create 3 buildable lots. The property is located between Crestwood and Paradise Lane, east of Heron Lane, all of which are improved to City standard. The property includes lots 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, of Shadywood Point which are combined and identified as one tax parcel. Cun'ent use of the property is a single family residence and three outbuildings, although it appears that the property has been vacated. There is a large amount of junk and debris scattered throughout the site. Of note in an incinerator which is probably the only one left in the City. The proposed subdivision is considered minor as defined by the Subdivision Code due to the fact that not more than 3 lots are being created l~om existing parcels with existing utilities and infrastructure in place. The new lots meet area requirements and range in size as follows: Parcel A- 14,300 sf Parcel B - 10,400 sf Parcel C - 10,928 sf Because there are no building plans pending, the applicant has submitted typical home and driveway footprints for review purposes. As non lots of record, hardcover would be limited to 30 percent on each parcel. As a new subdivision, variances should be avoided if it all possible. It appears that there should be no problem in meeting hardcover standards. A three car attached garage and driveway is calculated in the hardcover and should serve as a good estimate for new 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 lernmerman Minor Subdivision ,4ugust 10, 1998 construction. As proposed each lot would gain access fi.om Heron Lane. There are a large number of mature trees located on the site. Those that are located within the building pads and portions of the buildable area of each lot will need to be removed to allow for construction. It would seem appropriate to retain as many healthy and viable trees along the perimeter of each new lot as possible to keep the integrity of the site. The City Engineer's letter dated August 4, 1998, provides additional comments and recommendations included in the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. 1. All existing buildings, debris, and the incinerator be removed prior to the sale of any lot. 2. Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. 3. Dedicated drainage and utility easements to the City, 5 feet in width along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along both rear lot lines and adjacent to City right-of-way. 4. Water services for Parcels A and B, either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided; such as cash escrow or performance bond. 5. A revised site plan showing all City utilities and required easements be submitted. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering ' Planning · Surveying August 4, 1998 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Minor Subdivision - Case #98-47 1642 Heron Lane Lots 12 - 16, Block 24 Shadywood Point MFRA #12137 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the information furnished for the above referenced minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Grading and Drainage The survey submitted shows only tentative house locations and proposed first floor elevations. It appears that any drainage concerns can be addressed when building permits are requested; therefore, final grading and drainage plans must be submitted at that time. We would also recommend that drainage and utility easements be dedicated along all new lot lines, 5 feet wide on interior side lot lines and 10 feet wide along rear lot lines and the street right-of-way. Street and Utilities The survey and site plan furnished with the application does not show either sanitary sewer or watermain. According to the City's record plans, there are three existing sewer services that can be used for the three proposed lots; however, the only existing water service is the one to the present house. If the two water services required are not installed prior to recording of the subdivision, then some type of financial guarantee should be provided to the City. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra~mfra.com32 Mr. Jon Sutherland August 4, 1998 Page 2 It may be possible to eliminate the short section of existing storm sewer and apron that are located on Lot 15, if the proposed grading directs all runoff into the streets. The site plan shows only one catch basin; whereas, there should be two according to the original street plans. The site plan should be revised to show all City utilities, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer. It should also include the recommended drainage and utility easements. In conclusion, we are recommending the following conditions become part of the minor subdivision approval: 1. Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. 2. Dedicated drainage and utility easements to the City, 5 feet in width along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along both rear lot lines and adjacent to City fight-of-way. 3. Water services for Parcels A and B, either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided; such as cash escrow or performance bond. 4. Submit revised site plan that shows all City utilities and required easements. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry eSmain:\12137~sutherlandS-4 · Rev. 11-14-97 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: Application for I.~.cu.,~. MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN /4,/qqg 553621312 2 ~ :1998 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 C:~ ,= ?~0~.,!'75. Application Fee~ $75.00 Escrow Deposi~ [0~1') $1,000 an~r/--, ~ _6.0 "// Deficient Unit Charges9. City Planh / ]~tCE/t2- DNR Public Works" ~ (30ret ~tt~'~, L/ Delinquent Taxesg. City Enginle~ ~/~ VARIANCE REQUIRED9. Please type or print the following information: INFORMATION_ EXISTING Lot iZt t~. ~4j [~ ~ /~-~ Block 7..-~ Plat // ~__~/ DESCRIPTION Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1A R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B.3¸ APPLICANT OWNER {if other than applicant} The applicant is: ~._owner ~other: Phone (H}~(wI- '---'- {M} Name_ Address Phone {H) (MI SURVEYOR' Address~ ENGINEER Phone {H) {W)~{M)- Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, {~no. If yes, list date{s) of application, action taken, res'olution number{s} and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explenetion given why this is not the case. Date Owner's Signature CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULAT1ONR (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA_ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ~I-Z~O £.~.. t SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... j j LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. ' HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 'X X TOTAL HOUSE X = X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS - X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X = X = X TOTAL DECK X X = TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~/OVER (indicate difference) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) ~OPERTY ADDRESS: ~.~__~ ~-/._ ~ OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA lO: ~ LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. J ~-~lz-~s~J SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... J J SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . I I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~-~:) ' X ~-Z.' = ~_.4:~ I (..~ ~.~'. X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. X X TOTAL DETACHED ~,. ~' X X X BLDGS ................. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY ~ ~ ~' i~/[~{~.~.~o~..~_, /~C-.. DATE CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION¢ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA_IO~ ~-4J~ SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for all lots) .............. I = (for Lots of Record*) ....... j j LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1 (see back) A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. ' ' HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 41' 'X X = TOTAL HOUSE DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening beWveen hoards).with a per~/ious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X = X = X = TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER -Co- TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~/OVER (indicate difference) tl ,I, , at ...... ~s~ CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET IDR 'ESS: SURVEY ON FILE / NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO REQUIRED YARD I DIRECTION IIOUSE ......... ~NT N S E W FRONT N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: 21 lO,O0O/60~ B1 7,500/0 R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 IEXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: · LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUll. DINGS FRONT ~RONT SIDE SIDE REAR 'FOP OFBI.UFF IIARDCOVER ?ONFORMING? YES / NO N S E W N S E W N S E W N s E w ,V OR 6' 4' OR 6' N S E W 4' N S E W 50' 10' OR 30' 30% OR 40% This Zoning Information Slice! only sumtnarizcs a portion of die requirements outlined in die Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Departmenl at 472-I,600. ~, Wt b I '.i. , I L..~.~./~o.''_ 'T',! _ , O ~ o August 25, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND TWO SIDE YARD VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DECK WITH AN ENCLOSED PORCH , AT 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L P CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID 13-117-24 42 0006 P & Z CASE #98-48 WHEREAS, the applicant, Craig Rose, has applied for a front yard and two side yard setback variances to allow construction to replace the existing lakeside deck with a enclosed porch at 5100 Edgewater Drive; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record; and, WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.9 feet from unimproved Chateau Lane requiring a 6.1 foot side yard setback variance. The existing garage is 4.5 feet from the front yard setback and 2.6 feet from the side yard setback requiring a 3.5 foot front yard setback and 1.4 feet side yard setback variance; and, WHEREAS, there was a variance granted in April, 1998 Resolution # 98-50 approving a second story addition; and, WHEREAS, there was a variance granted in 1970 to reconstruct the garage in its current location; and, WHEREAS, the proposed porch should not have adverse impact on the property or surrounding neighborhood and is an improvement to the property; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with a notation; and, August 25, 1998 Rose - 5100 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 3.5 foot front yard setback, 1.4 foot side yard setback variance for the Garage and a 6.1 foot side yard setback variance for the existing dwelling as recommended by the Planning Commission with the following notation: The porch addition furthers the encroachment to the adjacent Chateau Lane. 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 porch addition to the existing dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 6 AND THAT PART LYING N OF S 30 FEET INCLUDING ADJACENT PART OF BOULEVARD VACATED, BLOCK 1, L P CREVIERS SUBDIVISION OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, 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 August 10, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Orv Burma Public Present: Joe Lemmerman, Darryl Dillon, Craig Rose, Rob & Mai Kimball, Jack Cook Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0, BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-48: VARIANCE, DETACHED GARAGE FRONT AND SIDE YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK, HOUSE SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT A LAKESIDE DECK, CRAIG A ROSE, 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L P CREVlERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 42 0006 Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant has submitted a request to replace an existing deck with an enclosed porch. The associated variance request is listed below. Existin,q/Proposed .Required Variance House B side yard Garage B front yard Garage B side yard 3.9 feet 10 feet 6.1 feet 4.5 feet 8 feet 3.5 feet 2.6 feet 4 feet 1.4 feet The applicant submitted plans for a second story addition which was approved by Resolution #98-50 in April of this year. The resolution approved this addition as well as recognized the Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 nonconforming house and garage setbacks. As you will notice the construction is going as planned. Since the approval of the original plans, the applicant has decided to remove the existing deck and add the porch. The porch has the same dimensions as the deck and will maintain previously approved setbacks including the lakeside setback of 64 feet. The added porch should not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or views from the lake. There does appear to be a practical difficulty to meeting code given the existing house setbacks. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the porch as requested. DISCUSSION: Weiland stated that it is an encroachment to the adjacent street. He stated that the deck is larger that the one that is there now which creates a larger encroachment that currently exists. He would like to see it noted that it furthers the encroachment to the adjacent Chateau Lane. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to accept staff recommendation with the following notation: that it furthers the encroachment to the adjacent Chateau Lane. Motion carried 8-0. This case will go to City Council on August 25, 1998 2 3A37 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Craig Rose - 5100 Edgewater Drive CASE NUMBER: 98-48 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5pp LOCATION: 5100 Edgewater Drive ZONING: Residential District R- 1A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/COMMENS: The applicant has submitted a request to replace an existing deck with an enclosed porch. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Propo~d House - side yard 3.9 feet Garage - front yard 4.5 feet Garage - side yard 2.6 feet ~ Variance 10 feet 6.1 feet 8 feet 3.5 feet 4 feet 1.4 feet The applicant submitted plans for a second story addition which was approved by Resolution //98-50 in April of this year. The resolution approved this addition as well as recognized the nonconforming house and garage setbacks. As you will notice the construction is going as planned. Since the approval of the original plans, the applicant has decided to remove the existing deck and add the porch. The porch has the same dimensions as the de~k and will maintain previously approved setbacks including the lakeside setback of 64 feet. The added porch should not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or views from the lake. There does appear to be a practical difficulty to meeting code given the existing house setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the porch as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIAI~iCE 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: ~k_O,[J~,~,~ I~, ~qi~ Case No. ~' ~ City Council Date: ~[~+ ~, tqq ~ Distribution: '~-~-q~ City Planner ~ ~-~q~ DNR ~ ~-~-~ City Engineer ~ Other ~-~ Public Works~ SUBJECT Address =~F) ~/=~ ~ ~ ~ / .... PROPERTY Lot LEGAL Block ~ DESC. Subdivision LP ~,~: ~i~ ~ M y~/J ~ PID~ /_3- /i~-~ ~ ~ Plat~ ~1~0 ,1 PROPERTY Name ~/,' ~, OWNER Address -- ~/~ &4~~ Phone (H) ~-5/~ (W) ~p-~ (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, ~-~aQ~, 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 copi~'s o} resolutions. /,?-?~ ,4~,~/ Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): .(Rev. lll14/97) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. ~L~ - ~4/(4~ Do the existing structures comply with all area,.height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) SETBACKS: REQUIRED Front Yard: (I~EW) ~) ft. L~,5 ft. Hq _~: ~---)ft. Side Yard: ( N S E(~) JL~ ft. ~, ~ ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N St~W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. ~-01~ : (U~W ) ~ ft. 5-,01 ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes j~', No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~) ttoo narrow oo small ( ) too shallow Please describe: .~/~'~ ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Variance Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No 1~. 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 petition7 Yes,(~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date (Rev. l l/14/97) 0 ~i~ Yl April 28, 1998 RESOLUTION//98-50 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND TWO SIDE YARD VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO THE EXISTING NON CONFORMING DWELLING, AT 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L P CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID 13-117-24 42 0006 P & Z CASE//98-18 WHEREAS, the applicant, Craig Rose, has applied for a front yard and two side yard setback variances to allow construction to add a 2~ story addition at 5100 Edgewater Drive, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record, and 4 feet sideyard for accessory structures on through and lakeshore lots and 10 feet to the street side; and "WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.9 feet from unimproved Chateau Lane requiring a 6.1 foot side yard setback variance. The existing garage is 4.5 feet from the front yard setback and 2.6 feet from the side yard setback requiring a 3.5 foot front yard setback and 1.4 feet side yard setback variances, and; ~ WHEREAS, the second story addition should not have adverse impact on the property or surrounding neighborhood and is an improvement to the property, and; WHEREAS, the existing walls will not be expanded preventing an increase in the nonconformity, and; WHEREAS, there was a variance granted in 1970 to reconstruct the garage in its current location, and; April 28, 1998 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 3.5 foot front yard setback, 1.4 foot side yard setback variance for the Garage and a 6.1 foot side yard setback variance for the existing dwelling as recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. o It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following improvements: Construct a 2~ story addition to the existing dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lot 6 and that part lying N of S 30feet including adjacent part of boulevard vacated, Block 1, L P Creviers Subdivision of LOt 36 Lafayette Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 0 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. Apr/l 28, 1998 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Weycker and seconded by Councilmember Sensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrnes, Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. ~t/e~st: City~lerk -- SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) II PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA / SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ~?~.~/0. ~ I SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = X = DECKS Open decks {1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... I~.5 x /~, ~' = 7.~. ~ X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER ! IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPAREDBY ~? ' ~/~ DATE Plat of Survey for Patricia L. Osmonson of Lot 6, Block 1, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of Part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park Hennepin County, Minnesota Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is a true ~and correct representation of a survey of the.boundaries of Lot 6, Block 1, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of Part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park, including the adjoining part of boulevard vacated lying between the extension North of the East and West lines of said Lot 6, and subject to the rights acquired for the public street over the South 30 feet of said lot; and of the location of all b~ildings thereon, and all visible en- croachments, if any, from or on said land. Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota Scales Date : 1" = 30, 10-2-70 Iron ,mrker .BUILDING ,I PERMIT APPLICATION LEGAL D ES CRIPT1 ON OWNER CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT &/OR ENGINEER CHANGE QF USE Business Name/Tennant~ The appli,.~canl; is: __owner - CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN.55364 Phone: 472,-0600 Fax: 472..-062.0 ~"n trac tot __tenant Plat Phone {H~ "' (W) (M) Name Address Phone IH) ~(W) (M) FROM: TO: DESCRIBE WORK: R'~'~tec'~-- ~c',,'~,'~'~'/A.)'~ i~-.../~ -- /~H''/d/ M~ /O,,,Y~,,3 _;Dec. Z-' cO/ Porc/ - ,/0¢,.,..3 ION ~ OF WORK: ~)0 ~ & UE APPROVED: SEPARATe. ~.CRMIT$ ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, I~.UMBING. HEATINg, VEN"rILA~N6 OR AIR ~ONOITIONIN6. PERMITS ~E~_OME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT C0MMENCEr3 V~ITHIN 180 0AYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK :S SUSPENr~ED OR FOR A PERICO OF 180 OAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK. IS COMMENCED. ?QMEL1MITSONBUILDING COMP~ :--~'ION ALLWCRKT~EpERF~RMEDpUR~UANTT~A~UIL~ING=ERMIT~TAINEDF~RNEWc~NSTRUCT~N~REPA~RS~REMCDELjN~ANDALTERATICNs ,m~ -J. ;'-AIQR$ C~- ANY 5uJLDiNG OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL qE COMPL~STED W~THIN ONE Il) YEAR ~-'-RDM THE OATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. T'mE PERSON 0STAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PRDPERT-Y SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE CDR C-0MPL~TION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OF=-.~NSE. THE C=UNCIL MAY ¢.XTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRI'/'TEN REQUEST OF THE P~-=IMITTE[ ESTABUSHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFAC,'~CN O~ THE C~'CY CCLNCIL THAT C:RC'JMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PRE'VENTED COMPL.c'T'ION OF THE WORK ~:~R WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. ThE =.XT~,NSION SHALL ~E NOT LESS ThAN THIRTY (30} BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE*YEAR Pc_-~IOD' I HEREBY CERTIFY ,"HAT I HAVE READ AND [XAMINED THIS APP~CATION AND KNCW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF ~_AWS AND OROINANr'ES THIS ~"~fPE OF WORK WiLL SE COMPLI ED WITh WHETHER SPECIt~ED HERE~N OR NOT. THE GRANT~NG OF A Pc_=~MIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE CR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE Pc_RFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. ~RINT APPUCANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S SlC~ATURE DATE ///~/~/~///~//////////////////////////////////////////////~//////////////////////////////////////////~/////~//~///////~/////////////////~///////////~ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: ~ ,-- ,.~Jl[~) Y,'~0 "/////~' CONSTRucTION TYPE: OCCUPANCy GROUP / OIv: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · J COPIED APa~CVED ) ~' STORIES FiRE SPRINKLERS REOU RED? ~TY ENGINEER · u~s YES / NO I PUBLIC WORKS RECJ]VED B~/DAT,E: ,. PLANS CNECKED By:. APPROVED BY/DATE: : I ASSESSING 'q124 KL - j L~EE CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ROUSE ......... :RONT SIDE LAKE OF BLUFF W N S E W N tW N S N S E W ,SEW R3 DO ' ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~...~ zo,ooo/_eo si ?,soo/o B2 20~000/80 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXIb-iiNG/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT Wf;~ .0I D~PTH: GARAGE, SHED ..... FRONT FRONT REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES This Zoning Information Sheet Planning Dep~ment at 472-0600. OR OTHER DETACHED N S E W th, N N S E w SEW 4O% I ? OR 30' ! ! outlined in the City of Mound Zonin~ Ordinance. For furlher information, conU~t the City of Mound (HAP, R£SONS August 25, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING HOME FROM A ONE STORY TO A TWO STORY WITH AN ATTACHED THREE STALL GARAGE , AT 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID 24-117-24 42 0016 P & Z CASE #98-49 WHEREAS, the applicant, Robert Kimball, has applied for a side yard setback variance to allow reconstruction of the existing home from a one story to a two story addition with an attached three stall garage at 2873 Cambridge Lane; and, WHEREAS, the project will be completed in two phases over the period of approximately 3 years; 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 applicant has requested a 3.58 feet setback variance for the existing dwelling which is setback 2.42 feet from the fire lane. This variance would be valid for a period not to exceed 18 months from the time of building permit issuance. After such time the encroaching portion of the existing house shall be in conformance with all code requirements; and, WHEREAS, the proposed improvements will increase hardcover to 3498 square feet, which is under the 40 percent allowable by 11 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the rear of the lot will be regraded to accommodate the basement walkout. A portion of the grading is proposed on public commons which will require an approved public lands permit; and, WHEREAS, prior to issuance of a building permit a drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer; and, August 25, 1998 Kimball- 2873 Cambridge Lane Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with an added condition; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 3.58 foot side yard setback variance for the existing dwelling as recommended by the Planning Commission with the following conditions: The Dock and Commons Commission approve the grading permit for work within the Commons. The City Engineer review and approve an updated grading plan. The side yard setback be brought into conformance within eighteen (18) months of the building permit issuance. 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 an addition and a three stall garage to the existing dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, 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. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request - Additional report information OWNER: Robert Kimball - 2873 Cambridge Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-49 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5qq LOCATION: 2873 Cambridge Lane ZONING: Residential District R- 1A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since the approval of this case at the Planning Commission meeting on August 10, 1998, the applicant has submitted updated plans that are consistent with the conditions for approval. Originally, the applicant requested to maintain an existing 2.42 feet side yard setback along the fire lane. At the Commission meeting the applicant agreed to change the plans to make the home conform to all zoning requirements when complete. The variance request will allow the existing residence to remain for a period of up to 18 months while the addition is constructed allowing time for the removal of the encroaching side yard wall. The request and resolution are ready for Council approval. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 2873 Cambridge Lane RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1998 ~ /~[ FL~IVlVh Current Proposed _ House X Y X Y 18 12 216 1 15 15 225 , 12 7 81.9 2 10 15 150 -- ~ 3 5 10~ 50 ~ 25 32 800 4 20 20 400~ -4 9.5 -38 5 15 15 225 8.5 12 102 6 15 15 225 7 15 15! 225 81 ~5 7.5 ~2.5[ 9 10 5 501 ~10 2 20 40 i 11 7 10 70 , 12 20 20 400[ ~ 1 3 -10 .7~ -50~ ' ~14 7.5 3 28.13 Total House 1162 21 5 Workshop 22 20 44020 22 20 440J ~21 0 Sidewalk 5.8 1 2 69 22 0 ~ -- Drve 25 39 975 23 35 20 700~ 20~ 30~ ~ 1.5 _ , ol ~Total Hardcover 2646 3321J I ~Lot, Total Sq Ft: 8773 'Hardcover Limit 40%~ ~ ~ 3S09i ~Under Hardcover [ ~ ~ ~ 188.8~ ~G & INSP. Page 1 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP, PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA (~-~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X = ~ X = X = 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 TOTAL HOUSE ....... - .................. X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. -5~ X ~ = -~c~ X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE /OVER (indicate difference) PREPARED BY ~,_c>F~E,~-- ~r,~ ~ LA_., DATE 53 I (929.48) Cooks Bay Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Brighton Commons Area (967.78 (970.2) 100.56 N8203'27'W Lot 10 Bluff (963) 95.21 1-Story Walk-out #2885 Lot 8 i (97' .1) 40 ~ (97215) 4.,( (972. 6.6 (972.25) (971.2)I 9 I I S7°W 964) RECEIVED AU$ '! 2 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSR 63 (96F~54) Lane J 99.90 [ N73°47'20'W !(964,7) 2' 5-3/64' 17 (970.6 i 29.7 29i8' (970.37) #2867L Proposed Site - Final 2873 Cambridge Lane So, ale: I inch = 2Oft = New Elevations 53 I Cooks Bay (929.48) Lake Minnetonka ~ Shoreline Bdghton Commons Area 100.56 N8203'27"W Lot 10 .__~ ...... (968.7) NS°09'S7'E / /I (967.78~'-- /_~L (970.2) .... ...~ I Lot 8 1-Story Walk-out #2885 i (971'1) 40 i ! (972~ 5) 6.0! (972. C~ara~ 6.6 (972.25) 80,85 S7ow (971.4) RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSR 63 (961 .S4) Lane 99.90 N73o47'20'W (964.7) #2867L 17 (970'l 29.7 / (970.37) Proposed Site - Phase One 2873 Cambridge Lane Scale: 1 inch = 20ft. Lot 10 53 I Bluff (970.2) 100.56 N8203'27'W 40 46, t Cooks Bay (929.48) Lake Minnetonka ~ Shoreline Lot 9 (97 .1) ! (97~.5) Brighton Commons Area 22' (968.7) N8°09'57'E ~64.6) -- Rock Retainin¢ Lot 8 WeJ I~1 (971.7) ~.~ 18' 34' = 1-Story Walk-out #2885 (c. .. --.--- - 21' 6' 6.6 .~__6- -.---- ' -'"'- ' ~...----.- - '"'-' ' S7oW (972.25) RECEIVED MOUND PLANNING & INSR 63 (961.54) Lane 99.90 N73o47'20"W #2867L 29.7 29i8' (970.37) Current Site, 2873 Cambridge Lane Scale: I inch = 20ft. _] RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. ,I RECEIVED AUG ! 2 1998 MOUND PL^~f~ING & INSP. RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1998 MOUND PLANNING & ~,~,~P. RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSR RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. -L-- ~r / / / / / / / / / / II o Z Z Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Orr Burma Public Present: Joe Lemmerman, Darryl Dillon, Craig Rose, Rob & Mai Kimball, Jack Cook Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-49: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, ROBERT KIMBALL, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID # 24-117- 24 42 0016 Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant is requesting a variance to remodel and add an addition to an existing home. The house would maintain the existing nonconforming setback: Existinq/Proposed Reauired ,Variance Side Yard 2.42' 6' 3.58' The proposed improvements will convert a one-story one-bedroom home to a two-story walkout home with an attached three-stall garage. First and second floor addition plans include three bedrooms, kitchen/dining room and a two story great room. The basement provides additional room for future living space. The existing foundation will remain and be incorporated into the new home. During the construction of the addition, the owner will live in the existing home while the middle and south wing of the home are built. When this first phase is complete, the existing Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 home will be removed except for the foundation, and the north wing will be built. This phase includes the 3 car-attached garage, kitchen, master bedroom and bath, and laundry facilities. The existing two car detached garage will remain as well. The north side yard setback is currently 2.42 feet and would be maintained with the improvements. The applicant wishes to keep this setback in order to use the existing foundation and utility access points. On the north side of the house is a 15 feet wide fire lane maintained by the City. There are no improvements within the lane and is somewhat unlikely that street improvements will ever occur. However, it should remain protected similar to other fire lanes along Cambridge and throughout the City for pedestrian access purposes to commons lands. The rear of the lot will be regraded accommodate the basement walkout. A portion of the grading is proposed on commons property and will require approval of a permit from the Dock and Commons Commission. The area within the commons that is proposed for grading will not involve any tree removal. Hardcover for the property after improvements will increase to 3498 sf, which is under the 40 percent allowable by 11 sf. A drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit. The proposed building plans are a substantial improvement to the property as the current house is in a state of deterioration. Due to the size of the house, the hardcover is at the maximum allowable. This could present an issue for future projects such as a driveway to the third garage stall or a hard 0surface patio in the rear of the house. Removal of portions of the driveway to the detached garage would be an option for extra hardcover area. Staff has worked with the applicant to get this project to this stage and feel it is ready for the Commissions review and approval. One item that needs to be addressed in making a motion is the project schedule. The applicant is anticipating the project will take almost 3 years, looking at a completion date in the Spring of 2001. A variance approval requires that the work be completed within one year of the dated resolution. It is foreseeable that the applicant will ask for an extension at this time next year which would add another year to the variance. After the extension expires, a new application would need to be made to complete the project. Because of the way the code is written, this would be the standard procedure to accommodate the project. Another option the Planning Commission could adopt, is to make a motion that would extend the length of the variance so further applications would not need the Commission's review. Granting an extension would assume the project stays on schedule and no modifications are made that would cause additional review by the Commission. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions: 1. The Dock and Commons Commission approve the grading permit for work within the Commons. 2. The City Engineer review and approve an updated grading plan. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 DISCUSS/ON: Weiland doesn't feel comfortable about the extension of time. He said he discussed it with the applicant. He really does not like a three-year extension. Voss stated that he would be in favor of the three year extension just in case down the read this commission may not be here the next time the applicant comes in and wants to change the plans and the commission's view point may not be the same. He just wanted to make the applicant aware of the potential problems. Voss stated that he felt it was our commission's objective to remove as many of the non-conformities as possible. The applicant stated he did not want to tear up the whole block. Mueller said he agreed with Voss. There was discussion on the encroachment of the corner of the proposed house. Mueller made comments on how to get the encroachment removed. Sutherland suggested adding stipulations to the variance with deadlines to complete certain phases of the project if that is the consensus of the commission. Mueller commented that he feels the home should be brought into conformance since there is such extensive work would be done to the property. The applicant, Robert Kimball, stated he could comply with the one-year time frame to complete the first phase. Hanus commented that he doesn't feel that the applicant would stop half way through the project since it is such a drastic change. The applicant stated that he could redesign his plans to comply with the side yard setbacks. There was more discussion on the case. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to recommend staff's recommendation. Motion was withdrawn. Gordon stated that the wording of the recommendation should be stated differently. Hasse commented that the grading should be done within the first year. Sutherland stated that one option could be to put a time restriction on the project by requiring the exterior work be done within one (1) year and the require the encroaching foundation to be removed within eighteen (18) months with the project being completed within two (2) years. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff's recommendation with the following additional condition: 3. The side yard setback be brought into conformance within eighteen (18) months of the building permit issuance. Motion carried 7-0. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 This case will go to City Council on August 25, 1998 4 3Z7 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Robert Kimball - 2873 Cambridge Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-49 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5qq LOCATION: 2873 Cambridge Lane ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to remodel and add an addition to an existing home. The house would maintain the existing nonconforming setback: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 2.42' 6' 3.58' The proposed improvements will convert a one story one bedroom home to a two-story walkout home with an attached three stall garage. First and second floor addition plans include three bedrooms, kitchen/dining room and a two story great room. The basement provides additional room for future living space. The existing foundation will remain and be incorporated into the new home. During the construction of the addition, the owner will live in the existing home while the middle and south wing of the home are built. When this first phase is complete, the existing home will be removed except for the foundation, and the north wing will be built. This phase includes the 3 car attached garage, kitchen, master bedroom and bath, and laundry facilities. The existing two car detached garage will remain as well. The north side yard setback is cun'ently 2.42 feet and would be maintained with the improvements. The applicant wishes to keep this setback in order to use the existing foundation and utility access points. On the north side of the house is a 15 feet wide fire lane maintained by the City. There are no improvements within the lane and is somewhat unlikely that street improvements will ever occur. However, it should remain protected similar to other fire lanes 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-49 Kimball Variance Request August I0, 1998 along Cambridge and throughout the City for pedestrian access purposes to commons lands. The rear of the lot will be regraded accommodate the basement walkout. A portion of the grading is proposed on commons property and will require approval of a permit from the Dock and Commons Commission. The area within the commons that is proposed for grading will not involve any tree removal. Hardcover for the property after improvements will increase to 3498 sf, which is under the 40 percent allowable by 11 sr. A drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit. 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): A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. Bo The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The proposed building plans are a substantial improvement to the property as the current house is in a state of deterioration. Due to the size of the house, the hardcover is at the maximum allowable. This could present an issue for future projects such as a driveway to the third garage stall or a hard surface patio in the rear of the house. Removal of portions of the driveway to the detached garage would be an option for extra hardcover area. Staff has worked with the applicant to get this project to this stage and feel it is ready for the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-49 Kimball Variance Request August 10, 1998 Commissions review and approval. One item that needs to be addressed in making a motion is the project schedule. The applicant is anticipating the project will take almost 3 years, looking at a completion date in the Spring of 2001. A variance approval requires that the work be completed within one year of the dated resolution. It is forseeable that the applicant will ask for an extension at this time next year which would add another year to the variance. After the extension expires, a new application would need to be made to complete the project. Because of the way the code is written, this would be the standard procedure to accommodate the project. Another option the Planning Commission could adopt, is to make a motion that would extend the length of the variance so further applications would not need the Commission's review. Granting an extension would assume the project stays on schedule and no modifications are made that would cause additional review by the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions: 1. The Dock and Commons Commission approve the grading permit for work within the Commons. 2. The City Engineer review and approve an updated grading plan. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 3 1998 '- ~ ~ ©~ ~OUND CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: ' Application Fee:$100.00 · .,. - City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address 'z._~5'-I "~ Lot Block "~ Co Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-1 Name ~,,D~ ~"~ Address Phone (H) Plat # B-2 (M) B-3 Name ,~.,~(J~ Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev'lll14197) Variance Application, P. 2 I III Ca-seNo.. "~--Vq ,_ o Do the existing structures comply with all area, _height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (v~'. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): o SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (N S(I~W )2_o/~ ft. ~'~ft. ¢JIA ft. Side Yard: (~S E W ) (~ ft. Z.,.~"L. ft. ~ ft. ~ Side Yard: (NI~E W) (~/4 ft. II.~q! ~f ft. ~)A ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E~) I~' ft. I(,~.-Z- ft. zv]A ft. Lakeside: ( N S E~I~.) 50 ft. ~o~" ~- ft. ~ A ft. : (N SEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: %0 ft. ,~© ft. ft. Lot Size: ~-I"1"~ sq ft __(~_Q~g2~sq ft ,o A sq ft (~ - Hardcover: ~,aq~ sq ft ~'C~ sq ft ,ut~ sq ft ~ ~(-0~ Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~-)~xisting situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: IA ~-,-- (Rev. 11/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)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 (Z)~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition7 Yes (/, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature (Rev./l~14~97) RESOLUTION//94-105 Jul), 26, 1994 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCON'FOR3fING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFOR2HING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 42 0016 P&Z CASE//94-49 WHEREAS, the owners, Dean and Julie Steffen, have applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling, including a 3 foot front yard setback variance, and a 4 foot side yard setback variance, to allow construction of a conforming 20' x 22' detached garage, and: WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to remove an existing nonconforming 13' x 23' garage, and; WItEREAS, the proposed improvements, including the garage and driveway, combined with existing structures result in a total hardcover of 31.5% exceeding the maximum allowed by 1.5%. It appears the driveway area can be reduced to stay within the 30%, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,0130 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; V~EREAS, 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 variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17 feet, and the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 2 feet to allow construction of a conforming 20' x 22' detached garage, subject to the total amount of impervious surface coverage not to exceed 30%. 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. 219 2.20 July 26, 1994 3. It is determined that the INability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the proper~y to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of 20' x 22' one story detached garage. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 8 and 9, Block 36, Wychwood. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in I-Iennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, SubdMsion (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused. 220 Rob Kimball 2873 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 July 25, 1998 Jon Sutherland City Of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jon, Here is a more detailed explanation of the plan: Describe Work: Remodel existing house by building an addition, and remodeling the existing structure. This would be accomplished in two phases. The first phase would be to remove the southern most addition to the existing house, and construct the southern half of the new addition. This includes the bedroom 2 and the Greatroom as shown on the first floor plan. Both stories of the addition would be built during this phase. After the phase 1 half of the house is built and finished inside, we would move from the existing house into the new construction. At this point phase 2 can begin. Phase 2 would include the demolition of the existing house down to the foundation. The existing basement foundation is 21 x 32'. All the other rooms in the existing house are built on grade. A knee wall would be built on the existing foundation to raise the level of the first floor to match the new construction built during phase 1. Phase 2 would include the new attached garage spaces, kitchen and dining room and the entry on the first floor of the plan, and both stories would be built at this time. If we get approved by this summer, I would expect to complete the excavation and foundation for phase one this year. The framing construction of Phase 1 to be complete and enclosed by the summer of 1999. The interior of Phase 1 by Spring of 2000. The demolitioia of the existing structure by Summer 2000, and the framing construction of Phase 2 by the end of summer 2000. The entire project done by the spring of 2001. Valuation of Work: $130,000 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472.-0620 SITE Subject Address ~_ ~;~'} ~ C~_~/Y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G~',~ ~ Business Name~ennant ~ 0~-~ ~1~ ~~ The applicant is: ~wner ~con~ractor ~tenant DESCRIP~ON Subdi~sion PID~ OWN~ Name ~C,~T ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ Address '~.~ ~ ~~t~G~ ~ Phone(H) ~._ ~ (~ ~ -~~ (M) CON~CTOR Company Name Ucense ~ Contact Person Address Phone (H) (W) (M) ARCHITE~ Name &/OR Address ~GINEER Phone (H) (W) _(M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: VALUATION ~J~ o~ OF WORK: \~ C~ ~ VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PI. UMSING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING° PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZF.~ IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN lB0 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK I$ SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERICC OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TiME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. '~M E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. AU. WORK TO 8E PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A SUIt. DING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS. REMODELING. AND ALTERATIONS TO TM~ -.,~T~-~IOR$ Ol- ANY i~UIL~ING' OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETE~') W1THIN ONE [1} YF. AR FROM THE DATE DF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON OBTAINING .'HE PERMIT AND THE OWNF~ OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE R~R COMPLETION. A VtOI. ATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MI~EMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE T1ME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRI'I-i'EN REQUEST OF THE PERMI~'EE. ESTAaUSHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BE"YONO THE CONTROl. OF Tt-tE pERMIT*FEE PREVENTED COMI~ETION OF THE WORK F~R WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY {30I BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ENO OF THE ONE-YEAR I HEREBY C~-=[TIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPt. ICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS ANO ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPUED WITH WH ETHER SPEClRED HEREIN DR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL TH PROVlSlONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE use ON ¥1 S EC AL CO DmO S CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP I OlV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED III I ZONING BLDG SIZE iSO FT) .STORIES fiRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED ? ~CITY ENGINE~_~. 5--~t~ ~tuN~'s YES I NO I PUBLJCWORKS RECE1VED~YtDATE~ : ' Pt. ANSCHECKEDS~:i' : ": APP~OVE~)BYIDATE: ':: :l A~SESSING I547-'4 "' :: ':' :: ':' :' ::'" CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONR (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. j SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... j.,, LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 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 TOTAL HOUSE X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS X X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER x = X X = TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~OVER (indicate difference) PREPARED By ~ DATE 2873 Cambridge Lane -- 7~25~98 Current Proposed __ House X Y X Y 18 12 216 15 15 225 1 2 7 81.9 1 0 1 5 150 5~ 10 50 25 32 800 20 20 4001 -4 9.5 -38 15 15 225 I 8.-~ 1~ 102 15 15 225 __ 21 32 672i _ 11 7 771 -- -~0 20 400+[__ __ 7.5 7.5 56.25i __ -15 7.5 -112.5i __ -5 9 -451 --~Total House 1162 2323/ -- 440 ,Workshop..~ 22 20 440 22 20 O[ ~--~Sidewalk 5.8 1 2 69 ._ -- - -- Driv~~ ~l 25' 39 975 35 21 735I i Total Hardcover __ 26--46 - ' --~o. Lot, Total S~ T_ 8773 ardcover Limit 40% __ ~ 3509 RECEIVED AUG - 6 1998 MOUND PLANNING &INS{-'. Page I ,,Frank Roos Associates, Inc. enu'-~ N"~rth'--~ Ply----mouth'----'~ M'-'~ 5544------7' SURVEy REVIEW FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors FROM: DATE: ADDRESS: RECEIVED J U L 2 2 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. REVIEW COMMENTS P:~as:~noundlsur-rev An Equal Opportunity Employer Cooks Bay (929,48) Lake Minnetonka  Shoreline i s3 i Brighton Commons Area 53 ~ 967 78 ' ~' ~,, / . .----- ' ' ' ""~ ' Retainfi ,g ' i 99.90 ~ 6' ~ .... '" '"'"' ' ' LOt8 Wai I~ .73°47'20'w 100.56 N8203'27'W Lot 10 (97i .1) (972.E [2.~, 6.6 1-Story Walk-out #2885 Lot 9 (971.7) ~, 18' '. 22' (97~.5) ~ 34' i .-~ .... * 2~' 6'. 8' .._... 3.Z.~- ..------ ' ""'"' '8 o.8 5 ~.....----. - ST°W (972.25) 29.7 #2867 29I- (970.37) Current Site 2873 CambrJdse Lame Scale: I inch = 20fl. Cooks Bay (929.48} /~ Lake Minnetonka ~ Blut Brighton Commons Area 95.21 · (970.2) 63 (96:54) Lane 100.56 N8203'27'W Lot 10 1'St°r3/ 40 Walk-out #2885 (97; (972 5) 6.6 Lot 9 ,1) (972.25) (971 35' 80.85 S7"W (971.4) Lot 8 964) Existing Foundation I 99.90 , I N73°47'20'W ----J--1 J(964 7) 2' 5-3/64' 17 29.7 29i8' (970.37) #2867 Proposed Site - Final 2873 Cambridge Lane Scale: 1 inch = 20ft. · = New Elevations 53 ~ Lot 10 (929,48) Cooks Bay ~~- Lake Minnetonka ~ Shoreline 63 Brighton Commons Area i [~/u.~j . _._......._....----- ~ !. ~ .. ---"-' : 99.90 ~ N73o47'20'W ..... ' Lot 8 !(964.7) 100.56 N8203'27'W 1-Story Walk-out #2885 40 \ (97i'1) i !(97~ .5) (972.25) 80.85 S7~N (g71,4) 17 (970,1 29.7 / 29'18' (970.37) 6- #286~L Proposed Site - Phase One 2873 Cambtid§e Lane Scale: I inch = 20fl. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY,. For: Rob Kimball 2873 Cambridge Lane, Mound, 1Vh~ 55364 RECEIVED J(J[ 2 7 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lots 8 and 9, Block 36, Wychwood LEGEND: Scale: I inch = 20 feet Bearings as shown are assumed datum · Denotes Iron Monument Found .,,---Denotes Surface Drainage ( ) Denotes Existing Ground Elevations Note: Distances measured in feet, decimals and hundredths of a foot. BENCll MARK: Top Ring, Sewer Manhole ~ Brunswick Road & Cambridge Lane = 970.43 feet (N.G.V.D.-29). Elevation on Cooks Bay = 929.48 feet (N.G.V.D.-29). AREA = 8773.47 sq. ft. or 0.201 Acres llighest known water elevation of Lake Mim~etonka is 930.51 feet, NGVD - 29, ac~ to the Dept. of~atur~ r'.esource,. ~?;~7 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS IN FEET: (972.00) Denotes top of garage floor elevation (972.50) Denotes top of block {garage}elevation (973.70) Denotes top of block {house) elevation (964.70) Denotes top of basement floor elevation C~) Denotes proposed elevation from grading plan ~ Denotes proposed 2 foot contour lines from grading plan .... Denotes 2 foot contour lines from existing elevations ~-'~ ~  ddition~aiml elevations taken, dong with r~ising the drawing tUs [1 ~ day of Ga~ L. Backe~nd Su~eyor, Lic. No. 1 9 I hereby certify that this Certificate of Survey was prepared by me and that I am a duly Registo~ed Land Surveyor undey the laws of the State of Minnesota. As surveyed by ~ary L. BacoJcgr, Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 10948 I, / / ? / / / / / / / / / ? ? / / / / / / / / I I I I .... -L! · 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: 24-117-24 42 0016 mlity Name: MOUND ~,onstruction Year: 1930 , Name: ROBERT K KIMBALL t~roperty Address: 2873 lchool Dist: 277 / Watershed: 3 ISewer Dist: CAlvlBRIDGE LA }~arcel Size: W95X100X80X100 taxpayer Name & Address: ~OBERT KIMBALL !873 CAMBRIDGE 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: Sale Price: Transaction Type: September, 1995 $171,000 Warranty Deed Tax Parcel Description Lot: Block: 036 -----~I Addition Name: LWYCHWOOD ~Ietes & Bounds: LOTS 8 AND 9 Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 1998 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1997 ~]0 ~ttp ://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/servlet/PidSrchMD 8/4/1998 Hennepin County Property Information by PID No. ,, I ~ ,, ! timated Market Value. Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 1998 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1997 Values ,, II Page 2 of 3 Land Market Building Market Machinery Market Total Market Land Limited Building Limited 31,000 173,000 121,900 Total Limited Qualifying Improvements Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status Classifications No more information on this property!! h ttp : / /www 2. co.h enn ep in.nm, us/ serv l et/P idS rc hMD 8/4/l~t~y/ GENERAL ZONqNG I.NFOIT3.tATION SIIEET SETBACK8 REQUIRED t pRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT: N ~W SXDEt H ~ W SIDE: N S g W 4' or G' PEAR: N S ,,. LAKES I'IORE: from O.H.W. I ,- RESOLUTION NO. 98- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELIEF ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST TO INCREASE PENSION BENEFITS AS REQUESTED WHEREAS, the Fire Department Relief Association has had its Actuarial Study done for the year ending December 31, 1997; and WHEREAS, they are now requesting an increase in pension benefits from $460.00 per month to $510.00 per month, effective September 1, 1998; and WHEREAS, there are adequate funds in this fund to allow these types of increases. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the Fire Department Relief Association's request to an increase in pension benefits as follows: $510.00 per month, effective September 1, 1998. The foregoing resolution was moved by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: , seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Dear Honorable Mayo~ m'td the City Co'm~cil, After teetering our most recent Actuarial dated 12-31-97 , we the board of the Mo'm~d Fire Dept. Relief Assoc. request that you review our proposal for a Pension increase Effective 9-1-98. It has been throu~ careful control mxd efficient use of our Board that we are in a posifio'n to make this request. We have managed to reduce our "Unfunded Liability", dated 12-31-95, of $513,914 to our ct~ent $182,952 dated 12-31-97. At the time of this Actuarial we were 92 % funded with a 'target date of 12o31-2009 as mandated by the State. To make furthur example of our ettbrts, our Unfimded Liabil/b' en l 2-31-94 wr~s $704,996. It has been with great, pride that our Board has met the challenge of reducing those nmnbers and still be able to provide an ocassional increase for our 20* year Members. With om Coverage Area City Contributions and with the additional 2% monies that will be zdlocated due t(, our expanded Coverage Area, we at th/s time request a Council approval of a $50.00 a month ?e~sion increase Effective 9-1-98. Being 92% funded and viewing the enclosed document showing 1,3,5,10 year averages of fi,rods we m'e pa~"hcipatmg in, you can see.that since our Acmamls are based on 5% assumptions, that we are ON TRACK acc,,,rd/ng to State Statues. We are constantly reviewing our fired as well as the funds ofvariou~ other Fi~'~, Depts. both locally and Statewide. We are rated very h/ghly around the State and part of that is l~ccause we maintain a very strong Relief Association. We provide benefits only after 20 years of sermce as opposed to some Depts. who only require 10 years ves~g. We -Aso keep close tabs on how they are managed md what types of benefit options are available. Based' on our current Pension of $23.00 per year of service we feel that an increase to $25.50 per yez is IN LINE with our long stan~g policy of"Pension increases rather than hourly Fire C~ increases We feel this policy best serves the Tax Payers in our Service Coverage Area. ~, //' Repectfully, jeffrey B. Andersen MKTG: MARKET INDEX RATES OF RETURN # EQUITY INDICES CONTINUED ;I LARGE-CAP VALUE :I M/D-CAP VALUE PSI SMALL-CAP VALUE PSI LARGE-CAP GROWTH PSI MID-CAP GROWTH PSI SMALL-CAP GROWTH FIXED INCOME INDICES UP MENU DN IMSD 7.2 050 2/3 06/05/98 BY 00-00 ON 07/21 AT 10:57 1MTH 3MTH 1.77 0.08 -1.67 -5.62 -2.64 -5.68 6.48 4.17 1.57 -4.00 1.17 '5.78 YTD 1YR 3YR 5YR 10YR 12.17 27.71 30.31 23.14 18.16 5.73 20.13 23.64 18.84 16.97 3.39 16.00 22.19 19.63 16.25 21.90 32.13 27.69 22.68 18.08 8.51 15.67 16.53 15.83 15.30 8.08 15.95 16.64 16.11 13.35 PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 1MTH LB AGGREGATE 0.85 LB CORPORATE 0.74 LB GOVT/CORP 1.02 LB INTERMEDIATE CORP 0.55 LB INTERMEDIATE GOVT 0.67 LB INT GOVT/CORP 0.64 LB LONG GOVERSrMENT 2.32 LB MUNICIPALS .39 3MTH YTD 1YR 3YR 5YR 10YR 2.34 3.93 10.54 7.88 6.88 9.07 2.58 4.15 11.38 8.40 7.55 9.78 2.62 4.17 11.28 7.89 6.89 9.10 1.99 3.71 9.07 7.51 6.89 9.01 1.85 3.39 8.38 6.74 5.91 8.04 1.89 3.47 8.54 6.91 6.11 8.25 4.67 6.25 19.66 10.39 8.90 11.26 1.52 2.69 9.59 8.16 6.64 8.39 INDEX RATES OF RETURN # TOP MENU DN IMSD 7.1 050 1/3 06/05/98 BY 00-00 ON 07/21 AT 10:39 PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30 1998 EQUITY INDICES % 1 MTH 3 MTH YTD 1YR 3YR 5YR 10YR S&P 500 4.07 DOW JONES INDUSTRIALS 0.74 NYSE COMPOSITE 2.38 NASDAQ COMPOSITE 6.51 VALUELINE -0.65 WILSHIRE 5000 -2.69 RUSSELL 1000 3.70 RUSSELL 1000 GROWTH 6.13 RUSSELL 1000 VALUE 1.28 RUSSELL 2000 GROWTH 1.02 RUSSELL 2000 VALUE -0.57 RUSSELL 3000 3 38 MSCI EAFE ' 0.78 3.32 17.74 30.30 30.37 23.16 18.58 2.15 14.15 18.70 27.86 23.37 18.74 1.04 13.21 25.15 25.69 19.68 16.67 3.22 20.66 31.40 26.62 22.36 17.93 -4.65 4.91 13,53 15.28 11.36 7.10 -3.85 9.14 21.80 25.74 20.20 16.96 2.50 16.21 30,60 29.66 22.46 18.35 4.54 20.62 31.66 30.27 23.54 19.18 0.45 12.16 28.83 28.83 21.21 17.44 -5.74 5.46 13.19 14.41 13.71 11.59 -3.61 4.44 19.88 23.03 18.09 15.26 1.82 15.11 28.81 28.57 21.80 17.92 1.13 16.08 6.38 11.01 10.32 7.10 MSCI WORLD 2.39 2.12 16.85 17.46 19.74 16.14 11.35 E FORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS PAGE IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE. IT HAS NOT EN VERIFIED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED OR ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 MEMORANDUM August 21, 1998 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~.~ 1. ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT - 1998-1999 Attached is a resolution recommending approval of a labor agreement between the City of Mound and Teamster's Local No. 320, Maintenance Persons & Unit Supervisors. The following items are changes to the present contract which expired 12/31/97: 1. Wages - 3% Increase for 1998 and 3% increase for 1999. 2. Health Insurance Contribution, family coverage - $400 per month in 1998 and $420 per month in 1999. 3. Boot allowance - $75.00 per year based on a voucher system. 4. Language change regarding "election of remedies" clause. 5. Voluntary mediation step for grievance issues. 6. Same uniform provisions but deleting winter jackets and replacing with winter reflective parkas once every 3 years. I recommend approval of the proposed contract with the above changes. If you have any questions, please contact me. RESOLUTION NO. 98- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTER'S LOCAL NO. 320, MAINTENANCE PERSONS & UNIT SUPERVISORS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999. WHEREAS, the City of Mound and Teamster's Local No.320, Maintenance Persons & Unit Supervisors, have gone through the collective bargaining process and negotiated a Labor Contract for January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999 period; and WHEREAS, both sides have worked a final agreement which is acceptable to both the City's negotiators and the Bargaining Unit's negotiators. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound and Teamsters Local No. 320 Maintenance Persons & Unit Supervisors, have reached a settlement on the January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999 contract attached hereto and made a part hereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by The following Com~cilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: , seconded by Mayor Attest: City Clerk BILLS AUGUST 25, 1998 BATCH 8082 265,140.48 ,, II UJ u ' '.:i :'" :::..".' ' o o Cnty Hwy 92 0 I, ~/~H P!V a~,e),S oo · eeoeeo ~>. August 25, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION f~98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO APPROVE A 30 FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE TO A LIGHTING STANDARD FOR THE INCORPORATION OF A WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA EQUIPMENT WHICH WOULD EXTEND TO A HEIGHT OF 120 FEET, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT f~277, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21, LYNWOOD PARK, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 PZ CASE f/98-45 WHEREAS, the owner, Westonka School District # 277, and applicant, US West Wireless Communications have applied for a height variance to locate a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field; and, WHEREAS, wireless telephone antenna facilities are permitted as non-tower facilities on publicly owned structures including lighting standards when stealth design is used to blend the antenna into the structure and surrounding environment; and, WHEREAS, the wireless telephone antenna would be located at the top of the proposed 120 feet lighting standard. A 30 foot height variance above the 70 foot lighting standard height is needed to accommodate the antenna. An additional 20 feet of height would be allowed for antenna support structure without a variance which would bring the total lighting structure height to 120 feet; and, WHEREAS, US West and the School District are jointly involved in the project which includes three other lighting standards which will be 70 feet in height. US West will retain use of northeast lighting standard for a wireless antenna to be placed at 120 feet; and, WHEREAS, staff=recommended denial of the request and the Planning Commission recommended approval 4-2; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves a 30 foot height variance to a lighting standard for purposes of accommodating a wireless telecommunication antenna. August 25, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF 8 EXISTING LIGHT POLES AT MEMORIAL FIELD . WITH FOUR (4) 70 FOOT LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21, LYNWOOD PARK, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 PZ CASE #98-46 WHEREAS, the owner, Westonka School District # 277, has applied for a conditional use permit to replace the lighting standards at ~ Field; and, WHEREAS, the proposal is to rep~isting 8 lighting standards with 4 new lighting standards. The new lighting standards will be 70 feet in height, and increase of 10 feet above the existing 60 feet light standards; and, WHEREAS, two lighting standards will be located on each side of the football field, placed at approximately the 15 yard line; and, WHEREAS, the proposed lighting plan conforms to code lighting requirements and will improve the overall field lighting while reducing spill and glare into adjacent properties; and, WHEREAS, the proposed lighting standards are a substantial improvement to the field as the existing lighting is outdated and has safety concerns; and, WHEREAS,staff recommended approval of the 70 feet lighting standards and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approve a conditional use permit for four (4) 70 foot lighting standards. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Updated report OWNER: Westonka Public Schools APPLICANT: US West Wireless and Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-45 and 98-46 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5mm and 98-5nn LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: This case was heard at the August 11, 1998 City Council meeting where the motion was made to send it back to the Planning Commission for further study and review. The Council determined that there was no clear evidence presented by US West indicating this site was the only feasible location for a wireless telephone antenna. US West was directed to provide technical data showing how this facility integrates into their system and look at other potential locations in the City. US West will present its case at Monday night's meeting. A couple points to consider when hearing the testimony. If this site is determined to be the only location an antenna could be located then the Commission should work with the proposal. The 1996 Telecommunications Act stipulates that the City cannot deprive a communications company from locating an antenna if it would cause a gap in coverage. If there are other alternatives that are feasible and reasonable, then there would be reason to deny the proposal on the grounds that it doesn't meet the code requirements and other alternative are available. In deciding the case, financial hardship will not stand as a reason for a variance. Only if other locations are proven to be technically infeasible should this proposal be considered for a variance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 1.6 PIjBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID 14-117-24 41 0011. 1.7 CASE 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID #14-117-24 41 0011. The Planner explained that Westonka School District #277 and U.S. West Wireless Telecommunications are requesting two items. New lighting standards at Hadorf Field. As well as a telecommunications antenna which is associated with the new lighting standards. The Planner explained that he would address these two requests together and then he would break them apart because they are somewhat independent of each other. The Planner presented a hand drawn sketch that he had done showing essentially what is being asked for. He did this because there was confusion at the Planning Commission with all the information that was submitted. The Planner reviewed the requests individually. The Planner reported that what is being requested is to replace 8 existing light poles at Hadorf Field (4 on each side) with 4 poles (2 on each side). The existing poles are approximately 60 feet in height and would be replaced with poles that are approximately 70 feet in height. The new lighting would be an improvement to the existing lighting. In addition to the 4 lighting standards, there is a telecommunications antenna which would be located on top of one of the new poles in the northwest comer of the field. The request has some elements that do not meet the code. Lighting standards are just like a structure in the school district site. They require a Conditional Use Permit. There is no permit history on the previous poles. They estimated the height of the existing poles of 60 feet. The new poles at 70 feet would be an increase of approximately 10 feet. Also required with the lighting standards is a lighting plan to show how the lights would effect neighboring property. That has been submitted and meets the code. o The second request is for a telecommunications antenna. Approximately 2 months ago the Planning Commission recommended and the Council adopted a telecommunications ordinance to address these type of situations, because we knew they would come to Mound eventually. The ordinance was adopted to prepare for there location and how they could operate within the City. This request did not meet the intent of that ordinance so the telecommunications company U.S. WEST is asking for a variance to allow this tower to exist at this location. When the ordinance was reviewed, the City identified two industrial areas where tower facilities could be located. The Planner reported that MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 essentially what is being requested is a monopole tower which would only be allowed in the industrial (I-1) district. The company has asked for integration of the antenna onto this lighting standard. They are asking for a height variance to what height they could locate this antenna at on the lighting structure. Although it looks like a monopole tower, the request is to attach it to the lighting standard. The Planner explained that antennas are allowed to be located on lighting standards, utility poles, electric voltage lines, buildings, if the height does not reach above the height of the structure by more than 20 feet. They are asking for a variance of 30 feet which would allow this antenna to reach up to a height of about 120 feet. This assumes that the Conditional Use Permit for the lighting standards at 70 feet is approved. The Planner stated that essentially this is a monopole tower with lights attached to it. He stated that in reviewing this request, it was felt that this did not meet the intent of where the ordinance was going. This was a monopole and we wanted some integration of this tower to make it look more like a lighting standard than a tower because it seems to skirt the intent of the code. The recommendation that was made to the Planning Commission was to look at a height of approximately 90 feet for this antenna which would allow 20 feet above the top of the lighting standard. That would be in conformance with the code. U.S. West did not agree with this approach and stayed with their original application. The Planning Commission recommended a 30 foot height variance which passed on a 3-2-1 vote. The Conditional Use Permit for the 70 foot lighting standards was approved unanimously. The Planner reported that since the Planning Commission Meeting, the City Attorney, City Manager and himself have discussed the intent of the ordinance and how the lighting standards were addressed. Initially there were several approaches to address the lighting standards: 1. Because there was no permit history, should a permit be required? It was determined that we should require a permit. 2. Since we are going to permit it, how should we look at the height? The Planner recommended looking at it as a CUP encompassing everything that was being asked for. Since then, it has been determined that it is in the best interests of all the parties (school district, U.S. West, and the City) involved that we go back and ask for a variance for the light standard height from 45 feet to 70 feet so all interests are protected. For those reasons, he wanted to lay this out for the Council to consider possibly sending this back to the Planning Commission for the light standard portion of the request so that there can be further review, study and findings of fact determined. This would be a height variance showing practical difficulty and hardship to be included in the CUP. The City Attorney pointed out that 3 of the 4 light standards are 70 feet tall each and the ordinance permits, as a Conditional Use, light standards in that district, but no taller than 45 feet. This requires a variance for the 70 foot tall standards. That variance was not part of the application process that went before the Planning Commission. The variance that was considered was for the standard with the antennas. The City Attorney then stated that there is another provision in the ordinance that states that an antenna can extend only 20 feet above the antenna support structure. This proposed variance is for 50 feet above the antenna support structure. The other variance from 45 feet to 70 feet has not been requested. Basically, they need a Conditional Use Permit and a variance for the light poles. MINUTES- MOUND ClOT COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 The Planner stated the replacement of the light poles is one request. The other request is for the telecommunications antenna. The height of the light poles is covered in the Zoning Code. The Planner then stated that what should have been done at the Planning Commission is to consider the following separately: 1. A CUP for the 4 lighting standards; 2. A variance in the height of the 4 standards; and 3. A variance for the height of the antenna tower.. The Planner recommended that this be returned to the Planning Commission for their review. He suggested opening the public hearing, hear comments, close the hearing, and have the Planning Commission review the variances at their August 24th Meeting. It could then come back to the City Council on August 25th. The Council asked the applicants if this would work for the applicants. Gregg Robbins, facility coordinator for Westonka Schools encouraged the Council to approve the CLIP and variances. He stated they would like to have the project done by the first football game, September 1 lth and first soccer game September 8th. He stated the School District needs new lights and poles, reducing the number from 8 to 4 will create more light on the field and less spill and glare on neighboring properties. He also stated the poles are in poor condition and need to be replaced. U.S. West came in with this proposal for an antenna on one light standard. He stated U.S. West is funding 3/4 of this project. The estimated total cost of the project is $104,000. He then stated they do not want to use the old lights because the poles are rotting and the wiring is questionable. There was an incident last year where a person jumped on the guy line wire holding a pole and crossed the electrical lines up above causing sparks above the grandstand. the Council discussed the lighting. Councilmember Jensen stepped down from the Council because she is an employee of U.S. West. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke in favor of approving the requests: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Michael Mueller, resident and Planning Commissioner. Para Meyers, Supt. of Schools. Craig Gallol, lighting consultant. Keith Radcliff, Activities Director, Westonka Schools. Sally McCurry, School Board Member. Peter Meyer, resident, Park Commissioner. Scott Hoeschler, U.S. West, stated that they need the height of 120 feet for the antenna in this location in order to operate properly. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 The Council discussed the requests. They asked if all the alternatives have been explored. The Council discussed the fact that there needs to be practical difficulty and hardship shown to grant the variances. The Council also discussed the telecommunications ordinance that was just adopted two months ago and U.S. West had input into. The Council asked that Mr. Hoeschler provide the City with some technical or engineering studies or report showing that this the only option available. Mr. Hoeschler stated that he was told this would be a continued item tonight. Therefore, he did not ask his engineers to come and was not planning on a big presentation with more information. MOTION made by Polston to deny the variances because there no sufficient hardship shown. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Hoeschler asked that these items be continued to the next Council Meeting to allow him to submit evidence of practical difficulty and hardship. The Council discussed sending this back to the Planning Commission for further review. MOTION made by Weycker to bring this item back to the next City Council meeting so that the applicant can prepare for their presentation. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to have the applicant present to the Planning Commission the engineering and technical data that they intend to present to the City Council with their hardship and practical difficulty. Also that the Planning Commi.qsion make a recommendation that includes what the hardship and practical difficulties are. This will go to the Planning Commission on August 24th and come back to the Council on August 25th. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 27, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, 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, Orr Burma, and Bill Voss. Public Present: Jim Regan, Lora Bloomquist, Marshall Anderson, Greg Robbins - lSD #277, Peter Meyer, Chds Loew, Keith Randklev, Scott Hoeschler - USWest, Craig Gallop - MUSCO Lighting. Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JULY 13, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. On page 7 of the minutes on case # 98-38 under the discussion, correction to Mark Hanus comments ( 2"d paragraph) should state: "He stated that Mr. Cook stores his bobcat and trailer on the lot." So noted and corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-46: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS AND MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT # 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 CASE# 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #2771US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. ,I ~ ,, I, ,, II Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 7. MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Orv Burma, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Building Official Jon Sutherland. Public Present: Keith Randlev - Dist #277, Greg Robbins - Dist # 277, Eugene Sigal - US WEST Wireless, Khursheed Khan- US WEST Wireless, Scott Hoeschler - US WEST Wireless, John Gibbs - Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi/US WEST, Todd G Hartman - Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi/US WEST. Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. 4,5 MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 10, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Mueller to approve the Minutes of the August 10, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE# 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. This case was heard at the August 11, 1998 City Council meeting where the motion was made to send it back to the Planning Commission for further study and review. The Council determined that there was no clear evidence presented by US West indicating this site was the only feasible location for a wireless telephone antenna. US West was directed to provide technical data showing how this facility integrates into their system and look at other potential locations in the City. US West will present its case at Monday night's meeting. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 A couple points to consider when hearing the testimony. If this site is determined to be the only location an antenna could be located then the Commission should work with the proposal. The 1996 Telecommunications Act stipulates that the City cannot deprive a communications company from locating an antenna if it would cause a gap in coverage. If there are other alternatives that are feasible and reasonable, then there would be reason to deny the proposal on the grounds that it doesn't meet the code requirements and other alternative are available. In deciding the case, financial hardship will not stand as a reason for a variance. Only if other locations are proven to be technically infeasible should this proposal be considered for a variance. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned whether the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was applicable to these light standards. Gordon stated that City Attorney, the City Administrator and himself determined that the application that was first submitted for the light standards and the variance that is front of you tonight is the correct approach to address this case. The school site operates under individual CUPs for each of the 4 parcels. Gordon stated that in 1995 parcel 58 received a CUP to allow the skating rink warming house and lighting. The community center would operate under a CUP but currently there is not one in place. Parcel 11 which is what is being discussed tonight will have a CUP for the proposed lighting standards. Mueller questioned the City Attorney's wording at the City Council meeting was in error. Gordon stated that the City Attorney thought that were the warming house site and the football field were on one site. The football field is a separate parcel. The City Attorney's approach is to take each parcel one at a time. Mueller questioned the use of the Community Center building. Gordon stated that building is considered a quasi-public structure and the CUP would change when physical alterations are made. Mueller asked what zoning district these parcels are in. Gordon stated that 3 were zoned Business One (B-l) and the one that were the football field is located is zoned Residential One (R-l). Hanus asked for clarification if the football field site zoned Residential. Gordon stated that was correct. Mueller asked if there was a site right now where the monopole could be placed. Gordon stated that the I-1 or PlA would allow a monopole but probably not at full height. Mueller stated that the commission passed a law where it could not accommodate a monopole. He feels that the commission may have made a mistake when writing the ordinance. Scott Hoeschler, US WEST Wireless, passed out two handout. He stated that their company did studies on the various other sites. Memorial Field site, City of Mound Water Tower: Well #3, Chateau Lane, City Water Tower: Sorbo Park, I-1 and PlA Zoning District, B-l, B-2, and B-3 Zoning Districts, and Existing Antenna Support Structures: Public/Institutional Property. He said that these sites were not feasible for the antenna. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Khursheed Khan, RF Design Engineer, US WEST Wireless. He pointed out the site at Memorial Field is a necessary site for continuous service from Orono to the west. He stated that US WEST has a tower on the water tower at Shoreline Ddve in Orono. He stated that if a tower would be needed at the intersection of County Road 110 and County Road 15 to obtain optimal coverage. He explained the tests that they performed. Hanus asked why the test could not be put on top of the water tower at Sorbo Park. Khan stated that they could not properly conduct a safe test environment on top of the water tower so they had to put up temporary tower that did not extend to the top of the water tower. Michael asked what difference would an extra 30 feet make. Khan explained that it would enhance the service a little bit but would not extend the service from the Orono tower. He then proceeded to explain why the Chateau Lane water tower site would not work. He stated that the Chateau Lane site is one mile closer to the Orono tower and would be jeopardizing the quality of service provided. The closer the tower are together the more interference there is in the service. Hanus asked if there was a drive test done on the Chateau Tower. Khan stated that one was not needed since there were tests done on the memorial field and the tower at Sorbo park. Mueller asked if the signals are somewhat directed. Khan responded yes they are more directed toward the southwest from the Orono site. Mueller asked Khan to show where the Orono site ends going west. Khan explained that there would have to be a overlap zone. The signal varies from Summer to Winter. Mueller questioned the difference from 90 feet to 120 feet. Khan stated that 90 feet would provide sufficient coverage to meet the US WEST Wireless service. Michael asked what kind of coverage would benefit by having a 120 foot tower at the memorial field. Khan stated he did not know what the results would be. Burma asked if US WEST had modeling software that they could put the information into to predict what 120 feet would provide. Khan said that they do but he feels that the data from a drive test is more accurate. Mueller asked if it made a difference if the tower was at different heights above sea-level. Khan stated that with the frequency that is used the clutter such as trees, buildings, etc. have a determining factor in the coverage. Hanus asked if there was a target distance that US WEST was trying to reach or are they just trying to get as far as they can go. Khan stated that they would like to go as far as they can go within certain technologies. As far as going to the North and Northwest, he has not been informed of any particular sites. Khan stated that there will be potential sites at a later date to the south and southwest going out Highway 7 and Highway 5. Michael asked if the objective wasn't to extend the service to the east. Khan stated that by putting the site at Memorial field, US WEST ensured that the coverage would be meet. 3 DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Glister asked if the other sites would be adequate to meet the needs of the service. Khan stated that possibly a mile to the north of the proposed site would be adequate. The Sorbo site would not meet the minimum requirements. Gordon asked that at the test at a 90 feet would other sites be required. Khan stated at 90 feet the coverage would not be desirable. Hanus asked about smaller multiple site coverage. Possibly one at the Chateau Lane site and then another one at the Sorbo Park site. Khan stated that if you look at the proposed site at coverage of 90 feet it does not have extensive coverage. He did not know by having two sites if that would meet the coverage requirements. Hanus asked if the tower was moved to County Road 110 would that increase the line of site coverage. Khan stated that he felt it would not meet the requirements they need. Hanus asked the height the water tower at Sorbo Park. Gordon estimated at between 70 and 80 feet. Mueller requested a 5 minute break. Hanus asked if the proposed site would be moved over to County Road 110 and the height of the tower stayed at 90 feet would that get the coverage to the North better. Khan stated yes when channeling energies around corridors like rivers and lakes it does have a different characteristic. Without a analysis from an engineering standpoint, however, it would not meet the requirements needed by US WEST. There was some more discussion on the water tower at Sorbo Park. Hanus asked a hypothetical question, on average what would your best guess be to transmit a signal under a line of sight conditions. Khan stated that it depends on the strength of the signal and the height of the tower. Glister asked if they get the tower at the proposed site where is the existing site to the north. Khan stated that it could vary from ¼ mile to 7 miles. Glister asked if there is an existing tower. Khan stated that there is not a tower in place right now. Hanus asked if Shirley Hills or Grandview sites were looked at. Hoeschler stated they stopped looking at these sites since they did not have the desirable facilities. Khan stated that the proposed site is the desirable site since they feel that one site will do the job instead of having two sites. He stated they did not do a feasibility study involving two sites. Hanus stated that directly west to the proposed site is heavily wooded and housed. Is the reason why they need the tower to be 120 feet. Khan stated that they are concerned with the immediate area. Hanus asked why the tower could be shorter and have the power boosted up. 4 DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Khan explained by using a diagram. He stated that the signal does not go up it will stop at the barrier. Mueller asked if the optimal site for Mound would be a 120 foot above the football at the Memorial field site. Khan stated yes. Scott Hoeschler, US WEST, made some comments regard looking at all the potential sites as alternatives. He feels that by not grenting this variance would create a hardship for US WEST in not being able to previde optimal coverage to their customere. He said there has been positive response for the general public. He expressed that they would be using an existing support structure. Mueller asked if US WEST would be opposed to having the tower be collocation. Hoeschler stated that US WEST would not be opposed to collocation. Hanus stated that he has heard negative comments regarding the antenna. Gordon stated that it has to be called an antenna support structure. A tower could not be allowed within this district. Collocation would not be allowed. Collocation can only be on a tower in a Industrial area. Staff feels that it is a great concept even though it doesn't meet code. Staff is, however, optimistic that something will work with this site and other options that would meet the code. A 90 foot tower will transmit and a 120 foot tower will transmit, because 120 foot appeare to be more optimal is not reason enough for a variance. We don't know what optimal means. John Gibbs, Attorney for US WEST, reinforced what the engineer presented to the Planning Commission. He stated that he feels that US WEST has demonstreted that a 90 foot antenna would not meet the requirement and the120 foot antenna would. Mueller restated his earlier comments regarding the Tower in an Industrial site. Hanus stated that it could be met with two antennas. Mueller commented that the optimal location is the Memorial field site with a one foot tower of 120 feet. Hanus stated that the within the ordinance it states having potential multiple sites. He said that US WEST briefly considered multiple sites and thrown out without reason. He would like to know why and would like to see studies reflecting multiple sites. Mueller stated that US WEST has presented that the optimal site would be a 120 foot antenna at the Memorial Field site. Gordon stated in a B-ldistrict a monopole would not be allowed. Gordon stated the Planning Commission is reviewing the case to determine hardship or practical difficulty not to establish individual values that are subjective in nature. 5 DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 John Gibbs, stated that them is no evidence that a multiple site would work. US WEST has not demonstrated this. He stated that it would create a hardship if multiple sites would have to be created and that there is no evidence that a multiple site situation would work. Hardship would be created with time, cost, workable sites. Hanus stated that we are trying to find a hardship. He explained the grounds for hardship. Chair Michael asked Gibbs to sit down so the Planning Commission could continue their discussion. Mueller commented that he feels that there is a hardship since a tower cannot be built in the Industrial District. There was discussion on the way the ordinance was written. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to allow the 30 foot height variance to the antenna support structure in the proposed site located at Memorial Field. Finding of Hardship: 1. The proposed site is the optimal location 2. Reducing visual pollution 3. There is not a place in the I-1 district where a 125 foot pole could be built under the current ordinance. MOTION carried 4-2. Opposed Glister and Hanus. This case will go to City Council on August 25, 1998 INFORMATIONAL Them were no questions of Hanus. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Burma to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:57 p.m. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Two applications have been submitted for related items regarding new lighting standards and a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field. The conditional use permit application submitted by Westonka Public Schools is to update the conditional use permit, replacing the 8 existing light poles and lighting with 4 new poles and lighting. Three of the four new standards will be 70 feet in height, an increase of about 10 feet above the existing standards which are approximately 60 feet in height. The second application associated with the lighting standards, submitted by US West Wireless, is for a wireless telephone antenna to be placed on the forth lighting standard or "tower." The tower, as proposed, would be 120 feet in height and would accommodate both lighting, attached to the tower at 70 feet, and wireless telephone antenna, attached at the top of the tower. Associated with the antenna is a base station unit located at the base of the tower housing communications equipment and a backup power generator. US West Wireless and the Westonka School District have entered into an agreement which they feel is a mutual benefit to both parties. Because Memorial Field needs new lighting and US West needs a wireless antenna location, US West has offered to pay for 75% percent of the costs for the new lighting cost in return for use of one of the standards for a wireless antenna. Under the terms of the contract between the two parties, US West would have access to its antenna and base station unit for the length of time it uses the tower for an antenna. If the antenna were no longer in use, the equipment would be removed, and the school district would retain full ownership of the lighting standards. Lighting Standards The B-1 district regulates structure height to 45 feet with a conditional use permit. As proposed, three lighting standards would require a 25 feet height variance. There is no permit history on file for the existing lighting standards. The lighting standards are an overall improvement for the field. The number of standards as proposed will be reduced from 8 to 4. The proposed luminaries incorporate modern lighting technology that, according to the lighting manufacturer, will reduce the spill lighting 2 times or more onto adjacent properties. Glare, or the perceived amount of light, will also be reduced. The impact on adjacent residential properties west and south of the field will be less than the current lighting. This request seems to be consistent with the trends in the lighting industry to use a fewer number of poles with a larger number of lighting fixtures per pole with little increase in overall height. A lighting plan is included with the application which meets the code lighting requirements. Wireless Antenna Section 350:1300, ,,Telecommunications Towers and Facilities," addresses the location of antennas when not located on a telecommunications tower. Essentially, a tower is a self- supported monopole structure up to 125 feet in height that supports telecommunications facilities. "Antenna Support Structure" means a building, athletic field lighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a.tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 facilities. Additionally, antennas are allowed to be integrated within a light pole when designed to blend into the surrounding environment. Section 350:1305 Subd. 6 of the Definitions states: "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Section 350:1370 Subd. 2(1) Non-tower facilities, is fairly explicit is addressing the integration of antennas on structures that are not "towers." This section also provides for additional height above the top of the lighting standard stating: "...the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet..." Conceptually, the approach of integrating wireless telephone antennas into existing structures meets the intent of the code. This application, however, does not meet the specific parameters established for integration. During the preparation of the telecommunications ordinance, staff was careful in drafting language that would be clear on how integration of antennas on existing structures could occur. The intent of the ordinance is to design telecommunications facilities that would not appear out of character with the surrounding environment by attempting to minimize the potential visual impacts that a 125 feet monopole tower could create. Allowing antennas on existing structures is one way to accomplish this end. By encouraging this design, it presents a win-win situation by protecting the residential character of Mound and requiring less capital investment in facilities by telecommunications companies. This proposal does little to satisfy the intent of the telecommunications ordinance. The request is essentially to allow a tower within a B-1 district which is a use variance not permitted by code. The ordinance specifically limits towers to Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Industrial Area (PLA) districts. Granting a height variance skirts the intent of the code by essentially allowing a monopole tower under the guise of a lighting standard. This is not to say an antenna cannot be located on the lighting standard. The code does allow the antenna to have an additional 20 feet of height above the top of a lighting standard. With the approval of the conditional use permit to allow the 70 feet lighting standards, the antenna would be permitted to extend up to a height of 90 feet without a variance. Staff feels this is the best approach to take for this case. In regards to the lighting, staff feels the plan is an improvement to the existing conditions. The current lighting standards are in poor condition and the new standards will be an improvement. Impacts to the adjacent neighborhood should be reduced with the lighting as 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 proposed. Although this is a joint proposal, denial of the 120 feet antenna height does not necessarily prevent the installation of the lighting standards. US West have stated that their network does need a facility in Mound to prevent coverage holes in the system. In the letter from their engineer, it is stated that without the "site" a gap in coverage will occur. The letter does not document the 110 feet height is a necessity in order to provide service. A denial of the request does not prevent the tower location. It may however cause changes to their network in order to accommodate a 90 feet height at this location. The application does not address this as an option, but this should be explored to determine if it is feasible. Staff recommendation: #98-46 Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit for new lighting standards as proposed. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the requested height variance for the wireless antenna. DISCUSSION: Weiland asked for clarification of the height of the new poles and which pole would be the monopole. He questioned if the pole were to fall would it fall on any structure. Gordon stated that it could fall onto the bleachers, as could the current poles. Weiland asked if there were wires to support this. Gordon stated it was free-standing. Weiland asked about a beacon on the tower for air craft visibility. Gordon stated that it is the applicants responsibility to meet FAA and FCC regulations and the applicant can better respond to that question. Weiland asked if the school district would own the other three light poles. Gordon stated that staff's understanding is the school district would own all 4 poles except the antenna tower. Mueller asked what was presently there. Gordon stated that there are 8 light poles approximately 60 feet in height. Mueller asked if there would still be lights on the hill side. Gordon presented the lighting plan and showed the positioning of the proposed light poles. Mueller questioned the direction of the glare of the lights. Gordon stated the Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 modern lighting standards direct more light onto the field with less glare and spill on to adjacent properties. Mueller questioned the telecommunication ordinance, with US West requesting the ordinance, the location for a monopole in the industrial district. There were question regarding other telecommunications companies use of this monopole. Mueller commented that the football field is one of the lowest areas in Mound. He stated that when the commission looked at the ordinance this site was not one that was discussed. Glister commented on the discussion of having the revenues come to the City of Mound and she only saw the School District benefitting from this Pole. Gordon stated that the ordinance intent is to allow antennas on public facilities as a permitted use for a number of reasons that are of benefit to the telecommunications company and community but not solely as a revenue source for the City. Hasse questioned what kind of equipment would be needed to go along with the pole. Gordon stated a basestation unit would be located at the base of the pole that is needed for communications equipment and backup power. It would be fenced in. Hanus questioned if the proposal was a lighting standard with telecommunications equipment or a monopole with lighting standards. Gordon stated that staff believes it is a a monopole with lighting standards. Hanus questioned the addendum to option and site lease agreement. He wants to know what else is on that agreement. Mueller questioned if the commission should be reviewing that document. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing: Greg Robbins, lSD #277, stated that USWest approached the School Disctrict with a proposal to help the school replace the poles. The School District is paying for I pole and 1 lighting standard and the underground wiring for all the lights. USWest is paying for 3 poles and 3 lighting standards including their monopole. Weiland asked about the lease. Robbins stated that after the lease is up, the school district would own the poles. Mueller asked why the lighting standards need to go 70 feet. Mueller questioned if the US WEST would not have come to the School District, would the School have replaced the poles. Robbins stated there would not be funds available for new lighting. Robbins stated that they would be forced to play day games if something wasn't done with the lighting at the fields. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Mueller asked when US WEST approached the School. Robbins stated in March. Hasse commented that we should deal with the issues at hand and that its not the commissions position to discuss who was going to pay for what. Scott Hoeschler, US WEST, stated that this sight was his main focus from day one. The pole will not be lighted. He stated that they ask the FAA for approval. In this case, nothing would need to be done. As a rule of thumb, a pole over 200 feet in height would need lights or to be painted. The base station are about the size of a refrigerator and they will be fenced. He stated that the poles are built in 30 feet sections. PCS needs to be placed in specific locations. Weiland questioned if US WEST would ever want to add 30 feet to the 120 foot proposed pole. Hoeschler commented that they would not need to go higher than that. Michael questioned how they would build the base to support the tower and what the maximum would be. Hoeschler stated that if they propose a 120 foot tower they would build a foundation to support a 120 foot tower. Hoeschler presented examples of monopole towers and other lighting pole standards with antennas. Mueller stated that he doesn't recall talking about 120 poles when there was discussion for the Telecommunications Towers and Facilities ordinance. He stated again that the football was one of the lowest sights in Mound. There was some discussion on personal views of the project. Hoeschler stated that this is the only site they need at this time. Hoeschler stated that this pole would have access ports. Mueller stated the section 350:1320 Subd.1 about collocation. Mueller stated that he would like to see that this pole be able to house other companies. There was some more discussion on the stipulations on the conditional use permit. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Blvd., lives in the neighborhood of the proposed site. He feels that Mound is getting improvements done to our recreational facilities. He feels that the lighting is a big plus to the Community. Craig Gallop, MUSCO Lighting, stated that their company would be doing the lighting and that he was present if there were any questions. 6 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Weiland questioned about climbing spikes on the pole. Gallop stated that there are no spikes or steps. Mueller questioned the up grade from 60 feet to 70 feet. Gallop stated that they would be reducing the number of lights and that the downward angle of the lights would shine more on the field instead of glare outward. He explained the lighting would reduce the glare to the neighboring residences. Keith Randklev, 6680 County Road 110 W, Minnetrista, commented on the improvement of the area and that it will help with activities programs. There was discussion of the need for new lighting standards at the fields. Jim Regan, 5430 Three Points Blvd., asked about the incident that happened. Robbins explained what happened at the game. Asked if soil samples were taken. Lora Bloomquist, 5748 Lynwood, Likes the idea of less glare and less poles. She feels that it is a good deal for both the school district and for US WEST. Mueller asked about the removal of the current poles. Robbins stated that the old poles would be removed before the new ones would be installed. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing. Weiland asked if the variance was part of the Conditional Use Permit. Gordon stated that he combined the two in his report. Glister asked if this was the first PCS request. Gordon stated that US West first inquired about a location in downtown Mound before the telecommunications ordinance was adopted. This is the first formal application. Hanus commented that we are looking at a variance request to an ordinance that is about two months old. He is struggling with the issue that the school district needs the lights but the commission cannot base their vote on financial need. Weiland stated that he was unaware that so many schools had these poles. Mueller questioned the 350 feet notification radius. Michael questioned where staff came up with the maximum height. Gordon quoted the section in the ordinance that it related to the height constraint. Weiland asked how high the light poles were along commerce blvd. Regan stated 40 feet in height. Weiland stated it was just for comparison reason. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 There was more discussion on the Industrial area only being 1000 feet away from the proposed site. US WEST stated that they would have to re-evaluate their position. There was more discussion on the location of the pole. Michael commented that he was also struggling with this. He feels that it should be tabled until further figures could be brought forth on why it could not be in the Industrial area. Scott Hoeschler commented that he would not like to see this tabled. He discussed the benefits to having the pole in this location. There was more discussion on the location of where towers should be placed. Hanus commented on the Telecommunication Ordinance. He talked about the collocation. He feels that maybe the Telecommunications Ordinance should be reevaluated. Gordon stated the League of Cities model was used in developing this ordinance. Gordon stated that he felt it would be difficult to revisit the ordinance and find other locations for towers base on previous discussions of the Commission. Keith Randklev spoke on variances and ordinances. That they are used as guidelines. Commented on the benefits that this project would bring to Mound and its residence. Mueller commented that he felt that this site has the least impact. Case 98-46: Conditional Use Permit (CUP): MOTION by Hasse, seconded Mueller to recommend approval of four (4) 70 foot lighting standards. Motion carried 6-0, Case 98-45: Variance: MOTION by Hasse, seconded Mueller to recommend a 30 feet height variance to the lighting standard at the northeast corner of the field for the incorporation of a wireless telephone antenna. Motion carried 3-2-1. In favor: Hasse, Weiland, Mueller. Opposed: Michael, Glister. Abstained: Hanus Finding of fact this sight is 1000 feet or less from the industrial area. This case will go to City Council on August 11, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Vadance OWNER: Westonka Public Schools APPLICANT: US West Wireless and Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-45 and 98-46 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5mm and 98-5nn LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: Two applications have been submitted for related items regarding new lighting standards and a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field. The conditional use permit application submitted by Westonka Public Schools is to update the conditional use permit, replacing the 8 existing light poles and lighting with 4 new poles and lighting. Three of the four new standards will be 70 feet in height, an increase of about 10 feet above the existing standards which are approximately 60 feet in height. The second application associated with the lighting standards, submitted by US West Wireless, is for a wireless telephone antenna to be placed on the forth lighting standard or "tower." The tower, as proposed, would be 120 feet in height and would accommodate both lighting, attached to the tower at 70 feet, and wireless telephone antenna, attached at the top of the tower. Associated with the antenna is a basestation unit located at the base of the tower housing communications equipment and a backup power generator. US West Wireless and the Westonka School District have entered into an agreement which they feel is a mutual benefit to both parties. Because Memorial Field needs new lighting and US West needs a wireless antenna location, US West has offered to pay for 75% percent of the costs for the new lighting cost in return for use of one of the standards for a wireless antenna. Under the terms of the contract between the two parties, US West would have access to its antenna and basestation unit for the length of time it uses the tower for an antenna. If the antenna were no longer in use, the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request July 27, 1998 equipment would be removed, and the school district would retain full ownership of the lighting standards. Lighting Standards The B-1 district regulates structure height to 45 feet with a conditional use permit. As proposed, three lighting standards would require a 25 feet height variance. There is no permit history on file for the existing lighting standards. The lighting standards are an overall improvement for the field. The number of standards as proposed will be reduced from 8 to 4. The proposed luminaries incorporate modern lighting technology that, according to the lighting manufacturer, will reduce the spill lighting 2 times or more onto adjacent properties. Glare, or the perceived amount of light, will also be reduced. The impact on adjacent residential properties west and south of the field will be less than the current lighting. This request seems to be consistent with the trends in the lighting industry to use a fewer number of poles with a larger number of lighting fixtures per pole with little increase in overall height. A lighting plan is included with the application which meets the code lighting requirements. Wireless Antenna Section 350:1300, "Telecommunications Towers and Facilities," addresses the location of antennas when not located on a telecommunications tower. Essentially, a tower is a self-supported monopole structure up to 125 feet in height that supports telecommunications facilities. "Antenna Support Structure" means a building, athletic field lighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Additionally, antennas are allowed to be integrated within a light pole when designed to blend into the surrounding environment. Section 350:1305 Subd. 6 of the Definitions states: "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Section 350:1370 Subd. 2(1) Non-tower facilities, is fairly explicit is addressing the integration of antennas on structures that are not "towers." This section also provides for additional height above the top of the lighting standard stating: "...the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet..." COMMENTS: Conceptually, the approach of integrating wireless telephone antennas 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Condit~'onal Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request duly 27, 1998 into existing structures meets the intent of the code. This application, however, does not meet the specific parameters established for integration. During the preparation of the telecommunications ordinance, staff was careful in drafting language that would be clear on how integration of antennas on existing structures could occur. The intent of the ordinance is to design telecommunications facilities that would not appear out of character with the surrounding environment by attempting to minimize the potential visual impacts that a 125 feet monopole tower could create. Allowing antennas on existing structures is one way to accomplish this end. By encouraging this design, it presents a win-win situation by protecting the residential character of Mound and requiring less capital investment in facilities by telecommunications companies. This proposal does little to satisfy the intent of the telecommunications ordinance. The request is essentially to allow a tower within a B-1 district which is a use variance not permitted by code. The ordinance specifically limits towers to Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Industrial Area (PLA) districts. Granting a height variance skirts the intent of the code by essentially allowing a monopole tower under the guise of a lighting standard. This is not to say an antenna cannot be located on the lighting standard. The code does allow the antenna to have an additional 20 feet of height above the top of a lighting standard. With the approval of the conditional use permit to allow the 70 feet lighting standards, the antenna would be permitted to extend up to a height of 90 feet without a variance. Staff feels this is the best approach to take for this case. In regards to the lighting, staff feels the plan is an improvement to the existing conditions. The current lighting standards are in poor condition and the new standards will be an improvement. Impacts to the adjacent neighborhood should be reduced with the lighting as proposed. Although this is a joint proposal, denial of the 120 feet antenna height does not necessarily prevent the installation of the lighting standards. US West have stated that their network does need a facility in Mound to prevent coverage holes in the system. In the letter from their engineer, it is stated that without the "site" a gap in coverage will occur. The letter does not document the 110 feet height is a necessity in order to provide service. A denial of the request does not prevent the tower location. It may however cause changes to their network in order to accommodate a 90 feet height at this location. The application does not address this as an option, but this should be explored to determine if it is feasible. RECOMMENDATION: ~98-45 Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend conditional use permit for new lighting standards as proposed. Council approval of the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request July 27, 1998 #98-46 Variance Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the requested height variance for the wireless antenna. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 Rev. 11-14-97 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PER/<IT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 1998 Planning Commission City Council Date: Case No. --.~_--~ ' ~-~_. ~ , Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250. O0 Distribution: City Engineer: "-]--[ ~'~ --98 Public Works: Other: Fire Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address ~'"~ e'~ ~. [_~,_.~[f~] ~ ~J~. INFORMATION I Nam~ nf Eusiness DESCRIPTION APPLICANT The applicant is: ~ owner other: Address Phone (H) (W) ~j- ~0~0 (U) OWNER ' (if other than Address applicanfl Name ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M) ZONING Circle: ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 ~ B-2 B-3 DISTRICT USE Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 DescfiptionofProposed Use: EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $//d ¢ d d 0 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? 0~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print A~plicant's Name Print O~er's Nme Apl~nt's Signature Signature Date Date Print Owner's Name Rev. 11-14-97 Owner's Signature Date CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #98-46 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING LIGHT POLE AT MEMORIAL FIELD WITH A 120 FOOT STEEL POLE SUITABLE FOR ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AND WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA ALONG WITH THREE (3) 70 FEET POLES WITH LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21 , LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 P & Z 98-46 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a replacement of an existing light pole at Memorial Field with a 120 foot steel pole suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antenna along with three (3) 70 feet poles with lighting standards at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard located within the R-1 Zoning District. ,'~;~';:"-'~'/ ."~"~, ::~i-J,d4.~.~:~;;~,,~.,,..~,~~.:~.~ ~!~ ~ ~ -, ,..~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ., ...~ ~.:~.~.. ~ ~'"~" All persons appearing at said hearing with referpcice~bove will be given the opportunity to be heard at this me'" Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on August 4, 1998 Published in the Laker, August 1, 1998 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #98-46 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING LIGHT POLE AT MEMORIAL FIELD WITH A 120 FOOT STEEL POLE SUITABLE FOR ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AND WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA ALONG WITH THREE (3) 70 FEET LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21 , LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 P & Z 98-26 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, July 27, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a replacement of an existing light pole at Memorial Field with a 120 foot steel pole suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antenna along with three (3) 70 feet lighting standards at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard located within the R-1 Zoning District. ~~i~,,',~-'~',~:~ ~ -,,~,~-~,;,,.,! r~' -" --~ ........ --~I~ All pemon~ appearin~ at ~aid hearing with given the oppo~uniW to be heard at thi~ meetin~ Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on July 17, 1998 Published in the Laker, July 18, 1998 , \Q ~T2 SUNSET RD o -217.6 zo ~2 2OO (25) 7 - lB -~B DIS1 NO ~ I 25.05 S2o45,T,W DOC NO 4647207 (78) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) .VARIANCE APPLICATIOP CITY OF MOUND - 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 City Planner '1-1- ~L~ City Engineer - ' Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER DNR -- Other ~ Public Works Address~'(~) (~ ~. Blo~k'k ' ~ / ~ ~' Subdivision PID//~_~.~ Il '7 --o~/-/- Z-//- OO~_~..~__ Plat # ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 Name L~/P_5 ~I./LI,"c $:ko ls- Address ~"~' 0 0 ~ V~.-.~. B-2 B-3 APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) (MI Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date{s) of application, action taken, resolution number{s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): · 'Variance Al~Plicafion, p. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonin 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.): o SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE {or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft' ft. Side Yard: { N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W } ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. (NS =wl ft. ft. Stree~ Frontage: ~ ft. ft. Lot Size: ft. ft. - - ft. Hardcover: - 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 ( J. If no, sl~ecify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography { )toosmall { )soil ( ) drainage ~existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe:~ 'Variance Application, p. 3 ~(~ ~.~ ^ Case No. - o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone !~aving propert interests in land af ' · ter the zonfng ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~t~ If yea, expl:¥n: the Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~'~--~ If yes, explain: · Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes~<~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: 1 certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate· I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notiCes as may be required by law. Applicant's Signatu~;:~_.~~~.~~ Date~ (R=v. 111141~ 7} 3353 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill June 24, 1998 Scott Hoelscher US West Wireless Communications Group 426 North Fairview, Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 JUN 2 I; 1998 MOUND PLANDtiVG & INSP. RE: Mound PCS application - 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Dear Mr. Hoelscher: The letter is in response to the wireless telephone antenna and athletic field lighting standards proposed for Memorial Field. As I understand the application, the proposal is to remove the existing lighting standards, replacing them with three new 71 feet structures and one 120 feet monopole serving a dual purpose for lighting and PCS antennas. The School District property is located in the B-1 District and is regulated by a 35 feet height limit for structures. A 45 feet structural height could be approved with a conditional use permit. As such, the proposed lighting standards and monopole structure would not meet the height requirements. Although the existing wood poles appear to be 50 to 60 feet in height, their replacement does not grant the same height to new standards. Any new structure would be required to meet these height requirements. If this height is not feasible, a variance process could be pursued to appeal the code. This would require an application to the Planning Commission and Council for review of the lighting standards and monopole tower. It is my imerpretation that the 120 feet monopole is a tower not a lighting standard. Monopole towers are allowed only in the I-1 district. The code encourages the proposed integration of antennas on existing structures to prevent the proliferation of monopole towers. Section 350:1300 of the City Code, Telecommunication Towers and Facilities, addresses integration of antennas and support structures. Athletic field lighting can be used for telecommunications facilities when they are designed to blend into the pole and maimain a height that is consistent with other poles. The intent is to have a look of a lighting pole rather than a monopole tower. There are other locations available within the City for monopole structures and integration on buildings and existing support structures. If a monopole structure is preferred, locations within the I-1 district are available. There are also a number of School and City facilities such as water towers, existing antennas, and buildings that allow integration of antennas as a permitted use. If you have any additional questions, please call me. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Scott Hoelscher June 24, 1998 Sincerely, Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner cc: Jon Sutherland, City of Mound Dan Greensweig, Kennedy and Graven Steve Mangold, US West Wireless Greg Robbins, Westonka School District 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 U S WEST Communications Group 426 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless June 30, 1998 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Variance Application Dear City of Mound: The letter is being submitted in association with an application for a variance to the City of Mound Telecommunications Towers and Facility Ordinance, Section 350:1300, Subd.2 that restricts the height of a telecommunications facility above an antenna support structure on school district property to 20 feet above the height of the antenna support structure. US West Wireless proposes to replace the existing light structures at Memorial Field. The property is located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard and is owned and operated by the Westonka Public Schools - Independent School District 277. The proposal involves replacement of the existing light standards with four new light standards, three 71 foot structures and one 120 foot structure. The 120 foot structure would be able to accommodate athletic field lighting and Personal Communication Services (PCS) antennas. To accommodate an antenna facility on the proposed 71 foot light standard, a 29 foot height variance is being requested. Restricting telecommunications facilities to 20 feet above an antenna support structure creates a hardship for wireless carriers seeking to establish service in Mound. PCS antennas must be spaced, depending on certain technical and geographic variables at intervals approximately two miles from each other and at a height of approximately ninety to one hundred twenty feet above ground level. Given the size and anticipated magnitude of use, there must be at least one US West Wireless PCS site in Mound in order to fulfill its mandate to provide service through out the license area. To service the Mound community, it has been determined that a 120 foot PCS site at 5600 Lynwood is the optimum location for the US West PCS network. We believe the variance request to replace the existing light structures at Memorial field with a taller structure is consistent with the City of Mound Telecommunications Towers and Facilities Ordinance. The Telecommunications Ordinance specifically addresses the location of antennas on light structures that are under the control of a school district. In addition, the proposed 120 foot lighting structure is consistent with the character of the area. Memorial Field has accommodated light structures for many years. Presently, there are eight light structures on the property. Upgrading the field lighting with four steel poles is not only consistent with the current use of the property but also necessary in order to mlnlm~ze the risks associated with collapse and failure of the existing light structures. The current US West proposal, then, is not for a new monopole tower, (monopoles already exist at the site), but rather for an extension of a needed light standard. In order to accommodate night activities in the future, four new light structures are needed at Memorial Field. We feel extending one of the light standards to accommodate wireless antennas (so a new tower will not be needed) is the best alternative in order to minimize the visual impact of telecommunication towers. In conclusion, US West Wireless has designed a wireless PCS system for the Twin Cities that attempts to work within allowable zoning ordinances without compromising the intended service requirements of the system. This proposal, if approved by the City Council, will have the effect of limiting the number of new monopole towers in the City of Mound. Thank you for your time and consideration of this application. Please feel free to call me at 642-6042 with any questions you may have. Scott Hoelscher Site Acquisition US West Wireless CC: Steve Mangold, US West Wireless Eugene Sigal, US West Wireless Greg Robbins, Westonka Public Schools PERMIT AUTHORIZ~, ITION To: Property Owner: Please sign and return the letter of authorization below to: US West Wireless 426 North Fairview Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Attention: Steven Mangold as soon as possible to assure rapid processing of this site Any building permit aplolication$ will be made only after the required zoning approval process has b~)en completed. This letter shall not' constitute an agreement to enter a bin~ing lease or option to lease, and neither party shsll be bound with respect to the leasing of the ~roperty until a final Lease Agreement is negotiated and signed by both parties. Sincerely, Steven Mangold US West Wimless - - - TION' LETTER OF AUTHORI;~ To Whom lt. May Concem: The undersigned hereby authOrizes US West Wireless, its attorneys, agents or representatives, to make application for any necessary zoning petitions includi~lg the filing of buitding permit applications. · Date ADDENDUM TO OPTION AND SITE LEASE AGREEMENT. Site: MIN203 The attached Option and Site Lease Agreement made and catered into this day of .., 19 , by and between ' ("Lessor") and LI g WEST Wireless, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company ("Lessee") of which the Addendum is made part, is hereby amended and supplemented as follows: This is a Site Lease Agreement with no Option Period. Rent will begin upon full execution of Agreement. Lessee shall finance the purchase and installation of a new lighting facility on the Property, consisting of one monopole (the "Monopole") to attach up to nine (9) panel antennas which shall be part of Lessee's Communication Facilities and lighting fixtures ' suitable for athletic field lighting, as detailed on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Lessee shall be responsible for the construction of the monopole. The parties shall reasonably coordinate the location and installation of the field lighting on the Monopole. Lessee shall finance the purchase and installation of two (2) additional lighting facilities on the Property (the "Light Structures"), which shall also be detailed on Exhibit C. The parties shall reasonably coordinate the location and installation of the Light Structures. Lessor shall be responsible for the selection and installation of the Light Structures. Lessor and Lessee agree that the presumed development cost of the Light Structures and athletic field lighting for the Monopole to be financed by the Lessee is ~ Upon termination of the lease, Lessee agrees to remove all antennas, cables, wires, equipment stations, equipment pad/rack and any other associated communications equipment within 90 days. I the first twenty years of the Lease Lessor shall reimburse Lessee for the cost of the construction, purchase and installation of the above-mentioned lighting, less the fair market value of the rent which Lessee would have owed up to the date of the termination. Page 8 For Minnesota Only SIGNATURES: LESSOR: BY: ITS: Fed Tax ID or SSN: ATTEST: LESSEE: BY: ITS: U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. Page 9 06/02/98 12_:23 CITY OF MOUND [~002 BUILDING ,PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND . 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phonl 472-0601 '~' ~ub,ectAddt. 5~,00 Lynwood Blvd, Mound, MN 55364 ~L Lot g n p 1 a t t e d _.. ~ock Plat OWN~ Name Westonka School Dist. No. 277 Addr..,5600 L~nwood Blvd, PhonelH) ~] 2/Ag]-80g0 ~} (MI CQN~OR Company Name Ucense Contact Person Address Phone (H) ARCHITECT Name &/OR Add~s ~GINE~ Phone (H) ~ (Mi CHANGEQ~ FROM:.~O C~e O~ ~se ~S pTo~os~ USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: Remnve an existing light pole at memorial field and replace Jt with a 120 foot steel pole suitable for athletic field · ' ' t le hone antenna. VALUATION OF WORK: VALUE APPROVED: S~]=AflAT[ PERMITS ARE RE~Ulfl[O R3Jl L~t~CTfllCAI. PLUMBING. H~NG, V~NG OR ~fl CONOI~O~NG. PERMITS ~ECQME NULL ~O VOIO IF WORK Off CONS~U~ON A~O~Z~ IS NO~ COMM~C~ ~IN I ~O OAYS, OR IF CON~U~ON OR WORK iS SUSP~O ED OR A~ANOON~ ~ME LIMITS ON S~LDING COMPL~ON. ~ WORK TO COUNC;[ M~Y ~TENO ~E ~ME ~R COMe,ION ~N ~l~ REGUE~ 0F ~E ~E[ ~U~ING TO ~E R~ONABLE SA~SFAC~ON OF ~E Ct~ COUNCIL ~AT CI~C~MST~CE$ 8WONO ~E CONSOL OF ~E ~I~EE ~TED CQM~DN OF ~E WORK ~R ~ICH ~E P~IT W&S GRANT~. THE ~T~SION $HA~ BE ~EQUESTED NOT LESS ~ ~IR~ (30) BU~NE~ DAYS ~OR TO I H~E~Y C~ ~AT I HAVE R~ ~O ~INEO ~lS ~CA~ON ~O ~OW ~E S~E TO GE ~UE ~O CORRECT. ~ ~O~SIONS OF ~WS ~O OROtNANC;S GOV~NING ~lS ~PE OF WORK ~ 8E COM~I~ ~ WH~ SPECIFIED H~N OR NOT. ~E GR~NG O; A R~MIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO ~VE AUTHORI~ T0 VIO~TE OR C~C~ THE PRO~SIONS OF ANY OTHER ~ATE OR LOC~ ~W REG~NG CON$~UC~ON OR ~E P~RM~CE OF CON~UC~ON. PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPUCANT'S SIGNATURE DATE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: -!- OCCUPANCY GROUP I DIV: MAX OCCULT LO~ · II I COP~EO APPROVED U S WEST Wireless, LLC. 426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55014 City Of Mound Building Department June 2, 1998 Re: US WEST site MIN203 - Westonka School District No. 277 City Of Mound, The US West RF department is proposing to place a PCS site on a light pole located at Memorial Field, 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Mound, MN. The antenna center line will be at 110ft above the ground level. The site objective is to provide coverage to all surrounding commercial and residential areas within 4 Km. It will also provide coverage to a 5 mile section of Shoreline Rd, HY110 and HWY125. The absence of this proposed site will create a hole ( gap ) in our coverage which will cause technical failures in the service; dropped calls, call failures, and call block are some of the symptoms which are predicted to exist as a result. Building the site at the proposed location will assure continuous coverage to the surrounding community and to all traffic that passes through the city of Mound. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (612)642-6039. RF Engineer Access2TM Advanced PCSTM Paging Services U S WEST Communications Group 426 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless June 3, 1998 City of Mound Building Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Zoning Application for a PCS Facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound - Memorial Field. US West Site No. MIN-203 Dear City of Mound: This letter is designed to comply with the application procedures for a Zoning Permit that will allow the construction of a Personal Communication Services (PCS) facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. The proposal involves removing an existing light pole at Memorial Field, and placing a new light structure at the same location. A PCS antenna array and new ballfield lights will then be placed on the new tower. Please review the enclosed computer-generated rendering of the proposed light pole replacement. (Exhibit "A"). INTRODUCTION US West is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and is scheduled to deploy a wireless PCS system for Mound and the surrounding area in the summer of 1998. (See Exhibit "B"). To fulfill its mandate from the FCC, US West will be developing a grid of antenna throughout its service area. These antenna must be spaced, depending on certain technical and geographical variables, at intervals approximately one (1) to two (2) miles from each other and at a height of approximately seventy-five (75) to one hundred twenty (120) feet above the ground. The intent of the deployed system will be to provide wireless services to all Twin City area communities. In order to meet the objective of seamless coverage, a PCS site is currently needed in Mound near the intersection of Shoreline and Commerce. (See Exhibit "C"). PCS TECHNOLOGY PCS is a new wireless telecommunication service that is personalized to the individual. PCS technology will allow a variety of telecommunication services, including local and long distance telephone services, portable telephone and facsimile transmission capability, caller identification and voice mail services to name just a few features. The types and features of services that each subscriber desires will be customized to his and her individual needs. Telephone numbers in use in PCS handsets will be assigned specifically to an individual user with a Personal Communications Number (PCN). A PCN will allow the network to track the individual at all times. PCS utilizes the latest digital technology. This will facilitate improved call clarity, but more importantly, clean data communication when using a fax or modem. A PCS customer will be able to communicate through voice and data simultaneously using the same handset without interference to either activity. In addition, computer users will be able to run applications and retrieve data faster from remote locations using their handset. PCS technology also assures less static and fading than current cellular technology and results in fewer dropped calls. PROPOSED USE We propose to remove an existing light pole on the east side of Memorial Field and install a new 120' light pole, suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antennas. A total of six (6) wireless PCS antennas will be placed on the new light standard at 120' above ground level. Each antenna is approximately 5" wide x 42" high x 4" thick. The antennas will not extend above the height of the pole and will be placed close to the pole to reduce visibility. New stadium lights as specified by the Westonka School District will then be reattached to the monopole at 71' above ground level. (See Exhibit "D" - Site Plans) No signs or additional lighting is planned for the proposed US PCS facility. The monopole color will be chosen to match the other new light standards proposed for Memorial Field. (Three additional steel light standards (used only for lighting) will be installed at a lower height. The foundation for the light pole will be a concrete caisson design. The tower steel and foundation will be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. The specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines and the type of equipment to be attached to the antenna/light support system. A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a pole that typically exceeds local building code requirements. The replacement monopole will be located on the fifteen (15) yard line of the football field. An unmanned equipment rack will be situated at the base of the monopole. Placed on the equipment rack will be two (2) or three (3) small equipment cabinets used to link the PCS antennas to the telephone network. (See Exhibit "E"). Fencing will be installed to prevent trespassing. Drainage of the site will not be changed. The site will require a single-phase two hundred (200) amp electrical service and a T1 telephone for utilities. Finally, upon any cessation of operation, US West Wireless will remove its telecommunication facilities (except for the pole that will still be utilized by the School District for field lighting) within 90 days. (See Exhibit "F"). The proposed US West monopole is part of a joint venture between the Westonka School District NO. 277 and US West to upgrade the lighting system at Memorial field and to provide PCS service to the City of Mound. (School District and US West have a signed lease agreement). (See Exhibit "G" - Property Owners Authorization). The existing lighting system at Memorial Field (eight wood poles about 50' above ground level) is severely outdated. In order to hold night activities in the future, a new lighting system was necessary. BENEFITS TO COMMUNITY This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US West to bring new Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) cellular technology to the area. CDMA, which did not exist four years ago, is now considered the leading wireless access technology in the industry. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way of communicating by business, individuals and government services. Police can use CDMA cellular fax machines as part of their drug enforcement program to obtain immediate search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building in route to fight fires more safely. Ambulances can use it to transmit vital data to emergency rooms, which allow the emergency rooms to be better prepared to receive injured accident victims. Motorists will have greater flexibility of wireless phone choices, which will allow them more security in placing emergency calls as needed. The question is often asked if the operation of a wireless antenna will affect home radio and television reception. The use of the frequency spectrum is tightly controlled by the FCC. The CDMA cellular system is operated in the 1900 MHz range. This is a higher frequency on the radio spectrum than home radio and television frequencies. This is important becanse higher frequency users can not interfere with lower frequency users. Since 1984, over 15,000 cellular antennas have been erected across the United States, and there have been no documented instances of interference with home entertainment equipment. ZONING REQUIREMENTS The proposed PCS site is located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. The property is owned and operated by the Westonka School District. The proposed use is merely an extension of the existing football field lighting system at Memorial Field. Moreover, replacement of a light standard at this site will be visually unobtrusive and have minimal impact on neighboring properties and will allow for the development of personal wireless service to serve Mound. The use as conditioned will not impede future development in the area. Special arrangements need not be made to accommodate access to the site. The proposed use will cause no traffic congestion or interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Site visits will be rare once the monopole/antenna/lights have been installed. Parking will not be an issue because site visits will be infrequent and of limited duration. The site will have adequate utilities for the use as conditioned and adequate access is provided to the site. Each US West antenna site will be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). US West monopoles meet all ANSI/TIA/EIA-222E and Uniform Building Code Standards. US West monopoles are designed to withstand the highest wind speeds, snow and ice loads. The proposed use requires electric and telephone service, both of which are available and ample for US West needs at this site. US West will pay for all costs of actual electric and telephone services used at the site. US West hopes this correspondence and enclosures address all issues. Should you have additional questions regarding the attached information please contact us at 612/642-6042. Thank you for your time and consideration of this application. Respectfully, ~//~~~ Scott Hoelscher Site Administrator US West Wireless U S WEST Communications Group 426 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless June 4, 1998 City of Mound Building Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Zoning Application for a Personal Communication Services (PCS) Facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. US West Site # MIN203 Dear City of Mound: Please find enclosed an application submittal packet for a permit to construct a communication antenna support system at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. Strictly adhering to the Telecommunications Antenna and Tower ordinance checklist, the following is enclosed: Required Submittal Information Completed Application Written Description of Proposed Use Rendering of Proposed Light (Exhibit "A") Proof of FCC License (Exhibit "B') Need for Tower at Proposed Site (Exhibit "C") Site Plan (Exhibit "D") 1. Vicinity Map 2. General Site Plan 3. Enlarged Site Plan 4. Elevation Plan Rendering of Equipment Cabinets (Exhibit "E") Tower Removal (Exhibit "F") Property Owners Authorization (Exhibit "G") If you require any further information or have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 642-6042. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Scott Hoelscher Site Administrator US West Wireless NORTH SCALE 1" = 100' MIN-203 EIXSTiNG LIGHT POLE, PROPOSED UONO-POLE LOCATION. ELEV.= 947.26 x o: ~50.00 1 §0-2~0-~1' ''''' Ss3'O6'21'W 2705-1 U.S. WEST WIRELESS SURVEY FOR: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Beginning at o point In the North line of the South t/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 dlstont 458 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof; thence, West to o point 200 feet EoB! from the NorthweBt Corner thereof; thence, South to the Northwest corner of Lot 30, Lynwold Perk Lake Minnetonko; thence, East to the Northwest corner of Lot 21, Lynwold Pork Lake Mlnnetonko; thence. North along the West line of sold Lot 21 extended to o point distant 225 feet South from the North line of the South I/2 of the Northe~Bt 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence, East to a point distant 458 feet West from the · East line thereof; thence, North to the point of beginning. CERTIFICAllON; I hereby certify that this mop was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om o duly Ucensed Lend Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Doted this 6th day of May, 1998 ~,~ ~~ b'k~fnnesoto~'/~R/~~Ucense No. 20281 NOTES: 1.The orientation of this bearing system Is booed on the east line of the SE 1/4 of Section 140 Township 117. R~nge 24 which is assumed to hove a bearing South 05 degrees 08 minutes 52 seconds West. 2. No tide work woe furnished for the proportion of this survey to vertlfy the legal description or the exietence of any easements or encumbrances. 3. BENCHMARI~: Top nut h)drant in the eouth~eet corner of L)~wood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. (Elevation - 948.18) 4. Area of the property desor~oed hereo~ Is 540,731 square feet er 7.8221 acres. Lat./Lan. (NAD83), accurate to within one arc-second Lat. - 44~:d6'22.3' Lan, - 95'40'09.0' EGAN FIELD & NOWAK lNG. .,..EAp~s. U'..ESOTA SURVEYORS ~ 24§52R '3ill 'gNIJ. H~I"I- J~Od5 VIOS3NNI~ '(]NNO~ 9NIIH911 (]131J 77Va100J V~tN01S3/~ (3'IIQ3H::)S NOI/VONIIO.:I 3'lOd 3]SJ ,,~z v,~ zO Il Z mzoo o I-- 0 0 ~$7o u-I JopaD u9 poo~sso8 ~ ' I u9 ~uo~ula8 u-I aJ!OllaE] u9 ~,uu~uollo; ADLER DR. Z z~ Z IS3AA ONDIOO] NOIIVA3]3 .O-.tZ Aq3~V~41XO~ddv (VrllalVO ~ vJ.38 'VHd'lV) 39Od IHDI9 /~3Nj SVNN31NV 001,.I 9NIIHOIq .0-.[' J Wireless MIN203 5600 Lynwood Blvd Mound, MN U S WEST Communications, Inc. 1999 Broadway Tenth Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 303 294-1613 Marry O. Dlckerson Director Regulatory Affairs COMMUNICATIONS Wireless Group February, 1997 FCC auctions for the D and E blocks of Personal Communications Services (PCS) spectrum concluded in January. U S WEST Communications has won 53 licenses for a total of $57 million. We have money on deposit with the FCC to cover 20% of our winning bids and will be paying the remainder of the $57 million when the licenses are granted. The applications for those licenses were filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on January 30, 1997, along with applications from all the other winning bidders. We expect that FCC review and processing will take about three months, the same as for the prior PCS auctions. Attached are pages from the FCC's Public Notice, dated January 15, 1997, showing U S WEST Communications as the high bidder in specific markets. U S WEST Communications is committed to providing wireless services. As an example of our commitment, we have had an experimental license in the Boulder, Colorado area since 1992 for testing and developing the PCS technology that we intend to deploy. We also have invested significant resources in building a staff to develop, implement, and market wireless services. If you have questions about the status of our license applications with the FCC, please call Marry Dickerson, 303-294-1613. attachment ' Wireless licen, ses auctioned WIRELESS from Page 1D million for 222 of the licenses, which cover parts of all states, said AT&T spokeswoman Mary Ireland. In Colorado, the AT&T' licenses cover the same areas as U S West, plus Pueblo. · The FCC requires between th,ree and six companies to offer wireless service in each area so that consumers have choices. Sew eral other companies bid on Ii- ceases to offer the service in Colo- radoo Wire]ess phones, often referred to as the "next generation" of phones following cellular, basically are mobile phones that can hook up with computers, fax machines, pa- ge. rs and traditional wired phones. · "The sound is clearer than cellu- lar phones and people can't eaves- drop on your conversation because they use digital technology," Man- netti said. Most cellular phones are analog devices. It is relatively easy to eavesdrop or interrupt analog .transmissiqu-~.~ he added. · AT&T. oOW;loffer~ ~j~ tele- phone servi~_e lethally but it not has .become c~/6~ouplace. The FCC auction means more companies kill of/er the service and the price will likely drop. U S West plans to offer wireless service in Denver by mid-year, and along the Front Range by year- end. Wireless phones may replace the common two-tiered system of wired home phones and cellular mobile phones, Mannetti said. U S West spokesman Jerry Brown said company officials "feel very good" about the $57 million they paid to provide wireless ser- vice m 53 parts of the country, be- cause it comes out to an average $2.88 per person. Nationally, the average price ,pe, r person or "price per population, ' as it is sometimes called, is $3.73, he added. Snagging the licenses is another step toward realizing U S West president Sol Trujillo's vision of a "one-stop shop" for telephone ser- vices. Last week Trujillo said wire- less service should be available in Colorado this year. U S West and AT&T aren't the only providers now licensed to pro- vide wireless service in Colorado. The FCC made sure it provided for competition by licensing up to six telephone companies in each area. Sprint, ICG and several other telephone providers were nc' nv~ilnhl~ JUH,Z2,199B 9:00AM US WEST WIRELESS STP H0,806 P,2/8 .. INTRODUCTION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER TOWER MIN 203 5600 LYNNWOOD BLVD MOUND, MN Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon The subsurface exploration for the proposed communication tower planned for 5600 Lynnwood Bivd, in Mound, Minnesota, has been completed. As a part of our subsurface exploration, one (1) boring extending to a depth of approximately 30.5 feet below existing grade has been performed at the proposed communication tower site. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the boring, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide recommendations regarding earthwork and the design and construction of the foundation for the proposed tower. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand the proposed project will include the construction of a 90-foot high monopole communication tower which will be supported on a drilled shaft foundation, The tower loads for this site were unknown at the time this report was prepared. Based upon our experience with similar structures, maximum loads are anticipated to be about 10 kips in compression, 100 kips laterally, and overturning moments of about 300 foot-kips. Grade changes for the proposed site are expected to include only minor cuts and fills. .SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring was drilled near the staked location using an all-terrain rotary drilling rig equipped with continuous flight hollow-stem augers to advance the borehole, Representative samples were obtained using the split-barrel sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. The split-barrel sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch O,D. split barrel sampling spoon with a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch. sampling interval is termed the standard penetration resistance value. The standard penetration resistance values are indicated in the appropriate column on the attached boring log. The samples were tagged, sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing and classification. A field log of the boring was prepared by the ddll crew, This log contained visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The final boring log included with this 'report represents an interpretation of the field log and includes modifications based on laboratory JUM.~.1998 9:01RM US WEST WIRELESS STP MO. 206 P.Bx8 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No. 41985057 June 10, '1998 observation and tests of the samples, Terracon The laboratory testing program consisted of performing water content tests on representative soil samples. Also, chemical tests including pH, resistivity, and sulfate/sulfide tests were performed on a composite sample of the native soils present from the O-foot to 5-foot depth. The results of the tests are discussed in the Corrosion Potential section of this report. Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring log are in accordance with the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is included in the appendix of this report. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed tower location is planned at the high school football field at 5600 Lynnwood Bivd, in Mound, Minnesota. Specific conditions at the boring location are indicated on the attached boring log. The stratification boundaries shown on the boring log represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Conditions encountered at the boring location are summarized below. The bodng encountered about 4 inches of root zone material at the ground surface. The surficial materials were underlain by medium to ve~j stiff, sandy lean clay soils with occasional sand and silt seams to the termination depth of about 30.5 feet. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS The bodng was monitored while drilling and after completion to detect the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was observed at depths of about 19 to 17 feet at these times in the boring. However, observation of the groundwater level in monitoring wells sealed from the influence of surface water would be required to obtain more accurate groundwater levels on the site. Fluctuations of the groundwater level can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the boring was performed. Perched water could develop at higher levels following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. The JUM.~2.1998 9:01AM US WEST WIRELESS STP M0.206 P.4/8 _1 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 2133 Mound, Minnesota ProJect No. 41985057 June "10, 1998 Terraoon possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of the topsoil, as well as any loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable materials from the construction area. The exposed soil that is present after the removal of the topsoil in the construction area should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near the materials optimum moisture content and recompacted. New fill and backfill placed on the site should consist of approved materials which are free of organic matter and debds. Suitable material would consist of either granular material or Iow-plasticity cohesive soil. Low-plasticity cohesive soil should have a liquid limit of less than 45 percent and a plasticity index of less than 20 percent. Moisture adjustments of the on-site soils should be expected to reach the recommended degree of compaction. Fill should not contain frozen material and it should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. The fill should be placed and compacted in lifts of 9 inches or less in loose thickness. All fill placed below structures or used to provide lateral resistance should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698), Ail cohesive fill should be placed, compacted, and maintained at moisture'contents within minus 2 to plus 3 percent of the optimum value determined by the standard Proctor test. We recommend the geotechnical engineer be retained to monitor fill placement on the project and to perform field ¢lensity tests as each lift of fill is placed in order to evaluate compliance with the design requirements. Standard Proctor and Atterberg limits tests should be performed on the representative samples of fill materials before their use on the site. Positive surface drainage should be incorporated into the design of the site. The ground surface around the structure should be sloped to drain away from the tower base. Tower Foundation We understand the tower will be supported on a drilled shaft foundation. Based on the results of the boring, we have developed the following table to provide design parameters for the design of the tower foundation. 3 JUM. ~. i~BB ~: O~M U~'~F~T ~IF~ELES$ STP MO. ~OG P, 5~E~ Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon Allowable Allowable Allowable Angle Ultimate Compressive End Passive of Horizontal Depth Soil Skin Friction Bearing Pressure' Internal Cohesion Subgrade (feet) Description (psf) Pressure (psf) Friction (pst} Reaction (tcf) (Psf) ~ 0 - 5 Frost ...... 5-14 Sandy Clay 275 -- 3000 -. 1000 10 -- 14-30.5 Sandy Clay 500 6000 61300 -- 2000 20 ' Below a depth of 1.5 D. Foundations can be subject to uplift loading due to frost action and loading. In calculating the shaft resistant from uplift loading, we recommend that 2/3 of the compressive loads be used to provide uplift resistance. The upper 5 feet of soil should be ignored due to the potential affects of frost action. A drilled pier foundation should be designed with a minimum shaft diameter of 30 inches to facilitate cleanout of the excavation. The use of temporary casing should also be anticipated during the pier excavation in order to support the sides of the excavation and/or control groundwater seepage. Care should be taken so that any existing building foundations and the sides and bottom of the pier excavations are not disturbed during construction. Lateral loads and pier deflections could possible affect nearby footings. The bottom of the shaft should be free of water and loose soil before placing reinforcing steel and concrete. If groundwater is encountered during construction and a sump pump is unable to control the seepage, concrete should be placed using tremie techniques. A concrete slump of at least 6 inches is recommended to facilitate temporary casing removal. It should be possible to remove the casing from a pier excavation during concrete placement provided that the concrete inside the casing is maintained at a sufficient level to resist any earth and hydrostatic pressures, if any, outside the casing during the entire casing removal procedure. Tremie placement of concrete should be used if slurry drilling techniques are used, The native soils can contain cobbles and boulders. The number of cobbles and boulders which may obstruct drilling the shaft is unknown. However, some contingency should be provided in project budgeting for removal of obstructions. JUN.22.1998 g:O2AM US NEST WIRELESS STP N0.206 P.6/8 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No, 4198~057 June 10, lS98 Equipment Slabs T~rracon We understand the equipment slab will be supported on grade. The recommendations provided in the site preparation section of this report should be used to develop suitable subgrade support for the equipment slab. Based on the soil and climatic conditions, up to 2 Inches or more of frost heave could be experienced. If this amount of movement is nit acceptable, then either removal and replacement of frost susceptible material or supporting the slab with footings extending below the frost depth should be considered. For removal ahd replacement, we recommend removing the sandy lean clay to a depth of about 6 feet from below the slab and replacing it with a clean granular material. Alternately, the slab could be supported an trench footings which extend to below the frost depth. The base of trench footings should be cleaned of all loose soil prior to placement of concrete, Corrosion Protection It appears that Type I Portland cement could be used for this project based on the soluble sulfate content of less than about 25 mg/L. Laboratory tests indicate that the sand soils had a resistivity on the order of 1,500 ohm- centimeters for the 0 to 5 foot. The measured pH of the samples was on the order of 7.8. These values should be used to estimate the corrosion potential of the soils on the site with respect to contact with the underground materials which will be used in constructing the tower. GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide testing and observation during excavation, grading, foundation, and construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil boring performed at the indicated location and from any other information discussed in this report. 'This report does not reflect any variations which may occur across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound. Minnesota Project No, 4198S057 June 10, 1998 Terracon variations appear evident, it will be necessa~, to reevaluate the recommendations of this report, The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication' any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous' materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnicai engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. in the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outline in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this' report in writing. JUM.22.~DgB ~:OB~M US WE~T WIRELESS STP M0.20~ P.B/B LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 Pa~e 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER US WEST COMMUNICATIONS -LOCATION 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD PROJECT MOUND, MINNESOTA TOWER MIN 203 SAMPLES TESTS o DESCRIPTION ~ =~ ~ >- ~ GROUND SURFACE ELEV,: ft o ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ Root Zone ~ HS OCCASIONAL SILT SEAMS - Brown To Gray BrOwn, Medium to Very ~ Stiff  -CL 2 SS 18 9 15.5 '2000 S HS - CL 3 SS ~6 12 14,2 '60~  - SANDY LEAN ~LAY TRACE GRAVEl 20~ CL 4 SS 14 18 14.1 '5000 OCCASIONAL SAND SEAMS Gray, S~iff - HS -  to Vow Stiff ~5~ICL 5 SS 18 16 '15.3 '40-~  : HS 30.5 3o~CL 6 SS 18 17 14,0 END OF 6ORING - The e;ratificetion lines represent the approximate boundary lines Cal~rated Hand Pene~omefff- between eoil and rock ~e~: ~-eEu, fha transition may be gradual. WA~R LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 6-2-98 WL ~ 19.00 WD ~ 17.00 A~ mlm BORING COMP~TED 6-2-98 ~L WL aCM JOB8 41~a5057 SECTION 01000 - PROJECT SUMMARY A. SUMMARY OF WORK Furnish all technical and professional services, supervision, materials and equipment (other than materials and equipment specified as furnished by others) and perform all operations necessary and required to prepare land sites and existing building sites for installation of Personal Communications Services (PCS) Base Transmission Stations (BT$). The scope of work will depend upon the types of site installations as listed below and outlined in Exhibit D. Actual contraction work may include variations of the site types as shown on the site-specific design drawings. · Outdoor Equipment and Monopoles or Antenna Towers (on land sites) · Outdoor Equipment and Rooftop Antennas (on existing building sites) · Rooftop Equipment and Antennas (on existing building sites) · Indoor Equipment and Rooftop Antennas (on existing building sites) o For information provided by the Contractor and a list of work to be done by others, refer to Exhibit D. END OF SECTION 01000-1 8/1/97 SECTION 02050 - DEMOLITION A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Existing Structure and Site Demolition where shown to be removed: a. Demolition of identified structures. b. Demolition of paving, curbing, site walls, utility structures, below-grade foundations and site improvements to a minimum necessary depth to avoid conflict with new construction or site work. c. Removal of hollow items or items which could collapse. d. Protection of adjacent site work' and existing structures.. e. Disconnection, rerouting, capping, and removal of identified or conflicting existing utilities. f. Pollution control during demolition. g. Removal and legal disposal of materials. 2. Selective Demolition: a. Selective demolition of interior partitions, systems, and building components designated to be removed. b. Selective demolition of structures, and components designated to be removed. c. Protection of portions of building adjacent to or affected by selective demolition. d. Removal of abandoned interfering or identified existing utilities and wiring systems. Rerouting of interfering or identified existing utilities and wiring systems. e. Notification to Owner of schedule of shut-off of utilities which serve occupied spaces. f. Removal and legal disposal of materials. END OF SECTION 02050-1 8/1/97 SECTION 02100 - SITE PREPARATION A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Protection of existing trees, vegetation, landscaping materials, and site improvements not scheduled for clearing or removal which might be damaged by construction activities. 2. Trimming of existing trees and vegetation as recommended by arborist for protection during construction activities. 3. Clearing and grubbing of stumps, vegetation, debris, rubbish, designated trees, and site improvements. 4. Topsoil stripping and stockpiling. 5. Temporary erosion control, siltation control, and dust control. 6. Temporary protection of adjacent property, structures, benchmarks, and monuments. 7. Protection in-place and temporary relocation, storage and re-installation of existing of fencing and site improvements scheduled for reuse. 8. Watering of designated trees and vegetation during construction activities. 9. Removal and legal disposal of cleared materials. B. PRODUCTS 1. Materials used for tree protection, erosion control, siltation control, and dust control as suitable for specific site conditions. END OF SECTION 02100- 1 8/I/97 SECTION 02200 - EARTHWORK A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Excavation, trenching, filling, compaction, and grading for structures, site improvements, and utilities. 2. Materials for subbase, drainage fill, fill, backfill, and gravel for slabs, pavements, and improvements. 3. Rock excavation without blasting. 4. Supply of additional materials from offsite as required. 5. Removal and legal disposal of excavated materials as required. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. Compaction: a. Under structures, building slabs, steps, pavements, and walkways, 95 percent maximum density, ASTM D 1557, tested in each of compaction layers, at each compaction site, or at least in each 100 cu. yds. of material volume. b. Under lawns or in unpaved areas, 85 percent maximum density, ASTM D 1557. 2. Grading Tolerances Outside Building Lines: a. Lawns, unpaved areas, and walks, plus or minus 1 inch. b. Under pavements, minus 1/2 inch. 3. Grading Tolerance for Fill Under Building Slabs: Plus or minus 1/2 inch measured with 10 foot straightedge. C. PRODUCTS 1. Subbase Material: Graded mixture of natural or crushed gravel, crushed stone or slag, and natural or crushed sand. Drainage Fill: Washed, evenly graded mixture of crushed stone or gravel, with 100 percent passing a 1-1/2 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 4 sieve. 02200- 1 8/1/97 e o Backfill and Fill Materials: Satisfactory native or imported soil materials free of clay, rock or gravel larger than 2 inches in any dimension, debris, waste, frozen materials, vegetation, and other unsuitable materials. Clay shall be limited to no more than 5%. Backfill (Sand) Materials: Satisfactory cohesionless, natural or crashed sand materials free of rock or gravel, debris, waste, frozen materials, vegetation, and other unsuitable materials. With 100 percent passing a 1/4 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 200 sieve. Gravel Material: Evenly graded mixture of crushed stone or gravel, with 100 percent passing a 1-1/2 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 4 sieve. 6. Geotextile Material: Non-woven fiber material suitable for use under gravel pavement. END OF SECTION 02200 - 2 8/1/97 SECTION 02511 - HOT-MIXED ASPHALT PAVING A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Hot-Mixed Asphalt Paving Over Prepared Subbase: a. Roads. b. Parking areas. c. Driveways. d. Walkways. e. Curbs. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. Construction Tolerances: a. Base Course Thickness: Plus 1/2 inch. b. Surface Course Thickness: Plus or minus 1/4 inch. c. Base Course Surface Smoothness: Plus or minus 1/4 inch as measured with a 10 foot straight edge. d. Surface Course Surface Smoothness Plus or minus 3/16 inch as measured with a 10 foot straight edge.. e. Crowned Surfaces: Plus or minus 1/4 inch variance from template. C. PRODUCTS 1. Asphalt-Aggregate Mixture: Plant-mixed, hot-laid asphalt-aggregate mixture, ASTM D 3515, complying with local DOT and DPW regulations. 2. Prime Coat: Cut-back asphalt, ASTM D 2027. 3. Tack Coat: Emulsified asphalt, ASTM D 977. 4. Herbicide Treatment: Commercial chemical for weed control registered by Environmental Protection Agency and acceptable to authorities having jurisdiction. 5. Lane and Parking Area Marking Paint, White or Yellow Color: Alkyd-resin type, ready-mixed, AASHTO M 248, Type I. END OF SECTION 02511-1 8/1/97 SECTION 02831 - CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Furnish and install a complete Chain Link Fence and Gates with locks, as shown on the site-specific design drawings and on the typical details and notes. B. PRODUCTS 1. Fabric: a. Material: Galvanized steel, ASTM A 392, Class 2 finish. b. Size: 2 inch mesh, 12 gage steel minimum. Other materials and sizes may be used only after a written approval of the substitution is received from contractor. 2. Framework: Galvanized steel, ASTM F 1083. 3. Gates: Gates shall be of the Swinging type, unless specifically shown on the design drawings as an overhead mounted sliding type, or a cantilevered sliding type. END OF SECTION 02831-1 8/1/97 SECTION 02900 - LANDSCAPE WORK A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Furnish, install, and maintain landscape work as shown on site-specific drawings or as called out in the documents: a. Trees, shrubs, and ground cover. b. Lawns. c. Topsoil and soil amendments. d. Initial maintenance of installed landscape materials. e. Pruning and relocation of existing plant materials. f. Reconditioning existing lawns affected by construction activities. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. Plants and Trees: The balled and buflaped plants and trees shall be graded to American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI Z60.'l. C. PRODUCTS 1. Plant Materials shall be as shown on site-specific drawings or as called out in the documents and may be any combination of the following: a. Deciduous trees. b. Deciduous shrubs. c. Coniferous and broadleafed evergreen trees and shrubs. d. Ground cover. e. Plants. 2. Lawns: Lawn may be any of the following, as approved by the Contractor: Seed, new crop seed mixture, Sod, strongly rooted, 2 years old, Sod plugs and sprigs. 3. Topsoil: Fertile, friable topsoil from offsite, or from site stockpile with additional mixed-in fertile, friable topsoil from local suppliers of topsoil. 4. Soil Amendments: The Soil amendments may be any of the following, as required or indicated in the Laboratory Testing Reports: a. Lime: Dolomitic limestone. b. Aluminum Sulfate: Commercial grade. c. Peat Humus: Finely divided peat. d. Superphosphate: 20 percent available phosphoric acid. e. Sand: Clean, washed sand. 02900-1 8/1/97 f. Perlite: NBS PS 23. g. Sawdust: Rotted sawdust free of chips and stones. h. Manure: Rotted stable manure. i. Commercial Fertilizer: Neutral character for plant materials and lawns. j. Mulch: Ground or shredded pine bark mulch. Landscape Materials: The landscape materials may be any of the following, as shown on the site-specific drawing or called out in the documents: a. Gravel: Water-worn gravel. b. Anti-Erosion Mulch: Seed-free salt hay or threshed straw. c. Anti-Dessicant: Emulsion type, film-forming. d. Plastic Sheet: Black polyethylene, 8 mils. e. Filtration Fabric: Water permeable fiberglass or pol~propylene fabric. f. Wrapping: Tree-wrap tape. g. Stakes and Guys: New hardwood, treated softwood, or redwood. h. Metal Edging: Commercial steel edging. i. Wood Headers and Edging: All heart redwood or pressure treated southern yellow pine. END OF SECTION 02900-2 8/1/97 SECTION 16000 - ELECTRICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Electrical general installation. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. National Electrical Code "NFPA 70" 2. Electrical Sweep Testing of Coaxial Cables C. PRODUCTS 1. Products and materials are specified in other sections and herein. D. EXECUTION 1. Submittal of bid indicates sub-contractor is cognizant of all site conditions and work to be performed under this contract. Perform all verification, observations, test, and examination of work prior to the ordering of the electrical equipment and actual construction. Sub-contractor shall issue a written notice of all findings to the Contractor listing all malfunctions, faulty equipment and discrepancies. 3. Heights shall be verified with Contractor prior to installation. 4. Drawings are diagrammatic only, follow as closely as possible. 5. Electrical Service: 208VAC, or 240VAC, single phase, 3 wire 100 amp service. 6. Each conductor of every system shall be permanently tagged in each panelboard, pullbox, junction box, switch box, etc. Sub-contractor shall provide all labor, materials, insurance, installation, construction tools, transportation, etc., for a complete and properly operative system energized throughout and as indicated on drawings as specified herein and/or as otherwise required. All materials and equipment shall be new and in perfect condition when installed and shall be of the best grade and of the same manufacturer throughout for each class or group of equipment. Materials shall meet with approval of the division of industrial safety and all governing bodies having jurisdiction. Materials shall be manufactured 16000- I 8/4/97 in accordance with applicable standards established by ANSI, NEMA, and NBFU. 9. All conduit installed maybe surface mounted unless otherwise noted. 10. Sub-contractor shall carry out his work in accordance with all governing state, county, and local codes and OgRA and 11. Sub-contractor shall secure all necessary building permits and pay all required fees. 12. Complete job shall be guaranteed for a period of one year after date of job acceptance by owner. Any work, material or equipment found to be faulty during that period shall be corrected at once upon written notification, at the expense of the Sub- contractor. 13. All conduit only (C.O.) shall have a pull wire or rope. 14. All work shall be per installation drawings and details. Provide Contractor with one set of complete electrical "as installed" markups at the completion of the job showing actual dimensions, routings and circuits. 15. All brochures, operating manuals, catalogs, shop drawings, etc., shall be turned over to the Contractor at job completion. 16. Use t-tap connections on all multi-circuits with common neutral conductor for lighting fixtures. 17. All conductors shall be copper. 18. All circuit breakers, fuses and electrical equipment shall have a minimum interrupting short circuit rating of 10,000 A.I.C. Sub-contractor shall verify the Site requirements. 19. The entire electrical installation shall be grounded as required by all applicable codes and NEC. 20. Patch, repair, and paint any area that has been damaged in the course of the electrical work. 21. Penetrations in fire rated walls shall be sealed in accordance with applicable codes. 16000-2 8/4/97 22. Power wire and cable conductors shall be copper #12 AWG minimum unless specifically noted otherwise on drawings. 23. Grounding conductors shall be tinned copper, annealed, and solid or stranded and sized as shown on drawings. 24. Meter socket amperes, voltage, number of phases shall be as noted on the drawings, Manufactured by "Square D Company" or approved equal. 25. All materials shall be UL listed. 26. Conduit Rigid conduit shall be UL labeled galvanized zinc coated with zinc interior and shall be used when installed in or under concrete slabs in contact with the earth, under public roadways, in masonry walls or exposed on building exterior. Rigid conduit in contact with earth shall be V2 lap wrapped with Hunts wrap process No. 3. Flexible metallic conduit shall have UL listed label and may be used where permitted by code. Fittings shall be "jake" or "squeeze" type, seal tight flexible conduit. All conduit shall have full size equipment ground wire. Conduit runs shall be surface mounted in ceilings or walls unless indicated otherwise. Conduit indicated shall run parallel or at right angles to the ceiling, floor, or beams. Verify exact routing of all exposed conduit with the Owner prior to installing. No horizontal conduits shall be below 7'-6" Above Finish Floor (A.F.F). No BX or ROMEX cable is permitted. All underground conduit shall be PVC schedule 40 (unless noted otherwise) at a minimum depth of 30" below grade or 6" below frost line. 27. All electrical equipment shall be labeled with permanent engraved plastic labels. 28. Coordinate the electrical service with the utility company. 29. Upon completion of work, conduct continuity, short circuit and fall of potential ground tests for approval. Submit test reports to the Contractor. Clean premises of all debris resulting from work and leave work in a complete and undamaged condition. 30. Sub-contractor shall coordinate with the utility company for connection of temporary and permanent power to the site. The temporary power and all hookup costs to be paid by Sub-contractor. 16000- 3 8/4/97 31. 32. 33. 34. Lightning Protection: Connect lightning rod with down connector to a separate ground rod per detail 520. IEEE Fall of Potential Tests: Ground tests shall be performed as indicated on drawings. A biddle ground ohmer or the method of using two auxiliary ground rods (as described in IEEE standard no. 81-1983, part 1) may be used. The IEEE method requlres the use o~ an ac test current. Re auxlllary test rods must be suff~clently far away from the rod under test so that the regions in which their resistance is localized do not overlap. Sub-contractor shall submit a ground resistance test to the Contractor for review and approval.After all the external ground rings are tied together but before the equipment cabinet is tied down, a megger check of the ground system should be done. All efforts shall be made to achieve a 5 OHMS to ground resistance reading. The maximum allowable resistance is 10 OHMS to ground. Where this is not achievable, inform Contractor in writing. Grounding Resistance Test Report: Upon completion of the testing for each site, a test report showing resistance in OHMS with auxiliary potential electrodes at 5 feet and 10 feet intervals until the average resistance starts'increasing and also note that 10-15 photos must be taken to proof entire external ground ring system before backfill or notify Contractor no less than 48 hours in advance of backfill. Testing shall be completed by Sub-contractor and two (2) sets of test documents are to be bound and submitted within one week of work completion. Coaxial Cable Installation: Coaxial cable size shall be installed as shown on the drawings. The minimum bending radius for the 7/8" and 1 5/8" cable is two feet(2'). Coaxial cable supports. The coaxial cable shall be run in covered cable trays. For short distances the coaxial cable may be on bare runs with supports every four feet(4'), in horizontal runs, and every three feet(3'), in vertical runs. The coaxial cable shall be run inside the monopole and supported from Kellum Grips within the monopole. From the monopole to the Primary Radio Cabinet, the cable shall be supported in covered cable trays. The coaxial cable shall be supported on open waveguides on structural towers. The coaxial cables shall be sealed where the cables penetrate any rooftop, bulkheads, monopoles, and walls. 35. Coaxial cable gounding: The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the antennas using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the Radio cabinet using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the top and bottom of the monopole using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be grounded to a ground bar at the bulkheads using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. 36. Coaxial cable sweep testing: After the installation of the antenna system, the coaxial cables coaxial cables shall be sweep tested up to 2000 Mhz. to determine the 16000-4 8/4/97 acceptability of system return loss, the reflection coefficient, and the VSWR. 37. Grounding Electrode System Grounding Connections a. All underground (below grade) grounding connections shall be made by the "cadweld" process. Connections shall include all cable to cable splices, Tees, Xs, etc. All cable connections to ground rods, ground rod splices, and lightning protection system as indicated. All materials used (molds, welding metal, tools, etc.) shall be by "cadweld" and installed per manufacturer's recommendation and procedures. b. All above grade or interior grounding and bonding conductors shall be reconnected by one hole crimp type (compression) connections for #6 AWG bare copper conductor, and two hole crimp type (compressio.n) connections for #2 AWG bare copper conductor and larger. Mechanical connections, fitting or connections that depend solely on solder shall not be used. AC service electrical ground shall be sized per the NEC with #2 AWG solid tinned copper wire minimum. Service ground wire shall be continous run in an unbroken manner. c. Ground Rods All ground rods shall be 5/8" diameter x 10'-0" long Copperweld" or approved equal, and shall be of the number and at locations indicated on the drawings. Ground rods shall be driven full length vertical in undisturbed earth. All ground rods to be 8' apart unless otherwise noted. d. Ground Bars All ground bars shall be W' thick bare copper plate and of size indicated on drawings. e. Cables All ground cable shall be standard tinned copper and of size indicated on drawings. The type of cable shall be as follows: Cable Size Cable Type # 2/0 AWG Stranded #6 AWG Stranded Use of Cable To main ground, i.e., building steel, cold water pipe, or existing ground rod, and for all lightning >rotection Grounding; of Antenna 16000-5 8/4/97 #2 AWG #2 AWG Stranded Green Insulated Solid Cables Indoor Halo Ring Solid Outdoor Ring Grounds, and all equipment, poles and towers f. Ground Ring The ground ring encircling the pad shall be minimum size of #2 AWG bare copper conductor in direct contact with the earth at a depth of not less than 30 inches (min.), or 6" below the frost line. Conductor bends shall have a minimum radius of 8 inches. The halo ground encircling the room shall be minimum size of no. 2 AWG green insulated stranded copper conductor. Bends shall have the minimum bend radii as shown in the details. Ail external ground rings are to be joined together and all connections must be cadwelded. NO LUGS OR CLAMPS WILL BE ACCEPTED The ground ring encircling the structural members on the rooftop design shall be minimum size of g2 AWG bare copper conductor. Conductor bends shall have a minimum radius of 8 inches with two paths to the main building ground with two paths to the main building ground with #2/0 AWG bare copper conductor. g. Fence/Gate Ground all sections of fence and gate as indicated on drawings. Ground each gate post and comer post. Below grade connections for the ground grid system shall be made by the "Cadweld" process, and installed per manufacturer's recommendations and procedures. h. Cable Tray Ground all sections of the cable tray as indicated on the drawings. END OF SECTION 16000-6 8/4~97 SECTION 16400 - SERVICE AND DISTRIBUTION A. PROJECT INCLUDES Electrical service and distribution including service entrance, switchboards, low- voltage power switchgear, grounding, transformers, busways, panelboards, overcurrent protective devices, and motor controllers. 2. Service and Distribution Requirements: The incoming service shall be rated at 100 Amps, single phase, 3 wire, either 208 VAC or 240 VAC. B. PRODUCTS 1. Service Entrance: a. Circuit Breakers shall be rated for a minimum interrupting capacity of 10,000 A.I.C. b. Fuses: Time-delay, fast-acting, current-limiting types. c. Meter Sockets: Acceptable to local utility company. d. Switches: Heavy-duty safety switches with NEMA Type 1 enclosure. Grounding: a. Grounding Equipment: UL 467; copper conductors; NEC Table 8 wire and cable conductors; connectors. b. Grounding Electrodes: Copper-clad steel ground rods; copper plate electrodes. END OF SECTION 16400--1 8/4/Q7 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION StlEET 1 SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: "~1 1o, oo~/~o~"~ ~z ?, 5oo/o RIA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 YARD I DIRECTION REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: · LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 15' 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACItED BUll.DINGS FRONT FRONT N S E W N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER 305{, OR 40% CONFORMING? YES / NO ?7'5. 5 This Zoning hfformalion Shoe! only summarizes a portion of die requirements outlined iu die City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. t_ ~.,,~ r~ U ~ ~ I ' ' ' r~ :53 ~ (~3) (vA~*{ED 6-16-60 o cD ~ i CO ~ 0 O · CO 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ · -- ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ > O 00~ · .0 Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Orv Burma Public Present: Joe Lemmerman, Darryl Dillon, Craig Rose, Rob & Mai Kimball, Jack Cook Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the July 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting, Motion carried 8-0, BOARD OF APPEALS: Hanus requested to be removed from the Commission for the following case. CASE #98-38: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH RD, LOT 94, PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1sT DIVISION, PID # 19-117- 23-24 0029 Loren Gordon presented the case. Prior to the Council meeting, the applicant submitted a letter asking the Council to consider allowing the garage to remain for a period ranging from 3 to 5 years. The applicant would like to build a home on the property and needs this time to secure the funds necessary for construction. Due to the change of request the Council felt uncomfortable voting on the request until the Planning Commission could review the new request. Council voted unanimously to send it back to the Commission for further review and recommendation. The letter from Mr. Cook is included in your packet material. Staff would suggest the Commission discuss the new information and determine if it has any impact on the previous findings and recommendation. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 DISCUSSION: Weiland commented on all the items that were being stored on the property including trucks, sand piles, two by fours, and other miscellaneous items making the property look trashy. He commented that he personally feels that the garage adds to the trashy look. Mueller stated that he would like to see a Community Service Officer to go to the cite and issue citations for all the items that fall under the nuisance ordinance. He is against to allowing the garage to exist on a lot without a principal structure. Glister stated that if the commission allowed the garage to stay it would be a nasty precedence to start. Jack Cook, the applicant, stated that there is nothing illegal on the lot and everything has current tabs. He did state he would clean up the cite even further. He asked for assistance with allowing him to keep the garage maybe three to five years is stretching it. He stated he just doesn't have the money to build a home right now. Mueller made some comments about prior cases in the same situations. Cook stated that he would like to have at least one to one and half years to come up with a solution for the garage. He stated that a neighbor would possibly be interested in moving it his property and it would be conforming but it has not be conformed yet. Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Road, commented that the property services the neighborhood. Weiland stated that the property looks like a disgrace. Jack Cook stated his case again. Voss questioned how the commission could put restrictions on the resolution on what could be stored there. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend denial of the variance as requested by the applicant, Motion carried 5-1, opposed: Michael, This case will go to City Council on August 25, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 10, 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-IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential DISCUSSION: Prior to the Council meeting, the applicant submitted a letter asking the Council to consider allowing the garage to remain for a period ranging from 3 to 5 years. The applicant would like to build a home on the property and needs this time to secure the funds necessary for construction. Due to the change of request the Council felt uncomfortable voting on the request until the Planning Commission could review the new request. Council voted unanimously to send it back to the Commission for further review and recommendation. The letter from Mr. Cook is included in your packet material. Staff would suggest the Commission discuss the new information and determine if it has any impact on the previous findings and recommendation. MOUND CITY COUNC1L MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 1.8 CASE 98-38: VARIANCE NONC N-FORMING SE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE ACK COOK 4452 DENBIGH ROAD LOT 94 PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1~r DIV. PIX)// 19-117-23 24 0029. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL)~ The Building Official explained that the applicant has requested a variance to allow a one car garage to remain on a lot without a principal use. He stated that Section 350:435 of the Code states the following: "No accessory building or structure 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. ~ This is not possible because the applicant's lot with his home is across the street, not adjacent to the lot where the garage is located. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial. The Building Official stated that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting a 4 year stay (allowing the garage to remain on this lo0 to enable him to acquire enough money to build a home on this lot. Councilmember Hanus stated that this case involves his neighbor and at the Planning Commission he stepped down because it is his neighbor. He further stated that because the applicant has asked for a change in the plan, he would not be comfortable voting if the action is to send this back to the Planning Commission to reconsider his change in plan. He stated he would step down if the Council is going to discuss the case itself. The applicant was not present. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Poiston to table this item and return it to the planning Commission to review the revised request. This would then come back to the City Council at the August 24th Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 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 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 IsT 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. 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. m'll 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 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5 LOCATION: 2754 CarcliffLane ZONING: Residential District R- IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential 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 sr. 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 fi.om Denbigh and 6 feet fi.om 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): Ao Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. Bo The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 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. 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 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 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. 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 I, .. II 'JUN &'~ 1998 CZ.¢ Application Fee: ¢ 100.00 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning C°mmissionDate; J(,I(..l~ I'~, I~fig Case No. City Council Date: ~t_ , Distribution: ~ City Planner ~7'~"~ g DNR City Engineer Other ~-~ ~ Public Works SUBJECT Address ~'~q -~-~_d/-'~ ~¢:~_ " -'- PROPERTY Lot O~ &l LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivisi°n~'~el Oc~ I¢'~.CL,l~d & I"~ [~'"'~ J'~i~//k~i(~ PID# / ~//7,~, .~ .,~ ~/~;::~)~Z~q Plat # ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name OWNER Address U~~ ~ ~ k/~) Phone (H) L/7~, ~~ (W) (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.): .(Rev. Ill14/97) Variance Application, P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~t', No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describ~ reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) '~1~ ft. Front Yard: (_bL,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: ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft 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: 5, Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application, P. 3 e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes {~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? _-~ _-- T~ / ,_, , _ _ '_/fi - = ~ -,"' ~ -?'~ -~ , -~- -t/--~ ~ V - . I certify that all of-~he above statements and the statements contained in ~ny required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature .... ~- Applicant's Signatu/~: Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: II LOT A.EA SO. FT. X LOT AREA ~ /'~_~ SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA /7'7~-O 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 LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~ I UNDER/OVER (indicate ~ifference) ............................... I__~~~__1 U 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 Property 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: Sale Price: Transaction Type: September, 1994 $ 35,000 Sale Excluded from Assessment Analysis Tax Parcel Description Lot: 094 Block: Addition Name: PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1 ST DIV Metes & Bounds: EX ROAD Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 1998 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1997 3L~0. ://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/servlet/PidSrchMD 6/24/1998 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING~INFORMATiON SttEET SURVEY ON FILE? (~ I NO LOT OF RECORD7 YES / NO YARD IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ~'~-~-REC'TION N S E W N SEw N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DETACI IED BUILDINGS N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W ~i io,ooo/~o Sl ~,soo/o 2o,ooo/ o ~3 10,000/60 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 3~ 000/100 D ~/PROPOSED 15' 50' 10' OR 30' 4' OR6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: · VARIANCE IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40~ CONFORMING? YES ? BY: DATED: This Zoning Infi)rma ion Sheet only summarizes Planning Depan~,nem at 472-06{~0. -- _ a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlac! Ibc City of Mound GOVT LOTS 3 & 5 · . t RECEIVED AU6 1 2 1~ st 10 1998 RECEIVED AU6 1 2 1098 August 10, 1998 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesotaf5364 Dear Mr. Sh/~de: ~- Over the past several months staff of the Hennepin County Transportation Department have been working with the cities of Minnetrista and Independence to determine the feasibility of reconstructing CSAH 110 from north of Three Points Boulevard in Minnetrista to CSAH 6 in Independence. To assist in its review of the conceptual layout, the Minnetrista City Council seeks determination of whether the Minnetrista portion of CSAH 110 north of CSAH 151 may be eligible for Natural Preservation Route (NPR) status because of the environment through which it traverses. The City Council considers the environment north of CSAH 151 to be more rural and more scenic in nature when compared to conditions south of CSAH 151, and seeks the County Board of Commissioners' opinion if the rural and historic conditions of the corridor support a NPR designation. The NPR designation of a portion (or all) of a County State Aid Highway may be used in areas possessing sensitive or unique scenic, environmental, pastoral, or historic characteristics. In such areas, the natural surroundings convey a feeling of intimacy with nature or provide vistas at some distance that promote a link, or bond, with nature. When a NPR is to be reconstructed, the designer is expected to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing profile, alignment, and cross section of the road, using various construction techniques_to, protect, the na,tu~r~ amenities while still addressing public safety. Since vehicle speeds are expected to be tower atong a mrr, (generally 30 to 40 miles per hour (mph) vs. 45+ mph), design standards for shoulder width and roadside obstacle-free areas are less than such standards established for regular county state aid construction. In the case of CSAH 110 between CSAH 151 and the north Minnetrista City limits, the NPR designation, if made, would result in a reduction of the speed limit from 45 mph to 40 mph. In addition, the shoulder width of the road could be reduced from 8 feet to 6 feet, and the obstacle-free zone could be reduced by 3 feet to 13 feet. During discussion on the NPR designation issue, the County Board of Commissioners heard testimony from the Mayor of Independence, wherein the Mayor indicated he would not favor a NPR designation along CSAH 110 between CSAH 151 and the north Minnetrista city limits if such action would jeopardize the proposed reconstruction project. As the Board considered the Mayor's position, it questioned whether the. City of Mound had a position on the NPR designation. Accordingly, the Board directed County staff to notify the City to determine its interest in the issue. Therefore, on behalf of the Board, I request that you introduce the issue to the City Council on August 11. If the Council is interested in discussing the issue further with a County representative, I would be happy to attend the next Council meeting (August 25) to present the issue and answer questions. 1600 Prailie Drive Medina, Mlq 55340-5421 (612). 745-7500 FAX: (612) 478-4000 TDD: (612) 852-6760 BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bert Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugene Partyka Secretary, Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park 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 J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood RECEIVED AUG 13 lg98 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2500 SHADYVVOOD ROAD, SUITE 19 · EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 · TELEPHONE 612/471-9588 · FAX 612/471-0632 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR August 11, 1998 Mr. Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: Our records indicate the term for Andrea Ahrens on the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors expires this year. It has been a customary appointment procedure for new terms to be effective with the second Board meeting in October (10/28/98). Your city council is encouraged to coordinate your board member's reappointment effective with this Board meeting. Please advise our office if your records are not in agreement with ours. Your prompt attention in processing this impOrtant appointment is appreciated. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Executive Director 50% Recycled Content 20% Post Consumer Waste Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/ E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com Edward Shukle August 10, 1998 Page 2 Please advise me of the City Council's desire. Sincerely, James N. Grube, P.E. Director, Transportation Department JNG:mvr CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 STAFF REPORT DATE: August 17, 1998 MEETING DATES: August 20,1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C) August 25,1998 City Council TO: FROM: Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ APPLICANT: Dwight Gardstrom, 2867 Cambridge LOCATION: DOCK SITE #51525, BRIGHTON COMMONS SUBJECT: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPLACE EXISTING RETAINING WALLS .Back.qround and Comments The applicant, Dwight Gardstrom is seeking a permit as described in the attached application in order to replace the existing wood plank retaining walls that are deteriorating with a new masonry product. The retaining walls have been installed for a long period of time but have not been previously recognized by any permits or resolutions. The City Council approved the existing stairway by resolution #95-73 and this stairway is in good condition. Please note the attached plan and estimate from the applicants contractor. The Public Works Superintendent has requested a survey be provided to identify the adjacent storm sewer and City Right of Way (ROW), before he will approve of the construction of the wall, the south end of the wall is located very close to the utility and ROW. Recommendation. Staff recommends the Dock &Commons Commission recommend approval of a five (5) year permit with the following conditions: 1) An agreement be prepared that is suitable to the City Attorney that will tie the maintenance and responsibility of the wall to the applicants property. The agreement will be filed at Hennepin County and would survive any change in ownership of the property. Public Lands Application Dock # 51525 Gardstrom - 2867 Cambridge Lane Page 2 2) An engineers design is required for the new walls and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Building Official and Engineer. The Building official shall conduct inspections as required by the Building Code. 3) In the event that compliance with the resolution has not been achieved within one year of the date of the resolution the applicants associated Dock License will not be issued or will be revoked until compliance has been achieved. 4) A Building Permit will not be issued until a survey is provided or the issue of the utilities and Right-Of-Way (ROW) are resolved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Superintendent. JS:kl Rev. 4/97 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 DISTRIBUTION: e~_-q8 BUILDING OFFICIAL ~'-8 PARKS DIRECTOR ~-7-~ DNR B~-q~ MCWD %q5 PUm, c WORKS DATE RECEIVED._ (~_ (~:,_ q ~5~ DOCK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE tcheck one): 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 allow 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, Sub& 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, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which mea;~e 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 is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Phone (home)~]~,-~,'~4,-b ~(work)% [-il4S'- Abutting Address ~_~d. Property O~er Legal Lot Block Description Subd. Public Name - ~~~ C~~~ Property Dock Site ~ ' ~~ ~ O'Shore!ine T~e ~ Contractor Name ~x~ %%,~%~ ~ ~ Phone ~ g [ . ~ ~ ' VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): DESCRIBE REQUEST & P. URPOSE: SignaZr~pplicant ' - Date 3 127 PERMIT NO. CITY OF MOUND INSPECTION NOTICE M T W ~ F SCHEDULED Dale 1'~'ne ADDRESS CONTRACTOR [] FOOTING [] FRAMING [] INSULATION [] WALLBOARD [] PROGRESS [] PLUMBING ROUGH-IN [] PLUMBING FINAL [] MECHANICAL [] FIREPLACE AT THROAT [] FIREPLACE FINAL OWNER ~~'~ .~ ~,, _~~PHONE# PHONE # ,~SITE INSPECTION "~ ~RADiNG/EXCAVLA,) [] COMPLAINT [] FOLLOW-UP [] FINAL _ [] DEMOLITION L~ ' FF fT 1,6 P ' /~/u,~., _~ [] CORRECT WORK & PROCEED ~ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING ~ CORRECr UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN ~ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR ~ INSPEC3 ION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS Call for the next i~pecUon 24 hours in advance. Owner/Con~aGtor on ,'~ ~:~- -~ ~~5~~ ~.,p,~o~ ~ ' d 472-0600 Ci~ of Mo~l Ma~ood Road, Mound, Minnesota 553~ Yellow Copy/Gile No~ice White Copy/Insp~oCs File CITY OF MOl .1 CALLED-IN INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED PERMIT NO. COMPLETED ADDRESS c~°~"/ ~'~il/j~/-~,(~(-~'' . TELEPHONE NO. [] FOOTING [] FRAMING [] INSULATION [] WALL BD. [] FINAL DATE TIME CONTR. ,,~1T E INSPECTION XCAV./GRADING/FILLING E_3 LAKESHORE/WETLANDS L3 COMPLAINT LTJ FOLLOW-UP E} SEPTIC FINAL [.I [] PLUMBING RI ~ MECHANICAL ~ WATER HOOKUP ~ METER SET/TURN ON EJ SEWER HOOKUP [] PROGRESS [i1 SEPTIC INSTALL. [] DEMOL. [~ SEPTIC MAINT. [] FIRE PREV. [.Z} PLUMBING FINAL COMMENTS: ~/~-~ /~_.~ f'~ :~'~:~ ;~-)-Z E~ , WOR A : - ' CORRECT WORK & PROCEED CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN. STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR. INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. Owner/Con~s~t) Inspector Gold Copy/Site Notice 472-1155 White Copy/Inspector's File ~c. ret '14£t 'h I0 ret wo/l 9,9 9 ret. Nil. ~hed- no fndtn.-$ftx blt. II (40) ~vood shed ff. x4f'f. step. stepz 2 fl. ~ide (4o) I0 9 '\ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 STAFF REPORT DATE: August 17, 1998 MEETING DATES: August 20,1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C) August 25,1998 City Council TO: FROM: Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official APPLICANT: Robert Kimball, 2873 Cambridge Lane LOCATION: DOCK SITE #51495, BRIGHTON COMMONS SUBJECT: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION TO GRADE SLOPE TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE AND TO PLANT SHRUBS IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION. Background and Comments The applicant, Robert Kimball is seeking a Construction on Public lands Permit as described in the attached application in order to re grade a portion of the commons on the lake side of his home. The City Council is also reviewing a variance request to allow a conforming addition in conjunction with this request. The variance request (including the proposed grading on the commons has received a favorable recommendation from staff and the Planning Commission.) The City Council approved the existing stairway by resolution #92-125, this stairway is in good condition and should now be given another five (5) year permit. Please note the attached survey/grading plans. Recommendation. Staff recommends the Dock &Commons Commission recommend approval of a Permit to allow the grading as proposed or as modified by staff. The Building Official and Engineer will provide permit review comments as is the normal process in conjunction with the building/grading permit. JS:kl Rev. 4./97 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 DISTRIBUTION: BUILDING OFFICIAL PARKS DIRECTOR DNR MCWD PUBLIC WORKS DATE RECEIVED ~ ~'~ ~' DOCK MEETING DATE Ak) ~y-//.22? "n4 ~ CITY COUNCIL DATE A~3~- q.,6"~ ~6~[~ e): 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). I I PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow 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, Sub& 3). LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Sub& 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 which 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 ~ permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant Name ~<~ ~L~-~c ~' tt,~ ~ A ct_.- Address ?_-~5~ ~ ~ ~b~ ~ ~utting Address Tq~ ~~ ¢~6~ ~~ ProDerty Owner ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Legal Lot ~ ~ q Block ~ Description Subd. ~ ~ ~ ~o~ Public Name ~ ~~ ~.~o~ S Property Dock Site ~ ~%~ Shoreline T~e ~ Contractor Name ~oB~ ~~ Address Z~ ~~66 m~- Phone q~- ~ ~%~ VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): ~ 5000 DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: Signature of Applicant Po~a~ OF Date CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For: Rob Kimball 2873 Cambridge Lane, Mound, Mn 55364 RECEIVED UOUND PLANNING & INSP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 8 and 9, Block 36, Wychwood LEGEND: Scale: I inch = 20 feet Bearings as shown are assumed datum · Denotes Iron Monument Found ., Denotes Surface Drainage ) Denotes Existing Ground Elevations Note: Distances measured in feet, decimals and hundredths of a foot. BENCH MARK: Top Ring, Sewer Manhole {~l Brunswick Road & Cambridge Lane = 970.43 feet ('N.G.V.D.-29). Elevation on Cooks Bay = 929.48 feet (N.G.V.D.-29). PROPOSED ELEVATIONS IN FEET: (972.00) Denotes top of garage floor elevation (972.50) Denotes top ofblock {garage}elevation (973.70) Denotes top of block (house) elevation (964.70) Denotes top ofbasemeet floor devation Denotes proposed elevation from grading plan Denotes proposed 2 foot contour lines from grading plan AREA = 8773.47 sq. ft. or 0.201 Acres .... Denotes 2..foot contour lines from existing elevations Highest known water elevation of Lak~ IVrffmetonka is 930.51 feet, NGVD - 29, ae~ to the ............. De )t. of Natural Resources. Doff ,~r~ ti' I No~: As per City of Mound - 'l~ Ordinary High W~t~ M~t EIo~i~ - 929.4 f~t .The Lowest FIo~ E.lev$fi~ - 933.0 ~l~el ~on~ el~atio~ ~k~ ~ong ~th ~sing the drawing tMs //~ day of I hereby certify that this Certificate of Survey was prepared by me and that I am a duly Regist,o~ed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. As surveyed by ~a~J L. Bad'r, Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 10948 September 22, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-125 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON ~H~ON O0~4:I.~ON ~UTTIN~ ~87~ 0k~BRIDG~ BLOCK 37t LOTS 8 & 9v WYCHWOODv DOCK SITE %51495 WHEREAS, Dean and Julie Steffen have applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway; and WHEREAS, An existing stairway currently shared by the applicant and their neighbors, .'Dwight and Virginia Gardstrom of 2867 Cambridge Lane, is proposed to be removed; and WHEREAS, city Code Section 320, Subd. 1. requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for a Construction on Public Lands Permit; and WHEREAS, due to the topography of this area and the riprapping at the shoreline it is difficult to traverse from the existing shared stairway to the applicant's dock site; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Mound does hereby approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Brighton Common abutting 2873 Cambridge Lane, Block 36, Lots 8 & 9, Wychwood, Dock Site #51495 for Dean and Julie Steffen, upon the following conditions: The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. b. The stairway must comply with current building code. C® The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The applicant shall remove the existing joint use stairway, regrade, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. ee The applicant is to provide erosion control measures under the new stairway. 222 "2:Z3 September 22, 1992 f® The maintenance permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property at 2873 Cambridge Lane. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jess,n, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jensen was absent and excused. st: ~i~y -Clerk 223 CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT July 1998 58.33% 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 July 1998 YTD PERCENT B D__~U_D_.~[ ~ ~ VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,271,520 162,504 638,479 (633,041) 50.21% 4,780 24 3,828 (952) 80.08% 105,300 15,963 68,161 (37,139) 64.73% 950,850 440,381 491,200 (459,650) 51.66% 50,650 988 7,873 (42,777) 15.54% 85,000 6,230 48,090 (36,910) 56.58% 71,000 1,623 25,905 (45,095) 36.49% 43,500 0 0 (43,500) 0.00% ,194,350 1,100 7,880 ~186.470) 4.05% TOTAL REVENUE Z2.7_6,9~ ~ ~ (1.485.534) 46.50% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 360,220 42,048 260,437 (99,783) 72.30% 118,920 6,075 70,427 (48,493) 59.22% 1,530,000 173,253 935,046 (594,954) 61.11% 451,000 43,195 241,625 (209,375) 53.58% 924,000 88,237 586,526 (337,474) 63.48% 5,100 0 4,150 (950) 81.37% 77,300 1,242 73,140 (4,160) 94.62% 08117~98 rev98 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT July 1998 58.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers July 1998 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 71,610 4,149 44,533 27,077 62.19% 4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00% 3,000 867 4,095 (1,095) 136.50% 210,970 21,695 128,788 82,182 61.05% 13,200 0 1,848 11,352 14.00% 62,450 4 192 62,258 0.31% 172,710 18,532 97,445 75,265 56.42% 18,550 762 13,519 5,031 72.88% 86,460 8,978 57,985 28,475 67.07% 990,170 85,635 553,302 436,868 55.88% 4,250 906 1,864 2,386 43.86% 173,280 18,495 96,646 76,634 55.77% 420,820 43,154 257,514 163,306 61.19% 103,380 6,273 66,161 37,219 64.00% 192,380 18,699 133,249 59,131 69.26% 37,290 0 0 37,290 0.00% 45,000 1,664 11,292 33,708 25.09% 167.430 13.952 97.667 69.763 58.33% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 243,765 1:570:1 O0 ~ 56.54% Area Fire Service Fund 360,220 Recycling Fund 126,830 Liquor Fund 215,200 Water Fund 445,400 Sewer Fund 981,020 Cemetery Fund 6,710 Dock Fund 76,660 22,195 180,118 180,102 50.00% 27,717 99,638 27,192 78.56% 22,956 132,021 83,179 61.35% 71,195 250,452 194,948 56.23% 74,968 627,114 353,906 63.92% 2,076 3,775 2,935 56.26% 14,381 69,609 7,051 90.80% Exp-98 08117~98 G.B. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES August 13, 1998 Present were: Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Rita Pederson, Tom Casey, and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler and Secretary Clare Link. The following interested citizens were also present: Michele Berglund, Ron DeVinney, Kevin & Alison Kahl, John Edewaard, Marty Woods, Lisa Whalen and David Hartman. MINUTES. Motion made by Botko, seconded by Casey to approve the minutes of the July 9, 1998 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as amended; Add July 2 park spruce-up. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Meyer added a presentation by Lisa Weiland regarding the 110 upgrade and to discuss scheduling a Mound Depot painting workshop. Pederson had a videotape of Island Park Hall to view following the meeting. Meyer added Citizens Comments. CITIZENS' COMMENTS David Hartman, 5124 Tuxedo discussed his concerns about the Al and Alma's operation and the drinking that goes on in the park. He was also concerned about their boat washing practices. Pictures were provided to support his claims. Casey suggested this be placed on the September agenda for discussion. John Edewaardl 5125 Hanover Road was also concerned about the activities at Chester Park. He suggested the Planning Commission review Al and Alma's conditional use permits. He presented a letter from residents in the area addressing their concerns. Ron DaVinney 3214 Tuxedo discussed his concerns about the activities at Chester Park. REQUEST TO PURCHASE TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY Michele Berglund, 5138 Hanover Road discussed two lots behind her which were tax forfeited which she wants to buy. She was told to come before the POSC. She noted the property is unbuildable. Fackler stated anything that touches the lake should be kept under the City control for natural purposes. Weycker discussed the tax forfeiture procedure. Fackler stated the City has received the property from the County already. Bergland was concerned about what the City has done with tax forfeited land in the past. Casey stated he would be willing to look at the property. Weycker stated that enough information hasn't been provided to make an informed decision this evening. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Botko to table action until additional information has been provided (survey, status of the lots, Engineer's report). Motion carried unanimously. COUNTY ROAD 110 UPGRADE Lisa Weiland discussed the proposed upgrade of County Road 110 and the need for a natural preservation route. She explained how these could be accomplished. She asked for support of the natural preservation route. She discussed her concerns about the loss of trees. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Meyer to recommend the City Council recommend to the County Board the establishment of a natural preservation route north of 151. Motion carried 4-0-1. Weycker abstained from voting. BUCKTHORN MANAGEMENT Buckthorn information was provided for informational purposes. Meyer stated there is a need for buckthorn eradication. Weycker stated a flyer could be provided in the "adopt a park" information. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: ISLAND PARK HALL Commissioners reviewed a scope of services provided by TSP1 Architects. Fackler suggested this item be put on the January agenda. DISCUSS GRANTS Grant information was provided for future grant submittals. Commissioners discussed the grant process. UPDATE: SKATING RINK Meyer stated Community Services is willing to help with the skating rink for the winter season. He discussed funding for warming house attendants. SEPTEMBER POSC AGENDA Items on the September agenda will include: Chester Park, tax forfeited property, interviews, a possible presentation on the Comprehensive Plan, park dedication fund update, and meeting at the Island Park garage at 7 p.m. prior to the next meeting to view the weed cutter. Also on the agenda would be thinking of a new place for a Park maintenance building. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Commissioners discussed handouts received. REPORTS Weycker reported on recent City Council actions. Information was provided on what other Park Commissions responsibilities are. Meyer reported on cleanup at Swenson Park. ADJOURN Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Pederson to adjourn the meeting at 10:06 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 Projec,t. 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 8:18 a.m. City Manager The motion carried ".RECEIVEO AUG LAKE MINNE~ONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM, Wednesday, August 26, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL e B) C) CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES - 8/12/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) 1. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (8/15/98 - 8/31/98); July financial summary and balance sheet; Additional Business; ADMINISTRATION A), B) C) Continued discussion on potential District office re-location; Update on Administrative Technician position; Additional Business; OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS EXECUTIVE SESSION- (Hawks v. LMCD pending litigation) (Note: Board may vote to discuss pending litigation in closed session) ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 12, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Diane Samis, Administrative Assistant. Members Absent: Craig Eggers, Victoria; Lili McMillan, Orono. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no Chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES - 7/22/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Rascop moved, Suerth seconded to approve the minutes of the 7/22/98 Regular Board meeting as amended. The following three amendments were recommended to the minutes: · On page 11, Partyka noted there is not a vote under the Hennepin County Environmental Division discussion. · In the third paragraph on page 11, Babcock noted it should state that the issue of overnight and transient storage needs to be resolved now. · In the third paragraph on page 10, Babcock noted it should read "Babcock questioned whether the District sent a previous expectation that they were allowed to have 40 transient and 31 overnight storage slips". Rascop and Suerth agreed to these amendments. VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (4; Gilman, Ambrose, Weft, and Ahrens); motion carried. 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 · Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 CONSENT AGENDA Page 2 Partyka requested that agenda item 2B be removed from the consent agenda Ahrens moved, Gilman seconded to approve the remaining consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Item so approved includes 2A, Matt Blair Bass Tournament, staff recommends refund of $50 special event fee. WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendment, Second 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. MOTION: Rascop moved, Partka seconded to approve the second reading of the ordinance amendment, to waive third reading, and adopt the ordinance amendment. VOTE: Ayes (10), Abstained (I, Gilman); Motion carried. Foster arrived at 7:08 P.M. Be Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, Spring Park Bay, Continued discussion t6 consider new multiple dock license and variance applications for seven Boat Storage Units (BSU). Babcock introduced the agenda item stating it is continued discussion of the variance application for a dock length variance for the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks. He noted at the 7/22/98 Board meeting, the Board expressed concern about whether a physical hardship had been demonstrated. He added Mike Brandt who attended that meeting on behalf of Hennepin County declined to comment because the docks in question were for the Sheriff's Water Patrol. He concluded that Sgt. Ken Schilling was invited to this meeting to discuss whether a physical hardship exists. Sgt. Schilling spoke on behalf of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. He noted the additional 8' in length being requested means a great deal to the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks. He made the following comments how it enhances their efforts: · It greatly assists in public safety efforts when a number of boats participate in a rescue effort because these boats are stored there overnight. · It assists in relieving congestion with the parking of boats, especially since they refrain from parking boats on the west side of the dock. · It assists for those boats that park to file a complaint, to receive first aid, and to receive other information. · It assists when they need to occasionally impound a boat. Rascop questioned why the fingers on the dock structure open towards shore? Schilling stated the Sheriff's Water Patrol parks their boats bow out to enhance their efforts when a public safety situation arises. ,Lake Minnetonka Conservation District , Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 Page 3 Foster asked why the slips open towards the shore rather than the lake? Schilling stated he had not given that a whole lot of thought and that the proposed dock configuration had been in place for at least 10 years. Foster stated he would support any variance the Water Patrol realistically needs because of the service they provide on the lake. Babcock stated if there is that much traffic at this location, why does the Sheriff's Water Patrol not install another dock at this location. Schilling stated they have financial constraints that would make constructing a second dock difficult. Weft asked the Board how the licensing of this dock became an issue. Foster stated the length of the dock does not comply with Code and that this is the first time an application has been submitted to license it properly. MOTION: Wert moved, Gilman seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the dock length variance submitted by the Sheriff's Water Patrol. Kitchak stated he agreed the Board should find a way to approve what the Sheriff's Water Patrol needs. Babcock outlined the complexity of this application. He stated the 65 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on the east-end of this property have been renewed without change. He added this site is unique because the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks are on the same parcel as the 65 BSU's approved for the Hennepin County Environmental Department docks. He noted the District has never issued two licenses on one parcel that is under single ownership and control. Wert stated he believed this is a case where that should be considered because of the uniqueness of the Sheriff's Water Patrol. Babcock stated the District has taken action to address the uniqueness of the Sheriff's Water Patrol. He noted an ordinance amendment has been adopted that would not count boat storage density for county, state, or local law enforcement agencies. He added a fee resolution has been adopted by the Board stating fees would not be charged for county, state, or local law enforcement agencies. He stated he believed the only question that needs to be addressed by the Board is the dock length variance application. He noted variances are granted on physical hardships rather than needs and wants. He concluded he believed the best way to address the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks is through a Code amendment rather than a dock length variance. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting -' August 12, 1998 Page 4 Kitchak concurred that it might be more appropriate to address the Sheriff's concern through a code amendment. He added it could be done on a site plan basis to facilitate the needs of law enforcement on the lake. The Board discussed whether them is a need to cap the length of docks for law enforcement activities. Ahmns stated she would prefer a length limitation not be included in the ordinance amendment provided the District approves the plan. Weft and Gilman withdrew their original motion. LeFevere stated he believed it is clear that the Board does not want to impose any unnecessary length limitations on the Sheriff's Water Patrol. He added since he believed the Sheriff has expressed no intention of constructing a dock greater than 125 or 150 feet from shore, it is the District's best interest to place a maximum length restriction in the ordinance amendment. MOTION: Rascop moved, Partyka seconded to deny the dock length variance request and to direct attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment that would allow for county, state, or local law enforcement docks to extend a maximum of 125' from shore. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously C. Additional Business. ® There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION B. Staff recommends full refund of $500 new on-sale Beer license application deposits for the charter boats Lady of the Lake and Driftaway. MOTION: Rascop moved, Ahrens seconded to approve full refunds of the $500 new on-sale Beer license application deposits for the charter boats Lady of the Lake and Driftaway. Partkya questioned whether sufficient fees have been kept for staff time involved. Nybeck stated on the applications in question, a $200 base fee was collected in addition to the $500 deposit. He added the $200 base fee adequately covers expenses incurred by staff in processing the application. Kitchak stated he would like to see staff recommend a basic handling fee for when an applicant withdraws an application. He used the Matt Blair special event application as an example. He stated he believe the user should pay for staff time. Babcock stated he is comfortable that fees for special events should be non-refundable. was directed to change application to indicate that. Staff Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 Page ti VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Discussion of draft 1998 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Count. Babcock introduced the agenda item asking for comments or input from the Board. Rascop asked for background on the methodology used in compiling the Report. He asked for specific input on the 22% reduction in boats stored from 1996 to 1998. Nybeck stated this Report is identified as a Lake Use objective in the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. He noted the methodology used in this study is different from the one used in 1996 because it was conducted from the District's runabout between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12 NOON on Mondays through Thursdays. He clarified in 1996, the study was contracted with Clear Air, Inc. and was conducted from an airplane. He stated staff could not explain the 22% reduction in boats stored in 1998; however, he noted data from the 1998 study is more consistent with the 1994 study. Babcock stated he believed one of the problems this study has had over the years is how an individual boat type has been interpreted. He added he believed there have been some discrepancies on this based on whether the study is contracted for or whether staff conducts it. Foster stated it is possible that both the data collected in 1996 and 1998 is correct. He noted he has heard that boat traffic on the St. Croix River has greatly increased this year. Rascop asked for clarification in Appendices C and F. Nybeck stated in Appendix C, the 8,605 boats counted included those at riparian sites (5,347) and those at multiple docks (3,258). He noted in Appendix F, the 3,258 boats at the multiple dock are further broken down into boat classification on a bay-by-bay basis. Babcock asked for clarification on the discrepancy of multiple dock boats counted on Appendix C, 3,258, and the multiple dock boats counted on Appendix F? Nybeck stated this appears to be attributed to the Mound Commons docks. He noted the discrepancy between the two Appendices could be attributed to rounding error. Wert asked how this information is used? Foster stated this is used as a management tool. He noted if boat storage had been increasing over the years, it might require the District to adopt more restrictive ordinances. He concluded; however, that boat storage has remained relatively constant over the past 20 years. Babcock added the current District ordinances in place allow the lake to operate in a self- regulating manner. Page 6 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 Suerth asked if anything had been done to statistically verify the counts? He stated it might be appropriate to re-check three or four bays over again. Nybeck stated the methodology used this year has pros and cons in comparison to using a fly- over. He noted a fly-over might verify some boats that cannot be counted from the runabout; however, it has more difficulty distinguishing boat classification because of the numerous canopies on the lake. Babcock asked if there are some bays that have significant discrepancies between 1996 and 19987 He stated those maybe should be re-inspected as Suerth suggested. Babcock stated on Appendix F, there is no breakdown of boat classification for Phelps Bay of the 101 boats identified. He noted this maybe should be sent back to staff for one final review. Nybeck stated staff could not breakdown these 101 boats because they are Mound Commons docks. The consensus of the Board was that an internal audit did not need to be conducted by staff. Partyka asked the Board whether a Report should be done next year? Kitchak stated there might be merit to conduct another next year because of the significant difference between 1996 and 1998. Nybeck stated one benefit of conducting the study in 1999 is that staff has established an accepted methodology in 1998 that would be used in 1999. He noted it would be more defined in 1999. Babcock stated he would favor re-evaluating three bays with discrepancies this year because of significant changes made to the methodology this year versus past years. Ahrens stated one contributing factor to the decrease in the number of boats stored this year is the significant storm damage on the lake this year. MOTION: Nelson moved, Rascop seconded to accept the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Count. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Update on 1998 LCMR application. Babcock reported the District did not receive any funding from the LCMR for blanket funding of future public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. He stated he had not received an explanation of why there was no funding. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 Page 7 e Nybeck stated staff received a tape from the meeting where the project was taken off the list for consideration. He added the LCMR Committee had some questions they believed the DNR needed to resolve on Grays Bay. He noted this included public safety, the use of personal watercrafts, and whether the number of 700 is a valid number. Foster stated he believed there were three drawbacks that worked against funding the application. First, he stated a LCMR Commission member generally endorses the project before the committee. He noted there was not a member who did this. Second, he added there was not a concrete project for the LCMR Committee to consider. He concluded a third drawback of the proposal was the size of the funding request. Babcock stated he believed the proposed public access projects still have some momentum. He noted it is possible that bonding funds could be available next year through the DNR or an application could be re-submitted in 2000 for LCMR funds with specific projects in mind. E. Additional Business. Babcock stated he recently observed a charter boat advertising for live music on the boat. He noted this activity is prohibited by Code and questioned whether charter boat operators intend to comply with this and other ordinances. Nybeck stated LeFevere recently sent out a letter to charter boats on Lake Minnetonka indicating that the playing of live music and several other activities are not allowed. He added that staff intends to have an agenda item to discuss this, plus liquor licensing and boat clubs, sometime this fall. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (8/1/98 - 8/15/98); Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment he submitted. He noted that check # 12259 to Blue Lagoon for the amount of $3,735.62 was for a new motor for the EWM pontoon. Babcock asked for clarification on checks 12268, 12274, and 12275. He noted all three checks were to be taken out of contingency funds. Nybeck stated: · Check 12268 is payment for unemployment benefits for Lisa Francis and will be taken out of the General Budget. · Check 12274 is payment for the zebra mussel boat washdown station sign and will be taken out of the Zebra Mussel Budget. · Check 12275 is payment for the incineration of materials used in the hydraulic fuel spill and will be taken out of the EWM Budget. 'Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 Page 8 MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment for the period of 8/1/98 - 8/15/98. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. e EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Staff update on plans to overhaul EWM harvesters. Nybeck stated at the last Board meeting, EWM Project Manager Gene Strommen indicated a plan would be forwarded for discussion regarding the overhaul of the EWM harvesters. He noted Strommen was unable to attend the meeting; however, he would review it in his absence. He made the following comments: · At the last Board meeting, he believed it was the consensus to overhaul the EWM harvesters due to the fact the equipment is 10 years old and that some of the movable parts and hosing are original. · Proposals were sent out to five companies with three of them sending in proposals. He added two of these companies, Aspen Equipment Company and Minnesota Bearing Co./Air Hydraulic Systems, were recently interviewed by Strommen, Partyka, and Suerth. · Aspen Equipment Company was a smaller organization that would have problems performing the work internally. He added they would either need to sub-contract the work out or hire students from some nearby vo-techs. · Minnesota Bearing Co./Air Hydraulic Systems is a larger organization that has previously worked on this equipment and would use in-house personnel to work on them. He added the consensus of those who interviewed was to recommend selecting them at an hourly rate of $60 per person to perform the work. · The focus of the work is described on the attached sheet and would be performed on the Hennepin County Transportation lot in Orono. In addition to this contract, work on the diesel engines is proposed to be conducted by Cummins Diesel with the current EWM mechanic performing limited work. · The total proposed budget for hydraulic work is $15,000 for labor and $15,000 for parts. Additional work on the diesel engines would need to be budgeted in addition to this. Babcock stated in reviewing the memo from Strommen, it appears as though 600 hours are budgeted to repair the machines at $60 per hour, and that $15,000 is budgeted for related parts for this equipment. He added in addition to this, the EWM mechanic would be responsible for performing a specified list of projects highlighted in the staff memo. He asked if these tasks are over and above what Gabriel usually does after the season is through. -Lake Minnetonka Conservation District- Regular Board Meeting .. August 12, 1998 Page 9 Nybeck stated the $30,000 budget would be specifically for hydraulic work on all four harvesters. He noted it would not include funds for Gabriel or Cummins Diesel. Foster asked if the $30,000 is a fixed deal or a time and material deal to not exceed $30,000. Nybeck stated it is difficult for them to estimate time and materials involved in overhauling these machines until they tear one machine down and rebuild it. He noted the 80 hours required tearing the first machine down and rebuild was an estimate based on the interview. Partyka stated their idea was to tear down one machine, evaluate the work that needs to be done, fix it, and put it back together. He added at that point, they would stop and evaluate how much time it would take to do the other three machines. He noted at this time, they have no firm price but believe the other three machines would be quicker. Suerth stated they have made some recommendations on improvements to the equipment. Foster asked if they are going to sell parts at MSRP. He added with the magnitude of this project, it is possible they may discount parts below the MSRP. Kitchak stated he would like to see what is involved in transporting a machine to their shop and allowing them to work on them there. Partyka stated they believed they could perform the work better on-site. He noted the funds involved in transporting the harvesters would not make the project practical. Babcock stated what needs to be done to award a $30,000 contract with time and materials for one harvester. He expressed concern in an open-ended contract for all four harvesters. Suerth stated a contract could be set up for the time and materials for the first harvester. Wert suggested contracting for a maximum of 100 hours on the first machine. He added if they need additional time for labor beyond this, they should communicate this to staff and get authorization. Foster re-stated he believed the District should check into whether parts could be discounted from the MSRP. Babcock stated this is the largest contract the District would be entering into this year. He expressed concern in open-ended contract that allows them to make the decisions. Gilman suggested having staff work with the contractor and allow them to authorize the decisions. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 Babcock stated he believed an upper threshold should be established to allow staff to work within. Page 10 Kitchak expressed concern with discussing negotiations in a public meeting. He asked if it is possible to allow Strommen to work with the Chair to make a decision on whether to move forward. MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to authorize staff to spend up to $40,000 to overhaul the Districts four EWM harvesters the way they see fit. Babcock stated this would require a budget amendment to identify this expenditure would come from the Equipment Replacement reserve fund. Nybeck stated this transfer could be made to the specialty mechanic line-item. LeFevere questioned whether this proposed contract could be brought back for review at the 8126/98 meeting. Foster stated he believed it is difficult to have a fixed contract based on the typ~ of work they are to perform. He added he is comfortable with the $60 per hour rate, with allowing them up to 100 hours to overhaul the first machine, and allowing them to use the parts necessary at or below the MSRP. Nybeck suggested the Board table further discussion and allow staff to bring back a contract with the conditions outlined by Foster to the 8/26/98 meeting. He added this would allow staff to get further input from Cummins Diesel and come back with a contract for both the hydraulic and diesel work. Partyka stated he believed these are two separate issues and should be handled that way. He added he believed only minor work would need to be done on the diesel engines. LeFevere stated if the terms of the contract are established, staff can put the contract together. He noted this is different than authorizing staff to negotiate the contract. Kitchak stated he believed the terms previously discussed by Foster are appropriate. He suggested the contract be drawn up and brought back for Board approval at the 8/26/98 meeting. He noted in the meantime, Strommen could begin preparations for this project. Gilman stated the intent of his motion is that up to $40,000 be authorized but not mentioned in the contract. LeFevere stated he believed some possible contract conditions have been discussed by the Board. This included a $60 hourly rate, a cap of 100 hours for labor on the first harvester, periodic billing and reporting for monitoring purposes, and all expenses need Lake Minnetonka Conservation District' l~egular Board Meeting -- August 12, 1998 Page 11 to reviewed and approved by staff prior to proceeding with the additional machines. He added time and materials could be defined in the contract and that staff could be delegated the authority when to stop work on the machines. MOTION: TO AMEND Rascop moved, Nelson seconded to amend the original motion to award the contracts to Minnesota Bearing Co./Air Hydraulics Systems, Inc. and Cummins Diesel Service as the two contractors, that the hourly rates be $60, that costs be reviewed with staff after completion of the first machine, and that staff check into whether parts could be discounted from the MSRP. VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: Motion to amend the original motion carded unanimously. VOTE ON: ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED Ayes (11), Nayes (1, Babcock); original motion, as amended, carried. B. Additional Business. Suerth asked Nybeck to bring the Board up to date on a recent spra~down of a boat that was infested with zebra mussels. Nybeck stated a boat recently purchased in Lake Erie was brought back to Lake Minnetonka. He noted before the boat was to be launched into the lake, they called the office to have the boat washed down. He added Pat Lynch, the District's Intern, washed the boat down the best he could but there was continued concern regarding adult zebra mussels that the spraydown could not get to, especially in the lower unit and bilge arms. He stated a call was placed into the MN DNR to assist District staff in these areas of the boat. He noted a DNR Conservation Officer inspected the boat at least twice and the owner of the boat has agreed to keep the boat out of the water a couple more weeks to ensure it is completely dry. Kitchak stated it might be appropriate to forward pictures to media and have an article done to educate the residents. Babcock stated he understands that no citations were issued by the DNR for transporting the boat to Lake Minnetonka with adult zebra mussels on it. Suerth stated he believed it would be counter-productive to make an issue of transporting and citations. He expressed there are some limitations with the spraydown equipment that need to be addressed. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ~ · ' Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 Page 12 '~' Babcock stated he would like to see the District have an ordinance that prohibits launching of boats in Lake Minnetonka until there are no visible mussels. He noted this would place some enforcement authority at the District level. Gilman stated if the District does not have the authority to quarantine a boat, what incentives will the boater have to not' launch it at another access. Nybeck stated the boat owner voluntarily cooperated to keep the boat out of the water. He added based on discussions with DNR personnel, the boat owner was complying with state law because no adult mussels were visible on the boat. Babcock stated he believed it would be beneficial to have an ordinance in place that prohibits the launching of boats with visible exotics, including adult zebra mussels, on Lake Minnetonka. He added this would allow either District or the Sheriff's personnel to enforce it properly. He noted the District attempted to adopt an ordinance prohibiting commercial transporters from transporting boats with zebra mussels on them. MOTION: Gilman moved, Partyka seconded to direct attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment that prohibits the launching of boats into Lake Minnetonka with adult zebra mussels on it. ' VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. ADMINISTRATION A. Continued discussion on potential District office spaces. Nybeck stated at the 7/22/98 Board meeting, the Board discussed four potential office sites for the District to consider relocating to. He noted the Board eliminated the Smithtown Crossing site at that meeting and directed staff to follow-up on four questions at the three other sites. He reported the following on the three sites for the four questions: · The gross rate for Deephaven Square is $15.00 per square foot with a $.50 increase annually, the gross rate for Lake Minnetonka Motorsports is $15.21 per square foot, and the gross rate at the Shorewood house is $13.50 per square foot (with an adjustment after year two). * Staff did not pursue a better estimate of final remodeling costs because of activity at the Deephaven Square site. · The adjacent space at the Shorewood site, an additional 266 square feet, would be available to the District. · The owner at the Lake Minnetonka Motorsports site has included a letter addressing parking, outside use of the lawn, signage, ventilation in the elevator shaft, and common use area. ~Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 Page 13 He asked Foster to update the Board on the progress made at the Deephaven Square site. Foster stated since the last Board meeting, the owner has agreed to do leasehold improvements including a handicap restroom, providing a handicap accessible curb and front entrance, painting and cleaning of the walls, and a $15 per square yard carpet allowance. He added the owner has agreed to install a new front door by year-end 1999. He noted a gross rate lease has been negotiated for the first five years, adjusted at years-end on prior year's taxes. He added a second five-year lease has been negotiated adjusted to CPI and operating expenses. LeFevere stated for the second five-year lease, it is adjusted to both growth in CPI and incremental increase in operating expenses over the first five years. He added when this adjustment is made, it would stay constant for five years. Gilman stated the second five years is an option and the District does not need to renew if the terms are not agreeable. Kitchak stated he would like to have a landlord default provision in the lease agreement. Babcock stated the approximate increase in monthly rent is $500. He noted this is due to the increase of approximately 400 square feet. He added negotiations with the Freshwater Center have begun to recover this but nothing is to be reported. He expressed concern about approving the lease because of how it could impact negotiations with. the Freshwater Center. · Kitchak added the District would need to make improvements beyond what the landlord has agreed to provide. MOTION: Gilman moved, Ahrens seconded to table further discussion on the Deephaven Square site to allow Chair Babcock to finalize negotiations with the Freshwater Center. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously B. Update on vacant Administrative Technician position. Nybeck updated the Board on the search to replace the vacant Administrative Technician position. He added low quantities of applications were received; however, there was a great deal of quality in those received. He noted he would be conducting the first round of interviews of five candidates with Board member Nelson on 8/19/98. He concluded final interviews would be conducted shortly thereafter with Board Officers invited to participate. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 'Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 12, 1998 7. '~':'EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: Page 14 The lake level as of 8/10/98 was 929.02'. Articles regarding weevil research from the Sun Sailor and a fishing article were included in the handout folders FYI. A schedule regarding Rule B review from the MCWD was included in the handout folder. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary 1998 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Storage Count INTRODUCTION The Management Plan, adopted in December of 1991, has established Lake Use Objectives for Lake Minnetonka. Beginning in 1992, and every other year thereafter, one of these objectives is to measure watercraft density and the distribution of beached and rafting watercraft on Lake Minnetonka. In compliance with this objective, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) staff has conducted a Shoreline Storage Count for watercraft stored on Lake Minnetonka in 1998. Three primary objectives were established for the 1998 Shoreline Storage Count. They include: 1. Establish the total number of watercraft stored in 1998. 2. Outline data collected from historical Shoreline Storage Counts. 3. Identify any observable conclusions and trends from the Shoreline Storage data collected. METHODOLOGY To ensure consistency and accuracy in the 1998 Shoreline Storage Count, LMCD staffestablished parameters in which the storage inventory was to be conducted. Detailed below is a summary of these parameters. 1. Survey all 125 miles of lakeshore frontage on Mondays through Thursdays, between the hours of 7:30 AM and 12:00 PM. This time has been selected to best represent when observers could count the maximum number of watercraft stored on Lake Minnetonka. Friday was established to be an alternative day when weather conditions were not favorable. 2. The count was to be conducted during the month of June with a completion date of July 4. 3. The watercraft count was to be conducted from the districts 18'runabout by LMCD staff. 4. A shoreline storage count worksheet was established to assist in conducting the shoreline storage inventory. Ten classifications of watercrafts were established on this worksheet to categorize each watercraft type. These watercraft classification include: runabout, cruiser, sailboat, pontoon, house-boat, charterboat, fishing boat, personal watercraft, PWC's, aircraft, and miscellaneous watercraft. Further definition of these watercraft classifications are defined in Appendix A. SUMMARY OF THE 1998 SHORELINE STORAGE COUNT. The total number of watercraft stored, beached or rafting on Lake Minnetonka for 1998 is 8,605. Appendix B details each watercraft classification by percent. Over 60 percent of watercraft counted on Lake Minnetonka, were either found in the runabout or cruiser classification. The lowest percent of watercraft stored on Lake Minnetonka were classified in the house-boat, charter boat, and aircraft classifications. Note: A zero percent total does not mean that there were no watercraft found in these classifications. However, the number of watercraft found during the 1998 shoreline count, did not total a sum large enough to be represented by one percent. Appendix C provides a breakdown of the 8,605 boats counted in 1998, by watercraft classification and bay. Appendix D highlights the 5,347 riparian watercraft inventoried during the1998 shoreline storage count by percent. Approximately 60% of watercraft stored on riparian shoreline were found to be in the runabout and cruiser classification. Riparian shoreline owners stored more runabouts at 40%, while cruisers were stored at 19%. The lowest percent of riparian watercraft counted were found to be in the house-boat, charter boat, and aircrat~ classifications. Appendix C provides a breakdown of the 5,347 riparian boats stored by watercraft classification and bay. Appendix E highlights the 3,258 watercraft stored at multiple docks. Over 65% of watercraft stored at multiple docks were categorized into the classifications of runabout and cruiser. 34 % of the watercraft stored at multiple docks were cruisers, while 32 % were runabouts. The lowest percentage of watercraft · stored at multiple docks were houseboats totaling less than 1 percent. Appendix F provides a further breakdown of the 3,258 multiple boats stored by watercraft classification and bay. Of these 3,258 watercraft, 492 were located at the Mound Common Docks. Staff needs to point out that they were not able to distinguished these boats by their watercraft classification. Only the total number of watercraft per bay was known. The asterisk (*) was used on Appendix C and D to bring this discrepancy in the watercraft numbers to the readers attention. SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL SHORELINE COUNTS Appendix G highlights historical shoreline storage counts from 1971 through 1998. Watercraft identified in these historical counts ranged from a low of 5,245 in 1971, to a high of 10,475 in 1996. Appendix H provides a further breakdown of these historical counts into watercraft by classification and year in which the data was collected. CONCLUSIONS \ TRENDS Based on LMCD staff review of the data collected from the 1998 shoreline survey, the following conclusions/trends have been observed. They include: · There appears to be a decline in the number of watercraft stored on Lake Minnetonka. Since 1996, there has been a 22% decline in the number of watercraft inventoried. · There appears to be a decrease in personal watercraft (PWC) stored on Lake Minnetonka. The figure of 796 in 1996 has been decreased to 644 in 1998, a 21% decrease. · There appears to be a decrease in cruisers stored on Lake Minnetonka. The figure 3,117 in 1996 has been decreased to 1917 in 1998, a 39% decrease. · There appears to be a decrease in sailboats stored on Lake Minnetonka. The figure 1,021 in 1996 has been decreased to 720 in 1998, a 30% decrease. · There appears to be a decrease in fishing boats stored on Lake Minnetonka. The figure 1,135 in 1996 has been decreased to 732 in 1998, a 36% decrease. · The decline in watercraft numbers could be attributed to the methodology used to collect data during the 1998 Shoreline Storage Count. In previous years, the Shoreline Storage Counts were conducted from an airplane. Appendix A Runabout - single hull-pointed bow, tri-hull-blunt bow, hull may be partially covered, windshield often visible. These boats are usually over 16 feet in length, and powered by a 10 horse power motor or more. Cruiser - super structure, flying bridge, two windshields usually visible, hull mostly covered. This craft usually has sleeping accommodations. Sailboat - sails often visible, single hull-long slender shape, catamaran-twin hulls visible. Pontoon - rectangular shape, outboard motor, pontoons extend beyond the platform. These boats are often seen with a colorful canvas top. House-boat - relatively large, rectangular shape with blunt rounded bow. This superstructure is sometimes present. Charter Boat - excursion or party boats, (licensed by LMCD) Fishing Boat- any boat 14 feet or longer, used for fishing. This craft is usually out-rigged with special fishing equipment. Personal Watercraft (PWC) - is a watercraft less than 14 feet in length, which uses a motor powering a water jet pump. This water jet pump is its primary source of motive power. This craft is designed to be operated, by a person in the sitting, standing or kneeling position, rather than in the conventional manner such as sitting, or standing inside, the watercraft. Aircraft - any contrivance invented or designed for navigation or flight in the air; the term includes aircraft equipped with floats or skis. Miscellaneous - This designation of watercraft are any craft other than rowboats, 16 feet or less in length. Miscellaneous watercraft are usually unmotorized, or sometimes equipped with motors of 10 hp or less. Some examples of this miscellaneous watercraft are canoes, wet sailboards, and paddleboats. 0 o~ ITl m 0 _,2. ~. Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ 0 0 0 o 0 ~4 O~ '-~ o ~