The URL can be used to link to this page

1998-09-22AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1998, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS * A ~-P-ll~-d~gg21~: All items listed under ihe 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 Councilrnember 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. 2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO WAYNE TERWILLIGER, PA~ FOR HIS 50 YEARS OF INVOLVEMENT IN BASEBALL. .................... 3676 3. APPROVE AGENDA. 4. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. *B. *C. *D. *E. *F. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1998, REGULAR MEETING .................................... 3677-3683 ~ MAJOR SUBDIVISION SXTENSION FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 40 & 41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PI]) #'S 13-117-24 33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041. .................. 3684-3709 ~ VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BOATHOUSE SETBACKS TO REPLACE EXISTING DECK AND TO ADD DECK AND STAIRWAY ON BOATHOUSE, PAT HARRINGTON, 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 19, & NWLY ~/~ OF LOT 18, BLK 1, DEVON, PID//30-117-23 22 0009 ........ 3710-3734 CASE 98-54: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK TO BOATHOUSE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION ON PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, SCOT MCKENZIE, 5251 BARTLETI' BLVD., P/LOT 32, AUDITOR'S SUBD. 170, LOT 19 & P/18, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, PID//24-117-24 24 0031 ..... 3734A-3753 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNIT/ES ACT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1999 .............................. 3754-3755 REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHT, LOWER CUL DE SAC, BEACHWOOD RD. 3756-3759 PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................... 3760-3771 3674 e EXECUTIVE SE~$ION. US WEST WIRELESS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO TELECOMMUN/CATIONS ORDINANCE. 6. LI HE~ARIN · A E ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SPCIDH~O~14_L11D~_~4T~0~7/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATI~D 14117 24, ....................................... 3772-3810 7. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT ~1777!2U4S41W~lT1WIRELESS' 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD', UNPLATI'ED 14 117 24, PID #14_ ............ ' ................................. 3772-3810 8. ~ VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1sr DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23-24 0029 ............................... 3811-3829 9. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 10. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: HASE TAX FORFEITED LANDS, MICHELLE BERGLUND, 5~3Q8 HUE~A~q(~E~ ........................................ 3830-3836 11. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: CHESTER PARK/AL & ALMA'S ................................. 3837-3871 12.INFORMATiON/Mi$CEi.LANEOUS Financial Report for August 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director3872-3873 Correspondence and information from the West Hennepin City/County-Working Group re: pilot project on human services planning and coordination in the West Hennepin .............................................. 3874-3890 REMINDER: WCCB meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. DJ Eo REMINDER: Building Committee on Westonka Community Center project meets on Tuesday, September 22, 1998, 7 a.m. - 9 a.m., Westonka Community Center. The WCCB is specifically invited to attend this meeting to see preliminary schematic designs of the project that won't be reviewed at the WCCB meeting on Sept. 24 due to other items on the agenda. REMINDER: Bid opening on the Lost Lake Improvement Project is scheduled for Thursday, October 1, 1998, 11 a.m., Mound City Hall. City Council will review the bids at their meeting of October 13, 1998. Currently, there are 24 firms that have picked up plans and specifications. About 8 or 9 are general contractors where the remaining are subcontractors which have a specialty area. ..... _ ~_ 3675 &~7~ MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 8, 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, and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Park Director Jim Fackler, and the following interested citizens: John Quist, Paul Haik, Dennis & Carolyn Leininger, Mark & Gina Smith, John Eccles, Dale Becker, Lorell Becker, Timothy Pecker, Gene Smith, Bob & Connie Schmidt, Becky Cheme, Greg Knutson, Gretchen Smith, and Pat Meisel. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agendq: 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. The Mayor stated there is one Add-on to the Consent Agenda. It is the appointment of Election Judges. 1.0 APPROVE AGENDA. At th/s t/me/terns can be added to the Agenda that are not listed Aand/or/terns can be remouedfrom the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent genda has been appro~t. 1.1 *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 25. 1998 REGULAR MEETING MOTION Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously. '1.3 APPROVAL OF RF$OLUTION 98- RFSOLUTIOi~ AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT REGARDING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL~ _F~MERGENCY PREPAREDNFSS GRANT. ~ RESOLUTION g98-96 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. '1.4 · ,i ,aa , ,a~ I~ ~ ,, I IA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 REQUEST FOR A QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. *1.$ APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST FOR 1998 SEALCOAT PROJECT MOTION Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously. '1.6 *1.7 PAYMENT OF BILLS, MOTION Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGE,q. RESOLUTION//98-97 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS, SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 & NOVEMBER 3, 1998 Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. 1.8 CONTINUED 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#14-117-24 41 0011. The Mayor asked for a report from the Staff. The City Manager explained that since the last meeting, the City has engaged the services of a consultant to provide an objective opinion as to the accuracy of data presented by U.S. West Wireless. Due to the fact that this consultant was not in service until late last week, and the information that we have so far from U.S. West Wireless has been sketchy, U. S. West Wireless has agreed to allow the City to have this consultant look at their fries and present a report to the Cguncil, probably in an Executive Session, at the next meeting, September 22, 1998. Therefore, the Staff recommended that the public hearing be continued, as well as the decision on the variance issue. MOTION msde by Hanus, seconded by Weycker, to continue the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit and variance issues for light standards & monopole at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Westonka School District 177/U.S. West Wireless, to the September 22, 1998, Regular Council Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 1.9 REOUEST TO BE HEARD FROM DENNIS AND CAROLYN LEININGER. 306-. DUNDEE LANE RE: PREVIOUS VARIANCE REOUFST, Mr. & Mrs. Leininger were present and asked that the Council reconsider the conditions in Resolution 98-74 where they were granted front yard and sideyard setback variances to construct a conforming sun porch. The condition was as follows: "1. A. The applicant would obtain easements for the sidewalk and retaining wall encroachments on lots 4 and 6 from the homeowners. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. The easements are required to be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit." The Leiningers explained that they do not think they should have to obtain easements because the encroachments were there before they purchased the property. This case was on the Consent Agenda at the July 14, 1998, City Council Meeting. It was the Planning Commission's recommendation to have the applicant obtain easements from his neighbors for both the sidewalk and the retaining wall. Mr. Leininger explained that he did not know he could bring this up at the meeting on July 14th. The City Planner explained that the Planning Commission looked at several options. 1. Let everything remain as it is; or 2. Remove some of the encroachments (that was not the preferred option); or 3. Have the applicant get the easements from the neighbors for the protection of the property long-term so that future owners would be aware of the encroachments. The Planning Commission chose the third option. The Council discussed the condition and the fact that this would be the best option, but since the easements cannot be acquired, something else may have to be looked at. The City Attorney explained that it has been the position and policy of the City Council that nonconforming structures on property are not to be allowed to be expanded or intensified unless they are brought into conformity with the existing ordinance and that is done by either granting a variance or by requiting that the nonconforming structure be physically brought up to current city code. The way this is done is to negotiate with the applicant who is seeking to obtain some improvement to the general circumstance on the property. That policy is justified because you are permitting the intensification. You are revitalizing the use on this property and to the extent some other feature, such as a sidewalks and walls, etc., are important to the continued operation of the property. It would make sense that these be addressed whether or not the City requires an easement or some other form of instrument, that is really a policy decision. There is no legal requirement that easements be obtained in order for the applicant to go forward. Mr. Leininger did not feel his addition should be conditioned on him obtaining easements from his neighbors. He would prefer to work out the encroachments in agreements with his neighbors. The Council discussed this. The Council asked the applicant if he would be willing to remove the sidewalk if the variance is approved. The applicant stated he would but he still does not agree with removing it. He felt it should be an agreement between he and his neighbors. The Council discussed amending Resolution g98-74, under the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, to read as follows: 2, 7f 3 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 "1. The City does hereby grant a 2 foot front yard setback , 1.8 foot side yard setback variances for the garage and a 5.4 foot side yard setback (NortlO, .9 foot side yard setback (South) variances for the House for the purposes of constructing a conforming porch addition, ...:,u A The City Attorney suggested that if the City does not want some kind of an instrument that perpetuates the sidewalk being located where it is, then the City Council might want to consider allowing that sidewalk to remain in place until such time as the neighbor wants it removed from his property. Councilmember Hanus asked if the Council recognizes the variance for the sidewalk, is the City approving the use of the neighbors property? The City Attorney stated no, that the variance only pertains to the Leininger's property. The Council discussed the past policy of requiring structures to be removed from a neighbor's property. The City Attorney suggested adding a number 7. to the proposed amendment as follows: e This action shall not be construed as having created or granted the applicant any rights with respect to Lots 4 and 6. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to reconsider Resolution #98-74. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #98-98 RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION #98-74 AS PROPOSED The vote was unanimously in favor. ~ofion carried~. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PR1L~ENT. 1.10 Mr. Paul Haik, attorney representing the Peckers who owns two lots on Three Points Blvd., requested that the City write a letter to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District stating that the City does not have a problem with MCWD holding'a public hearing on a flood plain issue. The City Manager stated that there is a concern by the Staff that this property may be a wetlands. The City Engineer's office has reviewed this and believes that it is and has asked the Beckets to provide some information relative to delineating the wetlands and until that comes back he does not want to issue the letter they are looking for. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 Mr. Haik stated that he submitted an exemption application to the City Staff on Friday, September 4th. The City Attorney stated Mr. LeFevere of his fu'm spoke to the City Manager this afternoon and suggested that, although the request for the letter in many ways makes good sense, but that it is his recommendation that the letter be withheld for the time being. This will give the Staff time to explore in more detail with the Watershed District, the background on this particular matter. He did not feel this would be an extensive period of time. The Council agreed. After discussion the Council suggested that Mr. Haik and the Beckers meet with the Staff and provide the necessary information relative to the wetlands issue. No action was taken. 1.11 RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS ACTION RE: RELOCATION OF DOCK SITE//41866. The City Manager explained that at the Special Council Meeting, August 18, 1998, an item was added to the Agenda, relative to a dock site that had been applied for by a nonabutting property owner on Devon Common. The Park Director has submitted a memo to the Council outlining the result of trying to implement the Council's action. It was Faclder's understanding that the action was based upon no one having to move their docks and as it turns out, docks would have to be moved. The City Manager stated that it is the Staff s opinion that the action taken at that meeting is no longer in sink with what the system has. Staff is asking for direction from the City Council on whether the Council wants this dock within the system and if so, is it to remain in that location? The Park Director advised the Council that he has contacted Mr. Albrecht and at this time he wants to retain the site that he originally had which is closer to his house. His only suggestion is that due to the constraints on the site during this season, he would like to see the fees from 1998 go toward his 1999 permit. The Park Director explained that Albrecht was originally assigned to Dock Site//41866, which is the site he would like to keep. At the August 18th Special Meeting, there was an attempt to move Mr. Albrecht to Dock Site//41775. Mr. Albrecht does not want to be moved. Because of damage to the Commons from a storm this Spring, Mr. Albrecht has not been able to put in his dock. The Park Director stated that all the docks in this area are somewhat off center and have been put in at different angles. Mr. Albrecht was not present, but has submitted a letter asking that Greg Knutson speak for him at this meeting. The Council asked if Mr. Albrecht wants to put in a dock this year. Mr. Knutson stated that Albrecht has paid for site, including late fees and would like to stay at//41866. The following persons spoke: 1. Mack 2. Anderson/Smith The above persons spoke of the conflict in the neighborhood because of the dock situation. They MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 also do not want to move their docks. The neighbors expressed a desire to work this out in the neighborhood by winter. There was considerable discussion on centering the d, ocks and installing the d~ks. according to the ordinance. ~~~_O~,~.,~,x.,.~,~4.X~//~,LO The Council asked if the neighbors need additional time to work out a solution that will make the neighborhood happy. MOTION made byPolston, seconded by Hanus to do the following: 1. leave the docks where they currently are this year; 2. apply the 1998 fees that have been paid by Albrecht to the 1999 season; and 3. next year the applicants for this area will have to put their docks in on center and according to the ordinance. There was discussion on the neighborhood working this out by consensus. The Mayor withdrew his motion. The Council suggested that the neighborhood work this situation out by consensus. No action was taken. 1.12 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 95- RFSOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAl, LEVY FOR THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-99 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL LEVY FOR THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 PRESENTATION OF 1999 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY ADOPI~ION OF RESOLUTION 98- RF$OLUTION APPROVING PROPOSEI~ BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARINC DATES. The City Manager presented the proposed 1999 budget and preliminary levy. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-100 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for August 1998. Notice from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) regarding the 1998 Joint Metro Regional Meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998 at the Sheraton Metrodome Hotel. Please contact Fran ASAP if you are interested in attending. C. Letter from GTE regarding the proposed merger of GTE with Bell Atlantic. REMINDER; Due to the fact that the Primary Election is scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, I am recommending that the Committee of the Whole meeting be canceled. Use of the Council Chambers and Conference Room will be taken up by the election. In addition, public meetings are not to be held on election day. 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 scheduled for 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. I was contacted recently by a member of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding the possible reorganization of the MCWD into upper and lower watershed districts. There appears to be some interest in doing this based upon the size and complexity that has been created in recent years. Two members on the MCWD, both upper watershed members, are supporting such a change (Tom Maple and Tom La Bounty). Enclosed is some background information about this idea. It looks like a Mayor's meeting will be held later this month to discuss it further. In addition, I have enclosed the MCWD proposed budget for 1999. It is in draft form and will be discussed on Thursday, September 10,1998, 6:30 p.m., Minnetonka City Council Chambers, Minnetonka Community Center. H. REMINDER: HRA MEETING, 7:00 P.M. SEPT. 8, 1998. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:10 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Attest: City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Sepetember 22, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #97-106 FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD, LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID# 13-117-24 33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041 P & Z CASE #98-51 & 97-37 WHEREAS, the applicants, Mueller/Lansing Properties, owners of 2240 Commerce Blvd have submitted a requested a one year extension of the major subdvision granted by Resolution //97-106 on October 14, 1997; and, WHEREAS, Resolution //97-106 approved a major subdivision resulting in a subdivision, which will have two lots with approximately equal areas; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have experienced unforeseen circumstances that have prevented them from filing the subdivision, and have requested an extension; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed to request for the extension and unanimously recommended approval. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to hereby approve of a one (1) year extension of the major subdivision originally granted by Resolution # 97-106 on October 14, 1997 with the following condition. 1. All conditions of Resolution # 97-106 shall remain the same. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Orr Burma, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Frank Weiland. Public Present: Pat & Irene Harrington, Paul & Klm Stannard, Scot McKenzie, Doug & Ann Jepson, Bud Stannard, Brian & Ted Meagher, Andrea Ahrens, Steve Behnke - Fine Line Design, Thomas Stokes - Brenshell Homes. Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 24, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No Corrections were made. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the August 24, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Michael explained how a Public Hearing is heard. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-51: MAJOR SUBDIVISION EXTENSION FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD, LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID'S# 13-117-24 33 0073 AND 13-117-24 33 0041 The applicant is requesting a one-year extension on filing of the final plat for the Resolution #97-106 dated October 14, 1997. As stated in the letter, unforeseen circumstances have prevented its filing. The zoning ordinance allows one variance extension after the first year has expired. Further extensions require a new application as the code does not provide for a second extension. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Codncil approval of an extension and all conditions of Resolution #97-106 remain as stated. DISCUSSION: Mound Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 DRAFT There was no discussion on this case. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Hasse to recommend staff's recommendation of approval for an extension and all conditions as stated in Resolution #97-106. Motion carried 5-0. This case will go to City Council on September 22, 1998 Michael Mueller rejoined the Commission. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Subdivision Variance request OWNER: Mueller/Lansing Properties CASE NUMBER: 98-51 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5ss LOCATION: Commerce and Shoreline COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a one-year extension on filing of the final plat for the Resolution #97-106 dated October 14, 1997. As stated in the letter, unforeseen circumstances have prevented its filing. COMMENTS: The zoning ordinance allows one variance extension after the first year has expired. Further extensions require a new application as the code does not provide for a second extension. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of an extension and all conditions of Resolution #97-106 remain as stated. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 ' Fax (612) 338-6838 Hich=~l & Ho Hu~l 612 4'i'24~96 P.01 Mueller/Lansing Properties 3880 County Road 44 Minnetrista, MN 55364 August 26, 1998 Mound Advisory Planning Commission Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Subdivision of Land Resolution # 97-106 Dated October 14, 1997 Please accept this letter as a request for a one-year extension on filing of the final plat for the above-referenced subdivision resolution. Unforeseen circumstances have prevented us from completing this filing. We do not anticipate that we will require the full year's extension to complete our filing, Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely,,/ ~ ,, ./' Michael J. Mueller Agent for Mueller/I..ansing Properties 14, 1~)7 RESOLUTION ~97 ~ 106 RESOLtrrION TO APPROVE A MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDmON TO MOUND, PID 13-117-24-33 0073 & 13-117-24-33 0041 P&Z CASE t~97-37 ,WHE~, Mueller/Lansing Properties, owner of 2240 Commerce Blvd., have submitted a request for a Major Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 330 and Minnesota State Statue Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WttEREAS, the subject property is located within a B-1 Central Business District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet, a 35 feet maximum building height, no minimum yard setbacks, and; WHEREAS, after subdivision, the 41,110 square feet parcel will have two lots with approximately equal areas. Both of these lots conform to the B-1 minimum lot size requirements, and; WHEREAS, the existing building on the eastern parcel will encroach into the western parcel, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The western portion remain under the same ownership as the eastern portion until such time as the realignment of County Road 15 occurs or a sale of the easterly property to a governmental unit occurs or the building is removed. A parking easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its current function is maintained. An access easement 60 feet in width extending from the front of the building westerly from the north property line to the south property line to maintain access to the balance of the parking lots and the building to the south. When Hennepin County determines the rerouting of County Road 15 indicates the removal of the building on the eastern parcel or the removal of the building by other means, the easements shall be removed from the property. seconded Octobe~ 14~ 1997 The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the building on the eastern par~l is removed by the County Road 15 project or by the undertaking of the owners. A parldng and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function w~l remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined indicating the removal of the building on parcel B, the easement can be removed from the property. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and by Couno'lmember Ahrens. The following Couno'lmembers voted in the a~rmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. CouncSlmember was Jensen absent and excused. Mayor Attest: -~it~ Clerk 1.15 PUBLIC HFAR~G: Mo~d C~y ~oundl M~uae~ ~ oc~ber i4o I~7 cONsmERAT~0N oi~ A MMOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND. MUF~!.L~dLANS~G PROPERTW-q. LOCATED WITH~ THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2240 COMMI~CE BLVD/SHOI~'.LINE DRIVE. PID 13-117-24-33 0073 & 13..117-24-33 0041. P & Z 97-37. The Mayor opened the Public Heating. MICHAKL MEULLER, 5910 Ridgewood Road, ~ ~ h ~ ~U~t ~d mn of one of · e o~e~ of ~e pro~. S~ he is ~e ~U~t ~ ~t ~c o~, he ~ ~t ~me of · e ~g~e ~ ~e pro~ ~lufion ~ c~g~ ~ follows: "~ ~h m~t ~ ~ · e ~ o~er~p." ~t wo~d not m~ ~ ~ ~ o~p m it is ~y, but ~ it mu~ ~ ~ ~e ~e o~er~p. He h prong ~ foUo~ ~g~e for i~ms 1 ~ 2 of ~ p~ ~lu~: The western portion remain under the ,same ownership as the eastern portion until such time as thc realignment of County Road 15 oCcurs or a saic of thc easterly property to a governmental unit occurs or the building is removed. A parking easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its current function is maintained. An access easement 60 feet in width extending from the front of the building westerly from the north propea~ line to the south property line to maintain access to the balance of the parking lots and the building to the south. When Hennepin County determines the rerouting of County Road 1S indicates the removal of the building on the eastern parcel or the removal of the building by other means, the easements shall be removed from the property. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Thc Planner stated the suggested changes and intent are in keeping with Items 1 and 2 under the Planning Commission's recommendation. The City Attorney suggested that Item 1 read as follows: 1. 'The western portion remain under the same ownership as the eastern portion until such time as the building is removed as a result of the County Road 15 realignment or a sale of the easterly property to a governmental unit occurs or the building is removed.' Item//2 to read as the Mr. Mueller has suggested. The Council agreed to amending Items 1 and 2 in the proposed resolution. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution as amended. RESOLUTION ~97-106 RESOLUTION TO' APPROVE A MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KO~H.ER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-11%24-33 0073 & 13-117-24-33 0041, P&Z CASE g97-37 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 25, 1997 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision APPLICANT: Michael Mueller, MuellerFLansing Properties - Owner - 5910 Ridgewood Road CASE NUMBER: 97-37 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5v LOCATION: 2240 Commerce Blvd. ~. EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business BACKGROUND: The property owners have submitted an application to combine Lots 41 through 46 and a portion of 40 of "Koehler's Addition to Mound" and split them into two parcels. The subdivision is a major subdivision because it involves more than three commercial lots. There are no public improvements associated with this subdivision. The property is located at the comer of Lynwood and Commerce Boulevard and is zoned B-1 Central Business district. As indicated in the application, the subject property contains approximately 41,110 square feet (0.944 acres) which is split into two parcels. Uses on the property include Brickiey's, Scotty B's Restaurant, Willette's Laundry, a jewelry manufacture which are located on the eastern parcel and a surface parking lot on the western parcel. The parking area serves the described uses as well as other adjacent business such as the Coast-to-Coast store to the south. The intent of the owner's subdivision request is to anticipate the future County Road 15 relocation which will cut through the northern portion of the two parcels. In conversations with the owners, their intent to combine and subdivide is to preserve a portion of the eastern parcel for development after the relocation is complete. At this time, the new County Road 15 alignment has not been finalized although a preliminary alignment indicates the eastern parcel will probably be undevelopable. The centerline of the new alignment will match Lynwood Boulevard west of Commerce Boulevard, veering slightly to the south as it continues east through the two parcels. Because of the timing of this request and the status of the roadway project, right-of-way dedication was not applicable. COMMENTS: During discussions with the applicant, a couple issues where identified which need to be resolved. The first issue is parking requirements for the existing building. Currently, the area in front of the building serves as the parking area. When the plat is recorded, the parking area and 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 P. 2 Mueller Major Subdivision the building will be separated and identified with two tax identification numbers. According to code, the parking requirements must be satisfied on site. The owner owns both of the proposed parcels currently so parking requirements are satisfied. The parking area in front of the building will need to continue to provide parking until the roadway project causes the building to be demolished. If the western parcel ownership was transferred, parking requirements of the building could not be satisfied. The second issue involves the encroachment of the building onto the western parcel. This encroachment was the result of the need to provide access to both parcels and to facilitate efficient traffic movement with the driveway on the north side of Lynwood Boulevard. From a zoning standpoint, both parcels comply with the yard area and setback requirements. The B-1 zoning regulations allow building up to the property lines. Although the same building crosses the common property line, the encroachment issue is not of concern to zoning or building codes unless the property ownership of one of the parcels changes. Keeping the parcels tied together will keep the development functioning as a single parcel until redevelopment options can be addressed. This will depend on how the roadway alignment affects the two parcels and what options are present to develop them as separate independent parcels. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision as requested with the following conditions: The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the building on the eastern parcel is removed by the County Road 15 project or by the undertaking of the owners. The western parcel remain undeveloped and used for parking as long as the building is standing. e A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. An encroachment easement be placed over that portion of the building encroaching onto the western parcel. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. o All required documentation be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attomey for approval. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, Gerald Reifschneider and Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent and excused: Becky Glister and Jerry Clapsaddle. Aisc present: Building Official Jon Sutherland, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Public Attendance: Mitch Knutson, Merritt Geyen, Peter Jacobson, Tom Kelly, Richard & Connie Meyer, Bill Johnsen, Nancy Cambell, Eric Berglund, Ron DeVinney, Dorothy Netka, William Netka, Paul Larson, Sid Levin. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 25, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Reifschneider had one change, on page 1, change Burma to Reifschneider. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the August 25, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: Chairman Michael stated procedures for the three public hearing cases. Mueller excused himself from the commission panel. #97-37: PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, 2240 COMMERCE BLVD, ME MUELLER, LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-117- 24-33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041. Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon reviewed the case. Mueller/Lansing Properties have request to combine lots 41 through 46 and a portion of 40 of "Koehler's Addition to Mound" and then split them into two parcels. The property is located at the corner of Lynwood and Commerce BIvd and is in the B-1 Central Business District. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision as requested with the following conditions: 1. The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the building the eastern parcel is removed bye the County Road 1 5 project or by the undertaking of the owners. 2. The western parcel remain undeveloped and used for parking as long as the building is standing. 3. A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. 4. An encroachment easement be placed over that portion of the building encroaching onto the western parcel. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property. 5. All required documentation be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney for approval. Commissioners Comments/Questions: Weiland questioned if the building would be taken down or just a portion of it if the County Road 1 5 realignment went through. Mueller stated that the building would be condemned and demolished if the project progressed. There was discussion on where the proposed new road access would be if the construction of County Road 15. There was also discussion on if a easement was needed. Hanus questioned the legality of item #1. Gordon explained that if the parcels were divided, the parcel would not be able to meet the zoning requirements for parking spaces. Chairman Michael opened the public hearing. Applicant to speak, Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, lived in Mound all of his life. Has been on the planning commission for 7 years. They want to be able to maintain ownership of their property in the downtown area. They want to combine the north 40 feet with the rest of parcel b then subdivide parcel a and b. In order to maintain ownership of their land, the applicants need to do something before they lose their ownership of the property. They feel that the redevelopment plan is inevitable Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 and want to be a part of it. They don't know where the access road is going to be. They want to work with the city to make this project a successful one. Addressing item #1, applicant stated they would be willing to agree not to sell the two parcels to separate people. This could be done through a deed restriction. They feel they have good tenants and don't want to keep it that way. They expressed concerns with items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Item #1 could be dealt with by using the deed restriction. Item #2, 3, 4 deals with the not allowing building on parcel A as long as parcel b has a building on it. There would be a problem with that because there would be no place to put their tenants if the current building would be condemned and demolished. The business could not afford to be out of business that long. They would like to be able to build a building on parcel A so they have someplace to move if the existing building does get demolished. Item #2 could be left undeveloped until the County Road 15 project is decided and the access road is decided upon. Item #3 There are many business in Mound that don't have adequate parking. They feel it is unjust to require this building to have parking while other business in town don't. Item #4 They don't have a problem with an easement. On parcel A there would be a building encroachment. Reifschneider asked applicant why they wanted to do all of this before they know what is going to happen with the downtown development because it would mean that parcel a would have a variance on it. Applicant stated that if the property was condemned they could no longer subdivide their property and they want to maintain ownership. , The applicant will be willing to work with different options of where an easement should go. Gordon stated that B-1 doesn't have a lot setback requirement. There would be no need for a variance at this time. Mueller explained what an encroachment easement was. Sutherland and Gordon commented an easement would be needed for building code compliance. Mueller stated that the property meets all the requirements except for the encroachment. Chairman Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendations as stated. Discussion: Hanus discussed the conditions listed and would like some other options. oo Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 Discussion was made to what would happen to the current business during the transition period. Gordon stated its a tough issue on the transition of old business going along with the new business building going in. The planners intent was to maintain parking for the area businesses. There was concern that there would be a lag time where the current businesses would not have a place for their businesses. Burma suggested a rewording for item# 3. It should read, "A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined indicating the removal of building on parcel B, the easement can be removed from the property." MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendation with the exception of removing item #2, revision of item #3 to read, "A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined indicating the removal of building on parcel B, the easement can be removed from the property." The motion carried 6-0. This case will go to City Council October 14, 1997. CITY OF MOUND J, , 18 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 47';)--0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-37 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDMSION OF LAND, MUELLER/LANSING PROPERTIES, LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2240 COMMERCE BOULEVARD SHORELINE DRIVE PID# 13-117-24-33-0073 & 13-117-24-33-0041, P&Z 97-37 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, October 14, 1997 to consider the approval of a major subdivision of 2240 Commerce Blvd., located within the B-1 Business Zoning District. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the oppommity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by October 3, 1997 Published in the Laker September 30, 1997. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-O620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-37 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND, MUELLER/LANSING PROPERTIES, LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 2240 COMMERCE BOULEVARD SHORELINE DRIVE PID# 13-117-24-33-0073 & 13-117-24-33-0041, P&Z 97-37 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, September 8, 1997 to consider the approval of a major subdivision of 2240 Commerce Blvd., located within the B-1 Business Zoning District. All persons appearing at said bearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by August 2~., 1997 Published in the Laker August 23, 1997. Application for MAJOR SUBDMSION City of Mound ~LI~ ~. 0 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 1997 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ¢iTY OFMoUNi} DISTRIBUTION DATE TYPE OF APPLICATION FEE ciTY PLANNER , S T. PLAN VIEW CITY ENGINEER . ~'-~'- ? 7 P~LIMINARY PLAT $ 200 PUBLIC WO~S · ~ ~ ~ FINAL PLAT $ 150 os~ . ~ -~- ~ 9 ,~0~o, ov~: ~o~s FI~ DEP~TMENT * ~-~9 7 COND~ION~ USE PE~: PDA ~ ASSESSING * 8 ~ r' ~7 ESCROW DEPOS~ $ 1,000 OTHER: VA~NCE ~ .... TOTA~~ $ Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subiect Address I~O~M~TIO~ Name of Proposed Plat EXISTING Lot LOT5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision /~ u7 ~? 33 ~/ ZONING DISTRICl Circle: B-1 B-IA B-2 B-3 ~-2 8-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner Phone(H) OWNER applicant) Phone iH) SURVEYOR/ .'/29/97) ~ 7 O0 Major Subdivision Application l&ige 2 Description of Proposed Use: (~OIt'~[I~I~-ClIZ3ZL ~----~'[-t~ IL- 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: $ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: /~] //q Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: sq. ft. Total Lot Area: sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? Eyes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. ('F)lO~lT-(OItJ~rl-- (A~q~ - LlbltT ~F~CTttl~l,4,16 This application must be signed by al._~l owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Prinl Ap~li~mnt'~ Name ~int O~er's Name 1/A?l~c~nt,s Signatl~'e Owner's Signature Date Print Ownei"~ Name Owner's Signature Date 3 1~1 (Rev. 1/29/97) (7) (6) 390.86 277 4 lo) ..... 400 ± g~52 ('35) ~ 144.'5 1,44.5 21 ~ 25.05 s2~45'?'w ~ DOC NO 4647....,~207_,_.~ , 496 'T" (~) ~ ~ (36) ~ DOC NO ~ (4]) ZOO (i) 2 To (2) ,.~-.,.~o ,4 (4) ~ (~) LAFAYETT PART. 0 .F.~, LO~ PAI~k' AUD t76 ~ r78) 21! 914i.8 150.8 46 I$3. 21 (79) ,7,(80)3 (i6a) (~::~ N $9 ~ 28 ' 4 ['~' (97) o" (95) ~,: 20. ~-' (94) -; loo !63.69 ~55. 14 150 5 lo0 ]LED) ; (77) RD to "". (20) 837.5 PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA ~)~0 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT TOTAL HOUSE X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY ~ ~---~,~;I ~ ~ U~_,~,[ ~ DATE PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) I II !1 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) 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. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ ET X ~ DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. X -- opening beWveen boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X ~ TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) .... ............................ / ~ / (_ DATE I CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) [~o.O,~y ~,~s~:'-~ ~_ _~ ~-°' ~ ;,~.~ ~ k~' J~ '-z"" LOT AREA SQ. ~. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I LOT AREA SQ. FT, X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... t_ I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE .. · DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks [114' min. opening between bo-~rds) with a pet"~ious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X X TOTAL HOUSE ...... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = ~ X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK X .= TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE [ 0 UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ................. . .... 23 July 1997 RE: Subdivision of Mueller/Lansing Lot Downtown Mound TO: Mayor Polston City Council Planning Commission Planning Staff The following is an explanation of the request for subdivision within the Central Business District for the property which has been owned by Mike Mueller and Phil Lansing for quite a few years. Phil & Mike have been business and property owners in the downtown Mound area for over 80 years collectively and they wish this to continue as they have set up their retirement plans to include real estate in the town they have served most of their adult lives. The changes that are occurring in downtown are very exciting and both Mike & Phil have supported and look forward to the revitalization being completed. Currently, Mike & Phil (Mueller/Lansing Properties) own the building occupied by Brickley's market and drive-thru, Scotty B's Restaurant, Willette's Laundry, and the jewelry manufacturer to the rear. This is a separate building from that which houses the Coast-to-Coast and barbershop. Redevelopment and the relocation of County Road 15 in the near future will mean the eventual demolition of their current building. We know that final drawings of this northern tier of the redevelopment plan and the path of the future roadway have yet to be completed. However, in order to maintain space for their current tenants or future businesses and to maintain private ownership within the downtown area, Mike & Phil would like to prepare for the eventual change. The draft drawings of the northern tier of the redevelopment include a proposed access drive directly across from the existing entrance drive to the Commerce Place parking lot along the Co Rd 15 right-of-way into the area south which will be redeveloped. Essentially, what Phil & Mike are looking to do is to separate their current structure from the privately held parking lot to the west. When originally purchased, these were separate lots and were combined for tax purposes when the City realigned Lynwood Blvd. and removed the old Anderson furniture building and the bakery. Obviously, it has always been a goal to have the coruer of Lynwood (new Co Rd 15) and Commerce be part of the downtown area and this was the thought when purchased by Phil & Mike. Until the recent decision by the Council to have ownership of parking lots under City rule and therefore'not require a designated amount of stalls in the Central Business District, this property has been used to meet and exceed the parking required for their tenants. Page 2 The subdivision request is to have the current lot divided (north to south) at the center line extension of the Commerce Place access road to the north. This is per the draft drawings of the planning staff. We realize that this line runs through the westerly portion of the current building, and there will need to be an encroachment easement drafted for the westerly lot and restrictions preventing the change of ownership without notice of such, to any prospective purchaser. There are no plans to sell any portion of either parcel to anyone at this time, and as stated earlier, for more than 40 years each, Phil & Mike have maintained ownership of property downtown. When the demolition of the current structure happens, this easement is moot and will no longer be a restriction. If modification of this subdivision line is required in the future, either through county requirements or development plan modifications, we are sure this can be handled easily as it will not radically change the intent of this subdivision. Private ownership and private development have been the cornerstone of our democratic society. If there will be TIF funding available to help with improvements to the property or to the streetscapes in the future, then we will address that when the time comes. Phil & Mike plan to develop this property in the future, meeting the expected requirements of the new pedestrian district zoning that the Planning Commission and Planning Staff have reviewed. Again, there are no current plans for change or building, however Mike and Phil~want to be assured that should the redevelopment and realignment of Co Kd 15 come to fruition, they will have the opportunity to maintain ownership in the community to which they have contributed throughout their lifetimes. Sincerely, Michael Mueller Agent for Mueller/Lansing Properties Regarding the sUbmissiOn of ihformation for the subdivision: At the request of the surveyor, the center line of the access road for the property to the north was not shown on the survey as the surveyor felt Mound Planning Staffmay want something different. At the recommendation of Staff, the surveyor would either show: 1) a single north/south subdivision line at the approximate extension of the center line to the north with an easement for the current structure and a possible future access road easement; or 2) a subdivision to include an outlot for the access road. Please let me know ASAP which option (1 or 2 above) Staff.would prefer, so we can calculate area totals, hardcover, etc. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Mueller $7 8 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60~'-?, ~ RiA 6,000/40 ~ ~u,ou67-Bu R2 6,000/40 B3 ZO,O00/60.' R2 14,000/80 R3 SRg ORD. Xl 30,000/100 YARD [ DI~ON ] REQUIRED EXISTINGIPROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: · LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SllED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING.'? YES / NO ]BY: ]DATED: This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes n portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. ;8i00 :g ~oo .., 3', 4 5 ;6 ,'~ (5) (6) (?~) ,~ September 22, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TWO SIDE YARD AND A BOAT HOUSE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO REPLACE THE CONFORMING EXISTING DECK ON THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, AT 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 19 & NWLY OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0009 P & Z CASE #98-52 WHEREAS, the applicants, Pat & Irene Harrington, have applied for a two side yard and a boathouse rear and side yard setback variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a conforming lakeside deck on the principal structure and also the construction of a non conforming deck on top of the existing non conforming boathouse at 4687 Island View Drive; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and the balance of setbacks as listed below for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existinq/Proposed Required Variance Sideyard - east 3.6' 6' 2.4' Sideyard - west 5.7' 6' 0.3' Boathouse - rear 26' 50' 24' Boathouse - side O' 4' 4' ; and, WHEREAS, there was a variance granted in July, 1998 Resolution # 92-81 approving a addition to the principle structure; and, $7/0 September 22, 1998 Harrington - 4687 Island View Dr Page 2 WHEREAS, the proposed deck on the dwelling is conforming and should not have adverse impact on the property or surrounding neighborhood and is an improvement to the property; and, WHEREAS, the proposed deck addition on top of the existing boathouse is an an expansion of the non conformance of the boathouse WHEREAS, hardship or practical difficulty has not been shown with respect to the expansion of the use of the boathouse and the proposed expansion would not be consistant with the city's ordinances, regulations, or past practice with similar cases; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has 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 the variances listed above as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct the conforming deck attached to the dwelling. la, This resolution specifically denies the applicants request of construction of the proposed deck on top of the boathouse to further expand the existing non conforming boathouse. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to Section 350:4-20, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:4-20. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following improvements: Replacement of an existing lakeside deck, that is attached to the dwelling and noted on the attached survey listed as exhibit A. ., This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 19 AND NWLY 1/':z OF LOT 1 8 INCL ADJ VAC 1 FOOT OF ROANOKE ACCESS, BLOCK 1, DEVON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, September 22. 1998 Harrington - 4687 island View Dr Page 3 This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MOUND PLANN~, ~ ~,~ Mound Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Orr Burma, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Frank Weiland. Public Present: Pat & Irene Harrington, Paul & Kim Stannard, Scot McKenzie, Doug & Ann Jepson, Bud Stannard, Brian & Teri Meagher, Andrea Ahrens, Steve Behnke - Fine Line Design, Thomas Stokes - Brenshell Homes. Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 24, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No Corrections were made. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the August 24, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Michael explained how a Public Hearing is heard. BOARD OF APPEALS: Michael Mueller rejoined the Commission. CASE # 98-52: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BOATHOUSE SETBACKS TO REPLACE EXISTING DECK AND TO ADD A ROOFTOP DECK AND STAIRWAY ON THE BOATHOUSE, PAT HARRINGTON, 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 19 & NWLY % OF LOT 18, BLK 1, DEVON, PID # 30-117-23 22 0009 The applicant has submitted a request to replace a lakeside deck and add a rooftop deck and stairway to an existing boathouse. The associated variance request is listed below. Existinq/Proposed Required Sideyard - east 3.6' 6' 2.4' Sideyard - west 5.7' 6' 0.3' Boathouse - rear 26' 50' 24' Boathouse - side 0' 4' 4' Variance DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 The property is located at 4687 Island View Drive on a conforming 11,355 sf lot which exceeds the R-1 standard. Current improvements to the property are a two-story house and a boathouse. Current hardcover is under the allowable 40 percent for lots of record by 2 % or 180.8 sf. The applicant is requesting to replace the existing deck on the house and add a rooftop deck and stairway to the existing boathouse. The deck replacement on the house will match the current deck which is conforming to side yard and lakeside setbacks. The code does not allow any improvements to nonconforming boathouses except for minor repair and maintenance. The proposal would be considered an expansion of a nonconforming use because they are structural in nature. The site plan shows the existing boathouse location. It is approximately 26 feet from the lake and 0 feet from the side lot line. A spot elevation at the southwest lot corner indicated 934.7 feet which is the approximate floor elevation. The case history for the property dates to 1982 with the approval of Resolution 82-151 which deeded 1 foot or the Roanoke access to the property to remove the boathouse encroachment. Resolution #92-81 recognized the house and boathouse setbacks for house additions constructed at the time. At that time the boathouse was not required to meet a 50 feet lakeside setback because the Shoreland Management ordinance had not been adopted. The existing boathouse was described in the 1992 Resolution to be in good condition and the Council recognized its nonconforming status. The boathouse still remains in good condition and its status as a nonconforming structure is unchanged. Due to its status however, further improvements should not be allowed. The property is afforded a lakeside deck on the house and a new deck on the boathouse would be more deck than other lakeside properties are afforded. Staff finds no evidence of hardship of practical difficulty present to allow a boathouse deck. Staff would recommend the previous resolution acknowledging the house setbacks be upheld. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request for the conforming deck replacement on the house and deny the request for the boathouse deck and stairway. DISCUSSION Hanus questioned if the deck on the house is conforming. Gordon stated it is conforming. Hanus asked why this was not streamlined. Sutherland stated the code regarding to streamlining. Hanus reviewed and discussed the applicants request for the replacing of the deck and stairway on the boathouse. Pat Harrington stated that it is for'esthetic reasons only. They feel that it would improve the property. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes September t4. 1998 Mueller explained the non conforming regulations of the citys code to Mr. Harrington regarding boathouses and structures within the 50 foot setback to the lake. Irene Harrington stated that there is a safety issue. The area could be used a deck and furniture could be put up there. Mueller commented that there are things that could be done to prevent people from going up on the roof. Hanus brought up previous discussions that pertain to this boathouse. Michael asked staff what staff perspective is on boathouses. Sutherland stated that code does not allow any structure within the required 50 foot setback ( except for Iockboxes) or a boathouse or a deck on top of a non conforming boathouse as this would be considered an expansion of the non conformance. Mueller asked where the hardship or practical difficulty would be for the deck on top of the boathouse. Harrington politely stated it was their intent was to improve the property and they understand if the commission can not grant the improvement of the boathouse. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation to approve the request for the conforming deck replacement on the house and deny the request for the boathouse deck and stairway. Motion carried 6-0. This case will go to City Council on September 22, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gtll TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Patrick and Irene Harrington - 4687 Island View Drive CASE NUMBER: 98-52 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5tt LOCATION: 4687 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to replace a lakeside deck and add a rooftop deck and stairway to an existing boathouse. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Sideyard - east 3.6' 6' 2.4' Sideyard - west 5.7' 6' 0.3' Boathouse - rear 26' 50' 24' Boathouse - side 0' 4' 4' The property is located at 4687 Island View Drive on a conforming 11,355 sf lot which exceeds the R-1 standard. Current improvements to the property are a two-story house and a boathouse. Current hardcover is under the allowable 40 percent for lots of record by 2 °A or 180.8 sf. The applicant is requesting to replace the existing deck on the house and add a rooftop deck and stairway to the existing boathouse. The deck replacement on the house will match the current deck which is conforming to side yard and lakeside setbacks. The code does not allow any improvements to nonconforming boathouses except for minor repair and maintenance. The proposal would be considered an expansion of a nonconforming use because they are structural in nature. The site plan shows the existing boathouse location. It is approximately 26 feet from the lake and 0 feet from the side lot line. A spot elevation at the southwest lot comer indicated 37t? 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-52 Harrington Variance Request September 14, 1998 934.7 feet which is the approximate floor elevation. The case history for the property dates to 1982 with the approval of Resolution 82-151 which deeded 1 foot or the Roanoke access to the property to remove the boathouse encroachment. Resolution #92-81 recognized the house and boathouse setbacks for house additions constructed at the time. At that time the boathouse was not required to meet a 50 feet lakeside setback because the Shoreland Management ordinance had not been adopted. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. Bo The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The existing boathouse was described in the 1992 Resolution to be in good condition and the Council recognized its nonconforming status. The boathouse still remains in good condition and its status as a nonconforming structure is unchanged. Due to its status however, further improvements should not be allowed. The property is afforded a lakeside deck on the house and a new deck on the boathouse would be more deck than other lakeside properties are afforded. Staff finds no evidence of hardship of practical difficulty present to allow a boathouse deck. Staff would recommend the previous resolution acknowledging the house setbacks be upheld. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-52 Harrington Variance Request September 14, 1998 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request for the conforming deck replacement on the house and deny the request for the boathouse deck and stairway. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 1~ax(612) 338-6838 RECEIVED AUG 2 7 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 'AUG App icatibn F~'~i : ~ 100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Plannlng Commission Date: _.~~ City Council Date: Distribution: ~'~ ~ City Planner ~ '~-'?--~{'~ DNR ~.~.-~'~> City Engineer Other ~>-~3-~ Public Works SUBJECT Address ~ ~ PROPERTY Lot Iq ~ LEGAL Block~ ' DESC. Subdivision ,.1 PROPERTY Name ~~[ OWNER Address ~SD Phone (H) ~-~-~ (W) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been m_,~3de for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? {l~es, ( ) 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.): (Rev. 11/14197) Variance ~Application, P. 2 Case No. -~ ,. Do the existing structures comply with all area,~ight, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), 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) Front Yard: (N S/F,%W) ~ ft. (:~,~" ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S(~.~),~W ) .(',~ ft. ,~, '(~ ft. ~-,~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S Eft) -~ ft. ,~. ~ ft. O .,~ ft. · Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. ~:~1005Q. akeside: ( N(~E W~) ~j-O ft. o~ ft. ~-~ ft. ~: (USE~ ~ ft. (~ ft. ~ ft. Street Frontage: ~.~) ft. -7~'.~::~ ft. ft. Lot Size: r~DO('~ sq ft ~sq ft sq ft Hardcover: ~/~'c/2, sq ft 5~2,o~.l,-- sq ft sq ft o Does the presen/t use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes N), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow describe: ( )topography ( )soil ( ) drainage (t4"existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify (Rev. l 1/14/9 7) Variance,Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone h/a~1ng property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (O/(. If yes, explain: Was the hardsJ~ip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (O/'. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's S ignature~L Date (Rev. 11/14/97) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATiON,C; (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA //3 -,~-~ SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA //3,C~ SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% RECEIVED AU$ 2 7 1998 MOUND PLANN,NG&iNsi.JI = (for all lots) .............. I = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I. = (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 × _ 2. ~ .5;'1,., TOTALHOUSE TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. 3 X, ~,, = I o y~ o ~7o. o V ~o ~,~ TOTAL DR EWAY, ET6 .................. X ~ TOTAL DECK TOTAL HARDC R (it PREPARED I IV~MPERVIOUS SURFACE j re ce) ....', .......................... I /~J O, ~' I July 14,1992 RESOLUTION #92-81 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONB ON LOT 19 AND 18 EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FRONT AND REAR, BLOCK 1, DEVON, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT i FOOT OF ROANOKE ACCESS, PID #30-117-23 22 0009, (4687 ISLANDVIEW DRIVE), P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-031 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to construct a new entryway with a four foot overhang, add a second story living space above the existing dwelling and add a second story study over the existing garage; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2, Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code requires 6 foot side yard setbacks for the principal structure and a 4 foot rear yard setback and a 4 foot side yard setback for accessory buildings; and WHEREAS, the existing home has a 3.6 foot side yard setback on the east side resulting in a 2.4 foot variance from the 6 foot required setback, the proposed entryway addition has a 5.0 foot side yard setback on the west side resulting in a 1.0 foot variance from the required 6 foot setback, and the accessory building has a side yard setback of 0 feet on the west side and a rear yard setback 1.3 feet requiring 4.0 foot and 2.7 foot variances respectively from the required 4 foot setbacks; and WHEREAS, the existing accessory building (boathouse) is in sound structural condition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously recommended approval of the requested variances. In rendering its opinion, the Planning Commission adopted the following Finding of Fact: Approval of the variances for the entryway and second story additions is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The entryway improvement falls under the practical difficulty provisions of the Code since the existing entrance to the home is on the northwest corner of the structure and since the property abuts a public access'rather than a neighboring residential lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the 2.4 foot and 1.0 foot 138 July 14,1992 variances for the principal structure and the 4.0 foot and 2.7 foot variances for the accessory structure subject to the following condition: The side yard and rear yard variances for the existing boathouse (accessory structure) are recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway and second story additions. This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming boathouse. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in the future. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a new entryway and second story addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 19 and Lot 18 except the southeasterly 25 feet front and rear, Block 1, DEVON, including the adjacent 1 foot of Roanoke Access. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording'has been filed with the City Clerk.' The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. 139 140 A~test: City Clerk - 140 200 July 13, 1982 Councilmember Ulrick moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 82-178 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO VACATE THE EASTERLY 1 FOOT OF THE ROANOKE ACCESS ABUTTING LOT 19, BLOCK l, DEvoN FROM THE COMMONS TO ISLAND VI.EW DRIVE. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds or public way, or any part thereof, when it appears in the best interest of the publlc to do so, and WHEREAS, the owners of property described as Lot 19, Block I, Devon, have requested that easterly 1 ~foot of the Roanoka Access that abuts Lot 19 from the Commons to Island View Drive be vacated, and WHEREAS, .thls vacation would be part of a settlement in a disputed lawsuit for alleged damage to the boathouse that is encroaching on the Roanoke Access .10 foot, and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Council recognlzes that even with the 1 foot vacationi the property is still nonconforming, and a public.hearing was held on July 13, ]982, as required by law~ and the Planning Commission has recommended vacation of the 1 foot of Roanoke Access. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MN.: I. Hereby vacates the Easterly 1 foot of the Roanoke.Access abutting Lot 19, Block 1, ~evon, from the Commons to. Island View Drive. It is not in the'public interest to vacate the utility portion of the easement over this area and it shall be retained by the City. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings and shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and/ or the Registrar of Titles as set for. th in M.S..A.I~412,851. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was d'uly seconded by Councilmember Swenson and upon vote bein9 taken thereon.; the following voted in favor thereof: Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; the following voted against the same: none; with Councilmember Charon being absent; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 167 May 25, 1982 Councilmember Charon moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 82-151 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INITIATION, WITH THE BOHNHOFFS, FOR THE VACATION OF THE EASTERLY 1 FOOT OF THE PUBLIC LANE FROM ISLAND VIEW DRIVE TO THE COMMONS AND ASSUMING THAT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE 1 FOOT IS VACATED; THE COUNCIL WOULD THEN AGREE TO PAY THE $2,000 AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY $2,000 TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED LAWSUIT WHEREAS, the Bohnhoff's, owners of Lot 18 Except the southeasterly 25 feet, front and rear, thereof, and Lot 19, Block 1, Devon are suing the City of Mound for damage to a boathouse which they alleged was damaged as a result of a leakage from a broken storm sewer, and WHEREAS, after negotiations, the Bohnhoff's are willing to settle for $4,000 of which the insurance company has agreed to pay $2,000 if the City will pay $2,000, and WHEREAS, there is a still a problem because the existing damaged boathouse encroaches on a public lane by approximately 1/IOth of a foot, and WHEREAS, the City Manager is recommending that the Council vacate the easterly 1 foot of the public lane which will get the boathouse of of public property, and WHEREAS, this vacation will not have an adverse affect on the public interest, and. WHEREAS, the City Attorney recommended that the Council and the Bohnhoffs initiate the vacation of the easterly I foot of the public'lane that abuts Lot 19, Block 1, Devon, from Island View Drive to the Commons, and WHEREAS, if after the public hearing, the ! foot is vacated, the Council would then agree to pay the $2,000 and the insurance company $2,000 to resolve the disputed lawsuit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council hereby authorizes initiation, with the Bohnhoffs, for the vacation of the easterly l foot of the public lane that abuts Lot 19, Block 1, Devon, from Island View Drive to the Commons and assuming that after the public hearing, the 1 foot is vacated, the Council would then agree to pay .the $2,000 and the insurance company $2,000 to resolve the dispute~ lawsuit. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Ulrick and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; with Polston & Swenson qualifying their yes votes stating that they voted yes because in 1979 the Council authorized a variance and the boathouse encroach- ment was overlooked at that time; the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed RESOLUTION NO.' 79 - 134 RESOLUTION GRANTING THE EXPANDING OF A NON-CON- FORMING USE ALLOWING A THREE FOOT SIDE'YARD VAR- IANCE AND STIPULATING THAT A HAINTENANCE PERMIT BE APPLIED FOR FROM THE PARK COMMISSION WHEREAS, ovlner of property-described as L~ts 18 & 19, Block 1, Devon, has re- . quested a 5 ft. side yard variance for the construction of a garage, and WHEREAS, existing non-conforming use is a f ft side yard on the existing home and a boat house too close to the Commons and extending onto the access, and WHEREAS, it is recommended the garage be detached from structure and reduces In size. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND~.MOUND, M I NNE$OTA: That Council does hereby authorize and direct the granting of expansion on a non-con~ormlng-use by al]owlng a three foot side yard varlance and stlpulatlng that a maintenance perml, t be applied Cot from the Park. Com- miss|on. . A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmemb~r Wi thhart and upon vote being taken thereon~ the fo] ]owing voted in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Polston~ Suenson and Withhart, the fo]lowing voLed against the same~, none, with Ulrlck b~ing absent, 'whereupon ~aid reso]utlon was declared passed and adopt.ed, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by. the Cit.y Clerk. Attests/ City Clerk s/Tim Lovaasen Mayor -"' ~ IA) MOUND PLANNClG & ~0 R~C~ZIV~D Aus 2 ? 1998 MOUND PLANNING & WAYNE ELI ~ECEIVED I~OUIVD PLANNING & IiVSP. ~ gt:at:e Licen=e .20014209 We hereby propc~e to L~nich the mat:erial~ and perform t:he labor nece~car~j for t:he cctaplet:ion TEAl:LC]UT OLD e. gUILD NEW DE(~( Ag PER ATTAONED Pt_AN~ ~9,925.00 New deck to be accordinq t:o new plar~. All material Lo be treat:ed, lO new cor~ret:e fool:inq~ are t:o be added. New deck joi~t:~ are to ~et: in exi~l:inq joi~t: hanger~ gUILD I~CK, gTAIE.q, e RAILINQ ON EXIgTINO gOATI4OU_qJ~: $4,50B.00 Peck, railing, ~ ~laim t:o be built: accordinq t:o al:lached plar~;, MaWrial t:o be t:reat:ed ILmber. All mal:erial guaranteed t:o be a~ ~pediied, and {:he above work t:o be perbrmed in accordance wil:h I:he drawing~ and ~pecfficatjor~ ~ubrn[l:t:ed for above work and complet:ed in a ~ul~l:ant:ial workmanl~e manner ~,al~ Tax and Permit: cc~c~ are all inclL~ive for t:he ~Lm C~: Dollars ~14,4~8.00 VViEh pa~rnenE~ be make ~ bllov~: I/~ Upon Accel)lance ¢4-,809.:~ I/~ Upon gl:ad: I/~ Upon Ccmplet:ion a, ny a~eraUcx~ of deviatic~ tr~ ~ve ~H~ inv~vi~ ~ba ~, Mil ~ g~ ~o c~r W~'~ - ~.~hori--zed Not:e - Thi~ propc~31 ma9 be wil:hdrawn if ncYc accept:ed wit:Nh I0 The above price<;, ~pedticat:ior~ and condit:icr~; are ~at:Wlact:or9 and are hereb9 accept:ed, You are aul:horized t:o do t:he work a~ ~pecilied, Pa~rnent: will be made a~ odclined above. gigr~t:um )at:ed 3155 This Page Left Blank Intentionally September 22, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BOAT HOUSE LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, AT 5251 BARTLETT BLVD, LOT 19 AND WLY 10 FT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C ALSO SELY 15 FT OF LOT 32 AUD SUBD NO 170 PID# 24-117-24 24 0031 P & Z CASE #98-54 WHEREAS, the applicant, Scot McKenzie, has applied for a boathouse lakeside setback variance in order to allow for construction of a conforming addition to the principle structure at 5251 Bartlett Boulevard; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record; and, WHEREAS, the existing boathouse has a 15 foot lakeside setback resulting in a 35 foot variance from the 50 foot required setback; and, WHEREAS, the boathouse is located on the property and is in good condition. It has two-levels with a boat storage on the bottom floor and living space on the top floor; and, WHEREAS, the hardcover after the proposed addition would be under the 30 percent for lots of record by 2202.5 sf; and, WHEREAS, the proposed addition would include a garage, kitchen, and master bedroom; and, WHEREAS, the proposed addition 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; and, September 22, 1998 McKenzie - 5251 Bartlett B/vd 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 35 foot lakeside setback variance for the boathouse 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. J It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following improvements: Construction of an addition to a conforming principle structure. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 19 AND WLY 10 FT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, ALSO SELY 15 FT OF LOT 32, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 170, 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. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, :SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Orv Burma, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Frank Weiland. Public Present: Pat & Irene Harrington, Paul & Klm Stannard, Scot McKenzie, Doug & Ann Jepson, Bud Stannard, Brian & Ted Meagher, Andrea Ahrens, Steve Behnke - Fine Line Design, Thomas Stokes - Brenshell Homes. Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 24, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No Corrections were made. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the August 24, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Michael explained how a Public Hearing is heard. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-54: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK TO BOATHOUSE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION ON PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, SCOT MCKENZlE, 5251 BARTLETT BLVD, PILOT 32, AUDITORS SUBD 170, LOT 19 & PI18, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, PID # 24-117-24 24 0031 The applicant has submitted a request to construct a conforming addition to the existing residence. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Boathouse - lakeside 15' Required Variance 50' 35' The property is located at 5251 Bartlett Blvd. on a conforming'26,700 sf lot which exceeds the R-1 standard. Current improvements to the property are a two-story house, detached garage and a boathouse. Hardcover after the proposed addition would be under the 30 percent for lots DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 of record by 2202.5 sf. The hardcover calculations include estimates for additional driveway hardcover to the attached garage. Although, the applicant has not submitted building plans the proposed addition will incorporate a garage, kitchen and master bedroom. All building plans when submitted would be reviewed by the Building Official and City Engineer. The side yard setback would be 10 feet and the lakeside setback would be approximately 90 feet. A boathouse is located on the property and is in good condition. It has two-levels with boat storage on the bottom floor and living space on the top floor. Given the similar design it was probably constructed around the same time as the house. Given the good condition of the boathouse, it seems unnecessary to recommend its removal at this time. Its continued location on the property does present a case for practical difficulty for the conforming house addition. The addition will improve the property and add to the livability of the house. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the vadance as requested. DISCUSSION Mueller questioned if anything was going to be done to the boathouse. Gordon stated the construction was being done to the principle structure. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend staffs recommendation to approve the variance as requested. Motion carried 6-0. This case will go to City Council on September 22, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. klH TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Scot McKenzie - 5251 Bartlett Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 98-54 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5vv LOCATION: 5251 Bartlett Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to construct a conforming addition to the existing residence. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Boathouse - lakeside 15' 50' 35' The property is located at 5251 Bartlett Blvd. on a conforming 26,700 sf lot which exceeds the R-1 standard. Current improvements to the property are a two-story house, detached garage and a boathouse. Hardcover after the proposed addition would be under the 30 percent for lots of record by 2202.5 sf. The hardcover calculations include estimates for additional driveway hardcover to the attached garage. Although, the applicant has not submitted building plans the proposed addition will incorporate a garage, kitchen and master bedroom. All building plans when submitted would be reviewed by the Building Official and City Engineer. The side yard setback would be 10 feet and the lakeside setback would be approximately 90 feet. A boathouse is located on the property and is in good condition. It has two-levels with boat storage on the bottom floor and living space on the top floor. Given the similar design it was probably constructed around the same time as the house. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-54 McKenzie Variance Request September 14, 1998 COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 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. Given the good condition of the boathouse, it seems unnecessary to recommend its removal at this time. Its continued location on the property does present a case for practical difficulty for the conforming house addition. The addition will improve the property and add to the livability of the house. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 CiTY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~ID~ [q-~ \qO~(~ Case No. q~(~)'- ~'~ City Council Date: Distribution: ~ ~51-~g City Planner ~~ DNR ~ ~ -~ City Engineer Other ~ ~-~-5~ Public Works LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ZONING PROPERTY Name Phone (H) ~" ¢ C ~ (W) XZl -- ~¢ 7 (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made f~. zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ¢~[no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P, 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area/.height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonin.o district in which it is located? Yes (), No (i/). If no, specify each non-conforming use (descril: reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): 50 REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) fakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. /'~' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft ,, Does the presenyuse of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes Nf, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: soil existing situation other: specify (Rev. l l /14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the ~and after the zoning ordinance was adopted 11982)? Yes I ), No ~. If yes, explain: ! Was the har. d~hip 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, jvou request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~K[. 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 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA ~ 7~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I :C,'r') ,, 0 I I I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ~ x //,~'= '"/ x 3, U = ~ ~/, ~' TOTAL HOUSE //, ~ TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. /o x z.s-o = ~oo TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. /!, ~" x Z_ = z 3' TOTAL DECK .......................... TOTALOTHER Y~S~, '7 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~-~-~'7, 5'" I UNDER / OVER (indic~ difference)/? ............... .~.~.O(..~.~. ..... BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ,'CITY OF .MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN.55364 Ph( we: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 SITE Subject Address The a~Dlicant is: __owner ~can~rac~r __tenant ~GAL Lot ~ock Plat DESCRIPTION Subdi~ign PID~ Ucense ~ Contact Person ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone {H) (W) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: '~J~ALUATIO N ~ It ~ OF WORK: / dO0 VALUE APPROVED: SEPA,~ATE =C_RMiTS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, IaL, UMBING, HEATING, VEN~LA~NG OR AIR CONDITIONING. CIRCUMSTANCES 5~CNO THE CONTROL OF ~E ~RMI~E/~R~TED CCMPL~ON OF 'HE WORK ~R '~ICH THE ~lT WAS G~ANTED. THE ~T~SiCN SHALL ~E ~,:UEST~ ///////////~/~////////////////////~////////////~/////~////~////////////////////h~////////~/~////~//~/~/~//~/~///////////////////~//////////////////////~/ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OC"UPANC¥ GROUP / OIV: MAX OCOUPANT LOAD ~ ZONING · u~s YES I NO PUSUCWOR~S I 3750 /Nc / / CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT wjum: LOT DEPTH: SURVEY ON FILE?(~I NO LOT OF RECORD.* YES / NO ~ ~'~ 10,000/60'0'~ B1 YARD IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR 7,500/0 R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/BO R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 DIRECTION [ REQUIRED [EXISTING/PROPOSED N $ E W N S E W N S E W 15' N S E W VARIANCE N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES 30% OR 40% [BY: I DATED: ~1~~ This Zoning Information Sheet ool¥ summarizes a portion of the {equirements outlined iD file Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact Omc City of Mound Planning Departmenl al 472-0600. O i (6) , / (7~ / /' $?$.3 RF~OLUTION NO.98- RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1999 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public heating, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the ~ Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 1999, a metropolitan area municipality that participated in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1998, can continue to participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if.(a) the municipality elects to participate in the Dxal Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1998; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEI~ THAT the (specific municipality) hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 1999. INTER-OFFICE MEMO To: Chief Harrell From: Officer Ewald Date: 09-15-98 Re: Street Light Request In reference to the street light request for a street light on the lower culdesac on Beachwood Rd., I had checked the area out several nights after dark ~nd it is very dark in that area. I contacted several of the people who had signed a petition who all stated their primary concern was the walking path which runs from the lower culdesac on Beachwood Rd. to the upper culdesac. A few years ago you requested me to look into a street light request for the upper area of Beachwood Rd. which was done and a street light was installed. At that time, I believe I stated that the street light at that location would also benefit the lower culdesac of Beachwood Rd. which it did for years. The area is now overgrown with bushes and trees which blocks the light from the lower portion of the culdesac. I would recommend that a street light be installed on the only existing power pole located at the end of the culdesac on the lower end of Beachwood Rd. However, some tree branches may have to be tdmmed slightly near the top of the pole for the light to benefit that area. Mem-o To: Officer John Ewald :From: 'Len'Harrel) Date:, 09/02/98 Re: Street Light Request Attached is a petition requesting a streetlight at the bottom of the walking path on Beachwood Road at the Cul-de-sac. The requester claims that an eldedy relative took a fall walking in the area this summer and there is a concern for how dark the path is. Please check the area and spot check some neighbors for feedback. I know that the area is dark. Thanks. · Page 1 PETITION FOR STREET LIGHT ION LOWER CULDESAC ON BEACHWOOD ROAD. ~Z.~c .h~ LJ o: O PAYMENT BILLS DATE: September 22, 1998 BILLS BATCH # 8092 A~O~ $153,938.48 TOTAL BILLS $153,938.48 Z .J Z 0 . coo o c, Z ~ o ~ 0 o . < ,,_, © (.'; .'. :", :') C 0 0 O 0 0 0 L~ .D ..~ ,L) ..; .I '1 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Dcsign August 26, 1998 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Steven Mangold US West Wireless, L.L.C. 426 North Fairview - Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 RECEIVED SE? - 1 1998 RE: Wireless antenna variance application ' Case g98-45 Dear Mr. Marigold: Please accept this letter as notice from the City of Mound that the review period for your wireless antenna variance application will be extended an additional 60 days as prescribed by Minnesota Statute 15.99. The initial 60 day time window will expire on August 29, 1998 and because a decision has not been reached, the City feels it is in the best interest of all parties involved to extend the review period another 60 days to allow ample time for the matter to be resolve& At the August 25, 1998 Council meeting, a motion was made to direct Staff to prepare a resolution with findings to deny the requested variance. That resolution will be brought back to the City Council at the September 8, 1998 regular meeting at which time the Council will have the oppommity to entertain a motion to approve or deny the request. The proceedings leading up to this meeting will be available to the public. At this time however, we will not be acting on any additional information related to the case. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner Cc: Ed Shulde, City of Mound Jon Sutherland, City of Mound John Dean, Kennedy and Graven Greg Robbins, Westonka Public Schools 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design August 26, 1998 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Greg Robbins Westonka Public Schools #277 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 RECEIVED SEP- 1 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. RE: Lighting Standards Conditional Use Permit - Case #98-46 Dear Mr. Robbins: Please accept this letter as notice fi:om the City of MotmA that the review period for the athletic lighting standard conditional use permit proposed for Memorial Field will be extended an additional 60 days as prescribed by Minnesota Statute 15.99. The initial 60 day time window will expire on September 12, 1998 and the potential exists that a decision may not be reached by the end of this time period. Therefore, the City feels it is in the best interest of all parties involved to extend the review period another 60 days to allow ample time for the matter to be resolved. At the August 25, 1998 Council meeting, a motion was made to direct Staff to prepare a resolution with findings to deny the related wireless antenna variance request. That resolution will be brought back to the City Council at the September 8, 1998 regular meeting at which time the Council will have the opportunity to entertain a motion to approve or deny the request. The conditional use permit hearing will be reopened for comment and consideration for approval as well. As stated at the Council meeting, it may be premature to act on the lighting standards prior to a decision on the wireless antenna variance request. If you have any questions, please call me. Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Plan~er Cc: Ed Shukle, City of Mound Jon Sutherland, City of Mound John Dean, Kennedy and Graven Steven Marigold, US West Wireless, L.L.C. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 MOUND CITY COUNCIT., MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 1.8 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING; CASE 98-4~: CONDmONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5(~0 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID#14-117-24 41 0011. The Mayor asked for a report from the Staff. The City Manager explained that since the last meeting, the City has engaged the services of a consultant to provide an objective opinion as to the accuracy of data presented by U.S. West Wireless. Due to the fact that this consultant was not in service until late last week, and the information that we have so far from U.S. West Wireless has been sketchy, U. S. West Wireless has agreed to allow the City to have this consultant look at their fries and present a report to the Council, probably in an Executive Session, at the next meeting, September 22, 1998. Therefore, the Staff recommended that the public hearing be continued, as well as the decision on the variance issue. MOTION rode by Hanus, seconded by Weycker, to continue the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit and variance issues for light standards & monopole at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Westonka School District 177/U.S. West Wireless, to the September 22, 1998, Regular Council Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 1.11 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: VARIANCE. HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WK~qTONICA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/U$ WF-$T WIRELF.$S, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLAITED 14 117 24, PID//14-117-24 41 0011. The Planner stated this item was sent back to the Planning Commission at the last meeting for further review and study on the height variance for the antenna. The Planning Commission heard this last night and recommended approval on a 4-2 vote to allow the 30 foot height variance to the antenna support structure in the proposed site located at Hadorff Field. The Planning Commission previously recommended approval of the the Conditional Use Permit for the (4) four 70 foot lighting standards at Hadorff Field. The Planner stated that at the Planning Commission, U.S.West Wireless presented the variance case to prove its reasons for findings that they can afford relief to the height that the code stipulates for these accessory antennas to be located on a lighting standard. The material that was presented looked at test sites around the community in which U.$.West performed a test of simulated tower at a height of 90 feet in order to gain information about coverages they could get at different locations within the community. The locations tested were: 1. Southwest water tower, in Sorbo Park; 2. The old water tower on Fairview Lane; 3. Hadorff Field; and 4. Grandview Middle School. The first three were the ones being considered seriously. UiS. West found that the field tests were not desirable for their standards. They could not test the height they are asking for, 120 feet, due to some OSHA requirements. Therefore, they could not come to conclusive findings showing that 120 feet was better than 90 feet. Assumptions were made that 120 feet would be better, but they could not support that with findings on the data that was presented. There was also discussion about testing of multiple locations. U.S. West did not perform testing of any multiple sites to get the coverages to work. Based on the discussion at the Planning Commission last night, they voted 4-2 to grant approval of a height variance on one of he 4 light standards ~7~(~ 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 for the location of this antenna tower. The Minutes from the Planning Commission were submitted tonight with 3 findings in their reasons for approval, as follows: Finding of Hardship: 1. The proposed site is the optimal location; 2. Reducing visual pollution; and e There is not a place in the I-1 District where a 125 foot pole could be built under the current ordinance. The Planner further stated that Staff's position on this tower is that it is a very good proposal. He stated they like the integration of the antenna within the lighting standard. However, Staff feels that a 90 foot height is desirable rather than the 120 foot height that is asked for in the application. Staff feels the applicant has not gone to all means to prove that the system cannot work within the existing code requirements. That is evidenced by U.S. West Wireless not testing the multiple locations. Therefore, Staff feels that there still is a reason to find that there has been no hardship presented in this case, based on a lack of testing of the multiple location scenario. The Council asked the applicant to make their presentation. Scott Hoelscher, U.S. Wes Wireless, stated that last night the Planning Commission recommended approval of their request for the Hadorff Field site. Tonight he would like to show the reasons why the alternative sites in the City of Mound do not fit their coverage needs, and, therefore, are inadequate for their system. He reviewed the list of potential sites under the current Mound ordinance. There were four sites considered: e Old water tower near well #3 on Fairview Lane. Water tower at Sorbo Park. The industrial zoning district. It is a very long narrow site and the building occupies most of the land in this district. A requirement in the ordinance is to have a fall zone of 1 to 1. In that location there is not enough room to meet that requirement. The Business district areas. These are areas where an antenna mount is allowed if it does not extend 20 feet above the existing structure, be it a building, or a light standard. In these areas there are buildings that are two to three stories, primarily. Last night it was suggested that multiple sites be used in the business area (multiple shorter sites) instead of one tower site. That does not meet their needs. The public institution areas, which are similar to the business areas, where you can extend 20 feet above the height of the structure. There are three that are in question: Grandview Middle School. This site is much to low to provide any coverage. Shirley Hills Elementary School. Again, there is no mounting facility at that site that would be appropriate. The Parks Garage at Island Park Hall. There are no light standards. There is a one story parking garage on a small parcel 5 777 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 which would not be suitable for an antenna site. Hoelscher then introduced Mr. Eugene Segal, Radio Frequency Engineer of U. S.West Wireless, who went through in more detail why the sites will not work. Mr. Segal maintained that there are technical reasons and key design issues that make the Hadorff Field site at 120 feet the only site that is acceptable. They look at the following with regard to a wireless system: 1. Location, the site is very important; 2. Anticipated wireless traffic that will be served by the site; 3. Appropriate spacing between sites in the system; and 4. The heights of the antennas on their sites. He related that it is a trade off between maximizing the height to increase their coverage and minimizing the height to control the interference on the system. The site at Hadorff Field meets their objectives at 120 feet, which is the minimum height they need to control their interference between it and adjacent sites and it provides the connection to their next site to the east. The Council asked why 120 feet? Mr. Segal explained the following: When considering the height for the site, specifically in the City of Mound, they have to look at the height of the trees in the City and the fact that it has rolling terrain as well. When designing its systems, U.S. West Wireless places antennas about 20 to 30 feet above the tree line. The trees in the City of Mound are 70 to 90 feet and it is not uncommon to find trees taller than that. He stated that some of the trees near Sorbo Park are almost 100 feet in height. In addition, the rolling terrain in the City of Mound adds the need for another approximately 20 feet in height. This is where they got the 120 feet in the application. Mr. Segal then showed an overhead of the drive test at 90 feet, which showed that they did not get the coverage they were looking for. The Council asked how they know that 120 feet will give them the coverage and result theY are looking for if they have not tested it. Mr. Segal explained that wireless service is not an exact science and sometimes they have to rely on the experience they have on the sites they have built and how the sites perform. A rule of thumb is that they have to keep their sites approximately 22 feet above the clutter (trees, hills, etc.) The City Attorney asked about power level setting on the transmitter. Could the power level setting be increased and obtain different results in terms of the distance that the signal could be received? Mr. Segal explained that this is a test intended to simulate the operation of an actual site and an actual site operates at a that specific power level. Doing a test at a higher power level would not give the proper results. The Council discussed the height of the water tower at Sorbo Park. Mr. Segal explained that in wireless design it is a trade-off between interference and coverage. With all the foliage in Mound there is a limit to how much coverage they can accomplish by going higher because the trees absorb so much energy. Going higher does not remove that. It is still there, but what 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1~)8 happens by going higher, especially with a system like this, that is a noise limited system which means that all their sites operate on the same frequency, which is not the way it works in analog, i.e., cellular where each site has different sets of frequency. The reason this is important to U.S. West Wireless is that if they go too high with their sites, they begin to interfere not just with adjacent sites, but sites several layers beyond that and this would cause serious problems with the system. In the case of the water tower at Sorbo Park, they did do a drive test on it and at first it showed even a mile and a quarter away, the trees are so dense that it decreases the signal strength to a point that there isn't enough there for them to provide service. In addition to that, it will cause serious interference problems on the rest of the system because it is so high. Councilmember Hanus stated that what is being asked for is a variance to the code and the Council charge is to make sure that all the other alternatives are exhausted before granting permission to someone to go outside the law, which is what is being asked for here. The onus is on the applicant to prove that there is no other alternative that will work. Councilmember Hanus then asked if going too high is no good, how about staying lower with multiple sites? Mr. Segal explained that if you place a height of the antenna at tree level or below tree level, so much energy is absorbed by the trees, you lose too much and actually shrink the coverage of the site. Mr. Segal stated that then you might need ten more sites to cover the same area as one. He explained that the you need to extend the antenna above the trees. Then the signal propagates the rest of the way above the tree line. Only near the receiver will the signal go through the trees and to the receiver. That is why they have to have the clearance above the trees. The Council explained that they are not arguing for or against any one site. They are just trying to look at the alternatives. U.S. West Wireless could use the Sorbo Park water tower and be 20 feet above the top of the water tower with no variances to the ordinance. Mr. Segal showed data where at the 90 foot drive test, in certain areas, they could get no signal. The Council asked what U.S. West Wireless would have done if the Hadorff Field site had not been available. Mr. Segal stated they would probably have looked for that would be acceptable to the City and works for U.S. West Wireless. U.S. West Wireless' contention is that Hadorff Field is the only site, at 120 feet, that will work for them. The Council encouraged U.S. West Wireless to look at and test the multiple site scenario. The Planner stated that with all the conversation at the last meeting left everything in a little bit of confusion. The determination by Staff was that the Lot 11 where the football field is located, which is independent of Lot 58 which has a use permit, needs' to have some review authority on it. This is why we are considering this variance before the CUP. Councilmember Hanus stated that after the Planning Commission Meeting last night, an issue was brought up, in conversation with U.S. West Wireless representatives, that had not been brought up before. That is, that these types of towers are engineered in such a way that if they fall, they will fall on themselves rather than toppling over like a tree. He stated that this is why 7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 19~8 we cannot have a tower of this height in our industrial zone which is where it is supposed to be allowed. There is no area large enough for an appropriate drop zone for a 120 foot tower. So if the tower fell in any direction, it would not fall on the property on which it was located. Another comment was brought up that towers can be engineered, and it has been proven in other areas, that they can be designed to fall upon themselves, which raises the question, If you use a tower that is engineered that way, do we truly need a drop zone in our industrial zone? That would be something to be discussed, as a Council and Planning Commission, because it affects the code as it is written. Councilmember Hanus stated that the Council sent this back to the Planning Commission to identify hardship and he completely disagrees with items one and two in the findings. Mayor Polston, stated that one of the real problems he has with the request, in fact, it hasn't been proven to him, that this is the only way and the only site that will work and he favors the towers that will fall upon themselves within the industrial zone. But if, in fact, this tower were to be allowed, by turning our back on the ordinance we have, and allowing this tower to go in place, there is no assurance to the City of Mound and our Code that there wouldn't be other telecommunication companies that follow who want to put other towers within that same zone. He thought this would be a proliferation of telecommunication towers within a zone where they are prohibited, so he could not support this option. However, he would support redefining the ordinance and directing the Planning Commission to look at allowing towers within the industrial zone, if they were designed to fall upon themselves. Councilmember Hanus agreed with redefining the code. Hanus further stated that this is a brand new ordinance, this is the first application that has come in against it. He felt that if this is granted in a residential zone, it would be impossible to deny an application for any zone in the City. Councilmember Weycker stated that she feels since there is no other place in Mound to put a tower, this seems to be hardship enough to grant the variance. Whether another company came in to place a tower in a similar location, would have to be looked at separately. Currently, it is already in the ordinance that they cannot put it in the industrial site because the industrial site is not large enough. So she felt it is still changing the ordinance. So, in other words, you are granting a variance in that sense by changing the ordinance. She stated she is in favor of it. Councilmember Hanus disagreed and stated that we would not be granting a variance to that situation, we would be changing the code to allow it in the area that it was identified as being appropriate in the first place. Under that scenario, we would not be granting a variance but, changing the code to correct an item that it appears can be engineered out of the situation. Councilmember Weycker, felt it could have been a similar situation with this because had they approached us in a different way, it would not have even required a variance. Weycker's feeling is that the ordinance that was adopted, does not cover enough or it does not cover adequately. The Council discussed the precedent that would be set by allgwing this variance. Scott Hoelscher made the following comments concerning the ordinance and the proposal and whether or not it is consistent with the ordinance: Section 350:1300., Subd. 2. 4. One of the purposes of the ordinance is to promote and encourage shared use and collocation of telecommunications towers and antenna support structures. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- AUGUST 25, 1998 5 Section 350:1305. Subd. 2. "Antenna Support Structures" means a building, athletic field lighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Mr. Hoelscher feels that the application is consistent with the ordinance and that it meets the spirit of the ordinance. They are not proposing a new tower but an extension of the light pole. Hanus referred to gection 350:1305, guM. 6 which reads "gtealth" 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 a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. In other words, this is not supposed to look like an antenna tower, but it should look like a light tower. He felt this is problem because the application does not apply the stealth aspect of the code. It is very much contrary to that. The Council asked the City Attorney to explain what options are available at this point. The City Attorney stated there are 3 options: 1. Approve by adopting the proposed resolution as presented or amend it. Defer the matter to a future meeting. If that is the Council's choice, there should be an expression of some kind of a reason why that might be an appropriate thing to do, i.e., looking at possible amendments to the underlying ordinance which would obviate the need for a variance. There may be the need to obtain more engineering information the use of multiple sites. 5 Deny the variance. The City Attorney stated if this is the City Council's desire, he strongly recommends that the Council not take action tonight to deny the variance. If that is their desire, they should direct Staff and the City Attorney's Office to prepare findings to be returned at the next City Council Meeting which would speak to the issue of denial of the variance. The City Attorney then advised that there is an additional issue which deals with a question of a potential Federal pre-emption of the City's land use regulations in this particular area. He stated he feels he is now in a better position to provide the Council with a better analysis of the pre-emption concern and whether there is or is not a significant risk of pre-emption in this particular case. The Mayor asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Council on this case. Steve Mangold, Regional Real Estate Manager for U.S.West Wireless. He commented that describing radio frequency is very difficult. He stated his job is to help get the real estate. They try to put together good reasonable business deals for everybody involved, U.S.West Wireless, the school district, and the citizens of Mound. Mr. Mangold stated that Minnesota Statutes allow for variances of local ordinances. These variances are strict enforcements that would cause undue hardship because of circumstances, unique to the individual property and if granted, will not alter the essential character of that particular property. He considers this a unique piece of property. It has the light poles already. He stated they are always looking for collocations and reasonable ways to locate on existing structures. They really believe this is good business to do this with this location. He stated he understood the Council needs some 9 $?gO MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 kind of hardship for a variance. To him the hardships are: U.S. West Wireless would be providing inferior service in the City of Mound. He considers this a hardship to U.S. West Wireless and the citizens of Mound. If we don't do this business transaction, and the School District doesn't find other funding, they are not going to have the lights at Hadorff Field. He considers that a hardship to the School District and ultimately the citizens of Mound. The Council explained that financial reasons cannot be considered as a hardship when granting a variance. Scott Hoelscher stated that even though the site is zoned residential, it is an institutional property. It is Zoned R-1. However, in the ordinance, it states that telecommunications facilities are a permitted accessory use on antenna support structures, owned or otherwise under the control of the City or School District. He further pointed out that this is the fourth hearing and there has not been negative reaction from the general public on this proposal. Pam Myers, Supt. of Westonka Schools. She stated even though this is a U.S. West application, the School District is very worried about the safety of the poles and the lights at Hadorff. The School District considers this a hardship. They also consider the fact that they will not be able to have activities at night a hardship. The Council asked about the 60 day clock on the applications. The City Attorney stated that both the variance and the CUP first 60 days will be up on Saturday, August 29th. The City does have the right to notify the applicants within the first 60 days of an additional 60 day extension to the time limit. The City needs to notify the applicants of the extension and state the reasons why they are extending it. MOTION made by Weycker to approve a 30 foot height variance as stated in the proposed resolution that was handed out tonight. The motion died for lack of a second. Ahrens stated that the proposed resolution does not list any hardships which was why it was sent back to the Planning Commission. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Polston to direct the City Attorney and Staff to prepare a finding of facts and a resolution of denial to be considered at the next meeting, September 8. Councilmember Weycker stated that she thinlc~ this is selling our residents short. Councilmember Hanus stated he feels it is upholding our ordinances. The vote was 3 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. It was the consensus of the Council that the City Planner notify the applicants of the 60 day extension on the variance and the Conditional Use Permit. 10 ,I, ~ , ,~li & ~ ,, MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 1.12 CONTINUF~D PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARD~ & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PIX)// 14-117-24 41 0011. The Mayor reopened the Public Hearing on the CUP. Thc followin~ students and other persons spoke in favor of thc CUP: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. John Nafus Jeff Winter Josh Winkler Adam Painter Josh Miller Brian Berent Shawn Smith Keith Randklev, Athletic Director Westonka Schools Gregg Robbins, Facility Coordinator for Westonka Schools Kristin Treptow, 5792 Lynwood Blvd. stated that she agreed with the Council that no hardship has been shown to allow the variance. The Mayor stated that there is no one on the Council who is against the new lights at Hadorff Field or granting the Conditional Use Permit for those lights. He further stated that the City Council is sworn to uphold the laws of the City of Mound. Councilmember Hanus agreed and stated that the Council is being asked to discard an ordinance so the school district can get some free lights or what is perceived as free lights. Hanus stated: "It is not the City's responsibility to fund those lights by any means, whether it be by discounting our ordinances or through financial contributions or whatever. The point is, that is the wrong reason to grant the variance. We are not allowed, by our own laws, to grant the variance based on those conditions. As long as he feels there may be alternatives, he is not allowed to vote for it." Councilmember Weycker, stated that she does not take granting variances lightly. She stated she did vote against this the first time because there was no hardship, but she felt a hardship was presented tonight. MOTION msde by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to continue this public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit until the next meeting, September 8, 1998. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. August 25, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #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 #277, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21, LYNWOOD PARK, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 PZ CASE #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 ~P38- 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-'I 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 Memorial Field; and, WHEREAS, the proposal is to replace the existing 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Orr 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. 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, lgg8 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 depdve 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-1). 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. Memodal 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. 2 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 Drive 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 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 ~ 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 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 granting this variance would create a hardship for US WEST in not being able to provide optimal coverage to their customers. 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 appears 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 demonstrated 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 John Gibbs, stated that there 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 There were no questions of Hanus. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Burma to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:57 p.m. 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 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 14-117-24 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. The second request is for a telecommunications antenna. Approximately 2 months ago the Planning Commission recommend~ 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 II, 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 fhat 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 CITY 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 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 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. 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.~sion 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, Orv Burma, and Bill Voss. Public Present: Jim Regan, Lora Bloomquist, Marshall Anderson, Greg Robbins - lSD #277, Peter Meyer, Chris 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 ( 2nd 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 #277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. 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 modem 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 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 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. #98-45 Variance 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 4 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 1 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. 7 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 8 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 Variance 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 J~ll0 y 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 modem 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 faidy 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 #95-45 and 46 Weston~ Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless rariance 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 Council conditional use permit for new lighting standards as proposed. 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 Yariance 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 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQ T OF US WEST FOR A I-IEIGHT VARIANCE WHEREAS. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.353 conveys authority to the City to plan and Section a62.357 provides enabling le~slation for the City to adopt a zoning ordinance and zoning regulations: and WHEREAS, Section 350:530 of the Mound City Code and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subd. 6(2) authorize and require the variance procedures in the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant in Case No. 98-~5 is US West (the "Applicant); and WHEREAS. Applicant desires to install a cellular communications antenna on a lighting standard proposed to be constructed on property located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard ("the Property"): and WHEREAS, the Property is owned by Indepcndcnt School District No. 277 (the "Property Owner"); and WHEREAS, the antenna Applicant desires to install on the Property will extend 50 feet above the maximum height from grade of the proposed lighting structure: and WHEREAS, Section 350:1370. subdivision 2 of the Mound City Code does not permit antennas on property owned by the Property Owner or other governmental entity if such antennas will extend more that~ 20 feet above the maximum height from grade of the structures on which they will be located; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a height variance to permit installafioI~ of its antenna on the Property; and WHEREAS, Section 350:530 of the Mound City Code provides: A variance may be granted only in the event that each of the following circumstances exist: Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property wb. ich do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and vicinity, and result frqm lot size or shape. topo.m'aphy, or other circumstances over which the o,,vners of property since enactment of this Ordinance have no control. Bo The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance DIC,.-149510 MU200-30 ~E6-d BO/ZO'd OtE6~E£Z[9 me2V:Li 88-VO-dOS would deprivc the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the Applic~t. That granting of the variance requested 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. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. WHE~AS, on August 24. 1998 the Mound Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Applicant's request for a variance: and WHEREAS, on August 25. 1998 the Mound City Council conducted a public hearing on the AppLicant's request for a variance: and WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 permits the exercise of local zoning authority as long as such local authority does not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibit or ha,,c thc effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless ~ervicc~: and WHEREAS. the City Council of the City of Mound makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT: There is substantial evidence in the record showing that the variance is being requested solely for the convenience and economic benefit of the Applicant and there is no evidence that the Property is subject to exceptional or extraordinary lot size. shape, topography, or other ¢ircurfistances beyond the control of the Property Owner and the Applicant. The record shows that the Applicant's request for a variance is the result of its own actions specifically, DJG-Ia9510 MU200-30 Ao The Applicant was included and provided input in the recent OL£Ba~I~Zl9 Idq^¥a9 I' meBl~: L l 66-F'O-deS establishing the standards for ordinances governing for antennae site locations for wireless telecommunication service in the City and supported or did not oppose the City's establishment of the 20 foot antenna extension above structure, from which it now seeks a variance. The Applicant has not demonstrated that it cannot provide reasonable scm, ice to the customers within City without the proposed site: but rather has stated that the hardship would be thc alleged inability to provide optimal coverage to customers if the variance were not granted The Applicant has not tested the degree of improvement in service that thc additional 30 f~t requiring the variance would provide and thus the Applicant has failed to establish that requested variance is thc minimum necessary to allcviate any hardship The Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated to the City with technical data that other sites not requiring a variance could not be used to enhance service: nor has the applicant performed studies testing possible equivalent coverage at two sites not requiring a variance The Applicant has not shown that the property is unusable without granting of thc variance. Them is substantial evidence in the record showing that granting the variance would provide the Applicant with rights not commonly enjoyed by other properties within the district. Denial of the variance will leave the Applicant and the Property Owner with thc same rights as are commonly enjoyed by other properties within the district. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound that the application of US West for a vmance to install an antenna extending 50 feet above the supporting structure at the Property is hereby DENIED Adopted by the City Council in and for the City of Mound. Minnesota this September. 1998. day of ATI'EST: Mayor D JO-119~ I 0 MU2OO.30 9£8-d 90/~0'8 998-1 OI£6Z££ZI9 N;A¥~9 { XO]NNBN-moJd meS~:tt 86-~0-de$ Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design August 26, 1998 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. RF. CEIVEO AUG Jack Cook 4452 Denbigh Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Garage variance request- Case #98-38 Dear Mr. Cook: At the City Council meeting on August 25, 1998, the Council made a motion to hear your request at the September 22, 1998 meeting. This was in part due to your letter stating the reasons for your absence and the Council's willingness to hear your plans. Because the case has taken longer than usual, we will also be extending the review period an additional 60 days as prescribed by Minnesota Statute 15,99. This will allow us to continue to hear the case should the review take additional time. If there are any circumstances that would keep you from attending the meeting, please notify the City. If you have any further questions, please call me or Jon Sutherland at 472-0614. Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner Cc: Ed Shukle, City of Mound Jon Sutherland, City of Mound John Dean, Kennedy and Graven 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 .... I, .... at HO~SINGTON KOEGLER 222 P02 SEP 22 '98 15:29 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Croup Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request - Updated report OWNER: Jack Cook - 4452 Denbigh Road CASE NUMBER: 98-38 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5ff LOCATION: 2754 Cardiff Lane ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: You will find in your packets at letter from ;ack Cook dated September 22, 1998, which states hi~ intentions to move the garage from his property to property owned by James Meredith. Mr. Meredith has subsequently applied for a building permit to accommodate the garage on his property at 4~,64 Wilshire Blvd. Removal of the garage from the property would ,alleviate the use variance issue on the propel'~y. As a matter of proper course and procedure, it would seem appropriate to act on the prepared resolution for denim to put any lingering issues to rest. In addition to approval of the building permit, a moving permit will also be needed. Either Mr. Cook or Mr. Meredith could make the application. As with any structure, the garage will need to meet all applicable building code requirements relating to the foundation and structure. RECOM3~ENDATION: Staff recommends the Council deny the request to allow the garage to exist on the property without a principal structure. A recommendation of denial provides additional support to staff' it' the case needs further enforcement. Staff will monitor the case and.:. probably use a 30 day time period for the removal before pursuing any edorcernent action. l~Z3 Narth Tnizct Street, Suit~ 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS {IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: ~j~ LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% = (for ali lots) .............. J = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I LOT AREA /F/~"~O 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 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 TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = 2.'/ x /0 = ~/~ X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER (indicate difference) ............................ '. · · PREPARED aY ,_7/~¢ I(- _i~.~P ~l(__ DATE (REV. 8129/94) summary of hardcover rules Excerpts from the Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:310. Definitions. Impervious Cover. Any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of water or surface moisture. Impervious cover shall include, but not be limited to all driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios, and swimming pools. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards) shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. Section 350:645. General Requirements Applicable to All Residential Districts. - Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. - Accessory buildings shall not exceed 15% of the total lot area. Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. Shot,land Manaqement. Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent providing .that the following techniques are utilized as applicable. Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the use of crowns on driveways, direction downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas, etc. Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or sand allowing infiltration. Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater. d. Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing soil absorption. Impervious surface coverage in lots in the business and industrial zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. In business and industrial zones that are included within areas covered by an approved stormwater management plan, impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 75 percent of the total lot area. ~UILDING PERMIT APPLICATIO{', ' -- :'CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road. Mound, MN.55364 r'none: ~/z-u~uu I-ax: Srr~ Subiec~ Addr~s _ ~ / OWN~ Nam 'e ~ ~//.~/ ~ ~. '_' '~.~ ,~ _ Phone ~) ~ (W) (M) A~CHITECT Name &/CR Address ~ GINE~ Phone (Hi (WI (MI CHANGE QF FRCM: USE TO: VALUATION r~.-, OF WORK: , X_)(~) O, 0 0 VALUE APPROVED: /// ///;~ II1tl, II .... ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS: I ZONINO a U~ YES I NO ~ PUSUCW~RKS REC~VED BY ,' DATE: ~S CHEC~ ~; ' : . ~QV~ ~Y 10AT~. :' ~ ,i, ~ll , ,iii IL ,L ,, MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 1.12 CASE 98-;58: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHELP'S ISLAND PARK I~rDIVISION, PID # 19-117-2~24 0029. The City Planner explained that today Mr. Cook requested that this item be tabled until he can attend the meeting or allow him a one or two year extension to leave the garage on the property so that he can build a home on the property. The Planner reported that the Planning Commission heard this case at the first meeting in August and recommended denial for a one or two year extension to leave the garage on the property. The City Clerk explained that when Mr. Cook dropped his letter off today, he spoke to the Building Official and told him that he has another plan for the garage. A neighbor of Mr. Cook would like to move the garage to another lot where it would be conforming. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to table this item to the 2nd meeting in September. Staff to notify Mr. Cook that this is being tabled to September 22, 1998, to allow him to moke arrangements for the plan to move the garage. The vote was 3 in favor with Hanus abstaining. Motion carried. The City Attorney suggested that the 60 day rule would also apply. The Council asked that Mr. Cook also be notified of the 60 day extension. 424 *~gJ~, RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1998 MOL~NL~ FLAr~i~iNG & INSR 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 Jori 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: 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 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5 LOCATION: 2754 Cardiff Lane ZONING: Residential District R- 1A 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 COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 1.8 CASE 98-38._____~.' VARIANCE,, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHELP'S ISLAND. PARK 1sr DIV., PID# 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 lot) 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 Polston 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, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-38: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH RD, LOT 94, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1sT DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23 24 0029 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant, Jack Cook, has requested a variance to allow a one car garage to remain on a lot without a principal residence. The property is located at the comer of Cardiff Lane and Denbigh Road on a 50 feet by 152 feet plus lot encompassing 7750 sf. The property owner recently built two new homes on lots 30 and 31. Located on the subject lot 29, is the one stall garage which is setback approximately 20 feet from Denbigh and 6 feet from the side lot line. The remainder of the property is undeveloped but is currently 'used for storage and parking of miscellaneous construction equipment. 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 commemial setting. The app. roach 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. mll l ln 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 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5 LOCATION: 2754 Cardiff Lane ZONING: Residential District R-lA 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 sf. The property owner recently built two new homes on lots 30 and 31. Located on the subject lot 29, is the one stall garage which is setback approximately 20 feet from Denbigh and 6 feet from the side lot line. The remainder of the property is undeveloped but is currently used for storage and parking of miscellaneous construction equipment. Section 350:435 Accessory Buildings, states that, "No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory." The only way an accessory building could be located on a residential lot is if it were combined with an adjacent property. Lot 30 is the only opportunity for such a combination. The garage was originally on another lot along Denbigh Road and just recently was moved to the site. No building or moving permits were issued by the City for this project. The garage is sitting on wood studs that do not meet building code requirements. If the garage were legally existing, it would be required to have a concrete foundation and tied down. There are a couple other building methods for the foundation that could be used but tie downs would be required with any approach. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 ~ ....... J, JJ , ,il J J ,, p. 2 #98-38 Cook Variance Request July 13, 1998 The applicant stated that he has thought about constructing a home on the lot similar to the homes on lots 30 and 31. The lot is buildable and if developed could accommodate a 34 feet wide house. Staff was aware of the situation when the building was moved and contacted the owner to discuss the situation. The applicant has decided to take the variance approach as a possible remedy to the code requirements. Staff has not received any complaints from the surrounding neighborhood. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of fights 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 fi'om 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 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 Slxeet, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. $ #98-38 Cook Variance Request July 15, 1998 o although not combined with the adjacent property is a reasonable use of the property which could occur through the combination of lots 29 and 30. The Planning Commission could put a time limit for the removal of the garage. RECOMMENDATION: Given the intent of the code to limit accessory structures to lots with a principal building it is difficult for staff to recommend any option but adhering to the code. This case is the reason garages are not meant to be freestanding uses. This is not to say that if the garage were removed, the equipment storage would go away. These activities are best removed from this neighborhood and carried on in a commercial setting. The approach staff has taken with these situations is to handle them largely on a complaint basis. Because there have not been any complaints, the remedying the parking and business activities administratively was not pursued. Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the variance request and have the applicant remove the building and other equipment using the property for parking. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: 8100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: I City Council Date: Distribution: ~ City Planner ~~ DNR City Engineer Other ~ Public Works su. ECT Add . s PROPERTY LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivisio , el PID~ / ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name OWNER Address Phone(H) (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 re~olutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. l l l14/97) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (_bLs E W ) '~-_~ ft. ~) ft. '- 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. ft. : (N SEW) ft. 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 (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: d ~-~ 3~ (Rev. ll/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. qS'~_ 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? D 9. Comments: - ,--'~Z ~I~'~:2~~/~p/~3 ~1~5/~_~ ~ ~~~~ · ' ~ ~ ~ · _ , _ - , ' ' ,I . ~ ,~ . / ~ ' u~- ~- I ce~ify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in an~ 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 (Rev. 11114/97) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record~) ....... = (for detached buildings only) 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 DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X -'~ X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAl. HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate iffere,nce~. .............................. PREPARED BY ~~:__u~,. __ DATE HOUSE ~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. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE.'? it~ / NO LOT OF RECORD7 YES / NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 RiA 6,000/40 ~2 20,000/B0 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/00 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTING LOT SIZE: · LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: IlOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT SIDE N S E W N S E W 2,0 SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS F.ONT N S E W 20 2-0 FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'O1~..~. _ SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' ,AR~OV~.R ,o~ OR,O,, L . Iik, Z. 7..~O ' This Zoning Information Sheel o,d¥ summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, comaet the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. Michele Berglund 5138 Hanover Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 9/13/1998 Mr. Ed Shukle Mound City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle, I am in receipt of your letter and also have read Tom Casey's memo pertaining to my request for the release of tax forfeited land. I have also had an opportunity to review the Minnesota Statute that Mr. Casey referred to in his memo. As I understand the law, this property is subject to this statute (282.013), and falls into the realm of exception as marginal land, or parcels with less than 50 feet of water frontage. I have highlighted below the section of the statute that is most appropriate for this situation. I have also included for your review the text of section 103F.535, Protection of Water Resources. I would like the City of Mound to review my request with further consideration given to Minnesota Statute 282.018, Subdivision 1 (a through d), and also Subdivision 2, (1 and 2). I believe that this property can be sold either with the legally prescribed restrictive covenant, or since each parcel has less than 50 feet of water frontage may be sold by the jurisdiction having authority to release and sell the individual parcels to me. 282.018 Land by public waters, nonforested marginal land, wetlands. Subdivision 1. Land on or adjacent to public waters. (a) Ail land which is the property of the state as a result of forfeiture to the state for nonpayment of taxes, regardless of whether the land is held in trust for taxing districts, and which borders on or is adjacent to meandered lakes and other public waters and watercourses, and the live timber growing or being thereon, is hereby withdrawn from sale except as hereinafter provided. The authority havin~ jurisdiction over the timber on any such lands may sell the timber as otherwise provided by law for cutting and removal under such conditions as the authority may prescribe in accordance with approved, sustained yield forestry practices. The authority having jurisdiction over the t~mBer shall reserve such timber and impose such conditions as the authority deems necessary for the protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat, shorelines, and scenic features. Within the area in Cook, Lake, and St. Louis counties described in the Act of Congress approved July 10, 1930 (46 Stat. 1020), the timber on tax-forfeited lands shall be subject to like restrictions as are now imposed by that act on federal lands. (b) Of all tax-forfeited land bordering on or adjacent to meandered lakes and other public waters and watercourses and so withdrawn from sale, a strip two rods in width, the ordinary high-watermark being the waterside boundary thereof, and the land side boundary thereof being a line drawn parallel to the ordinary high-water mark and two rods distant landward therefrom, hereby is reserved for public travel thereon, and whatever the conformation of the shore line or conditions require, the authority having jurisdiction over such lands shall reserve a wider strip for such purposes. (c) Any tract or parcel of land which has 50 feet or less of waterfront may be sold b~ the authority havin~ ~urisdiction over the land, in the manner otherwise provided b~ law for the sale of such lands, if the authority determines that it is in the public interest to do so. If the authority having jurisdiction over the land is not the commissioner of natural resources, the land may not be offered for sale without the prior approval of the commissioner of natural resources. (d) Where the authority having jurisdiction over lands withdrawn from sale under this section is not the commissioner of natural resources, the authority may submit proposals for disposition of the lands to the commissioner. The commissioner of natural resources shall evaluate the lands and their public benefits and make recommendations on the proposed dispositions to the committees of the legislature with jurisdiction over natural resources. The commissioner shall include any recommendations of the commissioner for disposition of lands withdrawn from sale under this section over which the commissioner has jurisdiction. The commissioner's recommendations may include a public sale, sale to a private party, acquisition by the department of natural resources for public purposes, or a cooperative management agreement with, or transfer to, another unit of government. Subd. 2. Marginal land and wetlands. Nonforested marginal land and wetlands on land that is property of the state as a result of forfeiture to the state for nonpayment of taxes is withdrawn from sale as provided in section 103F. 535 unless: (1) notice of the existence of the nonforestedmarginal land or wetlands, in a form prescribed by the board of water and soil resources, is provided to prospective purchasers; and (2) the deed contains a restrictive covenant, in a form prescribed by the board of water and soil'resources, that precludes enrollment of the land in a state-funded program providing compensation for conservation of marginal land or wetlands. HIST: 1973 c 369 s 1; 1984 c 490 s 2; 1989 c 353 s 9; 1991 c 159 s 2; 1991 c 354 art 10 s 9 Cha~ter Title: PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES Section: 103F. 535 Text: i03F. 535 Reservation of mar~inal land and wetlands. Subdivision 1. Reservation of marginal land and wetlands. (a) Marginal land and wetlands are withdrawn from sale or exchange unless: (1) notice of the existence of the nonforested marginal land or wetlands, in a form prescribed by the board of water and soil resources, is provided to prospective purchasers; and (2) the deed contains a restrictive covenant, in a form prescribed by the board of water and soil resources, that precludes enrollment of the land in a state-funded program providing compensation for conservation of marginal land or wetlands. (b) This section does not apply to transfers of land by the board of water and soil resources to correct errors in legal descriptions under section 103F. 515, subdivision 8, or to transfers by the commissioner of natural resources for: (1) land that is currently in nonagricultural commercial use if a restrictive covenant would interfere with the commercial use; (2) land in platted subdivisions; (3) conveyances of land to correct errors in legal descriptions under section 84.0273; (4) exchanges of nonagricultural land with the federal government, or exchanges of Class A, Class B, and Class C nonagricultural land with local units of government under sections 94.342, 94.343, 94.344, and 94.349; (5) land transferred to political subdivisions for public purposes under sections 84.027, subdivision i0, and 94.10; and (6) land not needed for trail purposes that is sold to adjacent property owners and lease holders under section 85.015, subdivision 1, paragraph (b). (c) This section does not apply to transfers of land by the commissioner of administration or transportation or by the Minnesota housing finance agency, or to transfers of tax-forfeited land under chapter 282 if: (I) the land is in platted subdivisions; or (2) the conveyance is a transfer to correct errors in legal descriptions. (d) This section does not apply to transfers of land by the commissioner of a~m~nistration or by the Minnesota housing finance agency for: (1) land that is currently in nonagricultural commercial use if a restrictive covenant would interfere with the commercial use; or (2) land transferred to political subdivisions for public purposes under sections 84.027, subdivision I0, and 94.10. Subd. 2. Repealed, 1992 c 502 s 7;1992 c 561 s 10 Subd. 3. Repealed, 1992 c 502 s 7;1992 c 561 s 10 Subd. 4. Repealed, 1992 c 561 s 10 Subd. 5. Release and alteration of conservation easements. Conservation easements existing under this section, as of April 30, 1992, may be altered, released, or terminated by the board of water and soil resources after consultation with the commissioners of agriculture and natural resources. The board may alter, release, or terminate a conservation easement only if the board determines that the public interest and general welfare are better served by the alteration, release, or termination. HIST: 1990 c 391 art 6 s 78; 1990 c 473 s 1,2; 1990 c 572 s 13; 1991 c 214 s 5; 1992 c 502 s 1; 1992 c 561 s 1,9 Subd. 7. Marginal agricultural land. "Marginal agricultural land" means land that is: (1) composed of class IIIe, IVe, V, VI, VII, or VIII land as identified in the land capability classification system of the United States Department of Agriculture; or (2) similar to land described under clause (1) and identified under a land classification system selected by the board. Please apprise me of any information you may have that would further the effort to release this tax forfeited land for public sale. The policy of Minnesota is to encourage the best use of tax forfeited lands, recognizing that some lands in public ownership should be retrained and managed for public benefits while other lands should be returned to private ownership. Again, I ask that this be reviewed by the city council and referred to the appropriate county board for classification and subsequent public sale. Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter. 472-6588 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Bev Botko (ardved at 7:42 p.m.), Rita Pederson, Tom Casey, and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler and Secretary Carla Wirth. The following interested citizens were also present: Dennis Hildibrandt, Ron DeVinney, Shelly Berglund, Marty Woods, Dave Hartman, Merritt Geyen, Melanie Allen, Jay Soule, Vicki Aune, Lois Adams, Gene Adams and John Edewaard. Meyer called the meeting to oder at 7:35 p.m. REVIEW: REQUEST TO PURCHASE TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY Parks Director Jim Fackler presented the response from City Manager Shukle regarding the previous POSC discussion about the purchase of tax forfeit property. City Manager Shukle's memorandum indicated his conclusion that the property in question would be better served if a conservation easement were conveyed to the Minnesota Land Trust and the City of Mound retained the parcel which accomplishes the goal of Michelle Berglund to keep the property from development and also satisfy the POSC's concern about giving up any tax forfeit property that should be retained by the City. Casey noted the State Statutes do not refer to conservation land trust as such but this should cover it. Meyer explained that Michelle Berglund asked if the City would be interested in releasing a piece of property on the bluff side of her property. This request was reviewed last month but determined there was a need for more information so the item was tabled. Berglund would like the property to remain natural without development, as does the Commission. Meyer explained that the City Manager is suggesting the City retain the property and obtain a conservation easement or place it in a program such as the Minnesota Land Trust or Teal Point Development and possibly even made into the fifth nature conservation (passive use) park. Michelle Berglund, 1538 Hanover Road, stated her understanding the Land Trust will not consider land under ten acres in size and asked why that is even being considered. Casey explained that while this is true for developed areas, they do make an exception Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 to consider, on a case-by-case basis, land which abuts public water. Because of this, they may be interested. Berglund stated the Teal Point Development and conservation easements have been extended but they are not being enforced. She stated she wants to purchase a little piece of property and now it has become blown out of proportion. Berglund stated she is disappointed with this position. Meyer explained the Park and Open Space Commission is concerned about the land owners into the future who may want to develop the land. However, if the land becomes park land or part of the Minnesota Land Trust, it will be more difficult to develop. (Commissioner Botko ardved at 7:42 p.m.) Casey explained that the Minnesota Land Trust would prohibit the City from selling the land. He stated that he had asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney and it indicated the City would be better served by this method. He clarified that this is not a matter of discretion and it appears the Commission is unable to consider Berglund's request. He suggested she work with the City and neighbors to create a protected property under a conservation easement. With regard to the Teal Point conservation easement, Casey noted it was not given to the Land Trust so the enforcement issue is between the people who complain and the City of Mound. However, if conveyed to the Minnesota Land Trust they would monitor the property annually to assure the conservation is not being violated by the land owner or joint property owner. Because of that, the Teal Point easement is not the same as the Minnesota Land Trust. He stated he hopes the residents see this as a common interest so parcels of land can be found, even if a combination of parcels, to create a conservation easement. He stated he is ready to move forward and do more work if residents see there is a common interest. Weycker commented that their goals are the same even though the conclusion on how to accomplish that goal may be different. Meyer asked Berglund if she would be interested in working with the City on this issue. He stated he would not vote to release the land but would like to work together to explore options to see if a passive park can be created for the benefit of the community, whether a park or conservation easement, for passive use. Berglund stated there is no need for a park or for any more people to go "traipsing" through. Casey agreed this is a small parcel with steep slopes and is unable to handle a high human impact. Meyer offered to provide Berglund with information on the other four conservation areas. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to recommend to the City Council that the property continue to be held by the City of Mound and 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 discussions occur with the Minnesota Land Trust to convey a conservation easement. Motion carried unanimously. Casey commented on the importance of resident support and invited neighbors to contact the City to advise of their areas of interest. Mr. Dennis Hildibrandt, 5229 Waterbury, asked if the property was currently owned by the City and if thera would be maintenance and upkeep if it was turned into an NCA. Meyer explained the property is owned by the City and this type of use results in very little cost to the City due to the lack of maintenance, tree trimming, or upkeep. He stated this was one of the issues raised with the Council. 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 DISCUSS: CHESTER PARK Fackler recommended that only the issues impacting the park itself be considered for discussion such as the use of the park, beach area, what the problems may be, and what can be done to resolve those problems or improve conditions. Casey noted the written documents contained in the meeting packet. Fackler stated these are some, but not all, of the documents pertaining to Al & Alma's Supper Club. Meyer invited comments from the audience. Mr. Hildibrandt commented on the recommendation to provide input only on the issues related to the park. He advised there is a lot of pedestrian traffic in the park and asked about the level of City maintenance. Fackler explained the City does not empty the garbage cans and it is handled by Al & Alma's. Mr. Hildibrandt stated he has nothing against Al & Alma's but wondered if they do something extra for the park use. Fackler stated that Al & Alma's does the mowing, beach care, garbage hauling, and typical maintenance. Any work requiring heavy equipment is handled by the City of Mound. Mr. Hildibrandt asked if they are expected to do more than that. Fackler explained that Al & Alma's has taken care of the general maintenance for years and then, five years ago, a play structure was added which resulted in additional City involvement with maintenance. Weycker asked if this agreement is in writing. Fackler stated he does not know of a written agreement. Merritt Geyen, 5200 Piper Road, representing Al & Alma's, stated they took over the mowing, fertilizing, lawn care, beach care, putting out the buoys, and general maintenance responsibilities. 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 Mr. Hildibrandt stated he has nothing against this business but it seems there is a lot of additional traffic using this park and expressed a concern with vehicle parking. He agreed that the park is kept up but things have changed over the last ten years and he wonders if some prohibitions should also change. Melanle Allen, 3208 Charles Lane, stated she has seen improvement to this park over the last ten years as well as increased use by young children since the park is now clean and more inviting. She added that she passes by this park often and has never seen the garbage cans over flowing or dangerous looking conditions. Marty Woods, 5360 Edsall Road, stated the park is nice looking and attractive but it is not very inviting to use the beach for swimming because everyone is standing around waiting to go onto the boats. He stated he is only a five-year resident of Mound and has seen glass in the park, alcohol related garbage, as well as a lot of pedestrian traffic. John Edewaard, 5125 Hanover Road, stated this is a nice park and if the business and boats were removed, including charter boats, it would be a really nice park. He reviewed Resolution #84-26 which indicated residential concern about not expanding the business and noted they were to only be allowed four excursion boats but that has expanded to five to six boats. He stated he knows traffic counts were conducted on this street so that information is available if anyone is interested in looking at it. Mr. Edewaard stated the certificate of title for Chester Park indicates there is to be no commercial use of the park but he has pictures that cleady show the Sale of tickets from the park itself, even with chairs and tables being set up in the park and used by ticket vendors. He asserted this is in violation of their certificate of title and spirit of the approval granted. Mr. Edewaard cladfied the issue is not really the restaurant but the charter boats which can, conservatively, hold 600 people. The vehicles for those people are parked in the neighborhood. Meyer requested that comments pertain only to the park use and requested a copy of the certificate of title. Mr. Edewaard noted that anyone who uses the charter boats needs to walk across the park on a privately-owned sidewalk on one side or a City-owned sidewalk on the other side. He stated it is strange the charter boats are loaded from those docks since, cleady, to get to the docks you need to walk on City-owned park property. The path is on City property and while there may have been an agreement in the past with previous owners, he believes the City needs to address whether this path should be relocated to Geyen's property. Mr. Edewaard presented pictures to the Commission identifying there is no swimming buoy. He indicated that during the Easter egg hunt, residents were told to leave the park. He noted a petition which contained 50 signatures. 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 Fackler stated the petition was addressed to the City. Mr. Edewaard stated it was addressed to the City but not delivered to the City and would not be delivered to the City. He stated these signatures are all from people who live in the City. Ms. Geyen stated she has not seen this petition but was told one was being circulated. Fackler stated if a petition is addressed to the City it is usually not discussed until it is presented. He stated the City did not receive a copy of this petition. Mr. Edewaard corrected that this is not a petition, it is a letter and has not been delivered to the City and would not be delivered. Fackler stated if a letter is being discussed, he would like to see it so it can be read. Meyer was presented with the letter which he then read. The letter, addressed to the City of Mound, requested they look at the impact Al & Alma's restaurant is having on the neighborhood as a result of their boat business, street traffic, parking, heavy trucks and trailer traffic, and other aggravations such as signs of various sorts, lost individuals, car alarms, honking horns, squealing tires, traffic blocking the park entrance, restriction to the swimming beach by parked trucks, people buying charter tickets, beached boats, using the City's water supply to wash down the parking lot, etc. The letter asserted that this type of activity is becoming a nuisance and requested steps to be taken to mitigate the impact of this commercial enterprise. Meyer stated that the majority of the issues addressed in this letter are not park issues that can be considered tonight. Mr. Edewaard stated he does not have time to determine which group has authority over these issues or to go before the different committees. He stated there are a lot of land use issues but this park was given to the City of Mound with restrictions such as no loading of boats or commercial use of their park property. He suggested this land be given back to the original grantor, the Whipple Improvement Association. Mr. Edewaard stated that this use is unreasonable and he believes the City needs to become a better caretaker of that park. Mr. Edewaard reviewed the history of this park and that Geyen took over the care of that park and there has been some improvement. He stated it has only been in the last week or two that he has seen a City staff person in this park working on an improvement. He asserted the problems are due to the use of the park as an adjunct to the operation of a charter boat business in a residential area. He stated the other issues of noise, traffic, and irritants are issues for the Planning Commission and City Council. He suggested the Park and Open Space Commission make a recommendation on how Mound is going to treat commercial businesses in residential areas. Mr. Edewaard stated he knows of other residents who run businesses from their houses that don't sustain this much traffic yet are being pursued by the City. He stated this is unreasonable as is running a restaurant out of a residential home. He reported there was a 30 gallon gas container with wheels parked on the driveway. He asked where this gas was going to be used, and if it was being used for a commercial venture. Also, if used to fuel the boats, the gasoline would 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 have to be transported across the public property. Mr. Edewaard stated he has a photograph of that gasoline container. Meyer stated this business has a CUP for their charter business and this is a public park. Mr. Edewaard maintained the park should not be used for a business. Fackler suggested some of the direct issues of concern, such as the buoys, be dealt with. He stated this list is not very large, could be addressed, and put into effect for next year. Mr. Edewaard stated this would be great but he questions what would really happen since the City already has resolutions. He asked whose responsibility it is to assure compliance. Mr. Edewaard reviewed the questions he had raised pertaining to the location the boats are parked and suggested that some issues cannot be addressed unless the level of activity is reduced. Meyer stated the City will work on the buoy issue. Fackler stated this has been discussed with Al & Alma's and it was determined the City will take care of this and there would be a change in the design. He stated the boats can be kept out of that area by changing by the design which will occur for next year. Fackler advised that City staff visits the beach on a daily basis. He stated the Geyens do take good care of the park but the City will take more responsibility for the maintenance. Mr. Edewaard stated when Merritt's Corporation is allowed to take care of the park it causes a problem. Fackler noted the program to adopt parks and public areas and explained this could also be done by Al & Alma's with this park. Mr. Edewaard stated this is a good program but the issue is that this business is "off the scale" of what is normal. Weycker noted Al & Alma's are on the thank you list for the Adopt-A-Green Space. Casey reviewed a section of the certificate of title, dated October 1969, indicating Lot 24, Brooklyn Shores, shall not be used for any commercial purpose or for the benefit of any individual(s) for the furtherance of their own particular interest. He stated he does not know if this is the final certificate of title but he believes the commercial use is an important issue to address. He stated the redirection of the buoys needs to be addressed as well as the extent of the commercial business. Casey requested a legal review and opinion on the status of the certificate of title. He also requested a response from the Geyens on that particular restriction. He asked'if they have recollection on the status of title and what can or cannot be done on the park property itself. Geyen stated she is unable to answer that question. Ron DeVinney, 3214 Tuxedo Boulevard, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for about 44 years and last weekend noticed, on two locations, a dock attendant adjusting 6 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 or undoing the buoys to make room for several boats. He stated he mentioned this to the attendant whether a boat should be parked there and the attendant said it would only be parked there for a little while. He stated this is definitely a park issue since private boats were on the dock for the park area with unattached buoys which were reattached closer to the shore. Mr. DeVinney stated he and his mother used to take care of this park many years ago and did a pretty thorough job. He stated Al & Alma's do an adequate job but he has only used the park tree times to swim and each time he had to pick up large pieces of broken beer bottles. He stated he should not be responsible for policing the area before swimming. He stated the tremendous number of people who loiter to get on and off the boats is unbelievable. He noted they are not using the bituminous walkways but congregate in the park which blocks the pathway for other park users. Pederson stated it sounds like the first resolution was adopted in the early 1970's but the neighborhood and restaurant have grown and a saturation point has now been reached with the resident's comfort zone. She asked why the City is ignoring the certificate of title use on Lot 24. Pederson noted that paragraph states "no commercial use of the park" and asked if the loading of boats could be handled elsewhere. Meyer noted the pathway is not park land. Fackler stated it appears the Commission would like the City Attorney to review the certificate of title to determine if there has been any changes. Casey stated he would like to know the status of the title, if there have been any updates, and their recommendation on what a commercial use might be. He stated if commercial patrons are waiting on park property to get onto the boats that is a different use than the public coming to enjoy the park. Mr. Edewaard noted that page 113 of the meeting packet indicates thanks to Al & Alma's for taking care of the park, not Merdtt. Weycker stated there are a number of people being thanked. Mr. Edewaard stated it is thanking a corporation not an individual person. Mr. Edewaard stated the meeting minutes indicated Al & Alma's restaurant is taking care of the park, not an individual but a corporation. He stated he got this information from the packet of the Chester Park meeting and distinctly recalls reading that. Mr. Edewaard urged the Commission to visit the park. Casey stated if commercial use is involved, the Commission needs the most updated title and opinion from the City Attorney. David Hartman, 5124 Windsor Road, stated that he has nothing against this business but his concern is the children. He stated his nieces visit him regularly and while he does not begrudge anyone from having a ddnk or beer, the park is not the place to do it. He 7 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 stated he had the pleasure of working for the Park Department several years ago and took care of the beaches. Mr. Hartman stated he went to Chester Park and almost daily had to pick up pop cans, beer cans, bear glasses, etc. He stated that he does not know where this debris is coming from and emphasized that the park is for the children. He asked if a solution would be erecting a chain link fence to separate the uses, posting a sign stating no alcoholic beverages in the City park, etc. Mr. Hartman stated he is also concerned about the buoys and their setting at an angle from inland out into the lake which can present a danger to young swimmers. He suggested the buoys be placed square from the dock so swimmers know where they are at. Mr. Hartman stated he does not care if Al & Alma's is making money on their activity but he is concerned about the children. He explained that drivers are looking for a place to park and drop off people which happens often. He stated he has pictures of the buoys being removed, washing out boats in the swimming area, and chemicals on the dock. He stated that this is not a wash dock. Mr. Hartman presented pictures to the Commission and stated this park should be designated for serene uses. Meyer noted that several of the garbage cans contained in the pictures are located on Geyen's property. Mr. Hartman stated he is also concerned about the busses which park in front of the park and block access to others. Also, the busses remain running which causes fumes. He stated that the City of Mound has a leash law and those in violation receive a ticket. However, he has pictures of Geyen's dogs in the park and swimming in the beach. Meyer noted the City of Mound has dOgs at all the parks. Fackler stated there is a restriction against dogs in the park and they need to be leashed. Mr. Hartman stated he understands the need to unload produce but when the produce truck parks by the busses, it blocks all access for others. He presented a picture of the transit cruise which is one of the bigger cruises. Casey asked about the date of these pictures. Mr. Hartman stated some were taken a month ago, others in the last week, and the pictures were just developed today. Botko noted that page 28 of the meeting packet indicates fencing will be provided on both sides of the swimming area to prevent swimmers from climbing onto the docks. She stated that she has never seen any fences. Ms. Geyen advised that there are white ropes on one sid.e, by the dock. She added that kids usually don't climb up that side anyway. Mr. Hartman stated his concern is for the children, their health, welfare, potential for injury, and the debris attracting yellow jackets. He suggested there may be the potential for a dangerous situation for the children using the park. 8 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 Mr. Hildibrandt stated he believes it is time for the Commission to look into this in some depth, including all the related issues. Meyer explained that the Commission is an advisory body with regard to park issues. Meyer agreed with the need to increase dialog and to find a better and more safe arrangement for the buoys. He noted that the parks are heavily used with pedestrian and dog traffic. Pederson suggested a recommendation to the City to research the title and assure there are no double standards. Motion by Pederson, seconded by Casey to recommend that the City Attorney research the Certificate of Title and provide an interpretation for "commercial" as contained in the Title and what restrictions, if any, are contained on the park. If it is discovered there are commercial restrictions the City, posthaste, will use all of its energy and efforts including law suits and citations, to abate the issues of dogs in the park, drinking of liquor in the park, and use of chemicals for boat washing. Casey commented that washing boats in the public swimming beach is not legal and he doubts that Lime-A-Way. is allowed to be placed in public waters. Casey asked if Ms. Geyen or others would like to respond to the comments heard tonight. Ms. Allen stated that if the issues raised, such as broken glass, are to be looked at for this park, they should be looked at for all parks. She stated that she seldom sees broken glass at Chester Park. Ms. Allen suggested that these issues should not be raised as a single-park issue but be related to all City parks. She reviewed her experience in seeing garbage in all garbage cans, regardless of which City park, and that some beverage containers in the garbage cans will draw yellow jackets at all parks. She noted this business has existed 41 years and most of these residents post date that length of time. Mr. DeVinney took exception with that comment and stated that for the majority of his 44 years he has lived at his address. Ms. Allen stated that over the last ten years she has seen improvement. Also, the business has been there 41 years but most of the people have not been in Mound for that long a time. Jay Soule, 5201 Piper Road, Manager for Al & Alma's,. asked if the Commission has specific issues they would like to ask questions about. Casey requested a response to issues raised tonight. Mr. Soule stated there are a lot of issues at hand. On the issue of garbage or garbage cans or garbage in the cans or outside the cans, he stated he met with Fackler and the City Manager. He explained that Al & Alma's have a total of four garbage cans, two on 35 13 9 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 the park property and one located by the pathway from the lake, which they take in and out. Mr. Soule stated he heard no complaints about the garbage cans not being emptied. Mr. Soule stated there was mention about posting signs. He advised they have one sign on each side, on their property, that say no alcoholic beverages allowed. He stated these signs were new last year and there were other signs before that time. Mr. Soule stated there was a comment about a table being in the park. He explained that there are times, with the amount of staff they have, that things happen that normally do not happen, such as using a table to check guests in. He assured the Commission that there is never any business or payment of transaction happening outside for the boats or restaurant. He restated there is never any business conducted in the park itself. He explained that some customers move their tables over into the park because it is a nicer area but the intent is not to conduct "commercial business." Mr. Soule stated there was discussion about the pathway being used for a commercial use. He explained the path to get to the charter boats uses the private path and no charter boats park overnight, which would be a violation. He agreed a lot of people walk on the path to get to the restaurant or their cars. Mr. Soule explained that they give specific instructions to the busses and staff to help traffic get into the area as expediently as possible. The busses do drop people off at the pathway and they are then directed to leave the area as soon as possible. He explained that they are told not to park there but he agreed that some busses may remain running on hotter nights and remain for ten to fifteen minutes. He stated this is on a return basis and the busses are never parked there except for a short time to unload or pick up people. Mr. Soule stated that he is responsible to wash the boats and manage the fleet and he did, at the meeting with Fackler and the City Manager, apologize to them for washing the boats in the lake. Mr. Soule apologized to the audience and agreed that this was not the best way to take care of this. He stated it was eady in the morning and thinks he was done by noon before Fackler visited the site. Mr. Soule explained the boats were not beached and were on his properly but extended into the park swimming area because they are so long. He stated they only do this once or twice a year but will not do it again. He stated there were no kids in the park at all and if they had been there it would not have kept them from anything. Mr. Soule stated the swimming is usually by the neighbor kids using their docks with nothing said or with their permission. He stated there are no fences but there are ropes and no bumpers on their side of the customer dock. However, as discussed before, some of the staff on the docks have moved buoys and they know this is not the right thing to do because management has told them so. He stated that they will address this with staff to prevent that from happening again. 10 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 Casey asked what detergent the boats are washed with. Mr. Soule stated they use a basic Lime-A-Way. product, purchased at the local store, to get the hard water spots off the boats. Mr. Hartman asked if the dogs have ever bit anyone. Mr. Soule stated that Geyens live there and have dogs, they are not corporately owned. He advised that one of the dogs was disposed of last week. Mr. Hartman agreed there are other dogs that run loose in the community but these two particular dogs are often seen in the park. Mr. Soule suggested that the Commission check the police reports and determine if any are specifically related to Geyen's dogs. He stated he does not believe they have bitten anyone. Mr. DeVinney stated if the wind is from the north/northeast, it only takes five minutes of the busses running in front of the park for the diesel fumes to fill his home. He stated he drives diesel trucks for a living and this is a problem. He stated the problem with people congregating on the park beach was not addressed and this happens more often than once in a while. Mr. DeVinney stated another issue that is indirectly related is that he observed what appears to be a double standard on allowing private boats to park on the charter boat docks since a large number of private boats were allowed to park over the last weekend. He commented on some of the congestion which resulted in making room for the charter boats. Mr. Soule asked if the private tennis lessons given in Mound parks would be a commercial use. Casey explained that since the title appears to contain a restriction, it may be a different consideration. Fackler stated the motion on the floor will ask the City Attorney to address the commercial use. He noted that there has been agreement on certain things that need to be improved such as the beach buoys and maintenance by the City. Mr. Soule stated they could place fences if that would be acceptable. Mr. Hartman stated that would be fine with him and address his concern about safety for the children. Mr. Hartman stated that there is an Attorney General report on how to deal with household chemicals such as Lime-A-Way.. Meyer stated this issue has been resolved since they have indicated they will not do that activity again. Mr. Howard stated he does not believe it has been resolved. He noted the many Council resolutions yet violations continue to occur. He asserted there is complicity between the City and charter business and City staff are not neutral with regard to these issues. Mr. Howard commented on the difficulty of controlling employees and every aspect of a large business or what customers will do. He asserted this causes a large impact on every gamut of the neighborhood and City staff needs to change how they look at it. Mr. Howard stated residents have the dght to clean air and property and he is particularly frustrated by what staff is saying and how these issues are being handled. 11 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 Weycker took offense to this comment and stated this is not being lightly considered. Fackler stated he also takes offense and noted that the City has attempted to address these issues and resolve concerns. Weycker stated the City is handling this correctly, staff has checked out the park, and opened discussions. She stated that the Commission and City are willing to work on these issues. Mr. Hartman stated he has not lived in the City as long as Merritt but everyone has property rights. Casey stated they have as much as admitted there is a business operation due to the tables in the park. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Weycker, seconded by Casey to recommend to the City Council that the City staff find and document existing conditional use permit(s), determine the current standing, discuss it with Al & Alma's posthaste, and inform the Commission and neighbors of the CUP status. Fackler stated the City can notify those who have signed in tonight, a representative can be selected by those residents, or a radius of property owners can be notified. He explained the City Attorney's opinion will be received and placed on the Commission's agenda for further discussion. Casey asked why this issue would be back on the Commission agenda if it is determined there is a commercial use that needs to be abated. Fackler stated the appropriate action could be determined. Pederson asked if residents need to address the other factions, such as traffic issues. Meyer stated a lot of the SUP issues are addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Edewaard suggested the City notify people within 350 feet or 1,000 feet of the restaurant. He suggested that 1,000 feet is more appropriate. Fackler stated there is a State standard for notification radius. Casey suggested notification to those within the radius in addition to the audience that registered tonight. Fackler stated notification will be done to meet the standard. Motion carried unanimously. Casey asked if the audience had any other suggestions on how these issues can be addressed. 12 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 10, 1998 Mr. Edewaard stated he would like the City Attorney to look at redress in terms of the signs and general zoning issues and creation of a warning policy and a fine being instituted. Weycker stated that would be addressed in the CUP. Casey stated some things may not be addressed in the CUP such as the public nuisance law addressing noise and pollutants. Ms. Geyen stated she is surprised her neighbors take pictures of what is inside her garage. She stated she always felt very safe to walk around at night and assure all was in order before going to bed at night. She stated that she wants the Commission to know they take very good care of the area and they have been there a long time. With regard to egg hunts, she advised that all, young and old, are welcome to participate and go to Al & Alma's. Ms. Geyen stated they are very safe people, not a drug-oriented area, and employ a lot of people from the area. She stated that they would never put anyone in danger and she wants her neighbors to know they would never hurt any of their kids. Ms. Geyen stated they have owned Al & Alma's for 15 years as of last Sunday and she does not know if the residents want it closed down or partially closed down. She stated she is usually there 24 hours a day. She agreed they should put up buoys but she feels they are not violating all of the rules and regulations. She stated they have made a mistake with washing the boats and will correct that situation. Ms. Geyen stated these comments are coming from her heart and suggested, instead of taking pictures, her neighbors talk with her so they can work things out. Mr. Hartman asked if staff was trying to find the plaque. Fackler stated the plaque has been missing for many years. Mr. DeVinney advised that the plaque had been donated by the Legion in memory of his brother who was killed in Vietnam but it was destroyed quite a while ago. Casey requested an update at the next meeting on the Attorney's research and anything else that has happened. 13 streets and alleys. This is in contradiction with the intent of the Whipple Improvement Association, which s~ecifically state that the park shall always be available for the enjoyment and use of residents of the Whipple plat. Do people use alcohol in Chester Park? Yes they do. More often than not, patrons will buy a beer in a plastic container and walk out the door. Is this any different that offering your neighbor a beer at an ~m?romptu meeting in the street or on a sidewalk? Yes it is. The propensity to drink and drive has increase with the casual cash and carry atmosphere at Al & $?~s. CUP VIOLATIONS: Resolution 85-2, if in effect, re~ires that the trash dum~ster be screened with fencing. The dumpster as it is today can be viewed from several vantage points. Also trash and food containers are left out overnight; are stored at the exterior of the building without appropriate containers; broken and unbroken boxes are frequently left out in plain view of passers by. This 'is an unsatisfactory business practice. Mound city code prohibits the storage of any debris etc. at the exterior of any building. rec~uires a si~n be placed at the Resolution 80-20, if in effect, end of the lot 22, 23 docks and be seen from the lake rea~ "NO BOAT PA~KING" indicatin~ ~ sw4.~ beach ~ a si~n seen fr_~- shore readin~ "NO SWI~4ING FROM DOCK." These signs are not installed. Resolution 80-20 Paragraph 3, if in effect, should be stricken form the CUP. No one should individual unless a properly trained lifeguard should be allowed to open or close a sw~4ng beach. Further, the idea that the sw4,..4ng beach could be closed by an employee of Al & Almas Restaurant is contradictory with the purpose and intent of the gift of Chester park to the city of mound by the Whipple ~m?rovement association. The certificates of title for that gift clearly states that the park be kept open at all time for the use and enjoyment of Whi~pl~ plat residents. We can demonstrate that this condition of the CUP and certificate of title has been violated on several occasions. CUP 80-20 paragraph 3 (b), if in effect, provides that violation of this condition which prohibits docking of boats and in an oblique way also prohibits removal of the sw4...4ng buoys for any reason, will result in revocation of the right to use the restricted area. In essence this condition allows the Al & ~?~s Restaurant staff to close the swimming beach to turn the cruise boats around. This permi'%ted use, if in effect, should be eliminated. It is in direct conflict with the spirit of the gift of Chester park to the city of mound by the Whi~ie ~rovement Association. Additionally, as a result of the POSC meeting September 10, 1998, A1 & $7m~s Restaurant employees aW~.~tted to using the sw~.~ug beach to wash down boats with "limeaway." This use is absolutely prohibited and is contradictory to ~CA hazardous waste fact sheet 4.24(see su~plementai material safety data shaat). Resolution 84-26 1 (f), if in effect, states that '~o boats shall be moored at the transient docks for more than 4 hours." In fact charter boats are frequently moored in these slips overnight or for periods in excess of four hours. And have been beached in the Chester Park sw4mm4ng area on several occasions. Resolution 84-26 1 (~) , if in effect, prohibits "servicing of boats" without equivocation, however we have documented that abrasive ch~.~cals were used to clean the boats while they were moored or beached in the sw~m4ng area of Chester park (see item #4) . Resolution 84-26 (h), if in effect, provides for the construction of one sign not exceeding six square feet. In fact there are several signs of various sizes and shapes exceeding the prescribed six square foot maximum (see map for locations). All signs should be remove. We are not aware of any permits for signs located on private and public property that identify aspects of Al & ~?m~s Restaurant and Charter Boat Service. Mound city code section 365 provides specific guidelines for signage in the city. We have document violations of this code section for approximately 3 years for some signs and as much as 8 years for one sign that is chained to the street sign on the corner of Island Park Skelly. Mound Ordinances provide specific penalties for violating the sign ordinance these penalties should be levied ~,..ediately; and since the violation is clearly egregious the maximum penalty for each violation should be multiplied by the term of years the ordinance has been violated. This is not a s~le oversight. Either the city staff is not doing their job properly or a dangerous level of complicity exists. Mound taxpayers should be reimbursed for this obnoxious inconvenience. Resolution 84-26 1 (I), if in effect, should be removed to maintain the spirit and intent of the gift of chester park to the city of mound by the Whipple improvement association. Resolution 84-26 1 (k) states that the parking lot should have 34- 9x20 spaces, and clearly d~rcates property boundaries. In fact the parking lot is too small for a restaurant with a capacity of 200 diners, and 5+ charter boats all with a minimum capacity of 60 persons (see paragraph for more parking analysis). Resolution 84-26 paragraph 2 (d), if in effect, requires a sign be placed on the eastern side indicating that no private watercraft be moored at these slips. In fact at the 091098 POSC meeting A1 & $?m~s Restaurant staff aF,.~tted that the customers bully the attendants and moor their watercraft anywhere they please. Al & Almas Restaurant staff clearly lack the ability or knowledge of these regulation to effectively o~erate under the CUP that they currently enjoy. Resolution 84-26 para. 4, if in effect, prohibits any servicing of boats. We can demonstrate that this condition has been violated continuously (see item 4). Resolution 94-69, if in effect, is clearly in contradiction with previously passed Resolution 84-26 1 (a) which states that "no further expansion of these docks over the plan a~proved and on file with the city" will be allowed. Clearly the City of Mound lacks the ability to effectively aW,.~nister the conditions of their CUP and Zoning ordinances. Resolution 97-104 condition ?, if in effect, states that "deliveries continue to be hand/ed on site and not on the street." "In fact all deliveries have been and continue to be from the street. This area is restrictive and does not provide adequate area for co.,.ercial deliveries. The streets are too narrow for either co...ercial bus or heavy freight carrier traffic. On a daily basis semi trailers block traffic while loading and unloading food and beverages from the street to their restaurant and home of the Geyens. Resolution 97-104 Condition 2, if in effect, states "the vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be allowed." The vacant lot south of the restaurant and vacated portion of Hanover road are in fact used as parking lots for A1 & AT~s Restaurant employees and patrons on a daily basis. Parking, pedestrian, and use probi~m~. One main obstacle to driving on tuxedo boulevard at the posted speed of 30 mph is getting stuck driving behind someone looking for A1 & ~?m~s Restaurant for their scheduled charter boat ride. Once they come upon the area they find that the parking lot is roped off and there are not any parking spaces available in front of the restaurant. Mound City code section 350:750 Traffic Control states in part that "Traffic generated by any use shall be channelized and controlled in a manner that will avoid: (a) congestion on the public streets, (b) traffic hazards, (c) excessive traffic through residential areas, particularly truck traffic." That ordinance further states that "Traffic into and out of business area .... be forward movin~ ..... with no backing into streets" Resolution 84-26, 1 (k) clearly requires A1 & Almas Restaurant to bring the parking area located on Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26 block 9 Whi~le into compliance with previously issued CUP. Mound city code section 350:760 subd., 2 (a) requires all parking spaces be 10 feet wide and 20 feet in length, which are subject to Mound City Code Section 350:760, Subd., 3 (c) which requires curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot, and (d), which states that a fence 'of four to five feet is required on the residential property line of the parking area. Section 350:760, Subd., 4 prohibits parking of buses in platted residential areas or public streets except when rendering a service. We as residents are not T~easonable when we ask that these a~plications of the ordinances be ~m?lemented 4~ediately. This section of the permit needs further review. It is evident that A1 & Almas Restaurant does not own Lots 25 and 26 block 9 Whil~ple today. Section 350:760, Subd., 5 (m) reasonably prescribes I space for three seats base on capacity design. Our estimates are conservative, based on the capacity of 5+ cruise boats being 60 persons each and restaurant capacity at 200 (surmised from discussion with co-,,ercial vendors of A1 & ~ ?mas Restaurant) there should be enough parking for 160 automobiles or 32000 sq. feet of parking not including traffic lanes. We calculate that there is less than 20,000 feet of parking on the south side of Tuxedo Boulevard. And approximately 1000 feet of legal parking s~aces on the restaurant side of Tuxedo Boulevard. Short of parking vehicles on lawn and other residential properties, there is not adequate parking for this business as it exists today. Section 350:525 Subd., 1 (e) requires that adequate measures be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dus t, and noise ........ so that none of these will constitute a nuisance ............. in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. We contend that parking a bus and not turning the engine off for three hours certainly is evidence enough that this ordinance is totally in effective as a deterrent. The 080481 agreement with Bud Nolan, if in effect, should be modified to remove paragraph 5, which entitles use of the south western alley and establishes it as a public walkway. No public hearing was conducted to establish this right of way. 5 Octob~ 14. 1~7 RESOLUTION/~/-104 RF_,SOL~ON TO APPROVE AN EXISTING CONDmONAL USE PERMIT WHIPpLe., PID 2~117-24 21 01.66 WI:[b2RFAS, the owners, Merrit and Darryl Geyen, have applied for a conditional use permit for an expansion of their restaurant; and, WH~., the restaurant is defined as a ~ 1 (Traditional Restaurant) which is allowed in the B-3 district as a conditional use; and, W'H]~F. AS, an.iilxtate of the previous conditional use permit is required because of the nature of the proposed improvements; and, the seating capacity will not change; and, wm~gAS, staff recommends approval the and planning commission unanimously recommend approval with conditions. NOW, THERE~RE, BE IT RI~-qOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves an existing conditional use permit for A1 and Alma's Supper Club with the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. 5. Deliveries continue to be handled on-site and not on the street. The vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be allowed. Any landscaping removed with the improvements be replaced. All prior conditional use decisions be upheld. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year from the approval date at no cost to the applicant. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Counci!members voted in the negative: none. Councilmember~ Jensen was absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk CASE NO. 84-374 0R~D1NANCE NO. 265 Cz} AN ORDINANCE A~NDING SECTION 2}.011, SUHDIVISION (d) OF THE ZONING CODE TO ?F~IT OFF STREET PA~RKING AS A USE BY SP~IAL P~LRMIT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING STANI)ADS C~ The Village Ccunci~ of the Village of Mound do ordain: Section 23.011, Subdivision d is amended to add subsection 10 which shall read as follows: 10. Off Street Parking. As a transitional use to act as a buffer between Residential property and property in a different use district, off street parking may be permitted upon securing a Special Use Permit from the Council after a public hearing and receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Said public hearing shall be preceded by 10 days written notice mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of any lot line of the property to be used for off street parking. The Appli- cation for a Special Permit shall contain the following infor- mation: a. A scale drawing of the property proposed for said use, showing: 1. the dimensions of the premises, 2. any structures located within or without 50 feet of the boundary line of land under consideration, 3. a detailed plan with parking spaces shown in accordance with all of the standards established by Section subd. (i) of this code. b. A landscape and site plan, which may be a part of the scale drawing required in the preceding subsection. Said plan shall show: 1. adequate means of acqess to a public alley or street, 2. lighting of said parking area which shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent land in residential use, ). a six-foot closed fence of adequate design to be erected along all residential property lines but not in the front yard setback, and subject to all provisions of Sec. 55.17 (c) Mound Code of Ordinances, 4. setbacks shall be as follows: (a) frqnt yard - same as required for construction of a structure in the sa~e use district, (b) side yard and rear yard - 5 feet. c. Any special use permit shall be conditional to require the owner of said premises to maintain said area in a neat an4 clean manner and in accordance with the standards establishe4 in preceding Sections a and b. Off street parking in a Residential District shall not be Ordinance No, 2~ Pase 2 allowed if said use will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighbor- hood or if said use will have an adverse effect upon traffic or traffic safety. Passed by the Village Council March 10p 1970 Published in' the official newspaper March 19, 1970 C) 7o.-18~ 7-1&-70 P,S, SOLUT~ON ~o. 70-18~ RESOLUTION OE~NTINO SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PARXINO. IN A RESID~ ~AE ~SE.AREA. (Al a Alma' s) e WHEP~FAS~ a public hearing was held on July 14, 1970 at the Village Hall in Island Park to hear a proposal to establish off street parking as a use by speci, al permit on Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 2~, and .2.6, Block 9, Whipple, for A1 and Alma' s, NOW, THEP~FOR~., BE IT RF~SOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COI~CIL OF H)LI~D, H3UND, MINNESOTA: '. That A1 and Alma's be authorized to use Lots 20,21,22,23,25 and 26, Block 9, Whipple, zoned Residential A-2, as a parking lot by special use permit. BE IT FORTHER RESOLVED: That Site Plan marked, "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hbreof amended to -]~ow a variance as to front yard setback, said setback to 'be 15 feet measured parallel to Tuxedo Road, requiring all setback areas to be sodded and subject ~o all other provisions of Sec. 23.011 Subd. (d) Subsectiom ten (10) of %he Zoning Ordinance, be approved. Adopted by the ?i~lage Council this 14th da~r of'July, 1970. 70-189 7-14-70 00. O' HANOVER ROAD .$' i 70-20(; e-l~.-70 BESOLOTION NO. 70-20(; RESOLUTION AMEND~ RESOLUTION NO. 70-189 TO INCLUDE A SWALE ACROBB PARKING LOT TO TAEE CAEE OF DRaINAgE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL 0~ MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA~ That Resolution No. 70-189 adopted 7-14-70, "Granting Speotal Use Permit for Parking T. A Residential Use Area - A1 & Alma's" 'be amended to include a swale across ~he parking lot to take care of &rainage. Adopted by the Counoil thio llth d~ of August,' lV7O. C 72-80 RESOLUTION NO. 72-80 RESOLUTION DIRECTING LAKE CONBEHYATION DISTRICT TO ISSUE CC~CIAL DOCK PERMIT (To A1 & Al~a~ s) the Lake )Cinnetonke Conservation Distx-iot will not issue multiple' and commercial dock permits until they have the w~itten approval of the ~unioipality within which the dock is located, and W~m~AS, by Resolution No. 72-79 A1 & Alma's vas granted a d~k permit to be constructed in accordance with the stipulations noted therein, ]~OW, ~me~ _~?ORE, RE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, That the Lake P~tnnstonha Conservation Dietriot be advised that A1 and Alma's have been granted · dook pex~ait ia aooordanoe with Resolution No. 72-79. Adopte~ by the Counoil this llth day o£ April, 1972. RESOLUTION NO. 72-79 RESOLUTION GP,~'~I'I2((~ SPECIAL US~ PE1LMIT (~ot 1, Block 3, Whipple) by Resolution No. 72-55 adopted ~rch 14, 1972 a hearing was set for April 11, 1972 to detex~e whether or not a special use permit should be grated to A1 ~u~ A~'e for · oomaer~ial dock in residential zoning, and the hearing was held on April 4, 1972, NOW, TI~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, NiNNESOTA~ That a Special Use Permit for Commercial Dock in Residential sorting be granted to A1 & Alma's on Lot 1, Block ~, Whipple with the following stipulations~ 1. Comply with Ordinance No. 294. 2. Install lighting as shown on scale drawing, including · safeguard street, light on the shoreline. ~.. Install docka as shown on scale d~awing. 4. Install reflective material on the end of the geck. ~. The scale drawing ts to be part of the ~erait. Agopt, e4 '1~ the Cotmcil this llth d~y of April, 1972. 30~ July 17, 1979 Councilmember Ulrick moved the f'ollowing resolutlon, RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 290 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED PARKING LOT PLAN FOR AL AND ALMA'S WHEREAS, Mr."Bud" Nolan, owner of business known as A1 and Alma's Restaurant, located at 5201 Piper Road, has presented Council with plans for ex- pansion of parking.area, and WHEREAS, said plans ha~ been amended and resubnitted 'to Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council do~s hereby authorize and approve the amended'pa~ing lot plan as submitted for A1 and Alma's. A motion for the adoption of the'foregoing resolution.was duly seconded by Coun¢ihnember Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Swenson and Ulrlck, the following voted against the same; none, with Polston and Withhart being absent. Whereupon, said reso!ution was declared passed and adopted,.slgned by the Ma~or and his signature attested by the City Clerk. s/TimLovaasen Mayor ttest:~CItY C ' 20 January 8, 1980 Councilmember Swenson moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 80-20 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AL & ALMA'S TO HAVE A DOCK PERMIT & TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS WHEREAS, Mr. Nolan, the owner of A! and Alma's has appeared before this Council regarding a dock permit located in a residential neighborhood and ad- jacent to City Swimming Beach in Island Park, and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Park'Advisory Commission and Mr. Nolan has asked for a variance to the recommendation to allow his two boats to dock in the restricted area when the swimming beach is closed and Mr. Nolan has assured this Council that if this creates any problem with this arrangement the Council can amend the permit to de- lete approval to dock boats in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: A1 and Alma's (Bud Nolan) is authorized to construct a dock on his land west of the City's swimming beach subject to the following conditions: e A1 and Alma's dock extension shall have a sign on the end of the dock, the side of the sign seen from the lake shall read, "NO BOAT PARKING" and have an arrow pointing toward the City beach, the side of the sign seen from shore shall read "NO SWIMMING FROM DOC~'. A1 and Alma's shall construct a line prohibiting access to the east frQm his dock and runnin~ to the east to the east line of the City swimming beach and then southerly to the shoreline.The floatation de- vice shall be constructed pursuant to the Park AdviSory recommendation as set forth in Council Memo 80-14 dated 1-3-80. .Buoy lines and float- .ation devides shall be paid for by A1 and Alma's and constructed under direction of the City Staff· The area described in paragraph 2 shall not be used for boat docking except under the following conditions: a After the swimming beach is closed. b. The fioatation device shall contain a locking device which can be opened only by employees of A1 and Alma's and shall be used only by the two cruise boats owned by A1 and Alma's. No other boats may be allowed in this restricted area under any conditions and violation of the provision will result in revocation of the right to use the restricted area. c. This permit shall be renewed annually. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Polston//and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor there- of;.LovaasegCPolston, Swenson, Withhart and Ulrick, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed ! by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. I R/Tim Mayor .ces~.~ CMC City Clerk C AGREEMENT This agreement entered into this ~ day of ~ , 1981 between the City of Mound, hereinafter referred to as the City, and Bud Nolan, hereinafter referred to as Nolan: WHEREAS, the City licenses the issuance of commercial docks and Nolan applied for such a dock permit in 1981, and WHEREAS, the construction and installation of said dock infringed upon an area lying in front of a publicly dedicated alley and Lot 24 which is now called Chester Park, all of which are open to the public, and WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen concerning the construction of that dock and/or the removal of the easterly most section of said dock to bring it into compliance with the City's requirements, and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the City Manager to meet with Nolan to discuss and settle this matter so that in the future there will be no misunderstanding, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has met and discussed the problem with Nolan and they have arrived at the following agreement, which is being recommended to the City Council: 1. The City will install permanent monuments along the westerly line of the alley which abuts Chester Park. Said permanent monuments will be posts or some other marker established along the property line and will provide a site line to the lake which can be followed in any dock installation. 2. The dock as it currently exists will be allowed to remain for the balance of the 1981 season, but Nolan agrees that for the 1982 season he will reapply for his dock license and permit and he will keep the dock on his property, and he further agrees that he will meet and abide by any and all conditions established by the City Council in the issuance of his 1982 permit. 5. At the conclusion of the 1981 season the dock owned by Nolan will be removed frem the lake and will be stored on private property and not on the public alley or Chester Park. 4. Nolan agrees that no boats under his control will be allowed on the Chester Park beach side of Nolan's dock, that being the easterly side of the most easterly dock finger. S. The area being used as a walkway to Nolan's dock is a publicly dedicated alley and he agrees to advise the City if he observes any problems on this walkway such as erosion or other things which would create any form of hazard to the public. 6. Nolan agrees to help keep Chester Park free and clear of litter and debris and when he or his staff are in the area they agree to collect and dispose of trash and litter, some of which may be placed in the park by people using the co,,,,tercial dock. 7. Nolan further agrees that this agreement and understanding may be used by the City to enjoin any further violation of dock permit issued by or in force in the City. - C Approved by the City Council this MayoY~ / / - ,~.. / -- it~~g~r C -3- 168 April 28, 1981 Councilmember Ulrick moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 81-150 RESOLUTION ALLOWING VARIANCE AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 5 - IN NOT MAINTAINING THE 10 FEET OUT AND PARALLEL TO THE LOT LINE WHEREAS, in Resolution 81-~5 Council had approved the following: "That Council does hereby concur with the Park Commission recommendation with an additional stipulation regarding construction of a barrier four feet east of most easterly dock from ground level to four feet above water level, at time of construction. Be it further noted that there be no section of dock stored on the public property of beach but stored on owners own private property, and that dock be so constructed with a 10 ft. setback on the right side (swim beach side) with a barrier on the beach side of dock or pier, so that no boat could dock or disembark on the beach side. NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby reconsider Res. 81-95 and does allow variance as shown in exhibit 5 r in not malntalni:ng the 10 feet out and parallel to the lot line Let it be further noted, that all stipulations and requirements as stated in Resolution 81-95 are to remain the same with the exception of not maintaining the 10 foot out and ~rallel to the lot llne. A motion for the adoption of ~he foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Charon and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof; Charon, Lindlan, Polston, Swenson and Ulrick, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Acting City Clerk. Attest: Acting City Clerk LAKE M/ H NE TONKA COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. MINNEAPOLIS and HUTCHINSON. MINN£$O?A 5770 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 86-26 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT DOCKS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA (LOTS 22, 23 & 25, WHIPPLE SHORES, AND LOT. I, BLOCK 3, WHIPPLE) TO SERVE PROPERTY LOCATED IN A BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, A1 &'Alma's is a restaurant located at 5201 Piper Road, and said restaurant is now owned and operated by Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen, and WHEREAS, the Geyens also' have acquired and own Lots 22, 23 and 25 of Whipple Shores and Lot 1, Block 3, Whipple, and WHEREAS, the Geyens purchased A1 & Alma's from J. W. Nolan who p, eviously operated the restaurant and a commercial dock which was located on Lot 25, Whipple Shores, and Lot 1, Block 3, Whipple, all of which was authorized by this Council in Resolution ~81-1~9,.and WHEREAS, A1 and Alma's also-owns and operate~'a parking lot on Lots 22 and 23, Block 9, Whipple and said parking lot was constructed pursuant to Conditional Use Permits issued by this Council, and WHEREAS, the Geyens have nob purchased Lots 22 and 23 of Whipple Shores and have applied to this Council for a dock to be constructed on these residential lots and to serve commercial property, all pursuant to Section 23.413 ~f the City Code, and WHEREAS, neighboring property owners have expressed concerns about not expanding the commercial establishment into the residential areas through th~ ut.ilization of residential properties to serve A1 & Alma's Restaurant, and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 14, 1984, and listened to members of the public and to the applicants express their proposals, and WHEREAS, the City' Council is willing t~ renew a conditional use permit for the Geyens along terms which are similar to those established by Resolution ~81-149 for Nolans, but has some reservations-about authorizing the expansion of the commercial' use by the construction of a commercial dock on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores but is willing to authorize a permit for the storage of four excursion cruise boats owned by Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen at'~e docks on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores and will also allow the loading and unloading of passengers from the area as shown on the submitted design plan (Exhibit A), but any permit on any of these lots must be subject ~o all of the safety conditions and to approval of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. NOW. THEREFOR£. BE IT R£SOL¥£D by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as folIo~s: 1. A commercial dock may be located on Lot 25, Whipple Shores~ and ~-ot 1, Block 3, Whipple, pursuant to Section 23.~13 of the City Code and consistent with the dock as it was construction in 1983 when owned by J. W. Nolan, and subject to the following conditions: There shall be no further expansion of these docks over the plan approved and on file with the City. be The permit shall run to Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen, owners of A1 and Alma's Restaurant at 5201 Piper Road. If the business is sold, this permit shall immediately terminate and any new owner will have to apply for a new conditional use permit· -That the monuments constructed pursuant to Resolution #81-1~9 be located and retained in place so that the dock wiYl be placed in.the same location each year. The Council finds pursuant to the Ordinance that the residential property is within 300 feet of the commercial property, line of A1 and Alma's ReStaurant. No bo.ets shall be moored at these transient docks for any period in excess of four hours. No gas, oil or other product may be sold from the dock and no servicing of. bo~ts will be permitted. The gas tank for boat gas currently installed on Lot l, Block 3, Whipple, shall either be removed and the landscape repaired or dealt with according to the Fire Code and approved by the Fire ChieF. The owners may construct one ~ign for identification, 'but it shall not exceed a total of six'square feet in size. Ingress and egress from and over the residential properties shall be restricted to the properties owned by Daryl C. and Merritt Oeyen, and adequate safeguards shall be provided so that persons docking thelr boats will not trespass on private property or on Chester Park or any other public property except for properly designated streets or sidewalks. .,..F~bruary 28, l~Bq J. The owners shall be required to apply for a permit and comply with all standards and requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Until said approval is obtained and filed with the City of Mound, this permit shall not become effective. k. Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen shall be required to bring their parking lot into conformance with all the provisions set forth in the previously issued conditional use permits which are attached hereto and made a part of this permit (Exhibits B, C, D, and E). 2. The City of Mound does approve the construction of a dock in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores, which properties are owned by Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen, but said dock is subject to the following restrictions and conditions: a. The dock shall be an "h" shaped dock as shown on the submitted~ design attached hereto and marked Exhibit A. This dock shall be contructed for the sole purpose of docking four cruise boats owned by Daryl C. and Merritt Geyen, and said cr'uise boats may be store in this area only if this .permit is approved by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The conditional use permit being granted to Lots 22 and 2B, Whipple Shores s~all be only for the excursion boats, whereas the conditional use permit-granted in Section 1 of this Resolution shall in effect serve transient boaters utilizing the docks who come to A1 and Alma's for' restaurant service. b. The loading and unlo.aiing of passengers from the docks located on Lots 22 and 2B, Whipple Shores shall only be from the area shown on' the submitted design plan. Daryl and Merritt Geyen shall be responsible for installing and maintaining a bituminous walkway to be constructed on private property (Lot 2B) to allow access to the docks located on Lots 22 and 2B, Whipple Shares. The location of the bituminous walkway is shown on the attached Exhibit A. c. Any lights constructed near the dock area on Lots 22 and. 23, Whipple Shones, shall be in such a manner that there shall be no disturbance to neighboring properties. The criteria set forth in Section 23.505 of the City.'s zoning code-shall apply to both docks. There shall ~e no transient parking on Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores, but these four boats' ma2 be stored for 2q hours each day. The maxmimum number of boats which may be stored in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores CJ February 28, 198~ shall be four, and the maximum length shall be 52 feet for any boat, and only these boats my be stored on this property. A sign shall b~' p~aced on this dock indicating that no parking of boats is allowed except for the four designated cruise brats. ~~t ~ Permanent-posts and barrels will be installed by he owner in such a manner as to prevent boats from. entering the swimming area at Chester Park and fencing will be provided on both docks to prevent swimmers from climbing onto the docks or from diving or jumping from the docks. 4. No gas,' oil or other products may be sold from either of the docks, and no servicing of any boats will be permitted. 5. The applicants shall maintain all beach areas in a neat and clean manner, and when A1 and Alma's Restaurant is open, dock hands shall be on the dock from 5:00 P.M. on weekdays until closing; and from 5:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays until closing to assist boat owners in lansing and using th~' transient docks. It shall also be the responsibility of these dock hands to make sure that the transient boaters Are not utilizinK the docks in front of Lots-22 and 23, Whipple Shores, which as ~r~v'ibusly stated is for the 4 excurs.ion boats. -- 6. The applicants shall file with the City Clerk a performance bond or cash deposit in the sum of $500.00 on or before April 1, 1984, and said bonds or funds shall be hel~ until the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has issued their approval and the docks have been inspected and approved by the City Dock Inspector at which time the funds shall be released to the Geyens. If the docks are not in compliance with this permit, the City may utilize said performance bond or funds to bring them into compliance or may immediately revoke the permit for t.bese docks. The foregoing resolution was moved by Coun.~ilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Charon. The follOwing Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:. none. Attest: City Clerk 'May'or j. Januar~ 8, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-2 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 10.~ FOOT BI 27.8 FOOT ADDITION IN LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 8, WHIPPLE PID ~25-11T-2~ 21 0016 & 0017 (5201 PIPER ROAD) WHEREAS, the City Council on January 8, 1985, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for PID 125-117-2~ 21 0015 and 0017 at 5201 Piper Road, for the construction of a 10.~ foot by 27.8 foot addition to the existing structure which would permit kitchen improvements that are necessary for improved operations and health; and WHEREAS, the expansion will not increase the seating' capacity of the restaurant nor the parking requirement; and WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, businesses within the B-3 Neighborhood zone are allowed through a conditional use permit and the existing A1 and 'Alma's Supper Club is a nonconforming, grandfathered use; and WHEREAS, the present Lots 1 and 2 are zoned B-3, and Lot ~.is zoned R-3, and the present structure does not meet required setbacks on the north and west sides; and WHEREAS, the proposed building addition fits into the southwest corner of the building.taking wall alignments from the existing western and southern walls which results in the setbacks remaining the same as the existing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the Conditional Use Per,it is hereby..granted as aforementioned with the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted for the proposed alteration be .' made part of the requested approval as Exhibit A, dated 11-20-8~. 2. Provide that the dumpster that presently sits in the vicinity of the addition be relocated to a suitable location on the property and screened with wooden fencing. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. .%. $87! .o : · T.'-'I CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT August 1998 66.67% 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 August 1998 YTD PERCENT 1,271,520 0 638,479 (633,041) 50.21% 4,780 315 4,143 (637) 86.67% 105,300 16,333 84,494 (20,806) 80.24% 950,850 634 491,834 (459,016) 51.73% 50,650 1,012 8,885 (41,765) 17.54% 85,000 7,017 55,107 (29,893) 64.83% 71,000 2,782 28,687 (42,313) 40.40% 43,500 0 0 (43,500) 0.00% 194.350 1.034 8.914 (185.436) 4.59% TOTAL REVENUE 2.776.950 628,813 ~ (1.456.407) 47.55% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 360,220 16,235 276,672 (83,548) 76.81% 118,920 21,788 92,215 (26,705) 77.54% 1,530,000 158,634 1,093,680 (436,320) 71.48% 451,000 41,127 282,752 (168,248) 62.69% 924,000 87,109 673,635 (250,365) 72.90% 5,100 1,200 5,350 250 104.90% 77,300 504 73,644 (3,656) 95.27% 09/11/98 rev98 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT August 1998 66.67% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers August 1998 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE PERCENT VARIANCE EXPENDED 71,610 4,901 49,434 22,176 69.03% 4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00% 3,000 127 4,222 (1,222) 140.73% 210,970 14,466 143,254 67,716 67.90% 13,200 217 2,065 11,135 15.64% 62,450 62,086 62,278 172 99.72% 172,710 32,805 130,250 42,460 75.42% 18,550 964 14,483 4,067 78.08% 86,460 9,138 67,123 19,337 77.63% 990,170 68,785 622,087 368,083 62.83% 4,250 1,445 3,309 941 77.86% 173,280 18,209 114,855 58,425 66.28% 420,820 36,854 294,368 126,452 69.95% 103,380 3,766 69,927 33,453 67.64% 192,380 17,875 151,124 41,256 78.55% 37,290 0 0 37,290 0.00% 45,000 25,489 36,781 8,219 81.74% 167.430 13.953 111.620 55.810 66.67% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 31 t .080 1,88t ,180 895,770 67.74% 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 5,868 185,986 174,234 51.63% 8,194 107,832 18,998 85.02% 13,374 145,395 69,805 67.56% 27,218 277,670 167,730 62.34% 76,340 703,454 277,566 71.71% 690 4,465 2,245 66.54% 4,455 74,064 2,596 96.61% Exp-98 09111198 G.B. Ct RECEIVED SEP 15 Hennepin County ~ An Equ. ol Opportunity Empbyer Jeff Spartz, County Administrator September 11, 1998 C~ Dear Community Colleague, We're moving ahead to select two collaboratives for a pilot project on human services planning and coordination in the West Hennepin area, as well as an oversight committee! As one of a large number of people that participated in the year-long community input process leading up to this development, we want to update you on recent activities. Enclosed for your information are several documents: · Report on the five focus groups held in February of 1998 (you may have received this report in a previous mailing). · Report on the two community forums held in June of 1998 at which revised recommendations were presented regarding two pilot collaborative projects and an oversight group. · Draft charters for the proposed pilot collaborative projects and oversight group that were developed after the community forums. As a result of the two community meetings and our subsequent work group meetings, family services collaboratives in the Hopkins and Westonka school districts are being approached regarding their interest in becoming pilot collaborative projects. In addition, members are being solicited for the proposed oversight group. Once two pilot collaboratives are confirmed and the oversight group membership is finalized, the pilot project will commence and the oversight group will officially replace our current West Hennepin City/County-Working Group. The oversight group will then become responsible for communicating future activities and developments to all appropriate organizations and individuals. We want to thank you for your involvement and interest in this project, and for your commitment to the human services needs of the residents of Western Hennepin County. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to call Rex Holzemer at 348-3456. Sincerely, West Hennepin City/County-Working Group Kathy Luekert Asst. City Manager City of Plymouth Steve Mielke City Manager City of Hopkins James Hurm City Manager City of Shorewood Patrick Wussow City Manager City of Tonka Bay Rex Holzemer Pr. Admin. Assistant . Hennepin County Administration Hennepin County Administration A 2303 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0233 (612) 348-7574 FAX (612) 348-8228 TDD (612) 348-7367 Recycled Paper REPORT ON FOCUS GROUPS CONDUCTED Coordinating Western Hennepin County Human Services ·.. today's urban leadership demands advanced skills: inventive collaborations, regional alliances, outreach to neighborhoods and sensitivity in such complex areas as police and schools. tNeal R. Peirce, national columnist on state and local affairs BACKGROUND The purpose of this project is to discover how to best assess needs and coordinate human services that effectively and efficiently serve the residents in the 25 communities of western Hennepin County. Also, the purpose is to build community ownership of a structure for meeting those needs. The project evolved from informal discussions involving Hennepin County. administration and officials from the cities of Hopkins, Plymouth, Shorewood, St. Louis Park and Tonka Bay. They became a city-county working on how human services needs could be met appropriately following the demise of Suburban Alliance, one of three suburban human services councils in Hennepin County. The first step in the project was to learn about approaches for cobrdinating and delivering human services. More than 120 telephone interviews were conducted. The interviews were with Hennepin County commissioners representing the western suburbs, elected and appointed officials from the municipalities, staff from the cities, staff of provider agencies, school district officials, members of faith communities, citizen volunteers and recipients. In the second step, the city-count~ working group reviewed the data and developed a draft model that would assess current and future human service needs, promote coordination of services, improve communications, maintain accountability, and encourage joint decision-making. This model was presented to five focus groups. The third step was to conduct five focus groups. Seventy-one people participated. VV'rth some differences, the information gathered was quite consistent. Eleven major themes emerged from this information and they are summarized below, as are recommendations from the city-county working group on how to develop this effort. MAJOR THEMES Suburban Alliance There. Was concern that this might be another Suburban Alliance, where citizen participation was lost. As one participant put it: same old, same old. Suburban Alliance, however, could step back and see the bigger picture, it could advocate for emergency service dollars, and it could make comments to the County. These aspects are still needed. Collaboration The focus on collaboration concerned many. Some were concerned that the answer for a specific structure was being prescribed before the goals of planning and coordination were really clear. Overall planning needs to come first. Collaborations are time consuming and it is difficult to bring people together. Collaboration is hard and ambiguous. In addition, most collaborations are school based, focus on specific issues and do not serve overall human service needs in their communities. At the same time, people emphasized the need for grass-roots decision-making and agencies working together to serve needs and reduce turf. The framework for collaboration was good although the word "collaboration" is problematic. Support for skill development in bringing people together, strengthening and broadening participation, and resolving conflicts was encouraged. Funding Committed dollar support for this effort over time was acknowledged as crucial. Answers on how to make that happen were not as strong. An overall plan, however, is needed to prevent splintering. Incentives, however they might happen, should not become a "stick." But credit needs to be given to make this work. And the reasons why certain agencies are funded should be made clear. Many felt money should go to the communities for maximum application to needed services. Local money (e.g. from municipalities) should stay in the community and not go to support a regional office. And the money should be spent as the local community believes it should to best meet the needs of that area. Existing Efforts Very strongly, many reported there was little recognition of existing efforts. Examples were cited repeatedly as models: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency, Day One, Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners, WeCan, Prism, Interfaith Community Association. The Alliance for Families and Children (School Redesign), in development for six years, was seen by many as a possible vehicle to deliver the planning and coordination. It was recognized, however, that the present mission does not cover the broader issues of seniors, transportation, mental health, etc. It was also recognized that the Alliance is very much school-based. Regardless of what develops, many stressed the need to build upon existing collaborations and structures to foster local ownership. Don't re-invent and don't add layers, many said. Leverage existing efforts. Focus' The focus needs to be on all of the western region. Transportation, for example, is a major issue. Those areas west of 494 often feel left out. And the consumers should not be forgotten. While the focus does need to be on the broader issues of transportation, housing, etc., meeting the human service needs of residents in the area is what this is all about. Consumers need to be represented. 2 Geogra_ohy of the Area Many recognized the need to keep a regional focus. When it comes to organizing, however, smaller geographical areas were stressed by many. It was recognized that municipal boundaries don't match school districts, and that makes organizing difficult. Similarly, providers have overlapping territories. Many saw the need for perhaps more than one planning effort because people identify on a sub-region basis. The needs are different in different areas. In addition, parts of the region, such as the smaller municipalities bordering Wright County, go unrecognized to the point where Wright county provides services in Hennepin County. Role of the County There are very strong feelings that this coUld be too County-centered. Flexibility might, therefore, be lost as the County focuses on accountability within planning, contracting, etc. Having clout with the County would be difficult also. Some felt planning and coordination have historically not been well supported. At the same time, the county has the greatest access to data and is in the best position to do data gathering and analysis as well as coordinate planning and technical assistance. This assistance, however, should not be located downtown. Measurement/Accountability Some said they were tired of outcome-based sen/ices, especially when trying to measure something like information and referral. At the same time, many responded that the outcomes are needed; greater accountability is wanted. A clear mission is crucial. Outcomes must focus on the needs of the recipients and not make agencies look good. How services are organized should follow the desired measurable goals. The collaborations and the providers should serve the outcomes .based on community needs. The whole emphasis should be on being responsive to individuals and families. The data should show the impact on the people. Too many people fall though the cracks. Have providers be responsible for what they're given and what they do, but not for demonstrating need. Accountability for meeting needs and providing services should rest with the community. Right now, providers are responsible to the County, and what is expected varies based on what different commissioners want. Participation Many people are worn out. Different and expanded players are needed. Greater representation from recipients, communities of color, and Iow income people is needed. Participation by local communities and school districts is very important, as is by agencies. Both citizen input and agency cooperation' are crucial, but perhaps they are separate efforts. Functions Needed Regional planning, research and' coordination is very important. All of this needs to come together in one visible access point for information. What's out there, including needs and best practices, should be known and communicated, communicated, communicated in user friendly ways. $ 3 Other functions are needed: technical assistance, organizing, convening, advocacy, and fostering the creation of efforts for which there is little capacity in communities. In addition, a system that links providers would be very helpful. All of this needs to support the provision of services. Structure Don't add layers and bureaucracy and meetings!! Don't duplicate local efforts. Keep it simple and small; grow as needed. The emphasis should be on meshing what is here because successful efforts are ad hoc. Keep things fluid. People come together when they have a reason to come together; structures evolve to respond. Use County resources for planning, research and coordination. Keep control local. Hire people for special needs and then have them move on. RECOMMENDATIONS With input from the telephone interviews and the five focus groups, the city-county working group concluded that overall functions of on-going planning, technical assistance and regional advocacy contained in the draft model are still needed. Relying on local collaborations is still the best vehicle for delivery, as they are to the greater extent community/citizen based and most in-tune With local needs. And the need for municipalities as well as school districts to become more involved remains important, because the trends are increasingly to localize recognition of need and delivery of services. Beyond those conclusions, the working group saw the need to focus on the purpose of this project-- to discover how to best assess needs and coordinate human services that effectively and efficiently serve the residents in the 25 municipalities of western Hennepin County and to build community ownership of a structure for meeting those needs. In addition, the working group realized that the data from the focus groups showed that community must be central, efforts need to build on what exists, and the project should proceed by starting small and then expand as everyone learns. Recommended Community-based approach Given the stated purpose and the input from the focus groups, the following recommendations are being made as the basis for further community input: Process Responsibility Results Research and report community indices on assets and liabilities. County: staff provides demographic, trend, service and utilization data from county and state sources; Community: augments data by local community information gathering. Each Community has tailored information applicable to its needs and assets. 4 2. Community collaborative uses data to prioritize needs, establish outcomes, and determine measures. 3. Community collaborative determines action plan to allocate resources that meet community needs 4. Community implements plans 5. Community evaluates outcomes and revises community indices, priorities, outcomes and measures County: provides technical assistance to refocus or form collaboratives as needed in a community; Community: existing collaboratives expand focus and broaden membership, or new collaboratives are formed to look at broader community issues. County: works in partnership with the community; Community: establishes broad base support in partnership with the County. County: contracts with service providers in concert with community-set outcomes and priorities, channeling resources to the greatest extent possible; (~ommunitv: integrates services and oversees providers according to community plan and County contracts. County: services provided are measured against community- established outcomes and measures for accountability reports and best practices analysis; Community: community determines effectiveness in partnership with county and quickly makes adjustments to meet community needs; community reports to all community constituencies including cities and school districts, Each community has broad representation from the municipality, school district[s], service providers, faith communities, businesses, service recipients and the County. The focus in each community is on outcomes. Greater likelihood of community support since community determines what are its highest priority needs and focuses resources toward meeting those needs. Better utilization of resources given ever increasing demand, making best use of County and c. ommunity strengths Greater assurance that community residents benefit from the services, and that the community, overall, will be a better place to live and work; learnings can be shared between communities to strengthen cost/benefit analysis of programs and services. 5 Steps toward implementation of the community-based approach Send this summary report and recommendations to everyone who participated in the interviews and focus groups, and include the County Board and all municipalities in the Westem region. Invite participation in additional community lorums to develop the recommendations in this report and create an oversight group who will advise in the pilot projects. 3. Select two communities to develop this approach -- one larger, one smaller; one inner ring and one further west -- and learn lrom the pilot efforts. 4. Investigate what data exist and how to make them readily available to communities. 5. Gain support from key officials in County govemment. 6. Organize County support to deliver research, technical assistance, revised contracting and County participation in the collaborations. 7. Learn trom the two pilot projects and revise process and support as needed to expand efforts into additional communities. Develop regional approach to coordinate efforts toward major outcomes of housing, transportation, child care and jobs, and to advocate for and leverage resources on behalf of lhe region. Eventually, this might include searching for grants and outside lunding, coordination of sub-regional and regional implementation and accountability efforts; dissemination of community learnings to constituencies throughout the local communities. .; REPORT ON COMMUNITY FORUMS CONDUCTED Coordinating Western Hennepin County Human Services Summary Report and Recommendations June 1998 BACKGROUND The overall purpose of this project is to: · Discover how to best assess needs and coordinate human services that effectively and efficiently serve the residents in the 25 communities of western Hennepin County; and · Build community ownership of a structure for meeting those needs. The project evolved from informal discussions involving Hennepin County administration and officials from the cities of Hopkins, Plymouth, Shorewood, St. Louis Park and Tonka Bay. They became a city-county working group on how human services needs might be met following the demise of Suburban Alliance, one of three suburban human services councils in Hennepin County. The first step in the project was to learn about diverse opinions for coordinating and delivering human services. More than 120 telephone interviews were conducted. The interviews were with Hennepin County commissioners representing the western suburbs, elected and appointed officials from the municipalities, staff from the cities, staff of provider agencies, school district officials, members of faith communities, citizen volunteers and recipients. In the second step, the city-county working group reviewed the data and developed a draft model that would assess current and future human service needs, promote coordination of services, improve communications, maintain accountability, and encourage joint decision-making. The third step was to present the draft model to five focus groups. Seventy-one people participated. The information gathered was quite consistent. Major themes emerging from this information were summarized and accompanied by substantially revised recommendations from the city- county working group. In this forth step, two community forums were held. They were attended by fifty community representatives. At the forums, the revised recommendations that included forming two pilot collaborative projects and an oversight group were presented. What follows are the major themes from the forum groups and specific recommendations on how to implement the pilot projects and the oversight group. The transcriptions of the forum remarks are appended, grouped by major themes and divided between the first forum and the second. C) C} MAJOR THEMES ACCOUNTABILITY AND OUTCOMES Continued education in the outcomes and methods of this effort is important. Special emphasis needs to be on what people are already doing. While concern was expressed that this approach might not work because its purpose is not clear and it does not really address overall planning and coordination, respondents were concerned that mission and goals be clear and accountability be in place. Be concrete, people said and indicated, about the end result and the benefits to the communities. BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH Before launching this effort, research what works in the Northwest and South planning bodies, and learn what did work within the Suburban Alliance. If family service collaboratives are to be the chosen pilots, learn what makes them successful. DATA SOURCES Make sure that data provided to the communities fits the particular needs of that community. Learn what's available locally. GEOGRAPHIC/COMMUNITY DEFINITION In selecting a community, recognize that there is no standard definition for community. Municipalities and school districts overlap. Service areas are different for different agencies. Some people don't identify with any established area such as a school district. In addition, communities west of 494 feel isolated and are concerned that the physical area west of 494 is greater than that east of the freeway. Therefore, one pilot project will not be enough. COLLABORATION FORMATION AND MEMBERSHIP In choosing pilot collaboratives, build on existing efforts but do not parallel them. Be aware of what resources other constituencies, such as the faith community, can bring. Make sure that bridges are built to other collaboratives that might exist in the community. Realize that some collaboratives started with a narrow focus, others with a broad one; those with a narrow focus may have more difficulty moving to larger issues. Many remarked that broad representation is needed on the collaboratives, but how that representation is achieved can be flexible. Different levels of participation is one way which is especially useful for including users. Moving more quickly helps maintain the enthusiasm. Pay special attention to individual and agency turf issues in building upon existing efforts and sharing resources. And make sure the collaborative is defined by those in it; do not impose membership. FUNDING SUPPORT Concern was expressed that the collaborative might have to pay the County for support. While this is not the case, funding sources determine the focus, said respondents, and the uncertainty of funding can be a barrier to success. The funding support is needed. 2 STAFF SUPPORT/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Consistent staff support for calling meetings, distributing minutes, etc.., is crucial. The County's role in providing this support needs to be clear. Some questioned if an independent party is needed to support the collaboratives. More respondents remarked that skilled support by an independent facilitator is important to help the oversight group form and avoid turf issues. REGIONAL CONCERNS AND SHARED INFORMATION Respondents were very concerned that this effort will lose sight of regional planning and coordination in the focus on community services. The regional focus on such issues as poverty, transportation and housing needs to be addressed. Also, some feared that the present support between communities might give way to competition. Instead, there needs to be a balance between regional and local needs. While the pilots are learning, others communities in the area still need to go forward. So, continuing education about this effort is crucial, as is exchange of information about what is occurring and what is being learned. Make the process inclusive. Put information on the Intemet. Keep summaries succinct. OVERSIGHT GROUP FORMATION AND PURPOSE The purpose of the oversight group should be to set the vision and key goals. The group can also foster relationships and recruit participation in the effort by others, keep energy up and communications open, as well as involve consumers and manage conflicts. The group should support the community collaboratives already doing the local work. To handle the broad representation that's essential, a two level group was suggested with the larlecr group addressing philosophy and direction and the smaller group doing more of the work which must be focused and meaningful. The disenfranchised need to participate, whether on the group and/or by having the group go to them to listen. Some suggested looking at existing groups to form the oversight group. Do not pull people from existing efforts. In addition, the oversight group should not hold power over collaboratives. Some suggested the oversight group should be temporary, transitioning into a next phase. How allocation of resources is handled is very important, and who appoints the oversight group is also important in order to demonstrate accountability. C~ RECOMMENDATIONS ACCOUNTABILITY AND OUTCOMES Have a clear statement of purpose. This is to include the purpose for this effort (see the 1 st paragraph of this report) as well as a statement recognizing that this is an experiment that begins locally. Therefore, measurable outcomes must be established by each group participating in this project: the pilot collaboratives and the oversight group. Back up this effort with an outside evaluator who will help shape a formative evaluation process that will allow everyone involved to learn from the process rather than be judged by it. BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH AND DATA SOURCES Devote some County staff time to analyzing what works effectively in the two existing planning bodies and what portions of the Suburban Alliance were effective. Also provide a written overview of data that is available from and through the County. Include a note in the overview that the County will work with local collaboratives to provide data that fits their particular circumstances. GEOGRAPHIC/COMMUNITY DEFINITION Produce a written statement that the County recognizes the difficulty in selecting community collaboratives because of the myriad overlaps between different boundaries and service areas. Add this to the purpose statement. That being said, select the pilots based on the strongly stated desires of existing collaboratives to take on the bigger picture planning. Consider two pilot projects west of 494 and one east of the freeway. COLLABORATION FORMATION AND MEMBERSHIP Again, select the pilot collaboratives based on their strongly stated desires to take on bigger picture planning. Let passion (combined with healthy questioning) be the determining factor. From that point, the collaborative must decide how it will achieve broad representation and how it will be effective in delineating and achieving measurable outcomes. FUNDING SUPPORT For the pilot project, the County must provide intensive staff support as well as technical assistance on developing effective collaborations, either from County staff or by an outside facilitator. The emphasis needs to be on learning. This has to be paralleled with the formative evaluation process that fosters learning. An outside, neutral facilitator is important to forming the oversight group. REGIONAL CONCERNS AND SHARED INFORMATION The oversight group can play a role in beginning to address how the needs and actions of local collaboratives can augment regional concerns. Similarly, the need to address regional concerns can help shape the direction 'of local collaboratives. In the beginning, these will be theoretical discussions because there will only be two or three pilot projects. Yet these discussions can still influence the development of the local collaboratives. The oversight group can also serve to ensure that what is learned is shared with all comtnunities in the western region and other planning bodies in ways that recipients can use the information. OVERSIGHT GROUP FORMATION AND PURPOSE A clear charter needs to be created for the oversight group that states its purpose and the roles it is to play. People should be asked to volunteer for the oversight group based on the charter, not form a group and then devise a purpose. Building upon what was mentioned above, the oversight group should have the following three work areas in support of the local collaboratives: Lay the ground work for balanced local/regional planning based on the development of more local collaboratives that take on broader community planning. · Ensure meaningful communication with the many constituencies in the western region as well as other planning and administrative bodies. · Oversee the formative evaluation process of the collaboratives and the oversight group that fosters learning from the process. Recruitment to the oversight group should be through these three work areas. Each work area then selects two representatives to serve on an overall coordinating body. The oversight group should not set overall goals nor should it distribute any resources. The needs of and representation by the disenfranchised must be handled by the local collaboratives. The voice of the disenfranchised and their participation, if possible, should happen around regional planning issues. DRAFT CHARTERS As of 17 August 1998 CHARTER FOR OVERSIGHT GROUP The purpose of the Oversight Group is to advise the County and the municipalities on how to disseminate what is learned from the pilot collaboratives and on how to address issues of regional concern. To accomplish this purpose; the Oversight Group agrees to clarify, refine and accept this charter. Outcomes (Changes to be achieved) The Oversight Group agrees to achieve at least the following: 1. Useful information on what has been learned from the pilot Community Collaborations that coordinate human services and from the Oversight Group itself is assembled and disseminated. Approaches to regional planning are developed that begin to: · Create a regional focus on human services issues including housing, transportation, child care, employment, emergency services, etc.; and · Advocate for and leverage resources on behalf of the region. Outputs (Initiatives that help accomplish the outcomes) The Oversight Group agrees to produce at least the following: 1. A plan for addressing regional issues in Western Hennepin County based on coordinating services through local community collaborations and interfacing with other planning bodies. 2. Recommendations on approaches to future planning and coordination based on the formative evaluation of the Oversight Group and the local Community Collaborations. A communications plan that designates: · The data to be disseminated which includes what is learned from the pilot collaborations, the plan for addressing regional issues, and the recommendations on approaches to future planning and coordination; · All appropriate organizations at the local, county and state levels which will receive the information; · How the data will be regularly relayed to the organizations in ways that are useful to them; and · How responses from these organizations will be provided to the local collaborations and other municipal, educational and planning bodies in useful 'ways. Inputs (Activities and resources needed to produce the outputs) The Oversight Group agrees to participate in the following activities and to provide and receive the following resources: Activity Community Resources County Resources Accept the charter and develop a working body as the Oversight Group. Regular participation by members of the Oversight Group with frequent input from appropriate constituencies not seated on the Oversight Group. Technical assistance in strategizing how to develop the Oversight Group, as well as how to run effective meetings and maintain active participation. On-going staff support to handle minutes, copying, mailing, etc. Outside evaluator to monitor and report on the process so that the evaluation is formative -- it helps the Oversight Group do its work. Create communications plan. Dedicated time. Continued technical assistance, staff support and formative evaluation. Develop approaches to regional planning based on local community collaboratives. Regional information gathering. Regional specific data on demographics, trends, services, utilization, etc. Structure (The way in which the Oversight Group is organized to manage the inputs) Membership: The Oversight Group will have the following categories of members: · 2 representatives from each of the two pilot community collaborations, chosen by the collaborations. · 1 representative from the County. · 7 other representatives from the Western Hennepin County area that represent communities east and west of 1494, a mix of municipalities, a variety of organizations and a male/female balance (The Oversight Group is initially selected by the project working group and later selected by the Oversight Group itself should replacements be needed). Meeting Frequency: Monthly to begin and then to be determined by the Oversight Group itself. Reporting Requirements: Issues progress reports to the Collaborations, County, municipalities, school districts, other planning bodies, and others as appropriate to the Charter. Sunset Date: 31 December 1999. 2 CHARTER FOR PILOT COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVES The purpose of the Community Collaboration is to increasingly take charge of and be accountable for coordinating needed human services in this community in ways that benefit local citizens. To accomplish this purpose, the Collaboration agrees to clarify, refine and accept this charter. Outcomes (Changes to be achieved) The Collaboration agree~ to achieve at lea~t the following: 1. Ail community residents in need of services in community-identified priority areas have access to those services. 2. Recipients' conditions improve in cost-effective ways' through services provided under the community coordination plan. 3. The number and/or level of participation by non-County-contracted resoumes increases. Cmt Outputs (Initiatives that help accomplish the outcomes) The Collaboration agrees to produce at least the following: 1. Definition of the community being served. 2. Assessment of community-specific needs and assets based on data provided by the County and supplemented with local information that covers: · All human service needs in the community, whether or not the collaborative chooses to initially coordinate services in all areas; and · All potential assets in the community, including traditional providers, community and faith groups, school districts, municipalities, businesses, and individual citizens. 3. Priority service plan that acknowledges what the community can undertake to coordinate at this point and areas in which it intends to expand its coordination efforts, including, but not limited to: · Recipient outcomes; · Services needed; · Services to be provided; and · Plans (both services and timeline) to fill the gaps between what is needed and what is provided. Resource development plan which outlines: · Agency providers which will have contracts with the County; · Community resources (both existing and to be developed) which will not receive County contracts; · Allocation of resources to all types of providers; and · Accountability measures both in terms of recipient outcomes and cost effectiveness. 5. Implementation plan that outlines agreements with service and resource providers, both county- contracted and not. 6. Expansion plan that directs the collaboration to coordinate additional services and tap further resources to meet human service needs the collaboration is not currently coordinating. Monitoring process to continually review: · How services are being provided according to the plan; ' · With what accountability in terms of recipient outcomes and cost effectiveness; · How the collaboration is progressing into additional areas to be coordinated. · Cost-effective is defined here as either lower cost for the same recipient outcomes or improved recipient outcomes for the same cost. 3 In.~uts (Activities and resources needed to produce the outputs) The Collaboration agrees to participate in the following activities and to provide and receive the following resources: Activity Community Resources County Resources Accept the charter and expand the Collaboration, if needed, to be broadly representative of the community; this is accomplished either by adding members to the Collaboration and/or arranging for regular input from different constituencies in the community. Regular participation by members of the Collaboration with frequent input from those not seated on the collaboration. Technical assistance in strategizing how to expand the collaboration and/or increase regular input into the collaboration, as well as how to run effective meetings and maintain active participation. On-going staff support to handle minutes, copying, mailing, etc., if desired (but not to do the planning/coordination work of the Collaboration). Outside evaluator to monitor and report on the process so that the evaluation is formative -- it helps the Collaboration do its work. Define the community and research and report community indices on needs and assets. Local community information gathering. Community specific data on demographics, trends, services, utilization, etc. Set community priorities, client outcomes and services in chosen area(s). Develop resources. Develop and implement action plan. Plan how to expand service coordination into other service areas. Dedicated time. Participation by community organizations and constituencies; donations of time, materials and moneys from community businesses, organizations and individuals. Community resources to meet the plan specifications beyond county-funded contracts. Dedicated time. Continued technical assistance, staff support and formative evaluation. Continued technical assistance, staff support and formative evaluation. County-funded service contracts that support the direction of the community plans. Continued technical assistance, staff and evaluation support. Monitor the process. Willingness to adjust processes, membership and resources to meet changing needs. Willingness to be flexible in committing resources to meet changing needs. 4 Structure (The way in which the Community Collaboration is organized to manage the inputs) Membership: The Community Collaboration will: · Decide its own membership; · Will include a partner from the County who will join the Collaboration; · Representation on the Collaboration will reflect the priorities the Collaboration is seeking to coordinate and so membership may change overtime. · Will seek regular input from those affected even though they may not sit on the Collaboration, Meeting Frequency: To be determined by the Collaboration to achieve the outcomes and outputs, Reporting Requirements: Issues progress reports to the Oversight Group and others it decides. Sunset Date: Will continue as long as the members are satisfied and the Collaboration is productive. County assistance sunsets 31 December 1999 except for County-funded service contracts that support the direction of the community plans. 5 La~ua of Minnesota Citi~ ~,omotln9 RECEIVED SEP 1 8 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (612) 281-1200 ' (800) 925-1122 Fax: (612) 281-1299 ' TDD (612) 281-1290 September 15, 1998 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Administrators, Managers, Clerks of Direct Member Cities James F. Miller, Executive Director ~ /~ a.~ NrLC Board of Directors Minnesota cities historically have been very active in the National League of Cities (NLC). In addition to representation on NLC's Steering and Policy Committees, Minnesota usually has been represented on the Board of Directors. Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton has served on the NLC Board for the last two years, but her term will expire this December at the Congress of Cities in Kansas City. It is important, therefore, that we identify another strong candidate to compete for the NLC Board. NLC Board members serve two year terms. They are expected to attend three Board meetings annually. In addition to meetings in conjunction with the Congress of Cities in December and the Congressional City Conference in March, a third meeting occurs each summer in the NLC Board President's city. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) reimburses Minnesota members of the NLC Board for attending any meeting not held in conjunction with an NLC Conference. NLC strongly encourages candidates to seek endorsement of their state league. The LMC Board will consider such an endorsement at its October 15 meeting. That endorsement will be based on the candidates' participation on LMC and NLC committees, attendance at LMC and NLC conferences, availability to serve on the NLC Board and willingness to be a liaison between the NLC and LMC. Interested elected officials from direct member cities can obtain a candidate data form by contacting Rebecca Erickson at the LMC at (651) 281-1222. Please send the completed data form to me by October 5, 1998. If you have questions or would like further information, please call me at (651) 281-1205. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER