1997-06-24AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda; All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council
and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered in nonnal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
2. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO MOUND
WESTONKA-~!~L-,~..~mli~.t,~.~.~M. (THIS SHOULD BE DONE 2286
WHEN TEAM ARRIVES AT ABO~'~If~i~3'I~-M.) .......................
PAGE
CONSENT AGENDA:
*A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1997 REGULAR
2287-2293
MEETING .........................................
*B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 17, 1997 COMMITTEE OF
................................ 2294-2298
THE WHOLE MEETING
*C. CASE___~97-21: VARIANCE FOR DECK, JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786
SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 7 & 8 P/8, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID #13-117-24 11 0005 ................................. 2299-2310
*D. CASE 97-22: VARIANCE FOR SHED, DOUGLAS EASTHOUSE, 3042
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 50-51, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1sr DIV.,
PID #19-117-23 34 0075 ................................. 2311-2334
*E. CASE_ 97-23: VARIANCE FOR DECK, KENNETH & CAROL GRABOW,
1732 CANARY LANE, LOT 10, 11, 12, BLOCK 11 DREAMWOOD,
PID #13-117-24 24 0015 ................. ' ................ 2335-2353
*F. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................... 2354-2365
2284
o
o
o
10.
11.
12.
FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION
MODIFICATION, CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100
DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PID #25-117-24 12
0233 .................................................. 2366-2405
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
REQUEST TO SELL CONCESSIONS AT MOUND BAY PARK DEPOT,
WESTONKA HELPING YOUTH (WHY) .............................. 2406
DISCUSSION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
235:27, SUBD. 1 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO RECREATIONAL
FIRES ................................................. 2407-2413
PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED
DISTRICT (MCWD) REGARDING "RULE B" ISSUES .................. 2414-2422
RESOLUTION REQUESTING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-
TATION (MNDOT), MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) OFFICE, TO ADVANCE
$500,000 IN FUTURE ALLOTMENTS OF MSA FUNDS FOR AUDITOR'S
ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ................................. 2423
DISCUSSION: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO SHERWOOD DRIVE/BIDS
RECEIVED ............................................. 2424-2426
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Ao
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MAY 1997 AS PREPARED BY GINO
BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ......................... 2427-2428
B. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 1997 2429-2436
Co
1997 LAW SUMMARY OF THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATIVE SESSION
AS PREPARED BY THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES (LMC) .... 2437-2477
D. LMCD MAILING ..................................... 2478-2480
E. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 1997 ............ 2481-2503
2285
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to express to all the members of the MOUND
WESTONKA GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM, on behalf of the City Council and all the citizens
of Mound, our sincere congratulations on your first place finish in the Minnesota State Girls
Softball Tournament.
This has been an exciting, hard-fought, and successful softball season, and we are proud
of the record you have earned and the fine publicity you have brought to our community by your
inspired team play.
Special commendation is due all team members and their coaches.
We are pleased to publicly commend the MOUND WESTONKA GIRLS SOFTBALL
TEAM for your fine efforts, and to extend this token of the affection and admiration with which
you are regarded in this City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We do hereby set our hands, and cause the corporate Seal of the
City of Mound to be affixed this 24th day of June 1997.
Mayor Bob Polston
Councilmember Andrea Ahrens
Councilmember Mark Hanus
Councihnember Liz Jensen
Councilmember Leah Weycker
Mound City Council Minutes - June I0, 1997
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 10, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, June 10, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah
Weycker. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Bruce
Chamberlain, City Engineer John Cameron and City Clerk Fran Clark; and the following
interested citizens: Mark Thiede, Dorothy & Bill Netka, Gail Severtson, and Ronald Fenney.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was r~ited.
o
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councib~ember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in non~Tal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
The Mayor congratulated the Mound Westonka High School Girls Softball Team on their
winning of the State Championship. He then stated he would like to invite the Mound Westonka
High School Girls Softball Team to the next City Council Meeting and present them with a
Certificate of Recognition.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
The City Manager stated that he has two add-on items for the Regular Agenda as follows:
10.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC GEOGRAPHICAL
DIGITIZED DATA BASE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
11. RESOLUTION TO REGULATE AND LIMIT LAWN SPRINKLING.
Councilmember Jensen asked that Item C (the Transient Merchant License) on the Consent
Agenda be pulled for discussion.
*CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda, removing Item
C, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*A.
It ~ k i, ,m ,~tt i ,~ I, ~ lit
Moumt City Council Minutes - June 10, 1997
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 27, 1997 REGULAR MEETING.
1.0
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*B. RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST//398.
RESOLUTION//97-55
RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL
GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION
POST//398
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*D. PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
1.1 TREE REMOVAL LICENSE AND VEGETABLE STAND APPROVALS
Councilmember Jensen asked about the vegetable stand that is proposed for the corner of County Road 110
and Lynwood Blvd. as it relates to the Central Business District (CBD) parking program. This is a CBD
leased parking lot and she wanted to know how this is handled in the CBD program for the leased parking
spaces that this vegetable stand uses and the owner of the property leases to the city for parking. The Council
wants to make sure that the owner of the lot is not being paid for these spaces when they are not usable for
2 months. The Council asked that this be looked at to see how it is being handled. The City Manager stated
he will research this and come back to the Council with an answer.
MOTION made by Je[tsen, seconded by Hanus to approve the following licenses:
TREE REMOVAL LICENSE for
B & J Tree Care
TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE for
Untiedt Vegetable Farm
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 97-08: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, WESTONKA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS (lSD//277) AT SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
The City Manager suggested that this Public Hearing should be continued to a date certain because of the
current study that is underway by the joint Committee of the School District and the Cities. This study should
be done by the end of June and the report should be ready by around that time. He suggested that this
hearing be continued to the first or second meeting in July.
The Council discussed the 60 day rule. The Attorney stated that since the School District request was at the
last meeting and the revised materials were submitted well within the 60 day period, there should not be a
problem.
Mourn1 City Council Minutes - June 10, 1997
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to continue this public hearing to the July 22,
1997, City Council Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to notify the School District that this matter
does continue to be on hold until the Task Force completes its charge. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
1.3
PUBLIC HEARING: S.P. 145-080-01 AND S.P. 145-090-01, THE LOST LAKE CANAL
REHABILITATION PROJECT AND THE LOST LAKE GREENWAY PROJECT, FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
City Planner, Bruce Chamberlain advised the Council that this portion of the meeting will be reported
verbatim as required.
Bruce Chamberlain: "This public hearing is the same process that we went through in November.
What you are actually doing tonight is hosting a public hearing for the Federal Highway
Administration for the Environmental Assessment on this project. The purpose of the public hearing,
obviously, is to take comments and input from the public. There is no action or any statements that
the Council needs to make. What we will do with the information that we gather tonight is create
a verbatim transcript of it and then pass it along to the Federal Highway Administration for their
review as part of the EA process. There is also an open time frame through the 25th of June which
the public can provide written comment after tonight's meeting. That will also be incorporated into
the public record as part of this project. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer
them."
Councilmember Hanus: "Will we have to respond, issue by issue, to the written responses, just as
we did the last time?"
Bruce Chamberlain: "Correct, yes. If there are issues that come up that have not been addressed
before, we'll provide some comment."
Councilmember Hanus: "It's the same thing all over again."
Bruce Chamberlain: "We'll just reference the past responses."
Councilmember Hanus: "O.K."
Councilmember Jensen: "Since we had this meeting once before, will the verbatims from that
meeting become part of this packet as well?"
Bruce Chamberlain: "They are also part of the record."
Counciln~ember Jensen: "Thank you."
Mayor Polst. on: "O.K. At this time, we'll open the public hearing on the Lost Lake Canal
Rehabilitation Project and the Lost Lake Greenway Project for the Federal Environmental Assessment.
Is there anyone here who wishes to address, or read into the record, or present written documentation
to be entered into the record on this project, S.P. 145-080-01 and S.P. 145-090-017"
3
Mound City Council Minutes - June 10, 1997
Mayor Polston: "Is there anyone here who wishes to address the City Council on this Federal Project
and the Lost Lake Canal and Rehabilitation Project?"
Mayor Polston: "Hearing none, we will return the item to the City Council. Are there any other
questions or comments or any documentation that members of the City Council would like to see
entered into the record?"
~?ere was 11o resporI, se.
Mayor Polston: "Then at this point, we'll close the public hearing. Is there some action that's
needed by the Council?"
Bruce Chamberlain: "No action."
City Attorney John Dean: "I assume Mr. Chamberlain that the pages 2,098 through 2,239, which
are part of the Agenda Packet for tonight, will be made a part of the record that is forwarded to the
Federal Government in connection with this matter?"
Bruce Chamberlaiu: "Yes, actually those pages are already a part of the public record."
Mayor Polston: "Thank you, Bruce."
Bruce Chamberlaiu: "Thank you.
Councilmember Hanus: "Kind of feels like it's been done before."
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.4 UPDATE ON SUMP PUMP DISCONNECTION PROJECT
The City Manager explained that this program has been underway for the past couple of months and it has
not been easy to get property owners to comply with the new ordinance. Basically, the residents have to call
for an appointment to get an inspection done. The inspections are being done by Visu-Sewer Clean and Seal.
Mr. Fenney, from Visu Sewer is present tonight. The City has worked closely with Visu Sewer trying to
make this easier for people to comply.
The following has been done:
o
The City was split into 3 sections.
Each section was sent informational packets, at different times.
Section 1 was sent. We had minimal response to that. So we sent another letter.
An ad was put in the Laker newspaper.
There have been articles in the newspaper and City Newsletter.
We are still having trouble getting people to make appointments.
The program began in April with Section 1. We have performed nearly 700 inspections. There are
approximately 1200 residences in that section.
Mound City Council Minutes - June 10, 1997
The City Manager reported that we are not getting the response that we need from Section 1 to meet the
compliance date of August 1. He suggested that because of this we may need to inform those residents who
have not called to schedule an inspection or complied with this, that there is a fine, according to the ordinance
($100.00/month), that will be imposed upon them. He then reviewed his draft letter, which could be sent on
or about June 16, to notify residents that the $100.00 fine would be imposed after August 1st. The letter
explains why and gives them 5 days from receipt of the letter to call and make their appointment for an
inspection.
He further explained that in Section 2 similar problems have occurred.
this Section on or about July 16th.
Section 3 was just mailed last week and he suggested sending the letter
16th.
He suggested sending this letter to
to this section on or about August
Ron Fenney, Visu-Sewer, reported that most of inspections they are doing are in compliance, but there are
a lot of new pipes in place. He thought that there have been a number of disconnects. He further reported
that just over 50% of Sections 1 and 2 have had inspections and complied.
The Council expressed concern about sending out the draft letter threatening a fine for people who have not
complied and had the inspection done. The Council discussed how they could softly address the issue and
still gain compliance.
The City Manager stated that the City is not trying to threaten people, but we have received a $40,000.00
grant from the Metropolitan Council for this program and under the terms of the agreement a physical
inspection has to be performed.
The City Engineer stated that all the sample programs that were looked at had a fine included and some were
even higher than the $100.00 per month.
The Council felt that more education of the public on the reasons why people should not have sump pumps
discharging into the sanitary sewer needs to be done. The following reasons should be put in a shorter letter
to residents as a reminder of the need for this inspection:
2.
3.
4.
Savings in tax dollars for the cost of treating clear water.
Give a number to call if residents have questions or would like additional information.
There is a fine if they do not have the inspection, but we do not want to do that.
These are not government employees. They are private contractors coming into your home and
doing the inspections.
Offer the option of signing an affidavit that they do not have a sump pump.
The City Engineer stated this would have to be cleared through Metro to make sure it
is acceptable. The City Attorney advised that the ordinance does not allow this and
would have to be amended if this were included.
The City Manager advised that this program is supposed to be completed in March of 1998. It is an 18
month program. After the inspections are completed, then Visu-Sewer has to go back and do the
reinspections of the ones that have sump pumps to make sure they are plumbed properly. The inspections
then have to be done every one, three and five years. After that we will be told if this is a grant or a loan.
It is a grant if we have compliance. If we don't have compliance, we have to pay the $40,000.00 back to
the Met Council.
1.5
,-, ,a. I, ~, I, ,. lit
Mound City Council Minutes - June 10, 1997
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Jensen directing staff to prepare a shorter, softer,
reminder letter with the reasons listed above to be sent to the people who have not set up
inspections. The City Engineer is to cheek on allowing an affidavit if people do not have a sump.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPOINTMENT TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
The City Manager reviewed a letter from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, dated June 3, 1997,
regarding a Stormwater Management Task Force to address concerns with Rule B. They are asking that we
appoint a representative to this task force. The Mayor has agreed to be the representative.
Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #97-56
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MAYOR BOB POLSTON TO THE
(MCWD) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6 SELECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO PERFORM COST ESTIMATE REGARDINC
RENOVATION OF EXISTING WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER
The City Manager stated that previously the Council approved a contract with TSP/EOS to do an analysis of
the existing Westonka Community Center and its possible renovation. He stated that report will be completed
by tomorrow. The second portion of the project is to get a cost estimate from an architectural firm, who
could utilize the report that is being prepared. He sent out 6 RFP's for this, one of which was TSP/EOS.
He received a proposal from TSP/EOS and 1 from a cost estimator, which is a subcontractor for an
architectural firm. TSP/EOS met the requirements in the RFP because they are an architectural firm and do
have the ability to perform the cost estimate. The price is $2,700.00. The other company, Constructive
Ideas, Inc. of St. Paul, did not meet the requirements of the RFP, but submitted a price of $10,980.00. The
City Manager recommended the selection of TSP/EOS.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to select TSP/EOS to perform the cost estimate
for the renovation of the Westonka Community Center. The vole was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
ADD-ON ITEMS
1.7 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATA BASE AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT.
The City Manager explained that Hennepin County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data
base which was designed and built to be used in conjunction with Ultimap, an authomated mapping facility
software product. He did not have a price on the cost but the agreement will allow the City to have this
available for our Staff, City Engineer and City Planner. We could develop a new zoning map, as well as
other maps with this program. The Mayor he would like to see how this mapping works for facilities
management for utilities. The Council would like to have a cost before entering into this agreement.
No action was taken on this item.
Mound City Council Minutes - June I0, 1997
1.8 RESOLUTION TO REGULATE AND LIMIT LAWN SPRINKLING
The City Manager explained that the Public Works Superintendent has advised him that there is a potential
for a water shortage. He has suggested regulating and limiting lawn sprinkling. He presented the proposed
resolution. The Council discussed the limitations and asked that there be several exceptions: new sod or
newly seeded areas and people who use lake water to sprinkle. They also asked that commercial properties
be included. There will be a notice in the newspaper and door hangers will be made up.
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution (with the exceptions noted above):
RESOLUTION//97-57 RESOLUTION TO REGULATE AND LIMIT LAWN SPRINKLING
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1997.
LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for May 1997.
Memorandum from Floyd Olson, Kennedy and Graven, regarding a question that was raised following
the Council Meeting where discussion was held on multiple docks and their locations.
Do
Fo
1998 draft LMCD Budget.
Preliminary Population and Household Estimate (April 1, 1996) for the City of Mound as prepared
by the Metropolitan Council.
REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, June 17, 1997, 7:30 p.m.
REMINDER: Annual Fish Fry at Mound Fire Department, Saturday, June 7, 1997.
H. REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 13-15, 1997.
REMINDER: HRA Meeting 6/10/97, 7:00 P.m., City Hall.
Joint Committee of the School District and Cities of Minnetrista and Mound Will Be Meeting at 7:00
P.m., Wednesday, June 11, 1997, Minnetrista City Hall.
Letter from Curt Johnson, Metro Council Chair, regarding initiatives taken by the Metro Council in
the Areas of Public Safety.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was
unanimonsly in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest:
City Clerk
MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-JUNE 17, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Bob Polston.
Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also
Present: Don Twombly, Commercial Realty, Minneapolis representing Perry M. Platisha,
President, Northern Hospitality, Inc., Brainerd, MN; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development
Coordinator; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; John Cameron, City Engineer; and Ed Shukle, City
Manager.
Lost Lake Inn
Ed Shukle, City Manager, introduced Don Twombly representing Northern Hospitality, Inc.,
regarding the proposed Lost Lake Inn. Mr. Twombly works with Northern Hospitality, Inc., who
is a franchise holder of Country Suites by Carlson and Americlnn. Northern Hospitality is interested
in locating a Country Suites by Carlson on the Lost Lake site.
Mr. Twombly discussed Northem Hospitality's background and experience in operating these types
of lodging facilities. He stated that typically Northern signs an exclusive rights agreement with the
city to do a project like this. He further indicated that after the agreement is signed, feasibility and
market studies are performed to see if the project is justifiable. He estimated that a feasibility study
would cost around $50,000 and is typically shared between Northern and the city they are working
with on the project.
The consensus of the Council was to have Northern send to the City a copy of an exclusive rights
agreement that Northern has used on another project. Upon receipt of that example, the City Council
will discuss a possible agreement with Northern to pursue the Lost Lake Inn project.
Central Business District (CBD) Parking Program
Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, presented a report on the CBD parking
program. His report included some options to look at for parking in the downtown area into the
future which could include more municipally owned parking in the form of a municipal ramp.
The City Council discussed the report and what to do in the short term while the redevelopment of
downtown is occurring. After several attempts to reach a short-term solution, it was the consensus
to assess the CBD for the period beginning July 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 1997 in the same way
as they were assessed for the period beginning July 1, 1995 and ending June 30, 1996. Beginning
July 1, 1997 and ending June 30, 1998, the CBD will be assessed as follows:
Parking providers (currently paid lease payments from the CBD program) will receive their
credits paid to them by the City of Mound through its General Fund and not from the non-
providers. Non-providers will only be responsible for paying their normal assessment for
snowplowing services. As of 11:59 p.m., June 30, 1998, the CBD parking program will terminate
and will no longer be in existence. In addition, current zoning requirements for parking will be
Committee of the Whole Minutes
June 17, 1997
Page 2
discontinued through an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
City staff will schedule a meeting with CBD property owners and business owners to present this
decision and will also discuss the long-term parking issues of the downtown area. A formal
resolution will be adopted by the City Council regarding the above at an upcoming regular meeting.
Lost Lake Improvement Project Update
Bruce Chamberlain presented a brief report. Regarding the status of the project, it is moving forward
but delays have occurred due to permitting issues. The DNR permit is under review and a letter of
intent to proceed is forthcoming. Corps of Engineers permit is delayed due to flood conditions in
the Red River Valley. MCWD permit is approved subject to certain conditions as previously stated.
The schedule is that the dredge will be completed by this fall. Chamberlain and John Cameron, City
Engineer have done some preliminary work on the plans. Disposal of dredge spoils is another issue
unresolved since earlier plans have fallen through. It is estimated that 20,000 cubic yards of material
needs to be hauled to a site yet to be determined.
The subject of developers was discussed. Council consensus was to work with Laurent/Parks of
Wayzata on building retail, office and housing along the new Auditor's Road.
Auditor's Road Improvement Project Update
Ed Shukle and John Cameron reported on the status of this project. Shukle and Cameron discussed
the current status, traffic analysis, demolition plan for the various buildings and schedule. Cameron
indicated that Hennepin County Department of Transportation has delayed approving the plans
primarily because of the uncertainty of future traffic flow through this area and through the proposed
relocation of County Road 15. Hence, a traffic consultant was hired by the City to do an analysis
indicating traffic forecasts into the next century. This information will hopefully satisfy the County.
Issues relating to Municipal State Aid (MSA) monies were also discussed. Currently, there is nearly
$114,000 left in the City of Mound's construction account for the project. Under MSA rules, the
City can request an advance on future allotments of MSA funds and would need to do this in order
to proceed at this point in time. Cameron indicated that he will know exactly how much money
there is available from MSA by next week so that the City can make application and continue to
proceed with the project.
Relocation of the Post Office was discussed. Staff asked the Council if they were comfortable with
the Meisel site in downtown Mound for the new post office. The consensus was that they were
comfortable and they directed staff to work with the Meisel's and the Postal Service on making this
become a reality.
Committee of the Whole Minutes
Jtme 17, 1997
Page 3
Report from Meeting held with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
Ed Shukle reported on the results of a meeting held with MCWD last week pertaining to Rule B and
a possible agreement relating to separate developers projects currently on hold or anticipated projects
that may come about in the future. He indicated that John Dean, City Attorney will be drafting an
agreement in cooperation with Louis Smith, attorney for MCWD that could be presented for
approval at the June 24, 1997 regular meeting.
Also discussed at the MCWD meeting was the issue of lighted buoys in the turnaround area of the
Lost Lake canal.
MCWD Stormwater Management Task Force
Ed Shukle indicated that he had been contacted by the City of Minnetonka regarding a pre-meeting
to the meeting of a newly established task force of the MCWD. Mayor Polston was asked to attend
this pre-meeting since he is the appointed member to represent Mound on this task force.
Steering Committee-MCWD Issues
Ed Shukle reported that he had also been contacted by the City of Minnetonka regarding the need
for a steering committee of cities within the MCWD to begin meeting to discuss administrative
issues relating to management and financial issues of the MCWD. Shukle indicated his interest in
serving on this steering committee and the City Council was in agreement that Shukle should serve.
Stormwater Management Utility Fund
Ed Shukle reviewed briefly with the Council sample ordinances from the cities of Shorewood,
Robbinsdale and Richfield regarding a stormwater management utility. He asked them to review
these ordinances and they could be discussed at a future COW meeting.
Proposed Improvements to Veteran's Park
Ed Shukle indicated that the proposed improvements had been reviewed with the Park and Open
Space Commission at their last meeting. The POSC was in basic agreement with the improvements
and agreed that staff should proceed in requesting contributions from the American Legion and VFW
for the cost of the improvements.
Kevin Sorbo Dedication
Ed Shukle reported that staff and Mayor Polston had been meeting to prepare for this event which
will be held on Saturday, August 23, 1997 from 10 a.m. until 12:00 Noon at Langdon Park which
Committee of the Whole Minutes
June 17, 1997
Page 4
will be renamed Sorbo Park. Shukle highlighted some of the activities planned and indicated that
a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for Thursday, June 26, 1997, 7:30 p.m., City Hall to discuss
the plans and any concerns that the neighborhood might have regarding this event.
Review of Draft Sump Pump Letter
Ed Shulde presented a draft ora letter pursuant to the Council's request. It was reviewed and some
minor changes were suggested. This letter will be sent out to property owners in Section 1 who have
not responded to previous mailings regarding sump pump inspections.
Update on Joint Committee Activities Regarding Westonka Community_ Center Renovation.
Ed Shukle reported on the latest activities of the committee. He stated that a cost estimate will be
prepared and completed by next week. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 1 at
Mound City Hall. The cost estimate will be reviewed at that time and the committee will decide on
how they wish to proceed. Shukle reported on other issues that the committee discussed at its last
meeting including the need for a professional survey, referendum election, ownership issues, project
manager, etc.
Status of G-Will Liquors Application for Off-Sale Liquor Store in Spring Park
Ed Shukle indicated that the application for a license is being reconsidered by the City Council of
Spring Park. Rademacher Companies, which owns G-Will, provided some additional economic
information to the Spring Park Council at a recent meeting. The Council approved a license subject
to a number of conditions including a guarantee by G-Will that they will pay taxes on an estimated
$800,000 valued property and should the value decrease below $800,000, G-will must guarantee
the taxes by paying Spring Park the difference between $800,000 and whatever the value becomes.
They also directed that a legal opinion be given by the City Attomey as to the validity of the motion
and that the item would be back on the Council agenda once the opinion had been received.
Other Business
Councilmember Hanus brought up some issues from the Planning Commission. They were as
follows:
Truth in Zoning
Tax Increment Financing
CBD Parking
The Planning Commission would like to pursue Truth in Zoning as a part of a Truth in Housing
ordinance. The majority of the Council does not wish to pursue this matter.
Committee of the Whole Minutes
June 17, 1997
Page 5
The Planning Commission believes they should have more of a role in the discussions regarding the
use of Tax Increment Financing as it pertains to downtown Mound. The Council asked
Councilmember Hanus to ask the Planning Commission what role do they think they should be
playing?
The Planning Commission believes they should be involved in CBD parking discussions. Mayor
Polston apologized and indicated that the matter probably should have been brought to the Planning
Commission for input.
It was noted that there will not be a Committee of the Whole Meeting in July and the next COW
meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 1997, 7:30 p.m.
Upon motion by Weycker, seconded by Ahrens and carded unanimously, the meeting was adjourned
at 11 '15 p.m.
ctfi~lly submitted,
Ed~
City Manager
June 24, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD &
SIDE YARD VARIANCE
FOR A CONFORMING DECK AT
1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & P/7 & 9, BLOCK 3,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0005,
P & Z CASE//97-21
WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Sue O'Hearn, are seeking setback variances
as described below, in order to construct a conforming deck addition, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-iA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and a 15
foot rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the existing home sits within 14 feet of the front lot line and 5.8 feet
of the north side lot line, this results in a setback variance of 6 feet to the front and .2 feet to
the north side lot line respectively, and:
WHEREAS, the proposed construction consists of an elevated deck that measures
19.6' x 8' and will tie into an existing deck and provide a stairway connection to the rear of the
yard, and;
WHEREAS, the existing non-conforming aspects will likely remain into the future
and the proposed constructions conforms to all zoning requirements, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed deck addition is conforming to the 50' setback to the
lake and the existing shed is also conforming to setbacks.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance of 6 feet and a north side lot
line variance of .2 feet to allow construction of a conforming 19.6' x 8' deck addition.
Proposed Resolution
June 24, 1997
1786 Shorewood Lane
P. 2
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
o
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 8 & P/7 & 9, Block 3, Shadywood Point
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember,
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE #97-21: VARIANCE FOR DECK, JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOT 7 & 8 P/8, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0005.
Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report. The applicants are seeking setback variances in
order to construct a conforming deck addition. The existing home sits within 14 feet of the front
lot line and 5.8 feet of the north side lot line. This situation results in setback variances of 6
feet and .2 feet respectively. The lot is in compliance with all other zoning requirements
including impervious cover limitations.
Comments
The existing non-conforming home is in very good condition. The proposed construction
consists of an elevated deck that measures 19.6 feet by 8 feet. The new deck will tie into an
existing deck and provide a stairway connection to the rear yard. The proposed deck addition
observes a 69 foot setback from the O.H.W. of Lake Minnetonka.
Recommendation
The non-conforming aspects of the existing property are likely to remain well into the furore.
The proposed construction conforms to all zoning requirements. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow the new deck
construction due to the "practical difficulty" that results from the setbacks of the existing home.
Hanus questioned why a detached garage needs to be farther from the street than a detached
garage. He then stated, an attached garage could easily become a part of the house.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma, and carried 6 - 0, to approve a
6 foot front yard variance and a .2 foot side yard variance for a existing non-
conforming structure to allow the construction of a conforming 19.6 x 8 foot
deck addition.
Weiland commented about the existing shed being conforming, and it was.
Chair Michael stated this item would be on the June 24, 1997 City Council agenda.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Jim and Sue O'Hearn
CASE NUMBER: 97-21
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5k
LOCATION: 1786 Shorewood Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicants are seeking setback variances in order to construct a conforming
deck addition. The existing home sits within 14 feet of the front lot line and 5.8 feet of the north side
lot line. This situation results in setback variances of 6 feet and .2 feet respectively. The lot is in
compliance with all other zoning requirements including impervious cover limitations.
COMMENTS: The existing non-conforming home is in very good condition. The proposed
construction consists of an elevated deck that measures 19.6 feet by 8 feet. The new deck will tie
into an existing deck and provide a stairway connection to the rear yard. The proposed deck addition
observes a 69 foot setback from the O.H.W. of Lake Minnetonka.
RECOMMENDATION: The non-conforming aspects of the existing property are likely to remain
well into the future. The proposed construction conforms to all zoning requirements. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow
the new deck construction due to the "practical difficulty" that results from the setbacks of the
existing home.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date: ~/~'/~ '7
City Council Date: ~ -,)c]. q 7
Distribution: ~-3-/-0/'7
City Planner Public Works
City Engineer DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No. &(
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property /,~
Addition
Zoning District
Owner's Name ~-~/n: ¥., ¢,'~
Day Phone
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
Has an application ever been made fo/zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (ffno. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
/
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all ~..~"height, bulk, _~etback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located9 es
~ (), No 40. If no, specify each non:Conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i~k¢ lot area, etc.):
,- - ~ ,~--~i ,-- .... ~ c-r~, '~< ' ' ' ' -I ' q ~ t ~'~/ / It I~
· ' reque~st_~_~_. VARIANCE
({~xisting"~' )
Front Yard: !I~T~ S F_~) ,.;70 ft.
Side Yard:((lq ,~ E W ) O' ft.
Sid.-Yard~( ~ w ) 5:
R~Y~d:" (NSEW) ff.
~~- ( ~ s~, w ) . Cc'~
·(NSEW) a.
Street Frontage: ft.
Lot Size: sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft
/0/ ft. ft.
,.(-' ,~-" ft. ft.
ft. ft.
~q' ~t. ft.
ft. ft.
/.~/ ft. ft.
L-2. 4-/>/sq ft sq ft
27 ...~g. C.,7 sq ft sq ft
Does the present 3~qe 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:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
(
(
(
Please describe:
) too narrow ( ) topography
) too small ( ) drainage
) too shallow ( ) shape
soil
---)~ting situation
other: specify
/~
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone/having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (ry. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
No (). If yes, explain:
Yes (),
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No (~.lf no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
/
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature ../ :~ ~'t_~ ('6. ¥- ~. '~ ("~(.,,.Date '?
',I
,.~z ~../~' C,~/~,~Date ,~:l, Al'~/.f',7
/,
CITY Of MOUND
HARDCQVER (;At, CULATIQN~
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVF..RAGF. I
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all Iots~ ..............
LOT AREA /g,~ j-/~ sc~. FT. x 4o% = (for LoT, of Record') .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have ,,tO 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 submitl:ed
and aDproved by the Building Official.
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
LENGTH WIDTH SC FT
20 x ¢-7 = //~o
~ -~t x ~.~ =
X
TOTAL HOUSE
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
~ Open decks {1/4." min.
opening bet~veen boards) with ·
~e~[ous suvaco under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
¢ x // =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
IF- x '~z... = _ 4-¢0
~,& x zs" z/~-
x 41 ?
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC
Z/;TZ
.................. F
TOTAL-I~¢==~c
.......................... · ~,¢¢'
X --
x ~, = /~--~. ~,
TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
PREPARED BY
C0~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
/
/
Lot 8 and the Southeasterly 27.50 feet of Lot 7 also the Northwesterly 5 feet of Lot 9,
Block 3, Shadywood Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
$cHoBoRG
ND SURVEYING.
INC.
8997 Cry. Rd. 135E
972-3221 Dela~Q, MN ~
! hereby certify that this plan, survey.or report was.
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State
of Minnesot_~ - xa
Date: /~?~) ~/' /.' / ~G~7 Registration No. 14700
JOB#
Book - Pa,
"L~I:N'~RAL '~bNING INFORMATION~ i''' I,
SHEET
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILE? YES
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH:
EXISTING LOT WIDTH:
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL BUJL-~ING/HOUSE. /
RONt: N S[E)W.
FRONT: j~L S,,~- W
S DE: E W '" (,,
REAR:
LAKESHORE: ('~50')~measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: ~_.~J~/
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
[ HA~~DCOVER CONFORMING?
LOT OF RECORD? NO I ?
EXIST. LOT AREA:
7,000 +12
EXISTING LOT DEPTH: ~.._
.ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: .50' (measured from O.H.W.}
TOP OF BLUFF:
.ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
YES / NO/7(~ I IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING?
1 DATE: 5 .'~O,-C~ 5
YES / NO
This General Zoning Information Sheet ,only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
'
vC
June 24, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION/07-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF SHED
AT 3042 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOTS 50 & 51, PID#19-117-23 34 0075
PHELPS ISLAND PARK, 1ST DIVISION
P&Z CASE//97-22
WHEREAS, the owner, Douglas Easthouse, has applied for a lakeside setback variance
of 30 feet in order to construct a nonconforming shed setback 20 feet from the lake, he is
seeking to replace an old shed which was tom down several years ago, and;
WHEREAS, this variance request also results in the recognition of a variance for the
existing nonconforming detached garage adjacent to the street which was allowed to be
constructed by the City in 1979 by special agreement and reconstructed in 1991, when it was
damaged by a vehicle., and;
WHEREAS, a 50 foot setback is required from the lake, and;
WHEREAS, the Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented
accessory structure (a lock box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square
feet and 4 feet in height, and;
WHEREAS, a lock box was found to be an inadequate size to accommodate the typical
storage needs and there are no other alternatives to locate a shed on the property that is in
conformance with the ordinance.
WHEREAS,
topography, and;
a practical difficulty is determined due to the steep slope and the
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval, with the condition that the applicant install year around screening from
the lake.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a lake side setback variance of 30 feet for the construction
of a nonconforming shed 20 feet from the lake, and recognizes the existing
nonconforming detached garage adjacent to the street. A 20' setback is required to the
garage, 0.4' is existing resulting in the recognition of a 19.6' variance.
Proposed Resolution
Case #97-22
June 24, 1997
P. 2
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
o
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 50-51, Phelps Island Park, 1st Division, PID 19-117-23 34 0075
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.
j MuninUtes - Mound Planning Commission
e 9, 1997
CASE #97-22: VARIANCE FOR SHED, DOUGLAS EASTHOUSE, 3042 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 50-51, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIV. PID 19-117-23 34
0075.
Building Official Jon Sutherland passed out photos that the applicant had provided. Sutherland
stated the applicant is seeking a variance to allow the reconstruction of a nonconforming shed
on the lakeside which was, according to the owner, tom down several years ago. The proposed
shed is to be setback 20 feet from the lake. A 50 foot setback is requires, resulting in a variance
request of 30 feet. This variance request also results in the recognition of a variance for the
existing nonconforming detached garage adjacent to the street. The detached garage was allowed
to be constructed by the City in 1979 by special agreement, and also reconstructed in 1991 when
it was damaged by a vehicle. All other issues with this property are fully conforming. The
applicant was present.
Comments
The Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented accessory structure (a lock
box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square feet and four feet in height.
The lock box must also be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the lake. There does not
appear to be any findings of hardship. However, practical difficulty was determined in a similar
case adjacent to this property, at 3030 Island View Drive.
In the previous case, the neighboring properties had similar situations with topography and sheds
located in close proximity to the lake. Due to the need for storage and due to the steep slope,
small sheds were determined to be reasonable. A lock box was found to be on inadequate size
to accommodate the typical storage needs, and there were no other alternatives to locate a shed
on the property that was in conformance with the ordinance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested
due to practical difficulty.
Chair Michael read Commissioner Mueller's comment, "I concur with the staff recommendation
with the proviso that the shed be screened from the lake with year around (i.e. evergreen) plant
material."
Sutherland stated the applicant can submit a application to the Planner for approval.
There were no questions from the Commission to the Staff.
MOTION by Burma, seconded Glister to concur with staff recommendation
and approve a 30 foot lake side setback to allow the construction of a shed
at 3042 Island View Drive. The shed is to only be 7 feet high. A screen
plan wffi be submitted the Building Official. The vote carried 5-0.
Weiland was concerned with how tall the shed would be. The applicant commented about 7-8
feet tall, and that it would be manufactured shed. Also, that it would meet the required
guidelines.
Mr. Easthouse will submit a shrubbery plan to the Building Official.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-062o
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission Agenda of June 9, 1997
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ,._j C~k~ ~.
Variance Request
Douglas J Easthouse
97-22
3042 Island View Drive, Lot 50&51, Phelps
Division, PID 19-117-23 34 0075
R-lA Single Family Residential
Island Park 1st
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the reconstruction of
a nonconforming shed on the lakeside which was, according to the owner, torn down
several years ago. The proposed shed is to be setback 20 feet from the lake. A 50
foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 30 feet. This variance
request also results in the recognition of a variance for the existing nonconforming
detached garage adjacent to the street. The detached garage was allowed to be
constructed by the city in 1979 by special agreement, and also reconstructed in 1991
when it was damaged by a vehicle. All other issues with this property are fully
conforming.
COMMENTS: The Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented
accessory structure (a lock box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding
20 square feet and four feet in height. The lock box must also be treated to reduce
visibility as viewed from the lake. There does not appear to be any findings of
hardship. However, practical difficulty was determined in a similar case adjacent to
this property, and the related information is included in the packet.
In the previous case the neighboring properties had similar situations with topography
and sheds located in close proximity to the lake. Due to the need for storage and due
to the steep slope, small sheds were determined to be reasonable. A lock box was
~prlntedonrecycledpaper
Staff Report Case 97-22
June 9, 1997
Page 2
found to be of inadequate size to accommodate the typical storage needs, and there
were no other alternatives to locate a shed on the property that was in conformance
with the ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance as requested due to practical difficulty.
JS
, I, ,, IlL
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
~4Y ~ 6 1997
$ °°. °°
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner ~'..~-~. q -7 DNR
City Engineer Other
Public Works
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address
Lot ~o ~,5'? Block
Subdivision
PID#
ZONING DISTRICT R-1
Name ~--~,s "~.
Address
Plat #
B-1 B-2 B-3
Phone (H) "/72- !"/~ ?
(W) c~ ? 2 - ~-- ,3 6 ~ (M)
Name
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed constructio ...... ~
(Rev. 1/14/97)
k10' x 8' CHELSEA SHED
· 5'4'Wx$'H ~louble doors
~ (816166)
10",t6' FLOOR lOT
(ua,~, ,$1~
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 00. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
Front Yard: ~ E(~ q-.O ft.
Side Yard: E W ) ~--t~ ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ~ ft.
· (NSEW) ft.
Street Frontage: --+0 ft.
Lot Size: ~ sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft
REQUESTED
(or existing)
0,4t ft.
4Z~ C%~:P sq ft
sq ft
VARIANCE
!
Iq ft. cpd r)eT, c,,ee.,
~'1-- ft. ,, t, ~.
ft.
sq ff
sq ~
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes 60, 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
~7 (Rev. 1114/97)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~x). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~0. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No (~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9.
/
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 ~~/,7~~~~
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. 1/14/97)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5C:~ ~5[-/~,~ VJ~c:~ ~)~-~-~
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA ~P,~ SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE
X =
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 DETACHED BLDGS ................. I 5 ~ G
· --/~ x i,~ = I~-/~
r~ x 50 : DoC)
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
x :
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTALOTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indi~oate difference) ......... , .....................
t ,m ali I, i, I,
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
RECORD? YES / NO
YARD [ DIRECTION
,lOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
B1 7,500/0
o,ooo,.o
10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE: ......
LOT WIDTH:
t
/ oo
LOT DEPTH:
I 6o I
VARIANCE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
N S E W
N S E W
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
JARl)COVER
YES I NO
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
NS E W
N S E W
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
$0'
10' OR 30'
30% OR 40%
7 lB,': {DATED:
'FhiSPlanningZOningDepartmentlnformatiOnat 472-0600.Sheel only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlact the City of Mound
~.5 '
5E -
, 3,-';
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The applicant is: ~___owner __contractor __tenant
LEG^' Lo,
DESCRIPTION
Subdivision
OWNER Name
Address
Phone (H) ~2 --['y¢~ (W) ~ ¢~g'~ (M)
CONTRACTOR Company Name
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
DESCRIBE WORK:
VALUE APPROVED
BY INSPECTOR
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZED iS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK tS
COMMENCED.
TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO ~HE ~XIERIL)H5 OP ANY BUILDINH OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
~ HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
TH~S TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT Ai~PLICANT'S NAME
APPLICANt'S' SIGN,~TU RE
DATE
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED
I ZONING
BLDG SIZE (SQ FT) # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? I CITY ENGINEER
# UNITS YES / NO I PUBLIC WORKS
RECEIVED BY / DATE: PLANS CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY / DATE: I ASSESSING
I MET COUNCIL/SAC
!
.. } ,,-'~ .....
·-'
"~,z.o' z.o~t,,),, o,,
~:
~'~a.cI.e..mrv4~.of ~.e .p~rop(~CI loc.tm, o! the buiJdin, ,u,v~.ved ti:be prol:)ert¥ described
_ T~e ~l~re uescr2oecl proPert~ .a..rt$1 th&l the location ........... above plal
August 27, 1996
RESOLUTION//96-84
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING SHED
AT 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 48,
PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION
PID 19-117-23 34 0073, P&Z CASE//9640
RECEIVED
SEP 3 0 1996
WHEREAS, the owners, John and Kathy Aquilina, have applied for va~Uc~ei]t§L}ll~{~~ & INSR
reconstruction of a nonconforming 8' x 10' shed 22 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW)
elevation, and a 1 foot from the side property line, 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,
a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and a 50 foot setback
from the OHW, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and;
WltEREAS, the Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented
accessory structure (a lock box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square
feet and is a maximum of four feet in height. The lock box must also be treated to reduce
visibility as viewed from the lake, and;
WHEREAS, the shed is used to store a riding lawn mower, and according to the owner,
due to the severe slope to the lake it is dangerous to drive the lawn mower up and down the
slope, and;
WHEREAS, both the neighbors on either side of him have metal sheds which are closer
to lake, however, they are smaller in height, and;
WHEREAS, the existing location of the shed has the least impact to the neighbor's
view, and;
WHEREAS, Staff recommended denial, however, the Planning Commission has
reviewed the request and recommended approval with 5 in favor and 2 opposed, due to the
practical difficulty and, in addition, the present location has the least impact to the neighbors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 28 foot lake side setback variance and a 3 foot side yard
setback variance to allow construction of and 8' x 10' shed, subject to the following:
The shed shall be no more than 7 feet in height, measured from the top of grade
on the lake side to the top of the highest peak on the roof.
Re~olut~'ong96-84
August 27, 1996
Page 2
o
A landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner to ensure the shed will
be adequately screened with vegetation as viewed from the surface of public
waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
abe owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 8' x 10' shed, 7' high.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 48, Phelps' Island Park First Division.
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 fred with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by
Councilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affn-rnative:
Akrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Attest: Acting City Clerk ..~ cv
Resolution adopted: August.157' 1996
3'layor , .
TRANSFER ENTERED
HL~INEPlN ~:~JNTY, TAXP^¥Ef~ ~ERVICL~
8EP 0 1~96
b o
_bLI o
J
RECEIVED"
SEP 3.1] 1996
~~~p."
M/lVUTE$ - MOUND CITY COUNCIL . AUGUST 27, 1996
1.4
CASE /~6-40: VARIANCE FOR SFFED, 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JOHN ,~
.KATHY AQUILINA, LOT 48, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DMsION, PID 19-117
23-34 0073.
Building Official Jori Sutherland stated the owners John and Kathy Aquilina are applying for a
variance to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming 8' x 10' shed 22 feet from the ordinary high
water (OHW) elevation. All other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming. The
Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented accessory structure (a lock box)
provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square feet and is a maximum of four feet
in height. The lock box must also be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the lake. The shed
will be used to store a riding lawn mower as the owner states is due to a severe slope to the lake
that is dangerous to drive up and down. It was noted that the applicant was also applying for a 3'
side yard setback variance also. This was to be added to the resolution. Staff recommended denial,
Planning Commission approved 5-2, due to the practical difficulty and the present location has the
least impact to the neighbors.
Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the amended resolution:
RESOLUTION//96-84
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
NONCONFOR.M]NG SHED AT 3030 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE, LOT 48, PHELPS ISLAND PARK IST
DIVISION, PID 19-117-23 34 0073, P&Z//96-40
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~ OF A MF. ETING OF TttE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 1996
CASE 96-40:,, V~RIANCE FOR SHED, 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JOHN &
KATHY AQUILINA, LOT 48, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID 19-
117-23 34 0073
Orv Burma stepped down as he is a neighbor to the applicant.
Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The
applicant is seeking a variance to allow the reconstruction of a
nonconforming shed on the lakeside. The shed is now partially
11
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1996
reconstructed and is setback 22 feet from the 0HW, a 50 foot
setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 28 feet.
All other issues with this property are fully conforming.
The Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented
accessory structure (a lock box) provided that it does not have a
floor area exceeding 20 square feet and is a maximum of four feet
in height. The lock box must also be treated to reduce visibility
as viewed from the lake. There does not appear to be any findings
of hardship or practical difficulty in this case as the ordinance
provides for a lock box and there may be other alternatives to
locate a shed on the property that is in conformance with the
ordinance.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the
request due to lack of a hardship or practical difficulty.
Glister stated that the shed is already partially reconstructed,
and questioned how this came to the attention of the City.
Sutherland noted that the City received a complaint. Sutherland
commented further that the applicant stated he had contacted the
City and someone had informed him a permit was not required for a
shed 120 square feet or less, and he was unaware it was required to
meet a 50 foot setback.
Weiland suggested an alternative location for the shed which is
next to the deck. Applicant, Mr. Aquilina, emphasized that due to
the severe slope to the lake it would be dangerous to drive their
riding lawn mower up and down the slope. He stated there is only
a 3 foot wide trail along the side of the lot, and the rider is 4'
wide. He stated it took four people to carry the tractor down the
steps. Aquilina noted that both the neighbors on either side of
him have sheds closer to lake, and they are the same size. He
asked why he should be treated differently.
Reifschneider noted that the neighbor's sheds are shorter and that
his shed looks bigger, and he feels there is room to move it
further back on the lot. Aquilina stated he was willing to reduce
the height of the shed.
Aquilina commented that the old shed was dilapidated and unsightly,
and the new one is more aesthetically pleasing, and more safe. He
noted the foundation is made of railroad ties. Aquilina also feels
that the existing location of the shed is best for the neighbor's
site line.
Michael explained that if they approve this shed, they will be
farther away from the City's long term goals and this is their
opportunity to gain conformance.
Mueller, agreed that the existing location is least impacting on
the neighbor's and applicant's property. Mueller recalled that one
requirement of the Shoreland Management Ordinance is that
structures be screened from view from the lake. He suggested the
shed could be screened, the height changed, and the color could be
12
Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996
changed. He does not believe the metal sheds on the adjacent lots
will ever go away because metal does not deteriorate as quickly.
Previous cases involving sheds on the lake side were discussed.
Hanus commented that none of the previous cases involving sheds on
the lake side involved newly constructed sheds.
Orv Burma, neighbor to the applicant, emphasized that Mr. Aquilina
did call to see if a permit was needed, and noted that the shed
would be costly to move; and feels that the shed is not offensive
to lake users in its present location.
Hanus asked how far the shed can be moved back so it is functional.
Aquilina stated, maybe 4 feet. Weiland disagreed. Burma agreed
that the shed could go back 4 to 6 feet, but not far enough to be
conforming, and even if it is pushed back 4 feet the elevation is
higher. He feels it would look better where it is.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend
approval of the variance to allow the shed, subject to
the shed being no more than 7 feet in height, measured
from the top of grade on the lake side to the top of the
highest peak on the roof, and that a landscaping plan be
submitted for screening the shed with vegetation. Motion
carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were: Voss, Mueller,
Glister, Hanus and Michael. Weiland and Reifschneider
were opposed.
Weiland commented that we are missing the opportunity to remove a
nonconforming structure. Reifschneider agreed and believes there
is room to move the shed back on the lot.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1996.
6¢
~7~ -.s-o/7
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
e
SURVEY ON FILE7 YES
.BT OF RECORD? ~YYES~ NO
YARI}
Ill ItlSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF III.UFF
,(;ARA(;~)' . ,
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R3
J DIREL'I'ION J REQUIRED J
N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S
TOP OF BLUFF
B1 7,500/0
B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/4~ 83 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
SE~ ORO. I1 30,000/100
EX1S'rlN~/~ROPOSED
EXISTING LOT S~:
LO'[ WIDTH:
?$'
LOT DEPTH:
YARIANCK
' ' I
Thi~ Z.nin~ Infnrmntion Sheet only summmj~ e portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoalng Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
.Plnnning Department nt 472-0600.
,? l'.;.:) ' '
-'3
June 24, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #97-
RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING HOME
WITH A FRONT YARD, REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING
WALKWAY, PATIO AND DECK
AT 1732 CANARY LANE,
LOT 10, 11, 12, BLOCK 11, DREAMWOOD
PID 13-117-24 24 0015,
P&Z CASE//97-23
WHEREAS, the owner, Kenneth and Carol Grabow, are seeking approval of variances to allow
the replacement of an existing walkway, patio and deck that wraps around two sides of the existing home,
and;
WHEREAS, the existing home is nonconforming due to a front yard, rear yard and side yard
setback and impervious cover as follows:
Existing Required Variance
Front Yard Setback 5.47' 20' 14.53
Side Yard Setback (south) 1.47 6' 4.3'
Rear Yard Setback (east) 13' 15' 2'
Impervious Cover 44 % 40 % 4 %
~ ' ' ' ' w v r th6 impact
WHEREAS,~-pr-ot~sc~ co~i~hu,~oii iii,; ' ' , ho e e :nek~ p
is minimal due to the fact that the property abuts the Wiota Commons, which is held in perpertt/a7 open
space, and;
WHEREAS, in the side yard the proposed deck replacement is required to observe a 6 foot
setback since the deck, at that point, exceeds 30 inches above grade, and:
WHEREAS, in addition to the adjacent commons, the proposed improvements will reduce the
amount of hardcover on the site to nearly 40%, by converting the walkway and patio from concrete,
where water will not penetrate, to a wooden deck construction, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant will remove the existing nonconforming shed at the rear of the
property, and;
WHEREAS, the granting of this variance will be on the basis of practical difficulty, 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, a 20 foot front
yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended
approval.
Proposed Resolution
Grabow
June 24, 1997
P. 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks, to allow
the reconstruction of a wooden walkway, patio and deck.
The applicant will remove the currently existing nonconforming shed to increase the impervious
cover.
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:
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 10-11-12, Block 11, Dreamwood, PID #13-117-24 24 0015
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.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Co
CASE #97-23: VARIANCE FOR DECK, KENNETH & CAROL GRABOW, 1732
CANARY LANE, LOT 10, 11, 12, BLOCK 11 DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 24
0015.
City Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report. The applicants are seeking approval of
variances to allow the replacement of an existing walkway, patio and deck that wraps around two
sides of the existing home. The existing home is nonconforming due to front yard, rear yard
and side yard setbacks and impervious cover. Setbacks and variances that currently pertain to
the parcel include:
Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback (south)
Rear Yard Setback (east)
Impervious Cover
Existing Required Variance
5.47' 20' 14.53
1.47 6' 4.3'
13' 15' 2'
44% 40% 4%
The proposed construction impacts the amount of impervious cover and the side yard setback
noted above. In the side yard area, the proposed deck (replacement) is required to observe a
6 foot setback since the deck at that point exceeds 30 inches above grade. In this location, the
property abuts the Wiota Commons which is held in perpetual open space. In order to
reconstruct the deck, either a variance needs to be granted or the deck could be reduced in depth
the comply with the 6 foot setback requirement. The remainder of the setbacks stem from the
location of the home on the lot which is an existing condition of the property.
Comments
The proposed improvements will actually reduce the amount of hardcover on the site to a total
8
-337
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
that is very near the 40 % threshold in the ordinance. By converting the walkway and patio to
a wooden deck construction, water will be able to penetrate the surface unlike the concrete
surfacing that currently exists. Therefore, the new decking will improve the hardcover situation
on the property.
Recommendation
Variances in Mound can be granted on the basis of either hardship or practical difficulty. In this
particular case, a f'mding of practical difficulty could be rendered by the Planning Commission
due to the placement of the home on the lot, the fact that the proposed deck will improve the
amount of impervious cover, and due to the fact that the lot borders a large commons area that
will always exist as open space. Based on a f'mding of practical difficulty, staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the identified variances in order to
reconstruct the existing walkway, patio and deck in the wooden decking configuration that is
proposed.
Weiland stated there would be more open area if the old shed was removed near the back
properly line.
Mr. Grabow stated the shed is not used often and could be removed.
MOTION by Weiland to concur with staff recommendation to recognize
existing nonconforming house and setbacks and recommend approval of
variances to allow the replacement of existing walkway, patio and deck that
would be reduced to comply with the 6' setback from the Commons and to
remove shed at back of lot.
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated that the commons area adds green space to this lot.
Mr. Grabow stated he would gladly remove shed, but would rather not reduce the deck size to
meet the 6' setback.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to concur with staff, to recognize
existing nonconforming setbacks, to allow the reconstruction of walkway,
patio and deck. The applicant is to remove the existing nonconforming shed
on the property.
Hanus clarified that the deck as proposed, was contingent upon the removal of nonconforming
shed.
Michael clarified the shed is to be removed to add to the green cover.
The vote was called, the motion carried 5-0.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Mr. Grabow was concerned about the area where the shed is located, how would it look when
shed is removed and the back of neighbors shed will be exposed? He was told he could fence
the area to match the existing fence. He would have to locate lot line, the fence could go on
the lot line, or he could screen area.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koeglcr Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Kenneth and Carol Grabow
CASE NUMBER: 97-23
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-51
LOCATION: 1732 Canary Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R~ lA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicants are seeking approval of variances to allow the replacement of an
existing walkway, patio and deck that wraps around two sides of the existing home. The existing
home is nonconforming due to front yard, rear yard and side yard setbacks and impervious cover.
Setbacks and variances that currently pertain to the parcel include:
~ Required
Front Yard Setback 5.47' 20'
Side Yard Setback (south) 1.7' 6'
Rear Yard Setback (east) 13' 15'
Impervious Cover 44% 40%
Variance
14.53'
4.3'
2'
4%
The proposed construction impacts the amount of impervious cover and the side yard setback noted
above. In the side yard area, the proposed deck (replacement) is required to observe a 6 foot setback
since the deck at that point exceeds 30 inches above grade. In this location, the property abuts the
Wiota Commons which is held in perpetual open space. In order to reconstruct the deck, either a
variance needs to be granted or the deck could be reduced in depth to comply with the 6 foot setback
requirement. The remainder of the setbacks stem from the location of the home on the lot which is
an existing condition of the property.
COMMENTS: The proposed improvements will actually reduce the amount of hardcover on the
site to a total that is very near the 40% threshold in the ordinance. By converting the walkway and
patio to a wooden deck construction, water will be able to penetrate the surface unlike the concrete
surfacing that currently exists. Therefore, the new decking will improve the hardcover situation on
the property.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Grabow Variances Planning Report
June 3, 1997
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Variances in Mound can be granted on the basis of either hardship or
practical difficulty. In this particular case, a finding of practical difficulty could be rendered by the
Planning Commission due to the placement of the home on the lot, the fact that the proposed deck
will improve the amount of impervious cover, and due to the fact that the lot borders a large
commons area that will always exist as open space. Based on a finding of practical difficulty, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the identified variances in order
to reconstruct the existing walkway, patio and deck in the wooden decking configuration that is
proposed.
ii I ,. IlL
13: 1. FAX CITY OF
VARIANCE/~PPLICATION
CITY OF MOL.~,'D
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ,lin 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
MAY 2 2 15 7
2
Application Fee:
009
$1,oo.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
!Ci~' Council Date:
Distribution:
~..~'1-,8'7 City Planner
City Engineer
', Public Works
~' J'~-' ¢? DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTYx
OWNER
/
A.PPLIC.(NT
flF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address /'7~'
Lot /~//~/~. ~3 mock ,//'
Subdivision
PID#
ZONING DISTRICT R- I
R-2 R-3 B-1
Plat #
B-2 B-3
>Address
Phone (H) ~".'q'~t~/ (W) '~- ~2/Zyd (M)
Name
Address
Phone (H). .(W)... (M) .
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes,~¥'no. If yes, list date(s) of application, actiontaken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resbldtions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, crc,):
05,'06. 97 13:10
Vzr.~.~¢¢ Application, P. 2
FAX CITY 0F MOUND
Case No.
006,' 009
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
-" dj. sir!ct in which it is located? Yes (), No~n~.. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
fer variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)'
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
VARIANCE
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Flardcover:
REQUESTED
(or existing)
(~s E w ) f~ ~. ~ ~. _~,~,
(NS )
(NSEW) ~. - ~.
· (NSEW) - ~. ~'
~~sq ~ ~ ~/~ '~ sq ~ ~/~, sq ~
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located'? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristi~ of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
Please
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too s.hanow ( ) shape
( ) soil
F;~existing situation
( ) other: ~ecif-y
CITY OF .~IOUNI) 1~ 007,009
case No. g ,
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after thc zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~[. ff yes, explain:
7,
No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other m-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
i~ this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
I ceftin' 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 upott 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
U5,'06.97 13:11 FAX CITY OF 5iOUNI) [~005 009
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER C~LCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for alt lots) ..............
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% -- (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques ara utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (sea back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE X =
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open deck~ 1114" min.
opening between boards} wi'th ·
pervious surface under ere
not counted e~ hardoover
OTHER
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x
X ~
XTOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X~
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER ! OVER (indic~t~ differeoce) . · .~ ..........................
ARMSTI~ONG 'FORSETH SKOLD & RYDEEN INC
/73,9
ARCHITECTURE · ENGINEERING , PLANNING · TECHNOLOGY · LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE · INTERIOR DESIGN
4901 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY MINNEAPOLIS MN 55422 612 . 545 . 3731 612 . 525 . 3289 FAX
ARMSTRONG TORSETH SKOLD & RYDEEN INC
ARCHITECTURE · ENGINEERING · PLANNING · TECHNOLOGY ° LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ' INTERIOR DESIGN
4901 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY MINNEAPOLIS MN 55422 612 . 545 . 3731 612 . 525 . 3289 FAX
/I
\
G
SURVEYING
INC.
I hereoy certify :l~at :lqis plan. survey or report was.
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the taws of the State
of Minnesota. ~
Date: /"~)/~'// /.~4'-/~'c~_7 Registration No. 14700
JOB#
Book - Pag~
:~9
Scale
/"- 30'
" L
!1
'1
GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ADDRESS:
SURVEY
STREET FRONTAG E/WlD'H h ,~::~ ~) /
REQUIRED
I
REQ. LOT AREA:
LOT OF RECORD~)NO / ?
EXIST. LOT AREA:
EX~ST~NG LOT DEPT.: ~ 0 ' +/-
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL BUI[D~/,ousE
FRONT: N s ¢.._~_aa.~:u~ 20'
FRONT:/J~ S E W
SLUE: (._.~/S~E W
SIDE: U ~W
REAR: N S~'
LAKESHORE: ~ ~0' (measured Irom O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W ~(,.~'
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAl. BUILDING ttOUSE
FRONT: N 3 E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
fiEAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: ~
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W "
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES / NOF? )
H~,V/ER CONFORMING? YES/NO
This General Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in tire City of Mound Zoning
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
,-..... ( )
(HARRISONS
BELLS.
June 24, 1997
BATCH 7062
Total Bills
$182,493.60
$182,493.60
T
n-
k- !
',.D I
.
~°
L
0 I
:D UJ _,1
· i
,0
~ g.... Z o o
o
o'
?
o¢
Z
,0
Z
u.J
!
June 24, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 97-
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION//95-13
MODIFYING ITEM//16 FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3,
BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, AND TO
APPROVE A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
FOR LOT 3 ONLY.
WHEREAS, the applicant Caliber Homes, Fred Johnson, is seeking a front yard
setback variance for Lot 3, Block 1, which fronts on both a short street (Outlot A) and an
unimproved portion of Drummond Road, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant, Caliber Homes, Fred Johnson, the current developer is
seeking to amend Resolution 95-13, regarding item #16 which reads:
"Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered structures.
Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit
a set of plans, prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the
City. The plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation
plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement."
to change the structure style of the homes to a traditional basement structure, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-iA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires for non-lots of record a minimum lot area
of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear
yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located on the corner of the improved Drummond
Road and the home is proposed to be located 10 feet from Drummond Road right-of-way, and;
WHEREAS, because of the location of the lot, it is required to observe a 20 foot setback
off of Drummond Road, a 10 foot setback variance is being proposed, and;
WHEREAS, when the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was submitted the developer had
originally proposed the vacation of Drummond Lane. After public hearings, the Council denied
the vacation request. The general conclusion was that Drummond Road would probably never
be improved for street purposes, and;
WHEREAS, locating a home within 10 feet of the line does not compromise future use
of Drummond Road as either a formally marked or informally used public trail. Even if utilities
were needed in the future, they could be placed within the right-of-way without being hampered
Proposed Resolution
Teal Pointe
June 24, 1997
Page 2
by the location of the proposed home, and;
WHEREAS, the fact that Drummond Road is likely to be held by the public as perpetual
open space and the fact that the new home does not compromise the future use of the public
right-of-way, are grounds for a finding that this case satisfies the existence of practical difficulty,
and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area and impervious surface coverage are
conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and the vote was 3-2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby gram a 10 foot front yard setback variance in order to allow
construction of a new dwelling 10 feet from Drummond Road.
Item #16 of Resolution #95-13 be modified to remove the requirement for caisson and
cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be amended to read:
"Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, the developer shall
submit a set of plans prepared by a registered engineer and landscape architect
for review by the City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale
not larger than 1" = 10' identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot
increments, a lot tree inventory, an erosion control plan and a detailed
landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note all site features such
as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided."
Complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 is consistem with the above
requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City
Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck
or patio shall be limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
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.
Proposed Resolution
Teal Polnte
June 24, 1997
Page 3
o
o
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Single Family Dwelling
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, Teal Pointe
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.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1997
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF
MODIFICATION OF RESOLUTION g95-13, ITEM//16, FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK
1, TEAL POINTE AND TO CONSIDER A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR LOT 3 ONLY.
Chair Michael stated the format for public hearings. Staff gives their report, Commissioners
comment to staff, then the public hearing opens, and interested citizens can then speak.
Planner Mark Koegler stated the Planning Commission had heard this case on May 19, 1997 and
the Council heard this on May 27, 1997. The City Council decided it appropriate for the
abutting properties be notified of the proposed changes in the original Resolution of//95-13.
He then described the case briefly. The applicant is seeking approval of a front yard setback
variance and modification to one of the conditions of the approval resolution for the Teal Pointe
subdivision in order to construct a new home. The parcel in questions is Lot 3, Block 1 of Teal
Pointe which fronts on both a short street (Outlot A) and an unimproved portion of Drummond
Road. Because of the location of the lot, it is required to observe a 20 foot setback off of
Drummond Road. A 10 foot setback is being proposed, hence the variance of 10 feet.
Drummond Road is unimproved and is only platted.
When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was reviewed and subsequently approved, the
developer proposed vacation of parts of Drummond Road. In the course of the review of the
preliminary plat, the right-of-way was not vacated and the plat continued to identify an incorrect
10 foot setback from Drummond Road right-of-way.. Presumably, the plat was drawn assuming
setbacks with the right-of-way having been vacated. As a result, Caliber Homes is seeking a
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
10 foot setback variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the lot line.
The applicant is also seeking to change the proposed preliminary plat that included
cantilevered/cassion foundations for homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3, to the standard form of housing
with a full basement. Lots 1, 2 and 3 intrude into a bluff area as defined by the Shoreline
Ordinance. Because of the timing of this development relative to the adoption of Mound's
shoreland standards, the approval resolution granted, "A variance from Section 330:1225, Subd.
4(B) to allow minimal fill for home construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 within the bluff impact zone
and/or bluff area."
The resolution also stated, "Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered
structures. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a
set of plans prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City. The plans
shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which
details tree and ground cover replacement."
This idea of caisson/cantilevered construction on Lots 1-3 was offered by the developer at that
time as a means to lessen the impact on the steep slope areas. At this time, the current owner
of Lots 1-3 is seeking to modify this clause in the resolution to allow the construction of
traditional single family homes.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested 10 foot
front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-way of Drummond
Road. The facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty.
Staff further recommends that item 16 of Resolution //95-13 be modified to remove the
requirement for caisson and cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be
amended to read: "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall
submit a set of plans prepared by a registered engineer and landscape architects for review by
the City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale not larger than 1" = 10'
identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an
erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note
all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided."
Complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement
shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to
issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be limited
to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
Chair Michael asked the Commission if they had any comments, they had none.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, I997
Chair Michael opened the Informal Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who
wished to speak on this item.
John Edewaard - 5125 Hanover Road. He stated he did not like the proposed variance. There
was no hardship, doesn't meet code. He did not like changing plans. The new owner should
have researched this before he purchased land. The original plat was approved because of the
house style change, now it is being recommended. He stated there were already 17 variances
and this had been well thought out once.
Koegler stated that other PDA's had had changes in the past, once the plat was approved.
Hanus asked Edewaard what his contention was with, the variance or the building style?
Edewaard stated some conditions had not been met, such as reseed and resod. The homes
should be built the way they were originally designed.
Hanus reiterated the proposal before the Commission.
Jim Brunzell, 5111 Windsor Road. He stated the neighbors had worked hard with the previous
developer to come to an agreement, now it was changing. He was losing his trust in
government. He purchased his home from previous developer, it had water problems in the
basement. Brunzell stated he did not think the style of home would work on the slopes.
Todd Rask, 5901 Drummond Road. He disagrees with the setback variance. The undeveloped
Drummond Road was being discussed amongst neighbors as being a nature trail with walkway
access to the slough area. He felt the slope was too steep for the style of home proposed.
Chair Michael asked if this trail plan would go through the Parks and Open Space Commission.
Harry Nassett, real estate agent, 2212 Fern Lane. He stated the plat map on view, was not the
way the plat was approved. The plat on view showed Drummond Road vacated and it was not
vacated. Lot 3 is 40 feet wide. The correct plat of lot 3 does not go into Drummond Road.
Nasset stated caisson style homes are not good for Minnesota climate due to the cold seeping
in. More earth would have to be moved installing caisson than a full basement. With retaining
walls, the grade will be more improved than with the open ground style. Holes for the caisson
would be larger and move more earth around than just digging a basement.
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the equipment used to dig a basement, would be a
backhoe and cause less impact on the hillside because it could cut into the hillside for a
foundation from at the top above the lot. In order to prepare footing holes, equipment would
have to drive over and around the slope.
Chair Michael asked why the original builder used caisson/cantilever style?
Minutes- Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
City Planner Koegler stated the former developer proposed this style of structure.
Chair Michael commented that some time changes occur, something may prove to be better than
what was originally planned.
Chair Michael asked three times if there were any more comments from the interested citizens,
there were none. Chair Michael closed the informal public hearing.
Hanus stated the cantilever style portrayed a more environmental friendly style, now we are
hearing differently. The Commission would recommend the style that makes the most common
sense. He didn't think much could grow under the caisson style overhang and that a full
basement would not create as much erosion, especially if side elevations with landscaping were
considered. He was not concerned with pipe freezing issue, this could be taken care of through
special building efforts. The staff reports that there should not be further damage to the slopes.
He is sensitive to the neighbors concerns.
Weiland stated he also wants to protect the slope, and through the use of retaining walls, he
could approve the full basement style. He was concerned as to what could grow under the
cantilever.
Burma stated he had mixed thoughts. He was concerned that recently there had been instances
where the developer assumed a street vacation had been approved, and then, consequently, the
Commission granted variances to allow the building. He stated that sometime exceptions are
made.
Glister stated she had wanted a public hearing to discuss the proposed changes. She was willing
to consider the change. She was pleased citizens took the time to come to the meeting. She did
not want to change the building style of the original proposed cantilevered/caisson style home.
Chair Michael commented that there were four Commissioners not in attendance. He did have
in writing, comments from Michael Mueller. Chair Michael wondered if the Commission would
like to wait until more Commissioners were present.
Weiland stated more information should be added to the motion, regarding the oversight in not
vacating Drummond Road.
Hanus stated the conditions as they would be in the motion.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Burma to approve the requested 10 foot
front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-
way of Drummond road and to modify item //16 of Resolution 95-13 to
remove the requirement for cassion and cantilevered structures. To amend
4
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
the condition to say "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3,
the developer shah submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and
landscape architects for review by the City. The plans shah contain a
detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10' identifying
existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory,
an erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. The grading plan
shah note all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate
details shah be provided." Complete plans for the proposed construction on
Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement shah be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a
building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shah be
limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
Koegler stated the motion came directly from the staff report.
Chair Michael read Commissioner Mueller's comments for the record:
"The discussion we had with this development were many and the developer assured us
that the entire development would be architecturally planned including building facades and that
the bluff slopes would be least disturbed by the construction of some of the homes on caissons
where the grade was the steepest. I brought up at that time the open underside exposure of the
structures was a difficult and expensive way to build given the cold weather that we have in
order to protect the heating and plumbing systems from freeze-up. The developer assured us
that even though it would not be cheap, this type of construction is preferred in order to
minimize the impact to the bluff. He informed us that caisson drilling does not disturb as much
area as that which excavating machinery needs to move large amounts of fill material and the
turning radius and movement required to remove such material. The lots in Block 1 were
always of the largest concern as the slopes are very extreme.
No type of construction other than that approved on the preliminary and f'mal plat should
be allowed. It appears as though this is a request based solely and completely on a cost effective
method of construction and not on a hardship that was not at length at the time of the
preliminary plat approval. It is my understanding that a variance, or in this case a modification
change to the final plat, should not be done for the sole purpose of making the project less
expensive to complete. There are methods of assuring that the construction on caissons can be
done without freeze-up problems and the bluff would sustain the least amount disturbance and
infringement. I used to be an excavator, and I assure you that there is no way to excavate a
basement that disturbs the bluff equal to or less than caisson drilling."
Chair Michael stated the presumption was that Commissioner Mueller did not approve the
structure style change.
5
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Chair Michael asked if there were comments from the Commission.
Weiland stated he would like to see plans for the retaining walls on Lots 1 and 2. He wanted
to make sure the retaining walls were installed.
Burma stated he agreed with Mueller on most points with the exception of the construction cost
being cheeper. The Commission should not request only the most expensive plan. There is no
reason to require a more expensive method if both methods have equal impact.
VOTE was called, motion carried 3-2. Glister and Michael voting nay.
Chair Michael stated the item goes to the City Council on June 24, 1997.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
DATE: June 3, 1997
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
RECEIVED
JUN 5 - 19§7
SUBJECT: Variance Request/Resolution Modification - Caliber Homes
FROM: Mark Koegler
On May 27, 1997, the City Council considered the request by Caliber homes to grant a setback
variance for Lot 3 and to amend the approving resolution for Teal Pointe to allow traditional home
construction on Lots 1 - 3. Both the variance and the requested resolution change were approved by
the Planning Commission on a 4-3 vote.
When the item went to the City Council for action, it was decided that the case should be referred
back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing to take additional public comment on the
request. As a result, it is back before the Planning Commission for review. Based on input received,
the Planning Commission could reaffu-m its earlier position of approval on the request, it could
recommend a modified approval of the request or it could recommend denial. Since the facts of the
original case remain unchanged, no new staff report material has been prepared.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
CITY OF MOUND
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
CASE//97-20
NOTICE OF INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF
MODIFICATION OF RESOLUTION//95-13
ITEM//16, FOR PARCELS 1, 2 & 3,
BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE
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 PM on Monday
June 9, 1997 to consider the approval of a modification of Resolution $//95-13 pertaining to the
style of home from cassion/cantilever to conventional basement style and to consider approval
of a 10 foot front yard setback variance, for lot 3 only.
The legal description of the subject property is Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 1, Teal Pointe, as
shown on the plat map below:
~'q ..... I~.l,q ~ ,'s ~ ..... :.,vr.-~' _~ -,,~:- ~- ~ -j.~
All persons appearing at said informal hearihg with reference to the above will be given
the opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Linda Strong, Planning Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on June 2, 1997
printed on recycled paper
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY27, 1997
1.10
CASE 97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION MODIFICATION,
CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOIINSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTE. LOT
3, BLOCK 1, PID #25-117-24 12 0233.
Councilmember Jensen stated that as she remembered this at tile preliminary plat approval it was pointed out
that there were some problems with the streets still showing that they were vacated and they were not. She
asked why we are still showing these streets as vacated on an approved plat.
The Building Official explained that the original applicant proposed to vacate both Cobden and Drummond,
but neither were vacated. At that point, the Staff recommendation would have been for a variance to the
setbacks and we would have i,~cluded that ill the listing of variances, but it was omitted. Then the applicant
did not follow-up with revising their preliminary plat. The Building Official stated that the final plat does
not show proposed setbacks. Tile preliminary plat does and the final plat resolution references the preliminary
plat. The final plat does not show the streets as vacated. Essentially, they're unbuildable because of slope.
The Building Official stated that the final plat is not incorrect, but it is the variance item in the resolution.
In review by the Attorney and Staff it was decided that the applicant really needed to come in and get the
Council's approval on the issue, so that there are no title or mortgage problems in the future. He stated the
the Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval.
Tile Building Official explained that the original developer proposed cantilever and caisson type homes for
Lots 1, 2 & 3. From a Staff, engineering, landscape architect, planner and applicant's perspective, it is felt
that traditional houses can be put in there that will have no greater impact than those originally planned. He
reported that there are other houses in the City that are built into slopes like this and are not sustaining any
damage or erosion to the slope. The Council discussed the original proposal and the current applicant's ideas
and was concerned about changing SOlnething that was previously approved, without going through due
process (notifying tile public, holding a public hearing, having the Planning Commission hear the changes and
giving the Council their recommendations prior to Council action).
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Jensen to send this application for a resolution
modificalion and variance lhrough the Planning Conmfission and City Council notifying
properlies pursuant 1o cily rules and regtllations. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried. The Council asked that people within 350 feet of Lots 1, 2, &3 be notified of this
hearing.
377
MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1997, 6 PM
CASE #97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION
MODIFICATION.
CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTE
LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PID #25-117-24 12 0233.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planners report. The applicant is seeking
approval of a front yard setback variance and modification of one of the conditions of the
approval resolution for the Teal Pointe subdivision in order to construct a new home. The
parcel in question is Lot 3, Block 1 of Teal Pointe which fronts on both a short street (Outlot
A) and an unimproved portion of Drummond Road. Because of the location of the lot, it is
required to observe a 20 foot setback off of Drummond Road. A 10 foot setback is being
proposed, hence the variance of 10 feet.
When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was reviewed and subsequently approved, the
developer proposed vacation of parts of Drummond Road. In the course of the review of the
preliminary plat, the right-of-way was not vacated and the plat continued to identify an incorrect
10 foot setback from the Drummond Road right-of-way. Presumably, the plat was drawn
assuming setbacks with the right-of-way having been vacated. As a result, Caliber Homes is
seeking a 10 foot setback variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the lot line. This
case is similar to Bradley Whyte, 5090 Windsor, which was approved by the City Council.
Variances can be granted on a basis of findings that either a hardship or practical difficulty
exists. In this case, the requested variance is reasonable as a practical difficulty since the
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Drummond Road right-of-way is likely to exist as perpetual open space in the future because of
the steep terrain. The fact that the new home does not compromise the future use of the public
right-of-way are grounds for a finding by the Planning Commission that this case satisfies the
existence of practical difficulty.
The second aspect of the applicant's requests relates to the type of new home construction that
can occur on this lot as well as Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1. Lots 1, 2, and 3 all intrude into a bluff
area as defined by the Shoreland Ordinance. Because of the timing of this development relative
to the adoption of Mound's shoreland standards, the approval resolution granted "A variance
from Section 330:1225. Subd. 4 (B) to allow minimal fill for home construction on these lots
(1-3) within the bluff impact zone and/or bluff area."
The resolution also stated the homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and/or cantilevered
structures. Prior to issuing building permits, the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared
by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City.
The idea of the caisson and cantilevered homes on Lots 1-3 was offered by the developer as a
means to lessen the impact on the steep slope. At this time, the developer is seeking to modify
this clause in the resolution to allow the construction of traditional single family homes, with full
basements. Staff does not oppose traditional homes on Lots 1-3, providing the impact on the
site is no more sever that it would have been with the caisson and cantilevered homes. The
grading plans previously submitted are not definitive nor is it in total compliance with the plan
submittal requirements identified in the resolution. The City Engineer and Planner are
comfortable in taking action on the request, but require the missing information to be submitted
for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The rear elevation of the home plans by Caliber Builders show a sliding door at the basement
level that will access into the back yard. It is assumed that the Builder will want to place some
form of deck or patio in this area to allow limited use of the rear portion of the home. Only a
minimal encroachment for a deck or patio should be allowed in this area consistent with the
intent of the original approval and the conservation easement that protects most of the rear of
this lot.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
requested 10 foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-way
of Drummond Road. The facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty.
Staff further recommends that item 16 of Resolution 95-13 be modified to remove the
requirement for caisson and cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be
amended to read: "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3, the developer shall
submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and landscape architects for review by the
City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10'
identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note
all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided.
Also, complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 consistent with the mentioned
requirements shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner
prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be
limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
The applicant Fred Johnson was present along with Harry Nasset.
Chair Michael opened discussion.
Weiland mentioned his concern of what would happen to lots 7 & 8 later on. Would all of these
lots be requesting variances? The idea of cantilever homes was good at the beginning, why not
now? He listed several conditions in the original resolution that were now being changed. He
stated he was against changing the style of the home on Lot 3, and also 1 & 2.
Chair Michael clarified that there was two requests. One for a 10 foot setback and the other to
change the style of house from cantilever to traditional foundation.
Weiland wondered how the street vacation on Drummond did not happen and the vacation
remained on the plans.
Hanus stated the lot line goes through Drummond, but that portion of Drummond was never
vacated.
The front yard was discussed. The property has two street frontages and a 20' front yard
setback is required to both streets.
Voss was concerned with how this plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Sutherland
stated it fits the residential zoning district and the development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and complies with the zoning ordinance. There is the practical difficulty
with the area being steep.
Reifschneider questioned how the slope would be maintained with a conventional house?
Sutherland stated there would be several retaining walls erected to support the slope. Plans must
be developed by a landscape architect and an engineer. These plans will be then reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Planner who is a certified landscape architect.
Voss commented there 17 variances granted for this PDA.
Sutherland stated there had been a considerable amount of discussion regarding this development
and the developer had made the plans to appease the Commission's requests.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Hanus stated there had been concern with erosion of the slope and the developer designed the
area to suit this concern.
Mr. Nasset stated that several cassions would be needed to support slope and home and that a
full basement would be better.
Sutherland stated the change to the resolution does allow conventional construction on Lots 1,
2 and 3, and the city planner and engineer.are comfortable with the conditions.
Weiland stated he would like to see the plans for the retaining walls now that the foundation has
changed and that this variance would affect lots 1 and 2 also.
Chair Michael asked for a motion.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider, to approve the requested 10
foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-
of-way of Drummond road and to modify item//16 of Resolution 95-13 to
remove the requirement for cassion and cantilevered structures. To amend
the condition to say "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3,
the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and
landscape architects for review by the City. The plans shall contain a
detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10' identifying
existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory,
an erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. The grading plan
shall note all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate
details shall be provided." Complete plans for the proposed construction on
Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a
building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be
limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Burma stated the resolution was passed by the Planning Commission earlier with the intention
that that portion of Drummond Road would be vacated. He was concerned the second plan
remained the same as the first, showing the vacation.
Hanus asked what the impact would be changing plans from a cassion foundation to a full
basement.
Nasset commented that complications could arise with pipes freezing, heating problems and that
eventually the owner would request to enclose the cassions to a full basement.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Sutherland stated that many homes in Mound have been built into steep slopes. He mentioned
Highland Blvd., Ridgewood Road and Denbigh Road. He stated that with the conditions as
listed in the staff reconunendation, he was comfortable with the change from caisson to
conventional construction.
Hanus stated that the revised plans would be reviewed by the Planner and Engineer prior to
issuance of any permits.
Fred Johnson stated, as the builder, he had to guarantee the home for 2 years and that
structurally, enclosing the pipes and basement would be better and keep soil in place.
Glister stated that the Commission had approved the PDA as an entire package and did not like
to redo here and there.
Hanus asked if this changes the initial PDA and if a new public hearing would be required?
Sutherland stated this was a minor change, he and Planner Mark Koegler had discussed this and,
in their opinion, a new public hearing would not be required.
Michael stated this change in setback and style only affect Lots 1, 2, and 3. This style of house
would also add footage to the dwelling.
The vote was called. Motion to approve the requested 10 foot front yard
setback and to allow the style of dwelling to be changed to a full basement as
opposed the cantilever/cassion style dwelling. All change in plans must be
approved by the Planner, Engineer and Building Official. Landscape plans
must be included as prepared by a certified landscape architect. The motion
carried 4-3. Weiland, Michael and Glister voting nay.
This item will be on the May 27, 1997 City Council Agenda.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: May 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Variance Request (Front Yard) and Resolution Modification
APPLICANT: Caliber Builders - Fred Johnson
CASE NUMBER: 97-20
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5j
LOCATION: 5100 Drummond Road
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-1 A)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a front yard setback variance and
modification of one of the conditions of the approval resolution for the Teal Pointe subdivision in
order to construct a new home. The parcel in question is Lot 3, Block 1 of Teal Pointe which fronts
on both a short street (Outlot A) and an unimproved portion of Drummond Road. Because of the
location of the lot, it is required to observe a 20 foot setback off of Drummond Road. A 10 foot
setback is being proposed, hence the variance of 10 feet.
COMMENTS: When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was reviewed and subsequently approved,
the developer proposed vacation of parts of Drummond Road (see Exhibit 1). In the course of the
review of the preliminary plat, the fight-of-way was not vacated and the plat continued to identify
an incorrect 10 foot setback from the Drummond Road right-of-way. Presumably, the plat was
drawn assuming setbacks with the right-of-way having been vacated. As a result, Caliber Homes
is seeking a 10 foot setback variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the lot line. This
case is very similar to a recent variance for Bradley White which was approved by the City Council.
Variances can be granted on a basis of findings that either a hardship or practical difficulty exists.
In this particular case, the requested variance is reasonable since the Drummond Road fight-of-way
is likely to exist as open space in the future because of the steep terrain. Locating a home within 10
feet of the lot line does not compromise future use of the property for public purposes such as a trail
access.
Hardship in this case is probably more difficult to find than the existence of practical difficulty. The
fact that Drummond Road east of Outlot A is likely to be held as perpetual open space and the fact
that the new home does not compromise the future use of the public right-of-way are grounds for a
finding by the Planning Commission that this case satisfies the existence of practical difficulty.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Planning Report- Caliber Homes Variance Request
May 14, 1997
Page 2
The second aspect of the applicant's request relates to the type of new home construction that can
occur on this lot as well as Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1. Lots 1, 2 and 3 all intrude into a bluff area as
defined by the Shoreland Ordinance. Because of the timing of this development relative to the
adoption of Mound's shoreland standards, the approval resolution granted, "A variance from Section
330:1225, Subd. 4(B) to allow minimal fill for home construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 within the bluff
impact zone and/or bluff area."
The resolution also stated, "Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered
structures. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of
plans prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City. The plans shall contain
a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and
ground cover replacement."
The idea of constructing caisson and cantilevered homes on Lots 1-3 was offered by the developer
as a means to lessen the impact on the steep slope areas (see Exhibit 2). At this time, the current
owner of Lots 1-3 is seeking to modify this clause in the resolution to allow the construction of
traditional single family homes.
Staff does not oppose traditional homes on the three subject lots providing that the impact on the site
is no more severe than it would have been with the caisson and cantilevered homes. Grading and
landscaping plans were submitted for Lot 3. While the information submitted is helpful, it is not
definitive nor is it in total compliance with the plan submittal requirements identified in the
resolution. The retaining walls shown do not match existing grades on the site and while a planting
plan has been provided, the required tree inventory and erosion control plans were not submitted.
Despite the missing information, both the City Engineer and I are comfortable in taking action on
the subject request and requiring the missing information to be submitted for review and approval
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The proposed house plan will require substantial grading along the front and side portions of the
home as would have the caisson and cantilevered form of housing. The area at the rear of the home
is of some concern since the caisson style houses did not propose any permanent improvements
behind the rear wall of the home. The rear elevation of the home plans by Caliber Builders show a
sliding door at the basement level that will access into the back yard. It is assumed that the builder
will want to place some form of deck or patio in this area to allow limited use of the rear portion of
the home. Only a minimal encroachment for a deck or patio should be allowed in this area consistent
with the intent of the original approval and the conservation easement that protects most of the rear
of this lot. Staff and the Planning Commission have typically defined minimal encroachment for a
deck or patio to be approximately 8 feet.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the requested 10 foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-
way of Drummond Road. The facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty.
Planning Report - Caliber Homes Variance Request
May 14, 1997
Page 3
Staff further recommends that item 16 of Resolution 95-13 be modified to remove the requirement
for caisson and cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be amended to read:
"Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans
prepared by registered engineers and landscape architects for review by the City. The plans shall
contain a detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10' identifying existing and proposed
contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an erosion control plan and a detailed
landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note all site features such as retaining walls
and decks and appropriate details shall be provided."
Complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement shall
be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a
building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be limited to the area
extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Telephone Conversation Report
By: Client:
Date: ~'- .7 Project:
Time:/0: A.M./P.M. Project No.:
File:
Call To(~~ Title:
Organization: Telephone:
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
TeIeplwne Conversation Report
Date:
Time: ~-.: ~ A.M.
Call To/~/~d.~'-',X~..~ .~j..~ Title'
Client:
Project:
Project No.:
File:
Follow-Up Action:
I
R~-v. ~/89
.iii
I
88:58
612-8~5-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 968 P06 MAY 15 '97 88:51
EXHIBIT 2
I
I
January 24, 1995
RY_SOLUTION//95-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF
A PLANqqED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, LOT AND.STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, SHORELAND
VARIANCES, AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for a major subdivision called
Teal Pointe in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance
Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Sate Same and all proceedings
have been duly conducted thereunder, and
WHEREAS, the project submitted for approval is substantially unchanged from the
project that received preliminary plat approval by the Mound City Council on February 9, 1993
(Resolution 93-20) and final plat approval by the Mound City Council on May 10, 1994
(Resolution 94-65), and
WHEREAS, the applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to
establish Teal Pointe as a Planned Development Area ('PDA), together with a request for street
design variances and variances from the bluff setback provisions of the Mound City Code, and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development
Areas 'to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having
unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of
water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or
location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and
controlled platting technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City', and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on January 10, 1995, held a public hearing pursuant to
Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Teal
Pointe Subdivision located on property described as follows:
Lots 2, 3, 4, 22, 23 and 24 Block 11, "WHIPPLE';
That part of Lots 13 through 21, inclusive, Block 10, 'WHIPPLE," and that part of Lot
1, Block 11, in said plat, together with that pan of vacated Cobden Lane, as dedicated
in said plat lying North of the Westerly extension of the South line of said Block 10, also
together with that part of the North half of vacated Drummond Road as dedicated in said
plat lying East of the Southerly extension of the West line of said Block 10, all which
lie Southerly of a line described as beginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot 1;
thence on an assumed bearing of East along the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 22
14
January 24, 1995
feet; thence South 41 degrees 59 minutes 14 seconds East, 26.91 feet; thence South 44
degrees 03 minutes 39 seconds East, 43.14 feet; thence South 50 degrees 21 minutes 21
seconds East, 45.45 feet; thence South 51.degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East, 19.21
feet; thence South 50 degrees 28 minutes 39 seconds East, 51.86 feet; thence South 68
degrees 11 minutes 55 seconds East, 43.08 feet; thence South 80 degrees 04 minutes 26
seconds East, 40.61 feet; .thence North 75 degrees 57 minutes 50 seconds East, 41.23
feet; thence North 78 degrees 41 minutes 24 seconds East, 40.79 feet; thence on a
bearing of East, 40 feet; thence South' 47 degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds East to the
South line of said Lot 21, Block 10; thence East to the Southeast comer of said Lot 21;
thence South along the extension of the F-~st line of said Lot 21 to the centerline of
vacated Drummond Road and there terminating.
ALSO
Lots 1 to 26 inclusive, Block 15, and Lots 1 to 26, Block 16, ~WHIPPLE";
That portion of vacated Windsor Road, dedicated to the public in the plat of "WHIPPLE~
as Windsor Place, which lies Easterly of a line drawn from the Northwest comer of Lot
13, Block 16 to the Southwest comer of Lot 14, Block 15, and Westerly of a line drawn
from the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 16 to the Southeast comer of Lot 26, Block
15, said addition,
That portion of vacated Drummond Road, dedicated to the public in the plat of
"WHIPPLE,' which lies South of the centertine thereof, Easterly of a line drawn from
the
Northwest comer of Lot 13, Block 15 to the Southwest comer of Lot 14, Block 10, and
Westerly of a line drawn from the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 15, to the Southeast
comer of Lot 26, Block 10, said addition, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability
of the preliminary plat, the planned development area, the variances, and the final plat taking
into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement,
location, width of streets, their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply,
sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of
adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls, and
WHEREAS, the street variances for Drummond Road and Windsor Road will facilitate
the construction of street extensions that will match the grade of the existing paved streets, and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density
of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and
15
January 24, 1995
WHEREAS, the applicant prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for
the project, the project was modified to reflect information collected dhring the preparation of
and comment period for the EAW and the Mound City Council acting as the RGU determined
that an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) was not warranted for the project, and
WHEREAS, the Indian .Affairs Council has reviewed the project as part of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet and has given their approval, and
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as
it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval
addressing those considerations, and
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as
required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided, and
WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with the existing land use in the area, and
WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district, and
WHEREAS, the applicant's property is exceptional in that it is irregularly shaped and
has unusual topography, and
WHEREAS, the applicant's property is covered with mature trees and mature vegetation
which when coupled with the unusual shape and topography of the site requires some variation
from the literal interpretation of the street design requirements of the Zoning Code to allow the
preservation of existing trees and vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, and
WHEKEAS, due to the shape of the parcel, existing topography and existing vegetation,
a variation from the requirements of the bluff setback provisions of the Zoning Code will allow
the distribution of home sites throughout the property avoiding a concentration of homes on the
peninsula area off of Windsor Road, and
WHF_.R~AS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate
the practical difficulty created by the shape and topography of the site and to facilitate the
preservation of existing vegetation, and
WHEREAS, the granting of variances will not confer upon the applicant any special
privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same district, and
WHEREAS, the granting of variances would not be materially detrimental to the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone, and
16
lanuary 24, 1995
Wl:Pg~RI*JA, S, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations
and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of
the City of Mound.
NOW TI:IElll~.FORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
Preliminary Plat approval, Final Plat approval, approval of issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
to establish a Planned Development Area including the designation of Outlot A as a private street
and the following variances:
Street frontage variances for L~ts 1'-3 which will front on an extension of
Drummond Road. Lot 1 requires a 36 foot variance, Lots 2 and 3 each
require a 20 foot varianCe from the 60 foot minimum frontage standard.
Lot width variances for Lots 2 and 3. Lot 2 requires a 6 foot variance
and LOt 3 requires a I7 foot variance from the minimum 60 foot width
requirement.
A variance from Section 330:1225, Subd. 403) to allow minimal fill for
home construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 witt'2n the bluff impact zone and/or
bluff area.
A 220 foot variance from the maximum 500 foot cul-de-sac length on
Windsor Road.
A 10 foot variance from the required 50 foot fight-of-way width for
Windsor Road and a 10 foot variance from the required 50 radius cul-de-
sac bubble on Windsor Road.
A 5 foot variance from the 40 foot standard on the paved area of the cul-
de-sac bubble and a 4 foot variance from the standard 28 foot street width,
both on Windsor Road.
A variance on lots 1-3 from the bluff area setback requirements of the
Shoreland Management Ordinance section 350:1225.
· A 5 % street grade variance from the maximum 8 % on Windsor Road.
are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements and those found within
the City Engineer's memo dated December 7, 1994:
17
~anuary 24, 1995
The preliminary plat drawings labeled as Exhibit A and the final plat drawings labeled
as Exhibit B are hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all improvements shall be
as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City Engineer.
The Homeowner's Association documents labeled as Exhibit C are hereby incorporated
into this Resolution.
The Conservation Easement labeled as Exhibit D is hereby incorporated into this
Resolution.
The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit
from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat.
The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all
required reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to beginning construction. The Building
Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured.
Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract
with the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items
covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the
final plat. As part of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with
a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved
by the City Attorney in the amount of $155,000 (!25% of estimated construction costs)
as per plans approved by the City Engineer.
Outlot B as shown on the preliminary plat shall be dedicated to the City of Mound. The
Developer shall furnish the City Attorney with all necessary information and assistance
to transfer Ouflot B to the City. This transaction shall be completed prior to the City
releasing the final plat and shall be filed at the same time the plat is placed of record.
The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to
the City showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall
provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Teal
Pointe.
Out. lot A shall be limited in use to a private street and utility extension of Drummond
Road to serve Lots 1, 2 and 3. An undivided ~,5 interest in Ouflot A shall be conveyed
to each of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and bound to those parcels in the property tax records. It is
further understood that all tax parcel descriptions shall include the individual lot and the
1/3 undivided interest in Outlot A and this may not be divided off in the future.
18
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
January 24, 1995
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of
the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period,
it shall become null and void.
The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Windsor Road and in any other portion
of the plat shall be born~ by the developer, including a sanitary sewer pumping station
design approved by the City Engineer.
Street and Utility plans prepared by the developer shall indicate grades which
accommodate pedestrian access through the Cobden Lane right-of-way. Plans are to be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the City releasing the
final plat.
A Homeowner's Association shall be established' for all lots within the subdivision
according to the homeowner's documents attached as Exhibit C. All these documents
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
The retaining wall proposed along Windsor Road shall be constructed using a stone-faced
modular block retaining wall system or other stone retaining wall system. Color,
material and construction drawings shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the
City releasing the final plat.
Sanitary sewer service for Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be provided by private individual lift
pumps with the forcemains combined into one common line located in Outlot A. This
private line shall discharge into the public system located in Drummond Road. The
maintenance and/or replacement of these lift stations shall be the responsibility of the
owners. The City shall not have responsibility for the maintenance or replacement of the
lift stations.
Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered structures. Prior to
issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans,
prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City. The plans shall
contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan
which details tree and ground cover replacement.
Impervious cover on individual residential lots shall be limited to no more than 30% of
the lot area.
Building permits or Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the
subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City
Engineer, Fire Chief and Building Official.
19
January 24, 1995
19. The MP~A's Best Management Practices * subsequent management of the property.
shall be applied to the
development and
20.
21.
Park dedicatiOn in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $4,500 is to be paid prior to the
City releasing the final plat.-
Any outstanding cash balance in the escrow account plus an additional $2,500 necessary
to cover engineering, planning, legal and administrative fees shall be deposited with the
City prior to the City releasing the final plat.
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by
the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the
subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without
further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound
Code of Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by
Councilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Hanus, Ahrens, Jensen, and Jessen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Polston.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
2O
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
APR 2 O 199}' 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 APE 2 9
CITY OF MOUND
i.32i6~6[icliti6fi ~ F~e~: r/i i$~.100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) / ~9~ r-~ °C
Planning Commission Date' -JCt/~< ~ ~ /~ Case No. 0
City Council Date: .)¢~ '~& ~/ ~ 7
Distribution: City Pla~er DNR
City Engineer
Public Works
S~ECT Address ~1o o ~o~o~o J~&
PROPERTY Lot LOT 3 (ALSO AFFECTs LOTS 1 8 2~ Block
LEGAL Subdivision ~ ~ o
DESC. PID*2¢ II~Z+I~OZ~I~~ ~o o~3~ Plat//
ZONING DISTRICT R-1~R-1)) R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
PROPERTY Name ~ ~ ~ %~~ v ~ ~ 5 {~ ~
OWNER Address ~ (O ~~ ~
Phone (H) 4~- [ ~ ~0 (W) .(M). W ~0
APPLICANT Name ~_~'v ~o~ ~a ~
(IF OTHER Address ~&-~ ~
THAN Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
Has an app!ication ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, 1~[ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
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 (), Nofi~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
(
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
fl. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
fl. ft. ft.
ft. fl. ft.
ft. fl. ft.
sq ft sq fl sq ft
sq fl 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 ~5, 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?
'(~-,)4oo narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
describe:
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
· l~q OI (Rev. 1~14~97)
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes 0ID, No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~5. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes.,~ NodK,). 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 Siffnature
,' (Kev. 1/14/97)
Date
Date
03/27/97 12:17 FAX CIT~' OF ~O[:ND ~001
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONR
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVER,A~-E)
iPROPERTY ADORE-sS.. --~ ,~ ~
OWNER'S NAME' /~.,~,....~-¢-~-r-z.--R_ .... : .,--,, ,;.-,.- ','
LOT AREA I o I~ 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 3S0:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submi~ed
and aPl~roved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDG$
(GARAGE/SHED)
LENGTH WIDTH SO FT
X =
X =
TOTAL HOUSE
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, $1DEW___.~ALKS,
ETC,
X =
"~'~ X ~. ,.C.- =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDG$ .................
I T:::,x 7_0 = ~ ~o
4 X ~ =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
TOTAL DECK
TOTAL OTHER
X =
X =
~
DECKS Open decks (1t4," min.
openin~ bot~ve®n board~) with
Oer~iOuS sur[ace under are
not CoUnted ee herdcover
OTHER
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~OVER (indicate difference)
....................
G
Teal Pointe
1 O~95
All in Block 1
PID ~-117-24 12 0
Lot 1 (231)
Lot 2 (232)
Lot 3 (233)
5108
5104
5100
Drummond Road
Drummond Road
Drummond Road
Lot 4 (234)
Lot 5 (235)
Lot 6 (236)
Lot 7 (237)
Lot 8 (238)
Lot 9 (239)
5O9O
5O80
5070
5060
5065
5075
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
14
DRUI,,L4OND RD
WINDSOR RD :'.
~, 40 K) 40 4Q
40 40 40 40 40 40
18%
..L. 4~ ,L 146 I
-~-,-~-;-~-F~r r ~ 7,~, ~. ~ ~
' 8 ~ 4 ~ J"
· - , 5' I..3-!"Z', -,~lr
' . ] .... " ..... , ] ,'"
'~': ~o ! '.o , 4~
.... "~7 - T .... '1--
(~"L'~I O. 14
I~.09
9. I.'" 7' OUTLOT B
'~- ~ 4,.6~.:. t /
37. §1:-'
ri
I
I-
TEAL I--'0
PRELIMINARY Pl
TEAL POINT DEVE
IN BLOCKS I0, I'
WATERBURY
ROA~'
;7
TEAL POINT DEVELOPMI~
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commisston
June 12, 1997 Page 3
REQUEST TO SELL CONCESSIONS AT MOUND BAY PARK DEPOT - WESTONKA
HELPING YOUTH - SUE CATHERS.
Cathers discussed the desire to have Mound area youth sell concessions at the Mound Bay Park
Depot.
Casey asked what will be sold. It was noted candy, pop, and ice cream will be sold. Casey
asked where the money will go. Cathers stated profits would be shared among the workers as
their pay. Casey asked what the Family Service Collaborative is. Cathers stated it is a group
which has met which has received a grant. It helps youths and families in the West Tonka area.
Pederson asked if
when no one else
customers to find
the Depot will be rented. Cathers stated it is reserved for five Wednesdays
is using it, and fees were waived. Pederson asked the kids to listen to their
out what is needed in the park.
Cathers noted the Collaborative will be donating money for a refrigerator and freezer. Faclder
questioned where it would be located. He asked how many supervisors would be on staff.
Cathers stated 1-2 supervisors would. She stated there would always be an adult present. She
noted it would be a place for teens to hang out.
Fackler was concerned about adult supervision and the possibility more would be needed. He
suggested starting out heavy.
Pederson asked if a damage deposit will be required. Cathers stated it will not.
Pederson was concerned about the phone. Fackler stated it is always lighted and is operated at
a loss.
Casey asked about requiring a damage deposit. Fackler stated many of the non-profit
organizations are not required to pay the damage deposit. Weycker stated a deposit could be
paid if required.
Casey asked if other non-profit organizations are able to use the Der)or for fundraisers. Faclder
stated many of the local groups have used it in the past. Weycker stated the group could go
under the School Board if non-profit status is required. Casey was concerned about other groups
for profit wanting to sell items from the Depot. Meyer believed the goal is to find a safe place
for kids to have something to do. He stated a lot of money isn't involved. Weycker stated the
Park Commission could determine on a case-by-case basis whether a use would be allowed. She
believed this group is a community service group, and fees will be waived.
Casey discussed the difference between non-profit and for-profit organizations.
Weycker suggested the kids receive a stipend for working, and other monies could be earmarked
for a special project.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Weycker to approve the request and the fees be
waived and that the net proceeds from the sales of concessions be distributed for a
charitable purpose. Motion carried unanimously.
2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364
June 7, 1997
Mayor Bob Polston
Mound City Council
5341Maywood Road
Hound, MN 55364
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing this letter in regard to Council discussion in the
matter of a proposed Burn Ordinance in Mound. As I understand it,
Council had questions as to whether or not such an ordinance is
needed. It is my opinion an ordinance is needed to restrict the
Open Burning that is taking place frequently in our coverage area.
I am submitting a list of calls in the last 2 1/2 years that
relate to recreational and illegal burns. These calls are costly
to the taxpayers and tend to deteriorate morale of Fire Fighters.
I understand that a local law officer (Highway Patrol) suggested
to Council Member Hanus, there is no need for such an ordinance.
I would like to invite this individual to leave his family or work
and respond with the Fire Fighters on these calls. Perhaps seeing
the issue first hand would create a better understanding of the
situation.
We at the Fire Department are not adverse to families enjoying a
recreational fire, on their properties. We are concerned about
the increase of illegal and potentially dangerous burning that is
taking place in our community. I would not waste Council time if
I did not feel this matter required their attention.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephen C. Erickson
Mound Fire Chief
SOE/jb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
37
39
40
~ 41
~2
DATE
TIME
(~)
6/15/97
6/15/97
6/lO/97
6/9/97
6/8/97
6/07/97
6/07/97
6/02/97
6/02/97
6/01/97
5/31/97
5/31/97
5/30/97
5/25/97
5/19/97
5/17/97
5/17/97
5/17/97
5/17/97
5/16/97
5/16/97
5/16/97
0947
0037
1032
2129
2309
2243
1213
1940
1832
1913
2051
1308
2211
0840
2136
0027
2317
1900
1523
2342
2118
2116
4863 DONALD DR. ILLEGAL BURN
AREA OF ARBOR LN - SOME KIND OF FIRE/REC.
4900 BL OF SHORELINE/SMOKE IN AREA
3115 BROOKS LN - FIRE IN PIT
5926 BEACHWOOD LN - BON FIRE
4945 N ARM DR - LGE FIRE IN WOODS/PERMIT
4880 ISLANDVIEW DR. - FIRE IN YARD/PERMIT
1861 COMMERCE BLVD. - FIRE IN WOODS
1801 COMMERCE BLVD. - GRASS FIRE
3560 IVY PLACE BON FIRE OUT OF CONTROL
3207 ROXBURY LANE/ILLEGAL BURN
1920 LAKESIDE LN. HAS PERMIT
5100 WINDSOR RD. ILLEGAL BRUSH FIRE
TREE ON FIRE - ILLEGAL BURN ORONO
BON FIRE - ILLEGAL BURN ORONO
POSSIBLE HOUSE FIRE - REC. FIRE IN BACK YARD- SP
TREE FIRE - ILLEGAL BURN -MTR
UNKNOWN FIRE FLAMES ABOVE TREES - MTR
4994 MANCHESTER - BRUSH FIRE - NO PMT
HEAVY SMOKE IN AREA - PMT BURN TO BIG
BON FIRE - CANCEL ORONO
4921 DRUMMOND RD - BON FIRE ILLEGAL BURN
516197
513197
511197
4/28/97
4~28/97
4/26/97
4/26/97
4/25/97
~1/97
4/20/97
4/19/97
4/19/97
BRUSH
4/16/97
4/14/97
4/12/97
5/15/97 2116 1920 LAKESIDE LN ILLEGAL BURN (NEIGHBOR COMPLAINS
ALL THE TIME ON THEM FOR REC FIRE EVERY WEEK END AND ALL HOURS)
1141 4816 LONGFELLOW- POSSIBLE GRASS FIRE - ILLEGAL BURN
1639 1737 CANARY LANE - BURNING LEAVES & BRUSH / CANCEL
1946 4628 ABERDEEN RD - ILLEGAL BURN/HOSTILE SITUATION
!922 4628 ABERDEEN RD - ILLEGAL BURN
1700 FIRE BEHIND GRANDVIEW/ANTHONY'S-GRASS UNKNOWN
2342 4760 ISLANDVIEW DR/WOODS ON FIRE - UNKNOWN
0841 4320 ENCHANTED DR - POSSIBLE ILLEGAL BURN-HTR
1503 5901 SUNNYFIELD GRASS FIRE -CARELESS SMOKING HTR
1444 OLD BEACH RD - GRASS/SWAMP FIRE -ORONO
1435 3207 DEVON LN - REC FIRE
2108 1640 HERON LN - ILLEGAL BURN /REC. FIRE
2041 4665 WEST BRANCH RD - GRASS FIRE OWNER STARTED
2016
1608
1543
GRASS FIRE
4/12/97 1421
3/31/97 1823
3/24/97 2338
3073 INVERNESS RD - ILLEGAL BURN/WARNING
1520 WESTWOOD DR. LARGE FIRE THREATENING BLDG. HTR
BARTLETT & WESTEDGE - JUVENILE SMOKING STARTED
3100 ISLANDVIEW DR - ILLEGAL BURN / REC. FIRE
1709 DOVE LN - BURNING IN BACK YARD / REC, FIRE
FLAMES SEEN ACROSS LAKE - LGE REC FIRE ORONO
DATE TIME
(2)
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
5O
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
11/2/96 1257
10/26/96 2359
10/26/96 1527
10/19/96 1419
10/18/96 1647
10/15/96 2027
10/15./96 1934
10/14/96 1814
10/14/96 0108
10/6/96 1745
9/16/96 2203
9/1/96 1018
8/26/96 1955
8/18/96 1335
8/16/96 1323
8/7/96 2033
8/3/96 1553
7/28/96 2100
7/27/96 2O20
7/20/96 2142
7/15/96 2142
7/6/96 0014
6/25/96 2046
6/13/96 1352
6/9/96 1753
6/8/96 225O
6/5/96 1457
5/28/96 1553
5/27/96 1622
5/25/96 2335
5/9/96 2012
4/28/96 2003
4/28/96 1710
4/27/96 2011
4/24/96 1843
4/23/96 18t0
4/23/96 i752
4/23/96 1207
4/20/96 1855
4/19/96 1301
4/13/96 !236
3/21/96 1446
3/15/96 1701
2757 ANGELSELLY RD - BURNING LEAVES
3022 NORTHVIEW RD - BURNING LEAVES - MTKA B
5985 GAME FARM RD - ILLEGAL BURN MTR
1706 RESTHAVEN LN - ILLEGAL REC FIRE
3465 LYRIC AVE LEAF FIRE/GRASS ORONO
2500 SHADYWOOD SMOKE IN AREA/FIRE IN WOODS
6155 HILLSDALE DR - ILLEGAL BURN, TICKETED MTR
4440 LAMBERTON - GRASS FIRE/JUVENILE'S STARTED
3455 SHORELINE - ILLEGAL REC FIRE
2238 COMMERCE - GRASS FIRE
LGE FIRE - RR TIES,GARBAGE - MTR WAS TICKETED
4964 EDGEWATER DR., WOODS ON FIRE/DUMPED HOT ASHES
5700 LYNWOOD - REC FIRE - CANCEL
4425 NORTH SHORE DR - BURNING SHINGLES/TAR PAPER
PERI'Ii7 BURN OUT OF CONTROL- HTR
3054 BRIGHTON ILLEGAL BURN
6625 GAME FARM RD - ILLEGAL BURN
5070 BAYPORT RD BRUSH FIRE/CANCEL
585 CLARENCE AVE-BRUSH FIRE-NO PMTS/ MTR
1665 BLUEBIRD LGE REC FIRE
6256 LYNWOOD BLVD - ILLEGAL BURN
EAGLE LN & THREE PTS BLVD. SMOKE IN AREA
1585 GULL LANE ILLEGAL BURN/OK REC FIRE
4787 SHORELINE - GRASS FIRE SP PK
1665 BLUEBIRD - BURN tLLEGAL
5710 SUNSET SMOKE IN AREA/UNKNOWN
6200 ROBIN LN HAY FIRE ALONG RR TRACKS
3670 SHOREL I NE DR, BURN HAZ MATER I AL ORONO
3472 LYRIC REC FIRE ORONO
205 CTY RD 19 ILLEGAL BURN MTR
CTY RD 26 & MEADOWVIEW - GRASS MTR
GRASS FIRE - SWAMP KIDS
775 APPLEGARDEN RD -BURNING RUBBISH OUT OF CONTROL
2541 LAKEWOOD LN - GRASS - LGE REC. FIRE
2614 CLARE LN - BURNING LEAVES
3600 NORTHERN RD BURNING LEAVES
3640 LYgliC WOODS ON FIRE
2869 TUXEDO GRASS F I RE
705 CTY RD 19 PMT OUT OF CONTROL MTR
275 MEADOWV I EW DR. ILLEGAL BURN MTR
· 4700 WlLSH!RE BLVD. BURNING TRASH
~600 WESTEDGE BRUSH FIRE
705 CTY RD 110 POSSIBLE BRUSH F IRE/REC FIRE
'2/26/96 2'215 5229 SHORELINE DR SMOKE IN AREA, ILLEGAL BURN
DATE TIME
87 1/28/95 2111
88 1/24/95 1455
89 1/19/95 1656
90 1 / 16/95 2004
91 3/25/95 1824
92 3/24/95 903
03 3/22/95 1510
04 4/23/95 2053
05 4/14/95 1937
96 4/13/95 1823
97 4/10/95 1712
98 4/2/95 2103
99 4/1/95 1014
100 5/21/95 2106
101 5/21 /95 1755
102 5116/95 1855
103 5/15/95 2302
104 5/14/95 2122
105 5/12/95 ~,633
106 5/9/95 2049
107 5/7/95 !637
108 5/5/95 2349
109 5/5/95 'i 837
110 6/15/95 1326
111 6/2/95 1941
112 7/22/95 1842
113 7/22/95 1841
114 7/11/95 2103
115 7/9/95 106
116 8/20/95 1543
117 8/19/95 1956
118 8/18/95 231 1
119 8/15/95 2052
120 8/14/95 2123
121 8/'14/95 1922
122 8/9/95 4550
123 8/2,/95 2115
124 8/3/95 16 '12
125 10/26/95 1414
126 10/1F,/95 4908
I 0 ,' 'i ~/.o,~ 1440
127
128 i0/1/95 t9'12
(3)
3200 ISLANDVIEW DR. BURNING ILLEGAL
5842 GRANDVIEW BLVD. BURNING ILLEGAL
4732 MANCHESTER RD, UNKNOWN FIRE IN YARD - KIDS
110 RIDGEWOOD COVE - BURNING GARBAGE ILLEGAL
WESTEDGE & NORTHERN SEEN FLAMES - NOTHING
4375 ENCHANTED POINT - PERHIT BURN
2737 TYRONE LN, FISH HOUSE
LANGDON LAKE GRASS FIRE - PERMIT BURN,REC. FIRE
6500 AREA CTY 15 - GRASS FIRE ILLEGAL HTR
5028 SHORELINE GRASS FIRE ILLEGAL
THREE POINTS & SUMACH - BRUSH FIRE ILLEGAL
BON FIRE - ILLEGAL
SHADY iSLAND - PERMIT BURN
6400 SUNNYFIELD - PERMIT BURN HTR
3200 BL OF CASCO CIR. TREE FIRE~ ORONO\
AREA OF 3100 DEVON - ILLEGAL BURN
ENCHANTED DR & HIGHLAND CIR - ILLEGAL BURN
17~9 WtL. DHURST UN -SMOKY REC FIRE WARNING
AREA "~75 CTY RD i=
~,., - LGE GRASS FIRE
7600 WOODEDGE RD - PERMIT BURN LARGE
LAKEViEW GOLF - KiDS STARTED LGE FIRE
BEHIND 6470 BARTLETT FIRE IN PIT UNOCCUPIED
HANOVER & ROANOKE - LEAVE FIRE
2300 BAYVlEW PL GRASS FIRE ORONO ILLEGAL
4900 SHORELINE 0 HEAVY SMOKE - CANCEL~
4878 EDGEWATER DR - GRASS FIRE
3455 SHORELINE GRASS FIRE
1700 SHOREWOOD AREA LGE SMOKE IN AREA
1615 EAGLE LN BON FIRE
4665 WEST BRANCH BRUSH FIRE - ILLEGAL
1754 HERON UNATTENDED PERMIT FIRE
TO LGE REC FIRE ILLEGAL
3730 CASCO AVE - PERMIT BURN
6365 WALNUT BURNING GARBAGE
5872 GLENWOOD RD - SMOKE IN AREA - REC. FIRE
ENCHANTED LN - HOLISE FIRE- ILLEGAL BRUSH FIRE
NORTFIERN RD & SANDY LN - TO LGE REC FIRE
ENCHANTED DR & HIGHLAND CIR, ILLEGAL BURN
1920 LAKESIDE LN BURNING LEAVES ILLEGAL]
DRUHMOND RD ILLEGAL BURN
,3060 iSLANDVIEW DR, ILLEGAL BURN OF LEAVES
AVON DRIVE & GLENDALE SHOLDERING WOOD CHIPS
PROPOSED ORDINANC£ AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE NO. -1997
AND ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 235:27, SUBD. 1
OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO RECREATIONAL FIRES
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 235:27, Subd. 1 of the City Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 235:27. Burning Restrictions - Burning Permit Required.
Subd. 1. Open Burning Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to start
or allow to burn any open fire on any property within the City of Mound without a
pt fo p i ed~ar~,ec~ g ~, ~^~;~ ...:~: ......... ~ c..~
permit, exce r su erv s or COO]~g re3 ........ ~ ......... P'l-' ........
'~ ~;~ ^" *'~-~' ...... -~'~-~dg"li'~reinaft
n.,,o, v ............ ~, .... er defined.
Exception: Recreational fires as defined by Minnesota Uniform Fire Code
(recreational fire is the burning of material other than rubbish where fuel being
burned is not contained in an incinerator, outdoor fireplace or barbecue pit and with
a total area of 3' or less in diameter and 3' or less in height for pleasure, religious
ceremonial cooking or similar purposes). Recreational fires are to be from 12:01
p.m. until 11:59 p.m. only unless written permission for exception is received from
the Fire Chief or Fire Inspector. Only charcoal, coal, or clean, dry wood may be
used for burning (no refuse, grass, leaves, yard waste or other combustibles).
Recreational fires shall be at least 25' from any building and shall be supervised at
ali times. The owner of any property upon which a recreational fire is started or
ori~,inallv ignited, in violation of the provisions of this division shall be responsible
therefor and shall be subject to penalties provided in this code, unless such owner
can adduce proof that such fire was started by a stranger or trespasser.
No permit shall be required for any official fire set by any public official as provided in
Section 490: 20.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council -
Publish in The Laker -
~ .ll . .Itl Mtnutes a. Mouna ctryacounctt - ~nay ~.*,'~,~/
"City Attorney, John Dean, felt that the resolution did not authorize what the intent was
and therefore the City Council needed only to state that intent and approve it that way.
MOTION made by Jensen seconded by Weycker to amend the Minutes of the April
22, 1997, Regular Council Meeting as amended above. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
1.7
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 235:27, SUBD. 1 OF
THE CITY CODE RELATING TO RECREATIONAL FIRES 1545
Councilmember Hanus stated that he remembers addressing this about a year ago and what is
being presented tonight is basically the same as then. He then asked why it is back?
The City Manager explained that the Council did not taken action on this item before. This item
has been reviewed by the Fire Dept. and the Police Dept. and now that Spring is here, they are
saying we need to do something about this ordinance because there are all kinds of people
lighting fires that are not in compliance with either the existing ordinance or one that they would
like to see in place of it. What is being suggested and proposed are changes that were made
before but some things were added, i.e. the total area of 3 feet or less in diameter and 3 feet or
less in height; the time recreational fires would be allowed; and the distance from any building
was originally 20 feet and what is being proposed is 25 feet. This would give more teeth to the
Fire Chief and Police Dept. and regulate people's ability to light recreational fires.
They are getting a lot of calls about these fires.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he was against this last year and is still against this. He has
a problem with some of the language in the Exception part of the proposed amendment, i.e.
diameter and height restrictions and how that could be a prosecution problem; the time that
recreational fires would be allowed.
The Council then extensively discussed the proposed ordinance amendment as it relates to the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
what people are burning;
the size of the fires;
the time limitation for when people can burn; and
the distance from any building that a person could have a recreational fire.
The City Manager reported that this proposed ordinance amendment was based on other cities
in the metro area and how they deal with recreational fires. This amendment has been reviewed
by the Police Chief, Fire Chief and Fire Inspector and they all gather their approval or made
the changes they felt were necessary.
The City Attorney suggested that the wording, "Recreational fires shall be at least 25' from any
building and shall be supervised at all times.", could be changed to read as follows:
"Recreational fires shall be at least 25' from any building which is intended for human
occupancy and shall be supervised at all times."
The City Manager explained that the only intent of this ordinance amendment is to regulate
recreational fires, open burning is still not going to be allowed.
4
Councilmember Hanus asked that the "not" in the first sentence of the Exception be deleted
because he felt it says that a fire place, incinerator or barbecue pit are not a recreational fire,
but they are open burning, therefore they do not meet the criteria under either the exception or
the open burning which prohibited.
The City Attorney stated that he also feels the "not" in the Exception should be deleted.
MOTION made by Poiston to delete the word "not" from the Exception and the time
frames in the proposed amendment. This motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION made by Jensen to delete the work "not" from the Exception and revising
the following sentence "Recreational fires shall be at least 25' from any building and
shah be supervised at all times" to read as follows: "Recreational fires shall be at
least 25' from any building intended for human occupancy and shall be supervised
at aH times." This motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Polston to leave the existing ordinance as
is with the deletion of approved (His reason was that there is no criteria for
approved fire rings.) and the addition of one sentence, as follows:
Section 235:27, Subd. 1 of the City Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 235:27. Burning Restrictions - Burning Permit Required.
Subd. 1. Open Burning Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to start
or allow to burn any open fire on any property within the City of Mound without
a permit, except for supervised recreational or cooking f'wes contained within
........ '~ fire rings, pits or barbecue grills. Only charcoal, coal, or clean, d~ wood
may be used for burning (no refuse, grass, leaves, yard waste or other
combustibles).
No permit shall be required for any official fire set by any public official as provided
in Section 490:20.
The Council discussed this motion.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Weycker to table this item. The vote was
3 in favor Jensen voting nay and Hanus abstaining. Motion carried.
The Mayor asked that this item be sent back to Staff to come back with a report
on why we are looking at this proposed ordinance amendment and what it is we
are trying to accomplish and is it based on one complaint or a hundred
complaints.
This item will be brought back at the first meeting in June.
FILE No.
~'0'1 06/']9
~, J ,~, 'J
14:5.9 1D :?~'IlTH
DRAi~T COOP~_.RATIVE
for the City of Mound Wet Detention Ponds
This Cooperative Agreement is mm:lc this __ day of ,1997, by and between the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (hereinafter referred to as "MCWD"), a watershed district
created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Clmpt~ 103D; the City of Mound, (herein'&fter rets'red to
as "City"), a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota.
1. Recitn£, and Statement of Purpose
WHEREAS, thc MCWD and the City have identified a site in thc City described in
Attachment 2 to this Agreement that is appropriate for use in controlling stormwater runoff; and
WHEREAS, s~ormwater tributary to the identified site drains ti-om the City to Lake
Minnetonk,'g and
WHEREAS, the slam, water draining from the land to Lake Mitmetonka contains
pollutants such as phosphorus and sediment which contribute to declines in water quality; and
WHEREAS. the downtown development associated with the Los! Lake Carat
Rehabilitation Project a_nd Auditor's R~ad Project and County Road 15 Redevelopment Project,
which is expected to occur within an area of the City shown on the attached AttachmcntJ
"Downtown Area," will require slam, water treatment with a wet de. talon pond(s) for individual
projects or for combined properties located in the Downtown Area and served by a r~gion'~l
facility; and
WHEREAS. MCWD Rule B sets out the MCWD's policies and requirements relating to
stormwater management for individual projects, specificalDy that a wet detention pond(s) for
individual projects be constructed on-site where practicable and effective; and.
FILE No. ~01 06/19 '97 15:00
ID:SKIITH F:N:WRKER 612 344
1550
PAGE 5
in compliance with applicable City ordinmice.s, ffthe City fails to provide specific comments
within the 4S-day comment period, the de.~ign will be deemed approved by the City. Any
disagreements between the City and the MCWD regarding thc design will be resolved through
the dispute resolution process set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement. The MCWD
acknowledges and und------------------~tands that, once the City has acquired thc necessary land interests for
the pond(s), thc I~ICWD will be obligated either to: l) comstruct the ponds to completion, and, if
necessary, extend this agreement a sufficient time fi)r such purpose; or 2) pay to the City, au
amount of money equal to thc/~es and c 'harges collected from the intended users of the pond(s).
2.1.2 In contracts tbr the design and/or construction of the wet detention ponds, any
insurance coverages, warranties or indemmties which are intended for thc benefit of the MCWD
shall also be extended tbr the benefit of thc City.
2. ! .3 Thc MCWD shall be responsible for thc operation and maintenance of thc wet
detention pond(s) in accordance with the Maintenance Plan set forth as Attachment 3 to this
Agreement. Thc MCWD s. haJl be solely responsible for maintenance costs incurred in carrying
out the obligations outlined in the Maintenance Plan. _Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude
t?_? MCWD and City from entering into an agency agreeme, n~ whereby some or all of t, he
MCWD's maintenance activities are to be undertaken by thc City or othcrs~
2.2 City of Mound Respon.qihilities
2.2.1 The City shall be respor~ible for obtaining the land rights to construct the pond(s)
and access the pond(s) li)r maintenance, either through obtaining title to the land or obtaining aa
cascmgrtt over the ltmd. Tile City s 'hall also provide an easement to the MCWD allowing
construction of the pond(s) and long-term access to tho pond(s) for repair and maintenance. AThe
City shall not be responsible for the exponditures of funds necessary for the acquisition of
FILE No. L:'01 06/19 '97 15:00 ID:SMITH PI~RKER 61:D 344 1550
ponding areas which ar~ required because'the pond(s) is r~ceiving water from areas not within
the Downtown Area..
2.2.2 Within six (6) months from the date of this Agreement, the City shall develop and
implem~,,nt a Best Management practices (BiVlP) Plan for the entire city to minimize pollutants
entering storrnwster, including but not limited to:
a. Periodic street and parking lot sweeping, including fall leaf removal;
b. Encouragement of the city-wide use of non-phosphorus lawn fertilizers;
c. Regular inspection and maintenance of existing sediment traps and basins;
d. Regular inspection and maintenance of ouffall structures to ponds and lakes;
e. Requirement or' and entbrcement of silt fence use on all surthce disturbm~ces due
to gradins, maintenance and construction;
f. Develop policies and disseminate information to its residents on a variety of
B1VIP's relating to water quality, including but not limited to:
> use or'non-phosphorus lawn fertilizer
> proper yard waste disposal
> protecting exposed soil t¥om erosion;
g. Evaluate winter street snow removal storage Ibr impact on water resources and
implement BMP's to prevent negative environmental pacts.
2.2.3 Ifa permit fi'om the City is needed for construction or maintenancc of' the pond(s),
the City shall be responsible for acting on the MCWD's per,nit application in a timely manner
and will aot require payment ti'om the MCWD tbr the permit or for any costs associated with the
processing or reviewing the permit application..
4
FILE No. 201 06/19 '97 15:00 ID:Si'IITH PARKER
344 1550
3. Dispute R~molutiou '
3,1 In thc event that the MCWD and the City disagree as to the design of tho pond(s),
or any other issue arising under this agreement, the parties will follow the dispute resolution
procedures outlined in this section.
3.2 Each party agrees to make a good faith effort to resolve any disagreements at a
stafflevel. This may include discussions among and between staff employed by the MCWD or
the City and engineers, attorneys, or other consultants.
3.3 Ifany issue camlot be resolved at the stai~level, discussions will proceed between
the Mayor and the President of the MCWD Board, with any resolution subject to any necessary
ratification by the City Council and MCWD Board of Managers;
3.4 Any issue that cannot bc resolved 'after ne~Iotiafions between the parties will be
resolved through binding arbitration. Tho arbitration will be conducted by a panel of three
arbitrators, one selected by thc MCWD, one selected by the City and the final arbitrator selected
by the arbitrators selected by the MCWD and the City. The MCWD and the City must select
their arbitrator within one week of the filing by one party of notice of arbitration. The arbitration
will be conducted pursuant to the rules of thc American Arbitration Association. The arbkration
pwceeding must commence within 45 days of selection of the arbitration panel with a final
decision ofth~ panel to be issued no later than/SO days from the date of selection of the panel.
The parties agree to share equally the costs of the arbitration proceeding, including payment of
lees to the arbitrators. Each parD' will be solely responsible for b't~rin§ its own cosls related to
preparation and presentation timing the arbitral/on.
7
FILE No. L:K)I 00/19 '97 15:01 ID:SI~IITH PI~U(E~ 61P 344 1550
4. Renewal and Tormination of Agreement
This Agreg~ment shall terminate on De~ember 31, 2007, but may be renewed tbr another
five year term by written agreement of all of the parties hereto prior to such date. This
Alinement may be terminated by either party upon mnety (.90) day advance written notice via
registered mail, return receipt requested, to the parties identified in this agreement.
S. Consideration for Rule B Contribution
Th~e MCWD acknowledges that the undertaking of the City contained in par_agrap_h 2.7.. 1
c~onstitutes ~11 satisfa~ion of any contribution obligation found in paragraph 3(d) of Rule B
.which might be placed on the City as_.d0¥eloper of'the Auditor's Road Pro~,ect
5. Amendments
This Agreement may be amended only ia writing signed by all of the parties hereto.
6. Notico
Notices to all of the parties to ttm Agreement shall be given by hand deliver or Fixst Class
Mail addressed to the following representatives of each party to this Agreement:
a) As to the MCWD:
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Ch'ay Freshwater Center
2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 37
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dated
b) As to the City:
City of Mound
541 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
ATTN: City Manager
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
By
its
6
FILE No. 201 08/19 '97 15:01
Dated
ID:~ITH PIqRKER
612 344 15,50
Its
City of Mound
By
its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
7
FILE No. 201 06x19 '97 14:59 ID:SMITH F:~ER
,% I,
612 3a4 1550
DRAFT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
for the City of Mound Wet Detention Ponds
This Cooperative Agreement is mndc this _ day of ,1997, by ~d between thc
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (hereinafter referred to ns "MCWD"), a watershed district
created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D; the City of Mound, (hereinafter retorted to
as "City"), a municipal corporation under the laws of Minneso 'ts.
I. Reeitakq and Statement of Purpose
WHEREAS, the MCWD and the City have identified a site in thc City described in
Attachment 2 to this Agreement that is appropriate for usc in controlling stormwater runoff; and
WHEREAS, stormwater tributary to the identified site drains fi'om the City to Lake
Minnetonka; and
WHEREAS, the stomlwater draining from the land to Lake Mirmetonka contains
pollutants such a~ phosphorus nnd sediment which contribute to declines in water quality; and
WHEREAS, the downtown development associated with the Lost Lake Canal
R. ehnbilitation Project n._nd Auditor's Road Project and County P~oad 1 $ Redevelopment Project,
,.which is expected to occur within an area of the City shown on thc attached Attachment. .[
"Downtown Area," will require stomlwater treatment with a wet detention pond(s) for individual
projects or for combined propert/¢s located in thc Downtown Area and served by a ~gional
facility; and
WHEREAS, MCWD R. ul¢ B sets out thc MCWD's policies and rcquircmcnts relating to
stormwater management for individual projects, specifically that a wet detention pond(s) for
individual projects be constructed on-site where practicable and effective; aud,
FILE
~do. ~20! 06/19 '97 15:00 ID:St~ITH ~ 612 3~ iS.SO
WHEREAS, MCWD Rule B also acknowledges that then: may be occasions where it will
be difficult to accommodate a wet detention pond(s) on an individual site, and in those cases the
MCW-D may instead accept a contribution to a dedicated MCWD water quality/stormwater
storage l~und in lieu of on-site requin:ments if there is 'also an agreement for a regional facitity in
place with the affected municipality.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by and betweea the MCWD and the
City that they enter into this Cool~rative Agreement in order to:
a) document the understanding or,he parties as to the installation of regional
stormwatcr detention facilities to serve the Downtown An:a and designed to meet National
Urban Runoff'Program (NURP) performance standards for stormwater treatment ponds;
b) reaffirm the commitment of each party as to thc general responsibilities and tasks
to be undertaken by each pal'ty; and
c) facilitate cornmunicalion and cooperation among thc parties to ensure successful
completion and maintenance ora wet detention pond(s) to achieve the ultimate goal of
maximizing the treatment capabilities of the thcilities.
2. General Responnibilitles to Parties
2.1 MCWD Resuonsibilifies
2.1.1 The MCWD shall be responsible for thc design, permitting and construction of a
wet detention pond(s) on the site described in Attachment 2 to this Agreement required to
provide mgional treatment for stormwater o_riginatine in the Downtown Area. The pond as
designed must meet NIJRP performance standards. The MCWD will transmit the tired draft
design to the City for review and comment. The City will have 45 days from receipt of the final
draft design to provide excrements to the MCWD, including comments on whether the design is
FILE No. 201 00/19 '9'-/ 15:00 ID:SMITH PARKER 612 344 1550
~ 5
in compliance with applicable City ordinafice, s. fit. he City fails to provide specific commems
within the 4S-day comment period, the design will be deemed approved by the CIE/. Any
disagreements between the City and the MCWD regarding the design will be resolved through
the dispute resolution process set t'orth in Paragraph 3 of this Agr~mcnl. The MCWD
acknowledges and understands that, once the CiE/has acquired thc necessar3t land interests for
the pond(s), thc I~ICWD will be obligated either to: ~) co~t the ponds to completion, and, if
n~cessary, extend this agre~mc-~t a sufficient time fi)r such purpose; or 2) pay to the City, an
amount of moncy equal to thc tBes and c 'harges collected from thc intended users of the pond(s).
2. [ .2 In contracts tbr the design and/or construction of the wet detention ponds, any
insurance coverages, warranties or indemnities which are intended for thc bencfit of the MCWD
shall also be cxt~nded for the benefit of the City.
2.1.3 The MCWD shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of thc wet
detention pond(s) ill accordancc with the Maintenance Plan set forth as Attachment 3 to this
Agreement. Thc MCWD shall be solely responsible for maintenance costs incurred in carrying
out the obligations outlined in the Maintenance Plan. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude
the MCWD and CiE/from enterin~ into an agency agreement whereby some or all o£ t__he
MCWD's maintenance activities are to be undertaken by thc CiE/or others.
2.2 City of Mound Rest)onsibilities
2.2. I The City shall be responsible for obtaining the land rights to construct the pond(s)
and access the pond(s) lbr maintenance, either through obtaining title to the land or obtaining an
cas~,~ncnt over the lm)d. '[2~¢ City shall also provide an easement to the MCWD allowillg ....
construction of the pond(s) and long-term access to thc pond(s) for repaLr and maintenance. Al'he
City shall not be responsible for the expenditures of funds necessary for the acquisition of
FILE h~. L:'O1 0~/19 '97 15:00 ID:~ITH F'~:~RKER
344 1,550
ponding areas which are required because'thc pond(s) is receiving wa~cr from ate. as not within
the Downtown Ar~_ ..
2.2.2 Within six (6) months from the date of this Agreement, the City shall develop and
implcrm.mt a Best Management practices (BMP) Plan for the entire city to minimize pollutants
entering stormwmer, including but not limited to:
a. Periodic street and parking lot sweeping, including fall lca.f remov~,l;
b. Encouragement of the city-wide usc of non-phosphorus lawn fertilizers;
c. Regular inspection and m~intcnance of existing s~liment traps and basins;
d. Regular inspection and maintenance of ouffall structures to ponds and lakes;
e. Requ/remcn! of and enibrcement of silt fence use on all surihce disturbm~ces due
to grading, maintenance and construction;
f. Develop policies and disseminate information to its residu'nts on a variety of
BMP's relating to water quality, including but not limited to:
~- use of non-phosphorus lawn fei'tilizer
> proper yard waste disposal
> protecting exposed soil t¥om erosion;
g. Evaluate winU:r street snow removal storage tbr impact on water resources and
implement BMP's to prevent negative environmental pacts.
2.2.3 If a permit from the City is needed for construction or maintenancc of the pond(s),
the City shaU be responsible for acting oa the MCWD's permit application in a timely manner
and will not r~uire payment fi.om the MCWD tbr the p~mit or for any costs associated with the
processing or reviewing the permit application..
4
FILE No.
It ~ I 1, ,1[ ,m~ i ~ , I,
201 06/19 '97 15:00 ID:S~ITH F~RKER 61~' 2A~ 1550
3. Dispute Resolution '
3.1 In thc event that the MCW-D and the City disagrcc as to the design of thc pond(s),
ur any other issue arising under this agreement, thc pa.r~ies will follow the dispute resolution
procedures outlined in this section.
3.2 Each party agrees to make a good faith effort to resolve any disagteem~mts at a
stafflev¢l. This may include discussions among and between staff employed by the MCWD or
thc City and engineers, attorneys, or other consultants.
3.3 If any issue cannot be resolved at the stafflevel, discussions will proceed between
the Mayor and the President of the MCWD Board, with ~y resolution subject to any necessary
ratification by the City Council and MCWD Board of Managers;
3.4 Any issue that cannot be resolved 'ai:t~ negotiations between the parties will be
resolved through binding arbitration. Tho arbitration will be conducted by a panel of three
arbitrators, one selected by thc MCWD, one selected by the city and the final arbitrator selected
by the arbitrators selected by the MCWD and the City. The MCWD and the City must select
their arbitrator within one week of the filing by one party of notice of arbitration. The arbitration
will be conducted pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration
proceeding must commence within 45 days of selection of the arbitration panel with a final
decision of the imael to be issued no later than 60 days from the date of selection of the panel.
The parties agree to share equally the costs of the arbitration proceeding, including payment of
lees to the arbitrators. Each party will be solely responsible for bemring its own costs related to
preparation and presentation timing the arbitration.
7
FILE No. 201 06/19 '97 15:01 ID:SrlITH Pfl~<ER 612 344 1550
4. Renewal and Terminatio~ of Agreement
This Atffeernent shall terminate on December 31, 2007, but ma), be renewed for another
five year term by written agreement of all of the parties hereto prior to such date. This
Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ninety (90) day advance written notice via
registered mail, return receipt requested, to the parties identified in this agreement.
S. Consideration for Rule B Contribution
T~e MCWD ackn0,wledges that the undertaking of the City contained in par_agrap_h 2.2.
c~onstitutes full satisfaction of any contribution obligation found in , ,.,lc~agraph 3(d) o~f_~ule~B
w. hich might be placed on the City as_developer of the Auditor's Road Proj, ect.
5. Amendments
This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by all of the parties hereto.
6. Notice
Notices to all of the parties to the Agreement shall bc given by hand deliver or Fixst Class
Mail addressed to the following representatives of each party to this Agreement:
a) As to the MCWD:
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Gray Freshwater Center
2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 37
Excelsior, MN 55331
Datcd
b) As to the City:
City of Mound
54t Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
ATTN: City Manager
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
By
P~E 8
FIIF No. ~! 06/19
15:01 ID:~ITH
Dated
Its
City of Mound
By
lts Mayor
By
Its City Manager
6la ~ 1550
FILE No. L::'O1 06/19 '97 15:01 ID:S~IITH ~ 612 344 1550
Attachment 3
MAINTENANC~ PLAN
1. The MCWD shall inspect the wet detention ponds once a year to determine if the ponds'
retention and treatment characteristics are 'adequate. A pond will be considered inadequate it"
sediment at the pond ouTfail interferes with the flow of stormwater into the pond, or the sediment
has decreased the wet storage volume by one-half its or~ginai design volume. If the pond(s) or
ouffal[ sediment delta is identified for sediment ¢leanout, the MCWD shall remove the sediment
delta and restore the pond(a) to thc original contouTs within one year of the inspection date.
2. The MCWD shall inspect the outfal] structures for evidence of erosion and blockage ia
the spring and fail of each year. The MCWD shall remove all sediment and debris during the
inspections such that the outfail operates as designed.
3. In the event that the MCWD is unable to or tails to perform the inspections m~d
maintenance established in this Maintenance Plan and Agreement, the City will give 30 days
notice to thc MCWD el:the City's intent to per~'orm the inspections(s) and/or maintenance. If
after 30 days notice, the MCWD remains unable or has failed to perform the inspections and
maintenance, the City will perform the inspection(s) and maintenance and cha,rge the MCWD tbr
the costs of these activities.
4. This plan is neither intended to require nor to prohibit the City ~rom acting on its own
initiative and expense to remove obstructions and blockages caused by debris in the inlet or
outfail structures. If the City so acts, it will be solely responsible for the costs incurred.
FILE No. 201 06/~ '97 '14:55 ID:SMITH PARKER
612 344 1550
PAGE 2
mith Parker
N. Smith
D. Porker
C. Miclcnhouscn
,ch L Freeman
v~rley ~:b/ Booth
June 19, 1997
M~r. John Dean
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury' Center
Mim~eapolis, Minnesota 55402
VIA 1.4 CSIMI£E
Draft Cooperative Agreement between the MCWD and the City of
Mound
Dear Mr. Dean:
Enclosed is a copy of the I. ate~ draft of the Cooperative Agreement for
Regional Ponding between the Mitmehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
and the City of Mound. This draft includes your suggested revisions of June 19,
19.97.
Please note chat this draft of thc Cooperative Agreemem has not been
reviewed or approved by the MCWD Board of Mmmgers.
If you have ,any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Waverley Eby Booth
Enclosure
CC:
MCWD Board of Managers
Ed Shukle, City' of Mound
Colwell Bu~ldin[~
Norr3 Third Street
fi'IN 5540 I
612.744.1550
admin~smi~a~cr, cm
FILE No. 201 06/19 '97 14:55 ID:SMITH PARKER 612 844 1550 PAGE 8
DRAFT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
for the City of Mound Wet Detention Ponds
This Cooperative Agreement is made this ~ day of , 1997, by and between the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (hereinafter referred to as "MCWD"), a watershed district
created pursuant to Mhmesota Statutes Chapter 103D; the City of Mound, (hereinafter reI~rred to
as "City"), a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota.
I. Recitals and Statement of Purpose
WHEREAS, the MCW'D and the City have identified a site in the City described in
Attachment 2 to this Agreement that is appropriate for use in controlling stormwater rmaoff;
WHEREAS, stormwater tributary to the identified site ckains fi-om the City to Lake
Minnetonka; and.
WHEREAS, the stormwater draining from the land to Lake Mirmetonka contains
pollutants such as phosphorus and sediment which contribute to declines in water quality;
WHEREAS, the downtown developmem associated with the Lost Lake Canal
Rehabilitation Project and Auditor's Road Project and County Road 15 Redevelopment Project,
which is expected to occur within an ~ea of the City shown on the a~tached Attacbaa~¢nt l
"Downtown Area.," will require stormwater treatmem with a wet detention, pond(s) for individual
projects or for combined, properties located in the Downtown Area and served by a regional
facility; and
WHEREAS, MCWD Rule B sets out the MCWD's policies and requirements relating to
stormwater management for individual projects, specifically' that a wet detention pond(s) for
individual projects be constructed on-site where practicable and effective; and,
FILE No. 201 06/19 '97 14:56 ID:SIIITH P~qRKER 612 344 1550
~IIL
PAGE 4
WHEKEAS, MCWD Kale B als() acknowledges that there may be occasions where it will
be difficult to accommodate a wet detention pond(s) on an individual site, and in those cases the
MCWD may instead accept a contribution to a dedicated MCWD water qtmlity/stormwater
storage Fund in lieu of on-site requirements if there is also an agreement for a regional facility in
place with [he afl:'~cted mmficipality.
NOW THEREFOR]~, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by and between thc MCWD and the
City' that they enter into this Cooperative Agreement in order to:
a) document the understanding of the parties as to the installation of regional
stormwater detention facilities to serve the Downtown Area and designed to meet National
Urban Rtmoff Program (NURP) performance standards for stormwater t~eatment ponds;
b) reaffirm the comnfitment of each pa~y as to the general responsibilities and tasks
to be undertaken by each party; trod
c) facilitate comauunicadon and cooperation among the p~ties to ensure successthl
completion and maintenance of a wet detention pond(s) to aclfieve the ultimate goal of
maximizing the treatment capabilities of the thcilities.
2. General Respon~ibilitie.s to Parties
2.1 MCWD Responsibilities
2.1.1 The MCWD shall be responsible for the design, permitting and construction of a
wet detention pond(s) on the site described in Attachment 2 to this Agreement required to
provide regional treatment for stormwatcr originating in the Downtown Area. The pond as
du~igned must meet NIJRP performance st,-mdards. The MCWD will trzmsmit the final draft
design to the City for review and comment. The City will have 45 days from. receipt of the final
draft design to provide comments to the MCWD, including comments on whether the design is
FILE No. 20! 06/19 '97 14:56 ID:SMITH PARKER 6~2 344 ~550 PAGE 5
in compliance with applicable City ordinances. If the City fails to provide specific coivancats
within the 45-day comment period, thc design will be deemed approved by the City. Any
disagreements between the City and the MCWD regarding the design will be resolved through
thc dispute resolution process set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement. The MCWD
acknowledges and understands that, once the City has acquired thc necessttry land interests/'or
the pond(s), the MCWD will be obligated either to: l) construct thc ponds to completion, and, if
necessary, extend this agreement a sufficient time for such purpose; or 2) pay to the City, an
maaount of money equal to the tees ~uad charges collected from the intended users of the pound(s).
2.1.2 In contracts tbr the design and/or construction of the wet detention ponds, any
insurance coverages, warra~aties or indemnities which are intended for the benefit of the MCWD
shall also be extended for the benefit of the City.
2.1.3 Thc MCWD shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the wet
detention pond(s) in accordance with the Maintenance Plan set forth as Attachment 3 to this
Agreementt. The MC'WD shall be solely responsible for maintenance costs incurred in carrying
out the obligations outlined in the Maintenax~ce Plan. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude
the MCWD and City from entering into an agency agreement whereby some or all of the
MCWD's maintenance activities are to be undertaken by the City or others.
2.2 Cit~ of Moused Responsibilities
2.2.1 The City shall be responsible for obtaining tlae land rights to constxuct the pond(s)
and access the pond(s) lbr maintenance, either through obtaining title to the l,'md or obtaining az~
easement over the land. The City shall also provide an easement to the MCWD allowi~.~g
construction of the pond(s) and long-term access to the pond(s) for repair and maintenance. The
City shall not be responsible for thc expenditures of funds necessary for the acquisition of
FILE No. 201 08/19 '97 lZ1:58 ID:SMITH PARKER 612 344 1550
PAGE 6
ponding ,areas which are required because the pond(s) is receiving water from areas not within
the Downtown Area..
2.2.2 Within six (6) months t¥om the date of this Agreement, the City shall develop and
implement a Best Mt~nagement practices (BM.P) Plan for the entire city to minimize pollutants
entering stomawater, including but not limited to:
a. Periodic street and parking lot sweeping, including fall leaf remov~fl;
b. Encouragement of the city-wide use of non-phosphorus lawn fertilizers;
c. Regular inspection and maintenat~ce of existing sediment traps and basins;
d. Regular inspection and maintenance of outfall structures to ponds and lakes;
e. Requirement of and enforcement of silt fence use on all surface disturba]~ces due
to grading, maintenance and construction;
f. Develop pol.ic~es and disseminate in£om~ation to its residents on a variety of
BMP's relating to water quality, including but not limited to:
> use of non-phosphorus lawn fertilizer
> proper yard waste disposal
> protecting exposed soil t¥om erosion;
g. Evaluate winter street snow removal storage/bt impact on water resources and
implement BMP's to prevent negative environmental pacts.
2.2.3 If a permit from the City is needed for construction or maintenance of the pond(s),
the City shall be responsible ~or acting on the MCWD's permit application in a timely manner
and will not require payment fi.om the MCWD tbr the permit or for any costs associated with the
processing or reviewing the permit application..
4
FILE No. 201 06/19 '97 14:57 ID:SMITH PARKER 612 344 1550 PAGE ?
3. Dispute Resolution
3.1 In the event that the MCWD and the City disagree as to the design of the pond(s),
or ~tny other issue arising under this agreement, the parties will ~bllow the dispute resolution
procedures outlined in this section.
3.2 Each party agrees to make a good faith effort to resolve any disag~'eements at a
staff level. ~.lais may include disc~.~sions among and between staff employed by the MCWD or
the City mad engineers, attorneys, or other consult~mts.
3.3 If may issue cmmot be resolved at the st.zff-f level, discussions will proceed between
the Mayor ea~d the President of the MCWD Board, with any resol'ation subject to any necessary
ratification by the City Council and MCWD Board of Managers;
3.4 Any issue that cannot be resolved ~ffier negotiations between the parties wil. l be
resolved through binding arbitration. The arbitration will be conducted by a panel of three
arbitrators, one selected by the MCWD, one selected by the City and the final arbitrator selected
by the arbitrators selected by the MCWD and the City. The MCWD and the City must select
their arbitrator within one week. of the fili~g by one party of notice of arbitration. The arbitration
will be conducted pttrsuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration
proceeding must commence within 45 days of selection of the arbitration p~mel with a final
decision of the panel to be issued no hater than 60 days from the date of selection of the panel.
The parties agree to share equally the costs of the arbitration proceeding, including payment of
fees to the arbitrators. Each party will be solely responsible tbr bearing its own costs related to
preparation and presentation during the arbitration.
201 06/19 '97 14:57 ID:SrlZ:'r'H PI::IR~'ER 612 3,44 '1550 PI::IGE 8
4. Renewal and Termination of Agreement
This Agreement shall terminate on December 3 l, 2007, but may be renewed tbr ,'mother
five year term by written agreement of all of the parties hereto prior to such date. This
Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ninety (90) day advance written notice via
registered mail, return receipt requested, to the parties identified in this agreemenI.
5. Consideration for Rule B Contribution
The MCWD acknowledges that the tmdertaking of the City contained in paragraph 2.2.1
constitutes tull satisfaction of any contribution obligation tbtmd in paragraph 3(d) of Rule B
which might be placed on the City as developer of the Auditor's Road Project.
5. Amendments
This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by all of the parties hereto.
6. Notice
Notices to all of the parties to the Agreement shall be given by hand deliver or First Class
Mail addressed to the following representatives of each par13, to this Agreement:
a) As to the MCWD: Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District
Gray Freshwater Center
2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 37
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dined
b) As to the City:
City of Mound
541 Ma)wood Road
Mound, MN 55364
ATTN: City Manager
MYNNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
By¸
6
FILE No, 20! 06/19 '97 14:58 ID:SMITH PARKER 612 344 1550 PAGE 9
By
Its
Dated
City of Mound
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
7
FILE No. 201 06/19 '97 14:58 ID:SKIITH PARKER 612 344 1550
PAGE 10
Attachment 3
MAINTENANCE PLAN
1. The MCWD shall inspect the wet detention ponds once a year to determine if the ponds'
retention and treatment characteristics are adequate. A pond will be considered inadequate
sediment at the pond outfall interl'eres with the flow ofstormwater into the pond., or the sediment
has decreased the wet storage volume by one-half its original desigtl volume. If the pond(s) or
outfal[ sedhnent delta is identified for sediment cleanout, the MCWD shall rem.ove the sediment
delta and restore the pond(s) to the original contours within one year of the inspection date.
2. The MCWD shall inspect the outfall structures for evidence of erosion and blockage irt
the spring and fall of eacll year. The MCWD shall remove all sediment and debris during the
inspections such that the outfall operates as designed.
3. In the event that the MCWD is unable to or fails to perform the inspections and
maintenance established in this Maintenance Plan and Agreement., the City will give 30 days
notice to the MCWD or'the City's intent to perfi>rm the inspections(s) and/or maintenance. If
after 30 days notice, the MCWD remains unable or has t~ailed to perform the inspections and
maintenance, the City will perform the inspection(s) and maintenoa~ce and charge the MCWD tbr
the costs of these activities.
4. This plan. is neither intended to require nor to prohibit the City t~'om acting on its own
initiative and expense to remove obstructions and blockages caused by debris in the inlet or
outfall structures. If the City so acts, it will be solely responsible for the costs incurred.
RESOLUTION//97-
RESOLUTION REQUESTING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT), MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) OFFICE, TO
ADVANCE $500,000 IN FUTURE ALLOTMENTS OF MSA FUNDS FOR AUDITOR'S
ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a Municipal State Aid City and uses MSA funds for
the construction and maintenance of streets; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised that the City's MSA Construction Fund
balance is not sufficient to construct the proposed Auditor's Road Improvement Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby request an advance from the MSA General Fund future allotments of
MSA funds in the amount of $500,000.00 for the Auditor's Road Improvement Project.
~';"';'~'"J'un, 19, 19§7 '~ £~'58P~ MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No, 8700 P, 2/4
McCornbs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue Noah, Plymou~, Minnesota 554474739
Telaphone
Engineers
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Plannem
Surveyors
June 19, 1997
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Sherwood Drive Reconstruction
MFRA #11482
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Bids were taken for the Sherwood Drive reconstruction on Wednesday, June 18, 1997 and only
two wen; received. Enclosed is a copy of the bid tabulation for these two bids. The low bid of
$32,777.50 was submitted by Buffalo Bituminous and is approximately $3,200.00 or 11% over
the estimated construction cost included in the revised preliminary, engineering report submitted
We believe the high bids can be contributed to a number of factors, of which, the most obvious is
that we received only 2 bids. Other reasons could bc the time of year, the size of the project, the
work load of the contractors or the estimate was too low, which we do not believe is the case. It
appears that the engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs will also be higher, due mainly
to the fact that an addendum to the original preliminary engineering report was done, soil borings
were taken and additional heatings held, which have all added to the cost.
For comparison purposes, if the low bid ,,,,'ere accepted and the percentage for engineering, legal,
fiscal and administrative cost increased to 35% of the construction cost, the total estimated cost
of the project would increase to $44,300.00 as compared to $38,400.00 as originally estimated.
This would be an increase of just over 15%; therefore, the suggested assessments would also
increase by this percentage. The average assessments were originally calculated to be
approximately $3,000.00 per lot, whereas this increase would bring the average up to roughly
$3,500.00. The largest parcel and thus the largest projected assessment would increase from
$4,475.00 to approximately $5,160.00. A couple of options available would be to rebid the
project or combine it with another City project such as Auditor's Road. We do not believe that
rebidding the project at this time of year would reduce the cost enough to off-set the additional
expense. Combining it with Auditor's Road also ha; drawbacks since there would be even more
costs involved to revise the plans to State Aid Standards. At this point, there are no other City
projects under consideration to combine it with.
An EquaJ Oflponuraty Em~oyer
Jun, 19, 1997 2:59PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
June 19, 1997
PRe 2
No, 8700 P, 3/4
What this results in, is that we do not see any practical way to reduce the cost and if it is the
desire of the City to proceed, we would recommend awarding Buffalo Bituminous a contract in
the amount of $32,777.50.
If you have any questions or need additional infommtion, I will be at the Council meeting the
evening of Sune 24, 1997 to further discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
MeCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:pry
Enclosur~
e:~m~in;\l 1482\jr~-19
3un, 19. 1997 2'59PM MCCOMBS FRANF2 ROOS No, 8700 P, 4/4
Z
d
~ q~q~qq~qq~qqqq
..... ~.
000~000000000oo0
.... qqqqqqq~99qq q
ooo~
ooo ~8
oo~gooo
~ oooo8~ oooooooo
0
~0 0
~ ~ OZ~
~ Z --
n-
IAI
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
May 1997
41.67%
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
May 1997
BUDGET REVENUE
1,266,460 0
6,250 2,055
121,800 9,284
968,210 453,520
51,100 644
65,000 13,521
43,300 425
43,500 0
10,000 1,454
YTD
REVENUE
PERCENT
VARIANCE RECEIVED
0 (1,266,460) 0.00%
3,987 (2,263) 63.79%
42,150 (79,650) 34.61%
509,105 (459,105) 52.58%
3,819 (47,281) 7.47%
50,647 (14,353) 77.92%
1,139 (42,161) 2.63%
0 (43,S00) 0.00%
5,351 (4,649) 53.51%
TOTAL REVENUE
2.575.620 480.903
616.198 ~ 23.92%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
336,020 14,914
108,320 15,906
1,525,000 146,781
430,000 33,910
880,000 75,068
4,100 330
73,800 1,505
167,529 (168,491 ) 49.86%
46,153 (62,167) 42.61%
556,651 (968,349) 36.50%
158,900 (271,100) 36.95%
388,889 (491,111) 44.19%
880 (3,220) 21.46%
67,960 (5,840) 92.09%
06112~97
rev97
G.B.
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
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
May 1997
May 1997
BUDGET EXPENSE
41.67%
69,37O
4,000
800
193 470
2 100
59 480
168 960
23 550
114 460
924 350
4 100
172 870
405 270
82 840
148 550
36 200
20 000
161,390
YTD PERCENT
EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
3,053 40,778 28,592 58.78%
0 0 4,000 0.00%
0 225 575 28.13%
15,591 79,932 113,538 41.31%
72 1,831 269 87.19%
18 376 59,104 0.63%
15,263 65,297 103,663 38.65%
23 10,247 13,303 43.51%
8,534 35,309 79,151 30.85%
57,147 344,211 580,139 37.24%
45 818 3,282 19.95%
16,411 66,961 105,909 38.73%
21,229 181,647 223,623 44.82%
9,976 35,717 47,123 43.12%
9,470 47,521 101,029 31.99%
0 0 36,200 0.00%
725 7,130 12,870 35.65%
12,868 64,345 97,045 39.87%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,591,760
170,425 982,345 1.609.415 37.90%
Area Fire
Service Fund 336,020
Recycling Fund 118,950
Liquor Fund 289,020
Water Fund 429,300
Sewer Fund 1,020,460
Cemetery Fund 8,100
Docks Fund 68,440
20,693 114,197 221,823 33.99%
10,705 57,194 61,756 48.08%
15,453 88,871 200,149 30.75%
15,225 128,736 300,564 29.99%
70,968 462,549 557,911 45.33%
594 3,942 4,158 48.67%
3,519 10,417 58,023 15.22%
EXp.97
06/12~97
G.B.
PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 12, 1997
Present were: Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Rita Pederson, Tom Casey, City
Council Representative Leah Weycker, Parks Director Jim Fackler and Secretary Clare Link.
Those absent and excused were: None.
MINUTES
Motion made by Byrnes, seconded by Pederson to approve the minutes of the May
8, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
Park Use, Skating Rinks, Open Meeting
PROPOSALS FOR DEPOT IMPROVEMENTS
A. Sue Cathers - Westonka Historical Society
Sue Cathers, Westonka Historical Society discussed work on the exterior of the Depot
and stated work needs to be done on the interior at the present time.
Casey asked if there was a consensus of the Historical Society that the work needs to be
done. Cathers replied it does need updating.
Pederson asked if food has ever been served there. She noted she has been at a number
of functions there, and the sink is not adequate. A microwave is also needed. She asked
if the painting includes the stairwell and the ceiling. Cathers took her recommendations
under advisement. Pederson asked what would be done with the bathrooms. Fackler
noted the estimates provided are rough. Quotes would be solicited for work. He stated
they are limited because once it reaches a certain point, it must be brought up to ADA
requirements.
Pederson stated the carpeting appears to be fine until it wears out. Cathers stated they
want half flooring and half carpeting because of spilling.
Cathers stated they haven't talked too much about updating the bathrooms.
Pederson suggested a double sink in the kitchen and a microwave. Byrnes also suggested
the refrigerator be moved in order to put in a double sink. A good coat of paint is also
needed.
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
June 12, 1997
Page 2
Pederson stated she would like at least three estimates when the decision is made to
replace the carpeting.
Casey asked if the Historical Society has a priority. Cathers stated painting is the
priority, then window treatments, the sink, the microwave, and the flooring. She stated
the Historical Society is willing to do the painting and asked for donated paint.
Pederson asked if the carpeting is removed from the walls if sheetrocking would be
needed. Fackler stated it would have to and wainscoting could be added.
Weycker asked if there is any historical information on what the interior used to look
like. Cathers stated that information is not available.
Weycker asked if the improvements need to be a certain dollar amount before they must
meet ADA requirements. Fackler stated he was unsure, and the Building Official would
make that determination.
Casey asked if approving this would lock us into authorizing it prior to seeing what the
costs will be. Faclder stated they need to look at whether it is something that needs to
be done and the POSC wants to be done. He stated if there isn't enough money,
something will have to be left out. He believed the figures provided are within the ball
park.
Weycker asked if this would affect monies for other projects such as park equipment.
Fackler stated as you go into the capital outlay, you aren't going to get everything you
want. Whatever the top priorities are will get funded first. He believed this is a
justifiable request.
Commissioners and staff discussed the budget process.
Pederson stated we don't know how much money we have to spend and would rather
spend money on the 14-17 year olds. Cathers stated the skate park will be funded
through community education. Cathers stated if the improvements don't happen in 1998,
that is not a problem.
Meyer stated if we believe there is a need for improvements to the building, we should
go ahead and put it on out list. Weycker stated we should ask for what we want. All
the improvements don't have to come out of the park budget.
Faclder stated the intent is there that the building will be saved and be available for use.
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
June 12, 1997
Page 3
Motion by Pederson, seconded by Byrnes to put the Depot improvements on
the wish list and prioritize it after needs for children. Motion carried
unanimously.
REQUEST TO SELL CONCESSIONS AT MOUND BAY PARK DEPOT - WESTONKA
HELPING YOUTH - SUE CATHERS
Cathers discussed the desire to have Mound area youth sell concessions at the Mound Bay Park
Depot.
Casey asked what will be sold. It was noted candy, pop, and ice cream will be sold. Casey
asked where the money will go. Cathers stated profits would be shared among the workers as
their pay. Casey asked what the Family Service Collaborative is. Cathers stated it is a group
which has met which has received a grant. It helps youths and families in the West Tonka area.
Pederson asked if the Depot will be rented. Cathers stated it is reserved for five Wednesdays
when no one else is using it, and fees were waived. Pederson asked the kids to listen to their
customers to find out what is needed in the park.
Cathers noted the Collaborative will be donating money for a refrigerator and freezer. Fackler
questioned where it would be located. He asked how many supervisors would be on staff.
Cathers stated 1-2 supervisors would. She stated there would always be an adult present. She
noted it would be a place for teens to hang out.
Fackler was concerned about adult supervision and the possibility more would be needed. He
suggested starting out heavy.
Pederson asked if a damage deposit will be required. Cathers stated it will not.
Pederson was concerned about the phone. Fackler stated it is always lighted and is operated at
a loss.
Casey asked about requiring a damage deposit. Fackler stated many of the non-profit
organizations are not required to pay the damage deposit. Weycker stated a deposit could be
paid if required.
Casey asked if other non-profit organizations are able to use the Depot for fundraisers. Fackler
2 31
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
June 12, 1997
Page 4
stated many of the local groups have used it in the past. Weycker stated the group could go
under the School Board if non-profit status is required. Casey was concerned about other groups
for profit wanting to sell items from the Depot. Meyer believed the goal is to find a safe place
for kids to have something to do. He stated a lot of money isn't involved. Weycker stated the
Park Commission could determine on a case-by-case basis whether a use would be allowed. She
believed this group is a community service group, and fees will be waived.
Casey discussed the difference between non-profit and for-profit organizations.
Weycker suggested the kids receive a stipend for working, and other monies could be earmarked
for a special project.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Weycker to approve the request and the fees be
waived and that the net proceeds from the sales of concessions be distributed for a
charitable purpose. Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR CITY TO TRIM HAZARDOUS TREE: NCA, DRUMMOND ROAD
Faclder received a request from the abutting property owner to have this tree trimmed. The tree
is leaning over his garden area and is a definite hazard.
Brynes noted Mr. Anderson has some ideas on how he would like the tree trimmed and not
necessarily completely removed. Fackler stated he has to look at what he considers safe. Botko
asked if it would still be a hazard if the trunk remained. Fackler stated he has seen fully leaved
trees fall. Weycker stated it doesn't appear to be a walking area, and Mr. Anderson had definite
ideas of how it should be trimmed.
Commissioners discussed the motion. Fackler stated he has had tree trimmers walk away from
a tree like this, and they will not go near it. He stated he will contact the tree trimmer. If he
won't do it, he will have to find someone who will. He was concerned about safety noting it
is a very dangerous tree.
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Byrnes to have the City's tree trinuner meet with
Mr. Anderson to determine how the tree should be trinmied. Motion carried
unanimously.
PROPOSED PARK IMPROVEMENTS
C. Avon Park
Faclder stated he has contacted a supplier to determine the cost of play equipment for
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
June 12, 1997
Page 5
Avon Park. He discussed the equipment which will be installed. The entire area would
be bermed, and benches would be added. Cost for installation has not be determined,
and volunteer installation is anticipated. Completion is anticipated for the summer of
1998.
Meyer asked if the swings would have to be put where the play structure is.
Christine Fitz stated the equipment is very old and in definite need of updating.
Mary. Bergron stated if there is an option, she would prefer the play structure and swings
and wait a year for the teeter totter.
Fackler stated the existing backstop would be removed if it is not being used anymore.
Fitz noted t-ball games aren't held in the park anymore. Pederson asked if the cube
structure could remain. Fackler stated it is too dangerous.
Fitz discussed the need for up-to-date equipment in the park.
Meyer suggested the backstop be removed at a later date and be replaced at some point.
Fackler noted the area will have to be walked to see what will actually fit in the area.
He discussed the need to keep all the equipment within proximity of each other.
Bergron asked if removable speed bumps are a possibility. Fackler stated the Police and
Street Departments are responsible for speed bumps.
Motion by Byrnes, seconded by Botko to direct staff to provide $15,000 in
capital outlay for park improvements to Avon Park including improvements
to the basketball court. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Langdon Park (Sorbo)
Fackler stated Langdon Park will be renamed Sorbo Park and dedicated on Sunday,
August 23 at 10:00 a.m. He reviewed the site plan for the park. He stated the work
would need to be completed by August 18.
Bergron was concerned about renaming a park for someone who isn't old.
Casey stated a Hercules fitness trail would be a better use of the area rather than just
more passive areas. He stated a second priority was a skateboard area. Fackler stated
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
June 12, 1997
Page 6
lack of time is an issue. He reviewed minutes from an earlier POSC meeting when this
park was discussed.
Commissioners discussed the plans for the park and concerns about lack of input.
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Byrnes to support staff's recommendation but
would also like to see excavating of the ballfield area. Motion carried 5-0-1.
Casey abstained from voting.
Veterans Park.
Fackler reviewed the site plan for Veterans Park improvements. He discussed
suggestions made for the park by the VFW and American Legion. He discussed plans
to rip rap the shoreline. Meyer asked how much the rip rap would cost. Fackler stated
it would be about $65 a lineal foot. He noted the location of the trails in the park.
Weycker asked who would maintain the gardens once it is constructed. Fackler stated
a staff person would need to maintain the area. Meyer stated it needs to be impressed
on the City Council that more park staff is needed.
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Weycker to support the conceptual plan for
Veterans Park along with the need for additional park staff for park
maintenance. It is not recommended park dedication fees be used.
Weycker stated the intent is to get funds donated by the VFW and American Legion.
Motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL REQUEST FOR JOINT MEETING WITH ALL COMMISSIONS
Weycker stated the Planning Commission has requested a joint meeting with all commissions
once or twice a year.
Motion by Pederson, seconded by Byrnes to support the idea of joint meetings once
or twice a year. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSS RAILS TO TRAILS
Fackler reviewed information from another City relating to trails abutting Mound.
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
June 12, 1997
Page 7
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
REPORTS
Do
City Council Representative's Report
Weycker discussed open meeting law requirements. Casey suggested information be
provided to the POSC.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Pederson to get a copy of information of
"Situations" which was a handout at the meeting with the attorney's
responses to the questions. Motion carried 5-0-1. Botko abstained from
voting.
This information will be discussed at the July meeting.
Park Director's Report
Fackler stated there have been problems with dandelions this time of year. He noted he
has a full staff and discussed regular park maintenance activities. He discussed work
being done in preparation for Mound City Days. He stated the beaches are open.
Byrnes asked if the railing at the Depot will be painted. Fackler stated it will be done
by the end of summer.
Pederson suggested the doors facing the lake be painted a different color other than
white.
Rita's Report
Pederson reported on how overuse of a park results in negative park quality.
Commissioners and staff discussed parking requirements in the parks and how much
handicapped parking is needed.
Community Skating Rink
Meyer stated he would like to see groups get involved with using the community skating
rink area used (Babe Ruth field) and have it flooded during the winter.
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
June 12, 1997
Page 8
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Pederson to have the City execute the joint powers
agreement and use the Babe Ruth field as a community skating rink. Motion
carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Pederson to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
arles
C
League of Minnesota Cities
The 1997 Legislative Session
After nearly five months of committee hearings, floor ses-
sions, late night deliberations and FridayFaxs, the 1997 leg-
islative session adjourned at midnight on May 19. Those
months of debate saw the introduction of 2255 bills in the
House and 1997 bills in the Senate. The House and Senate
agreed on 251 chapters, and Governor As'ne Carlson used his
veto pen on chapters. Oh, and a special session is imminent.
Ail in all, nothing unusual for a state budget setting session.
The session began with the forecast of an unprecedented
budget surplus for the upcoming two year period. $2.3 bil-
lion to be exact. Although a large surplus could apparently
provide the proverbial grease to lubricate the legislative
gears, many observers believe that the abundance of re-
sources may have actually created more dissention and con-
tention than would have been experienced in a more typical
budget year.
In January, the governor proposed a $20 billion state bien-
nial budget including a tax rebate and permanent tax cuts.
His proposal included a larger state budget reserve, relatively
modest growth in state spending and fewer shared resources
for cities. The governor also proposed a steady reduction in
the price of government targets.
The first flurry of legislative activity was to remove the
education appropriation caps. These spending caps were
originally enacted in 1993, at a time when the state budget
forecast was projected to be abysmal through the end o~the
century. With the new optimistic budget projections, legisla-
tors were quick to remove the caps and restore full K-12
funding.
The spring flooding resulted in a similar surge of related
legislation ranging from delay of income tax payments to ac-
tual flood assistance appropriations. In the end, several
pieces of state flood legislation were enacted to help citizens
and local governments deal with the unprecedented flooding
that occurred along the Minnesota and Red river watersheds.
Chapter 105 contained the largest state appropriation of $21
million, and is in addition to the $3 million legislators ap-
proved early in the year for flooding as part of the emer-
gency snow removal aid package.
Chapter 105 also provides temporary authority to state
agencies to suspend agency rules to expedite flood recovery
efforts, and to waive fees that would otherwise be char~ed
for agency services in the disaster declaration counties.
Property tax reform
One of the most publicized issues of the session was prop-
erty tax reform. Business groups, rental property owners
and cabin owners were among the most vocal reform sup-
porters. To most advocates, property tax reform meant that
class rates would be compressed and that the overall level of
property taxes would be reduced.
The 1997 legislature considered more than a dozen reform
plans, many of which would have substantially altered the
way local government is financed in Minnesota. In order to
reduce the overall level of property taxes in the state, several
of the bills would have either expanded existing sales or in-
come taxes or created entirely new taxes such as the business
activity tax. Most of the bills would have reduced the num-
ber of classes and compressed the class rate structure.
In the end, the omnibus tax bill compressed classification
rates, increased the state's share of K- 12 education finance
costs, and reduced almost every property owners tax bill
compared to current law estimated 1998 property taxes.
Chapter 231 drew from the past by reestablishing a variant
of the old homestead credit and reenacting levy limits on cit-
ies over 2,500 population and counties.
Although the tax reform provisions in the omnibus tax bill
were hailed by many as a necessary first step toward reform,
most observers agree that the bill is not sufficient to address
all of the criticisms of the property tax system. We will
likely revisit the tax reform debate in each of the next several
legislative sessions.
Public rights-of-way
Months of discussion with industry representatives and
legislators culminated in the passage of Chapter 123, the
public rights-of-way initiative sponsored by Senator Steve
Novak and Representative Loren Jennings. The bill defines
the management responsibility of cities and establishes cost
recovery from telecommunications utilities for their use of
the rights-of-way.
The legislation finally enacted was a direct result of the
cities' legislative initiative that was organized under the
League's right-of-way task force. Many city engineers, at-
torneys and administrators spent considerable time helping
the League's efforts. In addition, cities throughout the state
contributed to the League's legal and legislative efforts
through a voluntary contribution. In the end, 592 cities con-
tributed nearly $184,000 to assist in the ROW effort.
Other major legislative initiatives include welfare reform,
pension uniformity and tobacco access control reforms.
If you have any questions as you review these act summa-
ries or if you have any other questions about other legislative
issues, please feel free to contact the League's IGR staff.
1997 Law Summaries Page 1~,,{~3 ~
Law summaries
gCity-specific legislation
Becker County EDA
Chapter 15 authorizes Becker County to establish an eco-
nomic development authority with all the powers and duties
granted to or imposed upon economic development authori-
ties under the relevant provisions of state statute. City coun-
cil approval would be required in order for the EDA to com-
mence a project within a city's corporate limits. Effective
upon local approval.
City of Kenyon levy reeertification
Chapter 6 authorizes the City of Kenyon to recenify and
increase its final levy by $68,720 for taxes levied in 1996
payable 1997. The City is required to publish notice of the
revised levy along with examples of its tax impact. The City
inadvertently subtracted HACA twice from its levy needs,
resulting in a budget shortfall. Effective without local ap-
proval on March 12, 1997.
City of Roseviile newspaper publication exemption
Chapter 56 allows the City of Roseville to designate any
newspaper with at least 25 percent of its circulation with~-,
the city limits as the official. Current law requires local units
of government to designated an official newspaper and al-
lows only those newspapers whose primary office is within
their jurisdiction be designated. The City of Roseville dem-
onstrated that their publication costs were $4,500 or 75 per-
cent higher than they could have been with another paper.
This lxoposal was originally drafted to cover all cities but
was restricted to Roseville due to Minnesota Newspaper As-
sociation concerns that the authority might be used by indi-
vidual local units of government to retaliate (by "taking their
business elsewhere") against newspapers that criticized their
governmental actions.
City of St. Paul council terms of office
Chapter 153 provides an exception to uniform local elec-
tion requirements or any other state law to authorize the city
home rule charter to provide for the terms of office for city
elected officials in the City of St. Paul. Effective only after
approval by a majority of the city council and compliance
with state law.
Changes to two legislative districts to reflect annexation
Chapter 44 provides that Districts 9A and 9B are adjusted
to reflect the annexation of portions of Moorhead Township
annexed by the City of Dilworth before the effective date of
the act, which is was April 22 (for subsequent elections).
Sale of impounded vehicles
owner and any lienholders are notified of the impoundment.
(Current law authorizes such sales after 45 days.) Effective
upon local action.
Economic development
Workforce service areas
Chapter 118 provides for the designation of workforce ser-
vice areas by the Commissioner of Trade and Economic De-
velopment in consultation with local elected officials and the
governor's council. Initial designation will be given to exist-
ing service delivery areas designated by the federal Job
Training Pannership Act providing that no other requests for
designation are submitted by local officials. Local
workforce councils consisting of members appointed by the
local units' chief elected official shall be created and must
include a majority of private sector representatives with sub-
stantial management or policy responsibility, at least two or-
ganized labor representatives, area workforce and commu-
nity based organization representatives, and representatives
of educational, vocational rehabilitation, public assistance,
economic development and public employment service
agencies. The local workforce councils are responsible for
providing policy guidance for, and exercising oversight with
respect to, workfome service center activities conducted in
partnership with area local units of government and the
Commissioner. Workforce service centers will provide fed-
eral, state, and local employment and training services to job
seekers and employers. Effective July 1, 1997.
tO'
M
Economic development appropriations
Chapter 200 contains several appropriations to fund vari-
ous existing and new economic development programs in-
cluding:
· Funding for the Minnesota Investment Fund is increased
by $4 million for the current biennium only.
· The Department of Trade and Economic Development
(DTED) will begin funding municipal drinking water
projects. A one-time appropriation of $4.4 million will
be placed in a revolving loan fund for state-matches to
federal funds provided under the Safe Drinking Water
Act passed by Congress last August.
· DTED will place at least three officers in non-metropoli-
tan area offices to work with local units of government
on trade and economic development issues.
· With a $3.5 million appropriation, DTED will imple-
ment a new Pathways program to assist persons making
the welfare-to-work transition by making grants-in-aid
available to educational institutions and non-profits and
interest-free loans available to employers to provide
training.
mt.
(to
orr
fcc
act
Ex
£
ing
or 5
tot.
Sec
C
affe
Lea
Chapter 108 authorizes the cities of Minneapolis and St. · The 1997 Minnesota Employment and Economic Devel-
Paul to sell impounded vehicles 15 days after the registered opment Program is established to assist businesses and
~..~ Page 2 League of Minnesota Cities
>oli-
;nt
communities in job-creation efforts focused on
transitioning Iow-wage workers by providing wage sub-
sidies. Employers are required to pay back subsidies re-
ceived if wages are reduced. Comprehensive job readi-
ness and job-retention services are an integral part of
this program.
· $12.4 million from the Petroleum Release Clean-up
Fund will be available for clean-up of petroleum-only
polluted sites where the contamination may not have
been determined to be attributable to a release. A clari-
fication is made that state and local units of government
will not be deemed responsible parties as a result of ac-
quiring property to clean it up. Various state depart-
ments and the Met Council will report to the legislature
by January 15, 1998 on the need for an office to coordi-
nate programs providing contaminated site clean-up as-
sistance and recommendations for programmatic
changes in order to streamline the application process,
coordinate state policies, and increase their overall effi-
ciency.
Effective July 1, 1997.
Elections
Rotation of candidate names on ballot
Chapter 18 allows townships to list candidate names on
the ballot in alphabetical order or to rotate the names if
township electors vote to do so for at least two years at the
township annual meeting. Effective August 1.
Moving township elections to November
Chapter 19 authorizes township boards and electors in the
metropolitan area to move township elections to November
(to the general election date) through adoption of either an
ordinance or resolution at the township annual meeting. Ef-
fective the day following final enactment and applies retro-
actively to resolutions adopted on or after March 1, 1997.
Expansion of mail balloting
Chapter 145 allows city councils to establish mail ballot-
ing for precincts with less than 50 registered voters for local
or state elections, subject to the approval of the county audi-
tor. Effective August I.
Secretary of State "housekeeping" election law changes
Chapter 147 contains many changes to election law that
affect cities. For a copy of the complete bill, please call the
League. Some of the provisions include:
completed voter registration cards are to be submitted to
election officials within 10 days of the date the voter put
on the card;
a person registering to vote is no longer required to in-
clude his/her phone number on the voter registration ap-
plication;
use of voter registration forms authorized by the Na-
tional Voter Registration Act ("Motor-Voter Law") is
...~.~au~orized in Minnesota:
· city clerks are responsible for carrying out the duties of
the county auditor for absentee voting when city elec-
tions are not held on the same day as county or state
elections;
· city councils are responsible for sending every affected
household with at least one registered voter (instead of
to each registered voter in the affected precinct) a
nonforwardable mailed notice at least 25 days before the
next election when the location of a polling place has
been changed; undeliverable notices that are returned
must be forwarded immediately to the county auditor;
· no changes to polling places may take place between the
date of the state primary and general election except
when a new polling place is designated to replace one
that has become unavailable: no new or different polling
place can be established within 90 days before an elec-
tion:
city clerks are authorized to assign election judges to fill
vacancies when they occur:
no special city election may be held within 40 days after
the state general election;
· clarifies that city election officials are responsible to
have electronic voting systems in order when delivered
to precinct polling places;
Provisions are effective August 1.
Campaign contribution limits
Chapter 224 provides bundling exceptions to the $300
election year/$100 non-election year contribution limit to a
candidate or a candidate's committee. The exceptions are
delivery of contributions collected by a member of the
candidate's committee to the treasurer and delivery made by
an individual on behalf of the individual's spouse. A legisla-
tor or constitutional officer who is a candidate for local of-
rice, or the official's committee, may not solicit or accept
contributions from a political fund or registered lobbyist dur-
ing a regular session of the legislature. Effective May 31,
1997.
OEnvironment
Solid waste advisory council
Chapter 45 directs the establishment of a solid waste pre-
vention, reduction, and recycling advisory council of be-
tween nine and 24 members, one-third of the representation
from business and industry, citizens, and government. Non-
voting members may be appointed from other environmental
and business assistance providers. The council will make
policy, programmatic, and legislative recommendations on
the topics of waste reduction, pollution prevention, manage-
ment of hazardous waste, reuse and recycling, and resource
conservation. Effective July 1, 1997.
Legislative review of new animal feedlot rules
Chapter 158 requires that any proposals for new animal
feedlot roles or amendments to existing roles be reviewed by
the legislative committees having jurisdiction over agricul-
1997 Law Summaries
Page 21~I y~}
tural and environmental issues prior to final adoption. The
proposed roles and amendments would not become effective
until 90 days after they are submitted to the appropriate com-
mittees. Effective May 17, 1997.
Temporary appropriation of water
Chapter 104 authorizes the Commissioner of Natural Re-
sources to issue a state general permit for temporary appro-
priation of water to a governmental subdivision or to the
general public for certain activities that have a minimal im-
pact upon the state's waters. The general permit may apply
to more than one project and more than one water source.
Water use permit processing fees and reports are required for
each project or water source except for uses totaling less
than 15 million gallons annually. Effective May7, 1997.
Environment, natural resources, and agriculture
Chapter 216 includes appropriations and regulations re-
garding environmental, natural resource, and agricultural
programs. Appropriations include: $6.4 million over the
next two years for petroleum tank clean up program; $1.9
million for grants to local governments for the clean water
parmership program; $400,000 in each of the next two years
for grants to local law enforcement agencies for expanded
snowmobile enforcement activities; $600,000 for local recre-
ation grants for parks and $600,000 for local recreation
grants for natural and scenic areas; $900,000 to loc~! ,rots
for trail grants.
A new state permit for alternative discharge sewage sys-
tems, as an alternative to individual sewage treatment sys-
tems, is established. Multiple dwellings which do not dis-
cha~e more than 10,000 gallons of water per day in total
will be allowed to create a water quality cooperative if the
system meets all state and federal environmental standards, it
is part of a plan to prevent, eliminate, or reduce water pollu-
tion, and it has a service agreement with a local unit of gov-
ernment to provide water quality treatment and management
services for the area. A system meeting all these require-
ments would be exempt from any local ordinance requiring
compliance with the individual sewage treatment system
statute.
Other provisions include an update of the 1995 report
quantifying the costs of all wastewater treatment upgrade
and construction projects, a restriction on the use of waste
tire materials for lightweight fill on road projects, and county
feedlot zoning guidelines.
Individual sewage treatment systems
Chapter 235 modifies the ISTS laws. Local ordinances
still must be in compliance with the ISTS laws by January I,
1998. All counties must adopt an ordinance by January 1,
1999 which will be enforceable in all towns and cities which
do not have an ISTS ordinance. Inspection of new construc-
tion or replacement systems must be pan of all local ISTS
ordinances. Procedures for inspection and for issuing certifi-
cates of compliance are established. System disclosure re-
quirements are expanded to include transfers of property
other than sales.
Finance and taxation
Omnibus tax bill
See summary of chapter 231 beginning on page 18.
Public Finance Bill
Chapter 219 includes several independent public finance
provisions that were packaged as one bill. The act:
· Expands permissible money market fund investments to
include additional short-term investments.
· Clarifies the repayment of indebtedness when an annex-
ation or consolidation occurs.
· Permits municipalities to construct, improve and main-
tain gas and electric distribution facilities owned by a
municipal gas or electric utility under MN Statutes 429.
· Prohibits local units of government from creating a for
profit or not for profit corporation unless specifically au-
thorized to do so under Minnesota law. This is identical
to a provision also contained in Chapter 231, the omni-
bus tax bill.
· Allows political subdivisions to issue bonds for health
insurance procurement.
State tax filing extension
Chapter 34 extends the deadline for filing state income
taxes for residents of federally designated flood disaster ar-
eas until May 30, 1997. Effective April 16, 1997,
Entitlement land payment distribution
Chapter 39 modifies current law which governs distribu-
tion of federal payments in lieu of taxes on entitlement lands
to allow for payment to any city or town which provides one
or more specific services to those lands. The requirement
that the city or town be "primarily responsible" for land use
planning or official controls is removed. Effective April 22,
1997.
General government
Statutory city mayor and fire chief not
incompatible
Chapter 23 provides that the offices of statutory city
mayor and the fire chief of an independent nonprofit
fa'e fighting corporation serving the city are not incompatible
offices and that an individual may hold both positions at the
same time as long as (1) the mayor does not appoint the fire
chief, (2) the mayor does not set the fire chief's salary or
benefits, (3) neither office performs functions that are incon-
sistent with those of the other, (4) neither office, in their offi-
cial capacity, enters into contracts with the other, and (5) the
mayor does not approve the fire chief's fidelity bond. Effec-
tive August 1, 1997.
P
tl-
ir
d:
C
to
ex
1.c
Fi
ins
ins
]es
me
tie:
sar
rat2
suf~
the
pa/.
din
15.~
wit.
C
Page 4
League of Minnesota Cities
ads
3ne
~tible
the
fire
~F
~con-
offi-
Cities
State Demographer's Bill
Chapter 87 clarifies the state demographer's role in pre-
paring population and household estimates for local units of
government when consolidations, annexations, detachments
or other boundary changes occur. Under the new law, any
boundary change approved by the municipal board must be
reported to the affected municipality and the state demogra-
pher. A population and household estimate of the affected
area on the effective date of the municipal board order will
be prepared by the affected municipality and certified to the
state demographer. Under current law, the municipal board
must make a finding of the population for the affected areas.
The law also clarifies the appeal process for challenging
population and household estimates prepared by the state de-
mographer. A governing body may challenge an estimate by
filing their specific objections in writing with the state de-
mographer by June 10. If a revised estimate acceptable to
the governing body is not prepared by June 24, the govern-
ing body may call for, and pay for a special census con-
ducted by the United States Bureau of the Census.
Commercial drivers' license exemption
Chapter 35 exempts certain backup snow plow operators
from the commercial driver's license requirement. Effective
April 17, 1997.
Wide snowplow permits
Chapter 114 authorizes the state and local authorities to is-
sue annual overwidth permits, effective October 1 to April 1,
to operate motor vehicles with snowplow blades that do not
exceed ten feet in width when deployed. Effective May 9,
1997.
Fire or explosion damage escrow requirements
Chapter 47 modifies the escrow requirements for property
insurance proceeds for fire or explosion damage and requires
insurers to withhold 25 percent (currently 15 percent) of the
lesser of the property's actual cash value for the final settle-
ment for a municipality covered by these laws. Municipali-
ties will have 30 days (currently 15 days) to show that such
mounts should be escrowed to protect the public health and
safety. Receipt of an affidavit prepared by the municipality,
rather than the court motion required by current law, will be
sufficient for the insurer to forward the withheld amount to
the municipality's treasurer. If the municipality secures, re-
pairs, or demolishes the structure under applicable law or or-
dinance, upon the lapse of the 45 days, the escrowed
amounts may be used to reimburse the municipality but only
15 percent of such amounts may be used for administrative
expenses. There is an exception to the withholding require-
ments if the insured files evidence of a contract to repair
with the insurer within 30 days (currently 15 days) following
agreement on a final settlement. Effective August I, 1997.
Errors in public notice
Chapter 56 provides that if, through no fault of the local
~rporation, an error occurs in the publication of a
public notice, the error has no effect on the validity of the
event, action, or proceeding to which the public notice re-
lates. Effective August 1, 1997.
Written notice to mobile home park applicants and
residents
Chapter 61 requires that written notice be provided to pro-
spective mobile home park residents along with the park
residency application. The notice must state that the park is
required to provide written procedure~ and criteria used in
evaluating prospective residents and reasons for application
denials. Additionally, for rule violations to be effective, the
resident must receive written notice which specifies the date,
approximate time, and nature of the alleged rule violation.
Effective August 1, 1997.
Notice of impoundment within five days
Chapter 70 reduces the ten day time period in which notice
must be given when a vehicle is impounded to five days. Ef-
fective August I, 1997.
Cities helping cities
Chapter 75 allows city and county governing bodies to
provide assistance to cities or counties located in federally
designated flood disaster areas. The assistance is required to
be used in aiding flood relief efforts until January 1, 1998.
Effective May 2, 1997. (The effective date was accidentally
omitted but was included in the omnibus tax bill.)
Eminent domain for wastewater
Chapter 82 authorizes townships to use eminent domain
and other powers for wastewater infrastructure purposes.
Effective May 3, t997.
Public nuisance expansion
Chapter 100 expands the public nuisance statute by re-
moving the "keeping or maintaining a disorderly house" lan-
guage and adding a reference to other public nuisance stat-
utes. Acts which consititute a public nuisance now include:
(1) permitting or maintaining a condition which unreason-
ably annoys or injures the health, safety, comfort, morals, or
repose of any considerable number of members of the pub-
lic; (2) any act or omission which the law declares a public
nuisance but for which no sentence is specifically provided;
and (3) permitting real property to be used to maintain a pub-
lic nuisance or renting real property knowing it will be used
to maintain a public nuisance. For acts constituting a nui-
sance with regard to controlled substances, a nuisance action
may not be filed if within 30 days, the recipient of a notice
abates conduct constituting the nuisance or enters into an
agreed abatement plan within 30 days. A temporary injunc-
tion may be sought upon failure to comply with the plan. Ef-
fective August 1, 1997.
Commercial enterprise violations
Chapter 122 includes commercial enterprise violations to
the list of acts which constitute a public nuisance. Effective
1997 Law Summaries
Page 5
for incidents occurring after July 3 I, 1997 except that a
single violation that occurs after this date is effective to
count as one of two incidents required to constitute a public
nuisance regardless of whether the other incident occurred
after that same date.
Omnibus liquor bill
Chapter 129 is the omnibus liquor bill and contains several
provisions relating to municipalities.
· Municipalities may now authorize retail on-sale intoxi-
cating liquor licensees to dispense intoxicating liquor at
off premises community festivals held within the mu-
nicipality. The area where such beverages will be sold
and consumed must be specified and liability insurance
covering the event is required. Effective May 10, 1997.
· Local governments are allowed, upon a licensee's re-
quest, to adjust the licensing period for any holder of
multiple on-sale alcoholic beverage licenses in the state.
The local government unit may charge a fee for an ad-
justment of the licensing period. Effective August I,
1997.
· Licensees who sell less than $25,000 of 3.2 malt liquor
or wine if on-sale or $50,000 of 3.2 malt liquor if off-
sale, are not required to carry liability insurance. Effec-
tive August 1, 1997.
· Municipalities may now authorize the Sunday sale of
3.2 percent alcoholic beverages in addition to th,' ;,,lc of
intoxicating liquor. Effective May 10. 19~7.
· The cities of Duluth, Hermantown, and Proctor may per-
mit the off-sale of intoxicating liquor until I0:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday. The City of Spring Lake
Park is authorized to issue one additional on-sale intoxi-
cating liquor license and the City of Moorhead may is-
sue two additional licenses. Intoxicating liquor licenses
may be issued to the City of St. Paul's park and recre-
ation department and intoxicating liquor may be sold at
professional sporting events at the St. Paul Civic Center.
Effective upon local approval.
· State liquor control authority, previously delegated to
the Department of Public Safety's liquor control divi-
sion, is transferred to and consolidated with the alcohol
and gambling division. This merger has already oc-
curred; the law makes it official. Effective retroactively
to October 1, 1996
Effective August 1, 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
No penalties for calling police
Chapter 133 prohibits landlords from punishing tenants for
seeking emergency police assistance and preempts inconsis-
tent local ordinances which require eviction of tenants or im-
pose a fee on landlords after a specific number of calls to po-
lice. Local ordinances geared toward nuisances are not af-
fected. Applicable to lease agreements modified, entered
into, renewed on or after July 1, 1997. Any existing incon-
sistent lease provision is unenforceable on or after that date.
City bankruptcies
Chapter 148 authorizes municipalities to file for protection
under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code. Under a
federal law change in 1994, states were required to specifi-
cally authorize bankruptcy filing for local governments. Ef-
fective May 14, 1997.
Government meetings by interactive TV
Chapter 154 authorizes meetings of governmental bodies
to be conducted by interactive television as long as certain
criteria are present to ensure compliance with the Open
Meeting Law. For example, each participating member must
be able to hear and see one another and all discussion and
testimony presented at the regular meeting location where at
least one member must be present. Effective May 16, 1997.
Liquor definitions recodified
Chapter 179 recodifies certain statutory liquor provisions
including the definitions section and various provisions re-
lated to taxation. Effective August 1, 1997.
Met Council credits and cost allocation methods
Chapter 181 allows the Metropolitan Council, upon taking
ownership of local interceptors or treatment facilities, to
make direct periodic payments to local governments instead
of the usual credits against the local government's metropoli-
tan disposal system costs. Effective May 20, 1997. Addi-
tionally, the Met Council's cost allocation method for waste-
water services is modified. Generally, costs will now be al-
located among and paid by all local government units which
will discharge sewage, directly or indirectly, into the metro-
politan disposal system during the budget year with certain
current law deductions. Effective January 1, 1998 for costs
allocated after that date.
Omnibus state government finance
Chapter 202 contains various appropriations and several
significant provisions of interest to local units of government
including:
Community-based planning
· $330,000 for the biennium for community-based plan-
ning and the advisory council on community-based
planning;
· $150,000 in the first year for three grants to counties or
joint powers boards selected to participate in the com-
munity-based planning pilot project. Counties receiving
grants may provide funding to their municipalities for
community-based planning purposes.
· $375,000 in the second year for planning grants to a
county, joint planning districts, or a county and one or
more of the municipalities within the county when they
submit a joint application to prepare community-based
plans. Priority will be given to joint efforts. Counties
receiving grants may provide funding their municipali-
ties for community-based planning purposes.
Page 6
League of Minnesota Cities
(
a
v
n
II
S
P
h:
ai
S:
ni:
da
cit
col
pai
ity.
ratt
nia
A
ted
pre,~
to ~
wi~
plat
The
shiF
Citit
vie,
ia al
ar~c
1611
Annexation and the Municipal Board
A municipality may declare an unincorporated area an-
nexed where they would otherwise be required by order
from the Pollution Control Agency to extend a governmental
service outside its jurisdiction to the unincorporated area.
The municipality would adopt an ordinance and submit it to
the Municipal Board or its successor. Review and comment
on the ordinance is permitted but approval within 30 days is
required. The annexation is effective on the day it is ap-
proved. The municipality is then required to amend its com-
prehensive plan and official controls. When other state
agencies order municipalities to extend governmental ser-
vices to unincorporated areas, the Municipal Board will have
authority to consider designation of the area for orderly an-
nexation. Parties filing objections with the Municipal Board
may submit a written request to the Bureau of Mediation
Services within 30 days of the filing with the consent of all
parties to have the dispute settled through mediation. The
Municipal Board must be notified in writing that all parties
have agreed to have the dispute settled by mediation. The
Municipal Board will sunset effective December 31, 1999
and its powers and duties will be transferred to the Office of
Strategic and Long Range Planning. Effective May 31,
1997.
Dispute resolution
A process is established consisting of mediation and sub-
sequent binding arbitration for disputes that arise in the plan-
ning process and in annexation proceedings. Decision stan-
dards for the arbitration panel are stated in the form of pro-
cedures and conditions for both approval and denial of a
city's community-based comprehensive plan, a municipal in-
corporation, annexation of unincorporated property, munici-
pal consolidation, detachment of property from a municipal-
ity, and concurrent detachment and annexation of incorpo-
rated property, as well as procedures and conditions for de-
nial. Effective May 31, 1997.
Community-based planning
All Minnesota counties, cities, and townships are permit-
ted to prepare and seek funding for community-based com-
prehensive plans. Each local unit of government that chooses
to prepare a community-based plan is required to coordinate
with neighboring governmental units. Growing cities must
plan for their estimated land needs for the next 20 years.
These cities must come to agreement with surrounding town-
ships for an orderly annexation plan for the next 20 years.
Cities and townships must submit plans to the county for re-
view but the county's approval is only required if the county
is also preparing a community-based plan. Joint planning is
permitted by establishing joint planning districts. Ten goals
ar~ established and outlined in detail relating to economic
d~velopment, sustainable development, conservation, land
u~ planning, livable community design, housing, transporta-
tion, public investment, public education, and citizen partici-
pation. The Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning
~vide financial and technical assistance to local units
of government in preparing their plans and will review and
comment on plans that have been prepared. The plan is
deemed approved after 60 days unless the Office provides
written notification of deficiencies and suggested changes.
The local unit of government then has 60 days to revise and
resubmit the plan. Plans must be reviewed and updated at
least once every ten years. The Office must review and ap-
prove updated plans. When zoning conflicts with the plan,
the plan will supersede. Both zoning and official controls
must be consistent with the plan. The Met Council is re-
quired to amend the metropolitan development guide to re-
flect the community-based planning goals. After July 1,
1999, the Met Council may not approve local plans or plan
amendments until comments from the Office are received
and considered. The Office will review and comment on the
amendments. A 22-member advisory committee on commu-
nity-based planning is established and will issue a progress
report with recommendations to the legislature in 1998.
More mighty ducks
$5 million will be spent to build new and renovate existing
ice arenas around the state.
Enhanced 911
Providers of cellular and wireless services will be required
to cooperate in planning and implementing integration of
these services with enhanced 911 systems to meet federal
communications commission standards. This planning must
be completed in the metro area by October 1, 1997 and out-
side the metro area by December 1, 1997. Providers must
submit estimates of the costs associated with such integration
to the Department of Administration which will then coordi-
nate with counties and affected public safety entities. Instal-
lation and recurring costs will be paid by the Commissioner
of Administration where 911 service is included in the state-
wide design plan or where the provider has contracted with
the Department for 911 service. Local governments respon-
sible for planning will be required to ensure that 911 calls
made from cellular phones are automatically connected to
one of ten answering points around the state to be operated
by the Minnesota Highway Patrol and other civic entities.
Beginning October 1, 1997, these additional entities will re-
ceive payment from the 911 account and an annual audit on
the use of 911 funds will be required. Long-distance charges
incurred due to transferring 911 calls to other jurisdictions
and equipment necessary for community alert systems are
added to the list of permitted uses of money from the 911
account. Cellular and wireless customers will pay the en-
hanced 911 fee beginning with July 1997 billings.
Several reports and advisory councils are authorized
· A biennial report to the legislature on state bond laws,
the past five years of bonds for state or local govern-
ment building projects, and any outstanding authority
from those bonds.
· A Minnesota Planning advisory council which will look
at the state's economic future and strategic goals.
1997 Law Summaries
Page ~y
· An advisory council on local government to examine the
roles and responsibilities of local and regional govern-
ment within the metro area
· A commission to evaluate selected corporate subsidy
programs and tax laws to determine what public pur-
poses are served.
· An information policy task force to study state laws and
make recommendations on data practices and informa-
tion technology issues.
Access to data
Local government documents, such as codes and ordi-
nances, meeting schedules and minutes, and other notices is
required to be provided to citizens upon request free of
charge or for a nominal cost of reproduction.
Other provisions
~or the biennium is appropriated to the Intergov-
e~formation Systems Advisory Council. The
Council will create a committee whose membership must in-
clude one representative from the legislature, the Office of
the State Auditor, the Department of Revenue, the Depart-
ment of Finance, counties, cities, townships, special districts,
and the general financial community. The committee will be
responsible for providing general direction and oversight.
The Office of Technology is now an official state agenc,'
with an executive director appointed by the governo-..', will
be responsible for ensuring that the state's technological de-
velopment takes place in a logical and intergovernmentally
coordinated manner. An appropriation of $4,703,000 for
the biennium is made for administrative operations.
The Boarqt of Government Innovation may require grant
recipients to repay al-~--or p.art o~t a grant received upon a de-
termination that the proiect funded bY t-l:ie grant resulted in
' a'~fi'-'~tual savings to the loca~-nunits of government involved.
Demands for repaymen{ may be made re~ardlcss of wb,,th~,r
~a~ offer to r~'~ the grant was In~~or~innl
application. Grant agreements will be required to specify
how savings will be determined and the time period over
which the savings will be used to calculate the required re-
payment. A formula is provided to calculated the repay-
ment amount. Repayments are capped at the amount of the
original grant. Bonus points will be awarded to competitive
grant applications that project a potential cost savings and
offer to repay the grant. Any amounts repaid will be used
by the board for additional grants.,..A~
~;306 f}O0~ made to~fund some
Board in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.'
All provisions are effective August 1, 1997 (July 1, 1997
for appropriations) unless otherwise indicated.
Protection from lawsuits intended to chill free speech
Chapter 209 creates an action in state court against a per-
son who has brought a claim in federal court that materially
relates to public participation by the person and requires the
court to award actual damages, reasonable attorney fees and
costs, and may award punitive damages if the persondemon-~
strates that the federal court action was brought for the pur-
pose of wrongfully injuring the person including harassment,
interference with public participation, inhibition of the exer-
cise of constitutionally protected rights. Effective August I,
1997.
Tort liability limits increased
Chapter 210 increases the tort liability limits for claims
against governmental units from $200,000 to $300,000 for a
single claim and from $600,000 to $750,000 in 1998 and
1999, and to $1,000,000 in 2000 for any number of claims
arising out of a single occurrence. Beginning January 1,
1998, and each year thereafter, the State Auditor will be re-
quired to collect information from counties, cities of the first,
second, and third class, and school districts with enrollment
exceeding 100 students. The auditor must prepare a report
on amounts of public funds expended for legal services to
defend the entity from lawsuits, any judgments from such
lawsuits, and amounts paid in voluntary settlements which
must include retainer fees paid to outside counsel and to at-
torneys performing criminal or prosecutorial work. Effective
January 1, 1998 for claims arising from acts or omissions
taking place on or after that date.
Certification of expert review to sue professionals
Chapter 212 requires that a certification of expert review
be provided in an action alleging negligence or malpractice
in rendering a professional service where expert testimony is
to be used. The certification that the lawsuit is not frivolous
would be made by another member of that profession. Pro-
fessionals included are architects, certified public accoun-
tams, engineers, landscape surveyors, landscape architects,
and attorneys. Failure to comply within 60 days of demand
allows the opposing party to move for and be granted dis-
missal with prejudice of each claim. Effective August 1,
1997 and applicable to claims arising from incidents occur-
ring on or after that date and actions commenced after Au-
gust 1, 1998.
Opossum nuisances
Chapter 226 allows owners and occupants to kill opos-
sums causing damage. No permit or license is required.
Current law allows such practice for mink, squirrels, rabbits,
hare, raccoon, lynx, bobcat, fox, muskrats, and beavers. A
person who kills any of these animals must notify a conser-
vation officer or an employee of the division within 24 hours
but no longer must the animal's body be brought in. Effec-
tive August 1, 1997.
Tobacco licensing and regulation
Chapter 227 authorizes cities and towns to license and
regulate the retail sale of tobacco and to establish a license
fee to recoup enforcement costs. Counties are required to li-
cense and regulate in unorganized territories and in cities and
towns that choose not to license and regulate. Tobacco lic-
ensees will be charged an administrative penalty of $75 for
Page 8
League of Minnesota Cities
s~lling to minors. Second and third violations within 24
months at the same location will be charged $200 and $250
with a suspension of at least seven days, respectively. Indi-
viduals who sell to minors will be charged an administrative
penalty of $50 in addition to the potential criminal sanctions
of up tO one year in jail and a $3,000 fine which exist under
current law. Notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a writ-
ten determination that a violation did occur are required prior
to any civil penalty or suspension. Licensing authorities are
required to conduct one unannounced compliance check per
calendar year at each location where tobacco is sold. Minors
between the ages of 15 and 18 will be involved in the com-
pliance checks. Tobacco manufacturers are required to an-
nually report to the Commissioner of Health whether certain
toxic substances are present in their products and local gov-
ernments may request this information. Vending machines
and open displays of single packages of cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco accessible without the assistance of store
employees are prohibited. An exception is made for retail
stores where 90 percent of the revenues are from tobacco
and tobacco-related products which cannot be entered at any
time by persons under the age of 18. Multiple-packages and
cartons may be sold in open displays until federal rules gov-
erning this issue are implemented and effective. Local ordi-
nances which are more restrictive in regulation than state law
are not preempted. During the 1996 legislative session,
similar legislation was unsuccessful in large part because it
would have preempted more restrictive local ordinances.
Local units of government must take reasonable steps to
send notice by mail to each licensee at least 30 days prior to
a meeting at which a more restrictive local ordinance will be
under consideration. Effective August 1, 1997.
Carryover bonding authority
Chapter 169 provides that any state bonding authority allo-
cated to entitlement issuers (Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Dakota County) which is
carried over from the previous year must be used in the cur-
rent year before any new bonding authority is issued. Effec-
tive August l, 1997.
Sanctions in civil actions
Chapter 213 allows the court to impose sanctions in civil
actions if an attorney or unrepresented party presents a
pleading, motion, or other paper which is found by the court
to:
· be presented for an improper purpose such as to harass
or unnecessarily delay or increase the cost of litigation;
· be unwarranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous ar-
gument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law or the establishment of a new law;
· have no evidentiary support nor to be likely to have evi-
dentiary support after reasonable opportunity for discov-
ery or investigation; or
· be based upon denials of factual contention which are
unwarranted on the evidence, or are unreasonably based
on a lack of information or belief.
The sanctions may be monetary to the extent necessary to
deter repetition of the conduct, or may be a directive of a
nonmonetary nature. These provisions apply to causes of ac-
t/on m/sing on or after August 1, 1997.
Data Practices - Human rights data
Chapter 172 reclassifies human rights investigative data
contained in open case files as confidential data on individu-
als or protected nonpublic data. In the context of pending
litigation, the name and address of the charging party and the
respondent, the factual basis of the allegations, and the stat-
ute under which the action is brought is reclassified as pri-
vate data on individuals or nonpublic data but are accessible
to the charging party and the respondent. A finding of prob-
able cause is now required in order for the Commissioner of
Human Rights to make human rights investigative data con-
tained in open case files accessible if it will aid the investiga-
tive and enforcement process. Human rights investigative
data contained in closed case files is reclassified as private
data on individuals or nonpublic data except that the name
and address of the charging party and respondent, the factual
basis of the allegations, the statute under which the action is
brought, the party for the summary, of the investigation that
does not contain identifying data on a person other than the
charging party or respondent, and the Commissioner's
memorandum determining whether probable cause has been
shown is public. Effective August 1, 1997.
Department of Commerce Bill
Chapter 222 provides that a political subdivision that is-
sues zoning or land use permits in lieu of a building permit
shall not issue those permits to an unlicensed person who is
required to be licensed under the residential contractor stat-
utes. The political subdivision must report an unlicensed ap-
plicant to the commissioner of commerce. Effective August
1, 1997.
The number of classroom hours required for certification
as a residential real property appraiser is reduced from 165
to 120 hours. The number of hours for certification as a gen-
eral real property appraiser is increased from 165 to 180
classroom hours. The experience requirement is changed
from 2 years of experience for all licensees to 2,000 hours
for registered real property appraiser or licenced real prop-
erty appraiser, 2,500 hours for certified residential real prop-
erty appraiser, and 3,000 hours for certified general real
property appraiser. A new continuing education requirement
for four hours each license period is established. Effective
August 1, 1997.
Bonding bill
Chapter 246 provides for the sale of $i i 1 million in state
bond authority and appropriates the proceeds. Appropria-
tions include $4 million for flood damage reduction, $1 mil-
lion for individual sewage treatment grants to municipalities,
$7 million for wastewater infrastructure fund loans, $7 mil-
lion for the department of trade and economic development's
contaminated site cleanup and development account for
1997 Law Summaries
Page 9
brownfields, and $3 million to match federal funds for local
bridge replacement and rehabilitation.
Building contract modifications
Chapter 127 makes changes to building contract regula-
tions. It states that unless the contract provides otherwise,
monthly progress payments must be made as the work
progresses, in an amount based upon work completed, and
that an owner may reserve as a retainage an amount not to
exceed five percent of the payment. Prime contractors and
subcontractors must pay subcontractors within ten days of
receipt of payment from the owner for undisputed services.
These provisions do not apply to most residential real estate
contracts.
kH°using
The following Housing provisions are
contained in the Economic Development act, Chapter 200:
· Manufactured home parks are established as conditional
uses in zoning districts that permit construction or siting
of multi-family dwelling units for two or more families.
Effective July 1.
· A Lead hazard reduction advisory task force is created
to study and recommend a program to certify lead-safe
residential rental property and to look at many other
lead issues.
Accessibility Loan criteria are changed ',c~ make house-
holds (rather than families) eligible for rehabilitation
loans, without income limits, if the borrower or an indi-
vidual residing in the borrower's home is disabled and
the proposed housing improvement will assist the bor-
rower or the disabled person who residers there. Effec-
tive July 1.
MHFA equity take-out loans are authorized for owners
of Section 230 rental proper~y on which MHFA holds a
first mortgage. Owners of Section 8 project-based
rental property who are currently eligible for such loans
must agree to participate in the Section 8 program and
provide affordable housing for Iow-income households
for the entire term of the Section 8 contract. Likewise,
owners of Section 236 rental property must agree to
such requirements as well as to extend any rental assis-
tance payments for the maximum term permitted under
such agreements. Effective July 1.
MHFA demonstration grants are authorized for owners
or managers of multi-family rental properties to develop
or coordinate services to help tenants to be self-suffi-
cient and live independently; improve tenant-community
relations and strengthen the local community. Effective
July 1.
MHFA is authorized to use Minnesota Housing Trust
Fund revenues to make loans or grants for temporary
and transitional housing as well as for migrant worker
housing. Effective July 1.
A family stabilization demonstration project is autho-
rized to provide rental assistance to families who re-
ceived public assistance at the time they were initially
eligible for rental assistance in which one parent with a
least one child has an income. Rent assistance can in-
clude up to $250 for a security deposit for units in the
metropolitan area. MHFA is also directed to award
housing vouchers to county agencies for participating
families. Effective July 1.
MHFA is authorized to make grants and loans to non-
profit housing organizations to construct, acquire, rehab,
demolish, finance, refinance or to provide gap financing
for single or multifamily housing. Eligibility for the
funds depends on the coordination of the use of those
funds with its other housing-related efforts and the ex-
tent to which the proposed project is consistent with the
city's consolidated housing plan. The city must be noti-
fied of the intent by the nonprofit organization to apply
to MHFA for funds. The city may submit comments to
MHFA, which is required to consider them in reviewing
the application for funds. Effective July 1.
Local public housing authorities are required to report to
MHFA each year, beginning February 1, 1998, the loss
in the number of low-income rental units or Section 8
certificates or vouchers from the previous year and to
assess the reasons for that loss, including whether it is
due to state welfare reform initiatives. No later than
March 15 of the following year, local public housing
agencies are also required to report to MHFA the num-
ber of low-income housing units it has demolished. Ef-
fective July 1.
~'~.' ~l[ ~'~. Personnel & pensions
Civil air patrol leaves of absence
Chapter 20 requires employers to grant a leave of absence
without pay to employees rendering service as a member of
the civil air patrol. Effective August 1, 1997.
Positive drug tests
Chapter 180 requires employers to provide written notice
of the right to explain a positive drug test to job applicants or
employees who test positive for drug use. The employer
may request any relevant information regarding the reliabil-
ity of or the explanation for the positive test including an
identification of prescription or over-the-counter medication
that is or recently has been taken. Instead of an opportunity
to review their personnel record upon an employee's written
request, employers may provide a copy of the personnel
record but may no longer charge any fee for such copy, in-
cluding the actual cost of making, compiling, and mailing
the copy. Effective August 1, 1997.
OSHA filing deadline met by postmarked date
Chapter 81 provides that an employer's OSHA notice of
contest may be timely filed by depositing such notice in the
si
oi
dr
be
pl
ye
ad
cie
PE
Page 10
League of Minnesota Cities
U.S. mail, postmarked within the time fixed for filing, ad-
dressed to the Commissionor. (Current law requires that the
Commissioner be in receipt of the notice of contest within
the time fixed for filing.) Effective for enforcement proceed-
ings commenced on or after August 1, 1997.
Payment of wages
Chapter 83 modifies provisions governing payment of
wages to cover all employers, including the state and its po-
litical subdivisions. Employees who quit or resign are en-
titled to be paid in full by either the next regularly scheduled
payday or the second payday, if the first payday occurs less
than five days after the final date of employment, but in no
case shall it exceed 20 days after the final date of employ-
ment. This requirement does not apply where a collective
bargaining agreement provision governs this issue. Effec-
tive August 1, 1997.
Notice and approval required to dissolve certain
insurance funds
Chapter 117 requires employers to provide 30 days' writ-
ten notice to each exclusive representative of employees and
each individual currently receiving health benefits prior to a
decision to dissolve any self-insurance, trust fund, or dedi-
cated insurance fund created by a single statutory or home
rule charter city, county, school district, or their instrumen-
talities. Approval is required from the representative of the
largest number of employees. Any remaining assets are re-
quired to be audited before closure and dedicated for use for
health insurance benefits for individuals currently receiving
them. Joint self-insurance trusts or pools are specifically ex-
cluded from these requirements. However, upon dissolution
of a joint self-insurance trust or pool, the assets or liabilities
are required to be distributed to members of the trust or pool
in accordance with the trust or pool agreement, if any. Ef-
fective July 1, 1997.
Pension Uniformity Law
Chapter 233 makes many changes to the major public pen-
sion plans. Benefit levels of PERA, TRA, and MSRS are
made more uniform, and the long-term funding deficiencies
of PERA and of the first class city teacher plans are ad-
dressed. The bill increases the initial PERA benefit multi-
plier from 2.5 to 2.7 per year of service for basic plan mem-
bers, from 1.5 to 1.7 per year of service for most coordinated
plan members, and from 1.0 to 1.2 for each of the first 10
years of service for certain coordinated plan members.
To offset the cost of the initial benefit increase, the cap on
the consumer price index portion of the annual cost of living
adjustment is reduced by one percent, from 3.5 to 2.5 per-
cent. In addition, employee and employer contribution rates
are increased to help the PERA plan achieve funding suffi-
ciency. The PERA employer contribution increases from
4.48 to 5.18 percent for coordinated plan members and from
10.73 to 11.43 percent for basic plan members, while the
PERA employee contribution increases from 4.23 to 4.75
percent for coordinated plan members and from 8.23 to 8.75
for basic plan members. The initial benefit formula multi-
plier for PERA police and fire pensions is increased from
2.65 to 3.0 percent of salary. The increased PERA contribu-
tion rates are effective for the first full pay period after De-
cember 31, 1997. The benefit changes are effective July 1,
1997.
A new state aid program is established to partially reim-
burse local governments for the cost of the increased em-
ployer contribution. The aid will be sent semiannually be-
ginning December 26, 1997, which means cities will receive
what amounts to an advance on their increased obligations.
Each aid payment will equal 0.35 percent of the local
government's fiscal year 1997 PERA payroll, so the annual
amount of aid will equal the 0.7 percent increase in the em-
ployer contribution. The amount of aid will no.~t increase
with increases in payroll costs, so the increased employer
contribution for any new hires or raises will not be reim-
bursed by the state. However, any significant decrease in
payroll below fiscal year 1997 levels may result in a de-
crease in the state aid.
The PERA normal retirement age is gradually increased to
66 years for people who became public employees after June
30, 1989.
The law expands eligibility for police state aid to the de-
partment of natural resources and the department of public
safety to help pay the pension costs of licenced peace offic-
ers in these departments.
The law also changes the determination of excess police
state aid to municipalities to be based upon the PERA Police
& Fire employer costs for police pensions only. Previously,
excess police state aid was based on all police and firefighter
pension costs including local salaried fire relief association
costs. Those 48 cities which received excess police state aid
for their full-time firefighters will still annually receive the
amount of aid they received in 1997, but no new excess po-
lice state aid will be sent to any city for fire pension costs.
The law provides for the adjustment of police state aid
amounts to be paid in October 1997 to correct inadvertent
overpayments and underpayments to cities and counties in
the September 1996 payments.
The law also provides for changes to the plans for legisla-
tors and constitutional officers, first class city teachers, and
Minneapolis police and firefighters and minor changes for
local relief association consolidation accounts.
Pension provisions
Chapter 241 contains various pension modifications, in-
cluding changes to individual local plans. Chapter 241
changes investment performance reporting requirements for
all local police and fire relief associations. The current in-
vestment reporting requirement is repealed. All plans must
submit an updated investment policy and report any changes
to that policy in the future. Plans with assets greater than
$10 million on January I must annually report total portfolio
value, as well as details about separate asset classes and in-
1997 Law Summaries Page 11 1~ ~g
vestment accounts for each month, the amount and date of
each total portfolio injection and withdrawal, and the time-
weighted rate of return calculation.
Plans with assets less than $10 million must annually re-
port the amount and date of each total portfolio injection and
withdrawal and the total portfolio market value at the begin-
ning of the year and for each quarter. This data will permit
the State Auditor to compute the total portfolio time-
weighted rate of return for the plan. The plans also are re-
quired to collect and permanently retain data to permit com-
putation of asset class returns if that data is requested. This
data will permit the State Auditor to compute the total port-
folio time-weighted rate of return for the plan.
Penalties for relief associations which do not submit an.
nual investment reports to the state auditor in a timely man-
ner are expanded. Plans can potentially lose state appropria-
tions as well as state aid. Plans can get an extension to No-
vember 30 to submit repons if they demonstrate hardship or
the inability to conform to the state auditor's requests. Re-
porting requirement changes are effective beginning January
1, 1998. The new penalty provisions are effective beginning
January 1, 1999.
Chapter 241 also includes an increase in the maximum al-
lowable volunteer firefighter pension benefits for monthly
and lump sum plans. Several cities' relief associations are at
or near the current maximum levels. The new law allows
sociations with excess funding to increase the
monthly service pension from $30 per month/per year of ser-
vice to $40 per month/per year of service. The maximum
lump sum service pension is increased from $4,000 per year
of service to $5,500 per year of service. These new maxi-
mums will, in some cases, make the level of the volunteer
pension comparable to the pension of a full-time PERA
member. The new maximums are effective for pensions pay-
able after December 31, 1997.
Public safety
Charges for emergency services
Chapter 16 authorizes townships to impose a reasonable
charge for emergency services provided by the township or
contracted for by the township.
1837 treaty implementation
Chapter 30 appropriates an amount as needed, not to ex-
ceed $6.5 million, from the budget reserve to the Commis-
sioner of Public Safety to reimburse various state depart-
ments and agencies and local units of government for costs
incurred related to the 1837 treaty. This appropriation is
available until June 30, 1997. Prior approval is required for
reimbursement for equipment acquisition. The Commis-
sioner may request that local units of government assign
peace officers to assist the department with its duties relating
to the 1837 treaty and may make appropriate arrangements
for their compensation. The Commissioner may also employ
off-duty peace officers. Effective April 12, 1997.
Chapter 55 prohibits law enforcement, peace, or animal
control officers' entry into farm animal facilities where con-
fined farm animals are kept unless bio-security measures
identified by the Commissioner of Natural Resources and the
Board of Animal Health are followed. An exception is made
for emergency or exigent circumstances. Effective August I,
1997.
Proof of intent not required for stalking
Chapter 96 clarifies that, under the criminal harassment
and stalking law, the state is not required to prove that the
actor intended to cause the victim to fed frightened, threat-
.ened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated or that the actor
intended to cause any other result. The definition of"ha-
rass" is changed to encompass intentional conduct which the
actor knows or has reason to know would make the victim
feel frightened, threatened, etc. Under current law, the defi-
nition only encompasses intentional conduct which would
evoke such feelings in a reasonable person. Effective the
day following final enactment. Among other changes, this
new law also limits a defendant's fight to seek sentence
modification and increases the penalties for violating domes-
tic abuse or restraining orders. Effective August 1, 1997.
Make. up state aid
Chapter 125 appropriates additional state aid amounts to
certain cities and the metropolitan airports commission
which receive police state aid. These cities received less in
1996 than was intended due to errors in statutory drafting.
Effective May 10, 1997.
Background investigations required
Chapter 214 requires law enforcement agencies to conduct
background investigations for peace officer applicants and
provides for the release of data by the Board of Police Of-
ricer Standards and Training (POST), the sharing of informa-
tion among POST and law enforcement agencies, and pro-
vides civil immunity for employers providing such informa-
tion for the purposes of conducting background investiga-
tions. Effective August 1, 1997.
Emergency snow and flood funding
Chapter 12 appropriates a total of $20 million: $6 million
to provide a state match for 1997 federal disaster funds for
snow-related disaster costs to be distributed according to a
formula agreed to by the state and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), to fund the local government
match for eligible snow-related disaster costs and to fund the
ten percent of those costs which FEMA determines are ineli-
gible for federal reimbursement. The act also requires that
reimbursement to cities and other local units of government
be coordinated with emergency federal funding (FEMA) for
those purposes as well as to respond to immediate public
safety concerns. The act designates $3 million to assist with
1997 flooding and related emergencies that affect public
safety as a state match for federal disaster funds and for
r.
f
S:
P
£
g:
fc
Page 12
League of Minnesota Cities
other flood-related costs not covered by FEMA. Another $11
million is to reimburse local government snow removal ex-
penditures in 1996, according to a formula comparing the
1996 expenses with the average annual snow removal costs
for the previous three years. To receive reimbursement for
the latter expenses or to match federal disaster assistance, a
city must request the aid and provide relevant information 'to
the Commissioner of Public Safety. Article 2 of the act ap-
propriates $16 million from the trunk highway fund for state
road operations and $95,000 for state trooper overtime costs
related to fiscal 1997 winter weather-related emergencies.
These provisions were effective March 20.
Flood relief
Chapter 105 appropriates $20 million from the state bud-
get reserve to match state and local funds required to receive
federal flood-related disaster funds and to reimburse cities,
other local units of government, individuals and families to ·
be used for costs related to the 1997 floods (to be added to
the $3 million appropriated in Chapter 12); provides an ex- ·
ception to the nursing home moratorium for replacement of ·
up to 49 beds located in Norman County and up to 129 beds
located in Polk County to be relocated from nursing homes
destroyed by flooding; early payment of Local Government
Aid funds to cities and temporary authority, waivers and
transfers related to the flood situation. The appropriation is
available until June 30, 1998. The act was effective May 7. ·
G1 Emergency medical services licensing
Chapter 199 establishes licensing requirements for provi-
sion of ambulance services and recodifies the current statutes
regarding emergency medical service provision. It provides
procedures for changing primary service areas, licensing
procedures for the emergency medical services regulatory
board, a prohibition of denial of service, and a list of areas
a- for which the board may adopt rules. The current statute re-
garding local government's powers to establish standards for
ambulance service which do not conflict with board roles are
maintained. Additionally, any proposed local regulation
must be found not to diminish public access to ambulance
services of acceptable quality. The procedures for penalties
and disciplinary action of licensees by the board are ex-
,n
: panded. These provisions are effective August 1, 1997.
I'
i
: Omnibus Crime Bill
: Chapter 239 is the omnibus crime bill, which appropriates
,ent
the I money for various criminal justice and crime prevention pro-
~ grams, makes changes to criminal statutes, and includes the
eli- following provisions:
.t Appropriations include $2,250,000 in each of the next
mt two years for grants to local units of government to as-
for sign overtime officers to areas of high crime and for
,i,h ~,( weed and seed grants, and $250,000 in each of the next
two years to reimburse local governments for the cost of
' sex offender notification hearings.
ities LLaw Summaries
A pilot grant program administered by the commissioner
of corrections is established to assist local organizations,
including local law enforcement agencies, in gang inter-
vention activities.
A committee is established to study all aspects of
firefighter training in the state. Two representatives
from the League are to serve on the committee. Local
government units are required to cooperate with the
committee in the preparation of its report to the legisla-
ture.
Local governments are no longer exempt from the au-
thority of the ombudsman for the Minnesota state de-
partment of corrections. This authority includes investi-
gative authority of local correctional, detention, holding,
jail, and certain residential facilities, examination of
records and documents, inspection of facilities, and sub-
poena authority.
Authority is granted to local governments for establish-
ing a restorative justice program.
Changes are made to the sex offender notification law
New benefits are established for public safety officers
who are disabled or killed in the line of duty, and for
their survivors. Money is appropriated to a new state
fund to pay for the costs of these benefits. This lan-
guage also appears in the transportation act, chapter
159.
The criminal gang oversight council and strike force are
established to develop and implement a statewide gang
strategy. In addition, a criminal gang investigative data
system is established to maintain a database on individu-
als determined or suspected to be involved in criminal
gang activity.
Arson training is established for state and local police
and fire personnel and for prosecutors of arson cases.
An arson strike force is established.
Transportation and transit
Omnibus Transportation Bill
Chapter 159 appropriates $196 million for mu-
nicipal state aid street fund for the 1998-1999 biennium.
$98.7 million for the biennium is appropriated for the MCTO
for metro transit operations. The law also contains new ben-
efits for public safety officers who are disabled or killed in
the line of duty, and for their survivors. Money is appropri-
ated to a new state fund to pay for the costs of these benefits.
A grant program is established for cities which own and
operate key airports in Greater Minnesota as designated by
the commissioner of transportation. The grants may be used
for purposes of marketing the airport or to conduct market-
ing or service improvement studies. $180,000 is appropri-
ated for the 1998-1999 biennium for these grants.
The law provides that law enforcement vehicles and medi-
cal emergency vehicles need to use either a siren or a red
light in responding to an emergency, while all other autho-
Page 13
rized emergency vehicles must use both a siren and a light.
Effective August 1, 1997.
This chapter establishes that peace officers may arrest the
driver if the officer has probable cause that the driver has,
within the past four hours, driven a motor vehicle through a
column of school children crossing a street or has driven past
a school safety patrol member or adult crossing guard who is
holding an official signal in the stop position. In addition,
passing a school bus on the right hand side when it is dis-
playing its flashing amber signals is a misdemeanor punish-
able with a fine of not less than $300. Effective August 1,
1997.
Speed limit increase
Chapter 143 increases speed limits on rural interstates
from 65 to 70 miles per hour and rural non-interstate free-
ways and expressways and urban interstates from 55 to 65
miles per hour. Effective July 1, 1997.
Telecommunications
Use of public rights-of-way by
telecommunications carriers
Chapter 123 pertains to local government authority to
manage and recover actual costs for the excavation, disrup-
tion, degradation and management of use by telecommunir,-
tions service providers of local rights-of-way.
Local units of government are authorized ko require com-
panies that own or control facilities used for transporting
telecommunications and other voice or data information
(other than regulated cable systems) to register, obtain neces-
sary permits and pay fees and provide construction perfor-
mance bonds and insurance. The act also requires users to
comply with installation, construction, location and reloca-
tion requirements and to coordinate and time ROW projects.
Cities can collect facility location data from users to develop
a mapping system.
Under the act, cities can recover actual management costs,
including those associated with permit applications, inspect-
ing, moving user equipment during the city's work in the
right-of-way, determining whether restoration is adequate
and restoring work that has been inadequately performed.
Fees and other obligations must recognize engineering, con-
struction, operation and other related requirements and stan-
dards that apply to various users and all fees must be com-
petitively neutral and apply to all right-of-way users, includ-
ing local units of government.
ROW restoration
Users are required to restore the fight-of-way and sur-
rounding areas or local government may require users to re-
imburse them for costs of surface restoration that the local
government itself carries out. Cities may impose a degrada-
tion fee if a telecommunications right-of-way user chooses
not to restore the right-of-way and may deny or revoke per-
mits if users do not comply with right-of-way regulations.
Task Force Convened
MPUC is also required to convene a task force composed
of proportionately equal numbers of 1) engineers and other
experts representing local government and 2) affected utili-
ties and other right-of-way users. The task force must make
recommendations to the MPUC by November 1, 1997, con-
cerning standards as well as the calculation of degradation
costs, establishment of mapping systems and high-density
corridors, indemnification of local government by right-of-
way users and the terms of a model ordinance regulating use
of local rights-of-way. MPUC must incorporate those rec-
ommendations into statewide construction standards to be
adopted by March 1, 1998.
The act does not permit local telecommunications fran-
chise fees for the use of the rights-of-way nor does it permit
in-kind services in lieu of payment of permit fees. In addi-
tion, telephone companies which provide cable TV services
are subject to the same franchise requirements, fees, and
public, educational and government access obligations to
which cable companies are subject under Chapter 238. If
there is a conflict between the language of a cable franchise
agreement and a local right-of-way regulations, the terms of
the franchise agreement prevail.
Use, validity and security of electronic signatures and
messages
Chapter 178 is intended to minimize the incidence of
forged digital signatures and fraud in electronic commerce
and authorizes the Secretary of State to carry out the respon-
sibilities of issuing, suspending or revoking computer-based
records that identify the subscriber, the subscriber's public
key, and the certification authority issuing it and its digital
signature as well as notifying the subscriber listed of the
contents of the certificate. Once another certification author-
ity is licensed which allows a transition to private enterprise,
the Secretary of State will discontinue this role. In the mean-
time, the Secretary of State is to maintain a database contain-
ing a record for each licensed certification authority, publish
the database contents, and adopt rules and establish fees to
carry out the provisions of the act. The Secretary of State is
authorized to adopt rules to implement the act to be effective
July 1, 1998.
Telecommunication Services Purchasing Cooperatives
Chapter 208 authorizes creation of telecommunication ser-
vices purchasing cooperatives to provide advance telecom-
munication services at reduced wholesale rates to members.
No resale or sublease of those services is allowed, but the
purchasing cooperative is also not required to provide uni-
form rates for members. Cooperatives may be formed to
purchase such services by aggregating demand and negotiat-
i:
P
$,
r
I
Page 14
League of Minnesota Cities
,'1-
-1-
S
lng reduced rates for members. The cooperative must serve
a contiguous area. Cities and other local units of govern-
ment, including service cooperatives, may organize telecom-
munication service purchasing cooperatives to benefit resi-
dents. A majority of the members of the Board of Directors
that governs such purchasing cooperatives must be seeking
to purchase some residential telecommunication services
through the cooperative, but directors to be elected may not
be telecommunications service providers or local elected of-
ficials.
At least 50 percent of the total number of entities or per-
sons who join the cooperative must be seeking to purchase
residential telecommunication services through the coopera-
tive. Contacts which the purchasing cooperative makes with
providers must be filed with the Minnesota Department of
Public Service along with annual financial statements. Any-
one who resides within the geographic operating area of the
purchasing cooperative or anyone within the boundary or
service area of local or long-distance telephone companies
that are within that geographic area may belong to the tele-
communication service purchasing cooperative. Effective
August 1.
State telecommunication goals
Chapter 223 specifies the policies of the public utilities
commission for regulation of telecommunication services
and the goals that should be considered. These goals include
universal service, just and reasonable rates, efficient deploy-
ment of enhanced infrastructure, fair and reasonable compe-
tition for local exchange telephone service, improving ser-
vice, promoting customer choice, ensuring consumer protec-
tion, and encouraging voluntary resolution of issues among
competitors. The act also limits telephone rate changes,
changes calculation of certain prices and rates, and provides
for a statewide local access and transport area.
.~.i Utilities
Customer-specific electricity service
Chapter 191 provides for customer-specific
rates, terms, and service conditions in electricity service con-
tracts between public utilities and their individual customers
and requires filing with Public Utilities Commission for ap-
proval. An exception to the current law prohibition against
installing new natural gas outdoor lighting is created which
permits such lighting if it is equipped with a automatic day-
time shutoff or is otherwise capable of being switched on
and off. Effective May 21, 1997. Upon approval by the PUC
public utilities may offer a reduced rate for tariffed electric
services to eligible customers. Conditions which must be
met in order for the PUC to approve such discretionary rate
reductions are specifically outlined. Effective August 1,
1997. The membership of the legislative electric energy task
force is increased and their appropriation is doubled from
$350,000 to $700,000. The task force is directed to review
and analyze issues relating to the restructuring of the electric
industry and the costs and benefits of the impacts on the
rates and services provided to all customers, the overall state
economy, the safety and reliability of operation, the environ-
ment, and various types of utilities and suppliers. The task
force will also analyze issues relating to the personal prop-
erty tax on electric and gas utilities including the ability of
Minnesota utilities' to compete in a deregulated environ-
ment, the impacts of eliminating the tax on local units that
depend on those revenues, and altematives the legislature
could consider to increase the ability of utilities to effectively
compete while minimizing the impacts on local units of gov-
ernment, An interim committee on utility taxation will be es-
tablished and is required to work closely with affected local
government units in formulating recommendations to the full
task force. Findings and recommendations on both the re-
structuring and the taxation issues are due to the legislature
by January 15, 1998. Effective May 21, 1997.
Certificate of need exemption
Chapter 198 exempts large electric power generating
plants from the certificate of need proceeding if selected by
the Public Utilities Commission in a bidding process or se-
lected to satisfy the wind power or biomass statutory man-
dates. Effective August 1, 1997.
Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel
Chapter 201 relates to the obligation of the federal Depart-
ment of Energy to dispose of high-level radioactive waste
and spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998 and authorizes
the Public Utilities Commission to direct persons in Minne-
sota that are generating or holding title to such materials and
are subject to a fee specified under federal law to remit the
proceeds of such fee to the Commissioner of Public Service.
The fees collected would be placed in an escrow account and
released to the Department of Energy upon a showing that a
federal repository for the long-term storage and disposal of
such waste and spent fuel is in operation. Effective July 1,
1997.
City of Nashwauk gas utility ownership and operation
Chapter 21 authorizes the City of Nashwauk to construct
and own a gas distribution line to connect locations recently
acquired by the city that are not currently served by a natural
gas pipeline and to establish a municipal gas utility without
the election required under Chapter 412.
The act is effective the day after the city complies with
M.S. 645.021, subdivision 3.
Gas utility service performance regulation plans
Chapter 25 requires natural gas utilities with an approved
performance regulation plan to file tariff provisions that in-
corporate the provisions called for in the plan and authorizes
1997 Law Summaries
Page 15~
such plans to provide quality service at rates that are ex-
pected to be lower than rates would otherwise be under cur-
rent regulation; to reduce regulatory costs; and to provide in-
creased earnings to utilities for efficient performance. Such
plans must apply to all customers for natural gas distribution
service other than the portion of the rates that recover the
cost of natural gas supplies. The act also authorizes the Min-
nesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) to approve per-
formance regulation plans to be implemented only after at
least 18 months on the basis of findings that the pan provides
a benchmark or measure of reasonable and reliable predictor
of gas distribution service rates; ensures rates will be materi-
ally lower than rates would be under cost-of service regula-
tion; links earnings to performance; is expected to offer
lower administrative costs; reasonably limits earnings; is
compatible with development of increased competition; ad-
equately protects against degradation of service quality; pro-
vides for evaluation of the plans's effect on rates, service
quality, earnings, competition and regulatory costs; and per-
mits only annual rate changes and applied on an equal per-
centage basis to each customer class. Interested parties have
45 days from the date on which a petition containing a pro-
posed performance regulation plan is submitted to MPUC to
submit comments on whether the proposed plan sufficiently
addresses all requirements. If MPUC does not dismiss the
petition as insufficient within 120 days from the date of
ing, the petition will be regarded as accepted for
Utilities are required to notify customers anct the city council
of each city in the affected area of its proposed performance
regulation plan as well as a notice of public meetings sched-
uled by MPUC on the proposed plan.
MPUC is authorized to approve, reject or modify the plan
to m~et requirements. The plan becomes effective unless the
utility withdraws the proposed plan within 30 days of a final
appealable MPUC order. Utilities that withdraw approved
or modified plans must pay ail administrative costs related to
the plan that are charged by MPUC or the Department of
Public Service to the utility and may not file another plan for
one year following the withdrawal.
Effective August 1, 1997, and expires January 1, 2006.
Interest payments on utility deposits
Chapter 121 regulates interest payments on utility deposits
for service provided by a privately or publicly owned water,
gas, telephone cable TV, electric light, heat or power com-
pany. Interest to be paid on deposits of more than $20 must
be at a rate of not less than 3 percent a year. (Previous re-
quirements set the amount of interest to be paid at six per-
cent per year.) The act applies to interest calculated on and
after August 1, 1996, for deposits held or received on or af-
ter that date.
Municipal/cooperative utility joint ventures
Chapter 232 authorizes the Willmar and Jackson Munici-
pal Utility Commissions, the Kandiyohi Cooperative Electric
Power Association and the Federated Rural Electric Associa-
tion to form joint ventures to provide retail electric and
other utility services within boundaries of each of their elec-
tric service territories and as otherwise provided by state law.
Terms and conditions of the joint venture are subject to rati-
fication by the participating municipal utility commission
and the board of the cooperative electric power association.
Formation of a separate corporate or legal entity independent
of the participating utilities is authorized and may be consid-
ered either a municipal utility or a cooperative association.
The joint venture may not enlarge the territory it serves un-
less the retail utility serving the area gives written consent.
The joint venture has authority to acquire facilities as well as
to combine retail electric service territories and serve cus-
tomers in the two utilities' retail electric service territories.
Provisions also authorize the joint venture to purchase or sell
utility services at wholesale and provide utility services with
other cooperative associations. The provisions in this act
prevail should there be a conflict or inconsistency with any
other law or other charter provision, other than the authority
of the Willmar or Jackson city councils to overrule or over-
ride an action of their respective municipal utility commis-
sion - but that authority does not extend to the actions of the
joint venture. The act specifically requires either city to
comply with referendum requirements in M.S. 237.19 if the
cities wish to establish a telephone exchange within the city.
Effective the day following final enactment, except that au-
thority granted to the Jackson Municipal Utilities Commis-
sion and the Federated Rural Electric Association is effective
February 1, 1998.
Telephone assistance and voice messaging assistance
programs
Chapter 234 requires a review of the state telephone assis-
tance program by the commissioner of human services, in
consultation with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commis-
sion. The act requires the commissioner to convene a work-
ing group to make recommendations to the legislature by
January 15, 1998, which conform to the FCC report and or-
der on universal service issued May 8. Working group mem-
bers are to include representatives of the Office of the Attor-
ney General, telecommunications advisors, and consumer or-
ganizations. The act calls on the MPUC and the Commis-
sioner of Public Service to preserve eligibility of current
telephone assistance program participants in Minnesota. The
Commissioner of Human Services is directed to develop and
implement two pilot programs, one in the metro area and one
in greater Minnesota, to provide voice messaging services
for Iow-income persons who do not have phones. The com-
missioner is to report on the demand for those services and
the impact of the availability of voice messaging to the legis-
lature by December 31, 1997, along with recommendations
regarding continued provision of such services. The act re-
quires MPUC to provide up to $2 per month per active voice
messaging account from the telephone assistance fund - up
Page 16
League of Minnesota Cities
to a total of $50,000 - for the pilot programs and to consider
this use of the fund in establishing the uniform statewide sur-
charge to fund the telephone assistance program. Effective June 3, 1997.
Vetoed:
K-12 Education bill
Chapter 242 would have appropriated $6.7 billion for pub-
lic K-12 schools. The bill contained most of the initiatives
requested by Governor, but lacked an education tax credit to
families with incomes under $39,000 for educational ex-
penses including private school tuition. A special session
will be called to address K-12 issues.
Omnibus data practices bill
Chapter 229 would have made several technical and sub-
stantive changes to the Data Practices Act.
The Governor's veto reflected his objection to the creation
of a special private classification of data relating to the At-
torney General's legislative and budget proposals, similar to
a protection the Governor's office currently possesses.
Public employee unions without elections
Chapter 115 would have allowed public sector employees
to unionize without holding elections. Once 60 percent of
the work force signed up, the public sector employer would
have had to recognize and the Department of Labor and In-
dustry would have had to certify an employee's union. (Cur-
rent law requires union selection by secret ballot.) The Gov-
ernor was concerned that this would harm the public em-
ployer and employee relationship and felt that the current
practice protects employees from intimidation and coercion.
Displaced public employees
Chapter 116 would have provided seniority, salary and
benefits rights and procedures for certain local government
employees who are displaced as a result of a transfer of ser-
vices to another local unit of government. The Governor's
veto message called this bill a "state mandate dictating how
local governments should handle labor relations" and noted
that it could have the result of discouraging local innovation
efforts in service consolidation.
Elected Met Council
Chapter 151 would have provided for an elected Metro-
politan Council. The Governor opposed this concept be-
cause, among other reasons, it would force council members
place the parochial interests of their constituents and indi-
vidual districts above that of the whole metro area.
Binding arbitration
Chapter 152 would have mandated a binding arbitration
process during the initial contracting stage between employ-
ers and employee union representatives. The Governor
thought it was not advisable to interject a third party into
these negotiations. Additionally, he believes that the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act would preempt this sort of legis-
lation because it is largely based on voluntary surrender to
arbitration by both parties.
Absentee voting changes
Chapter 166 would have allowed voters to obtain an ab-
sentee ballot simply by indicating on the ballot application
the reason they are unable to vote in person on election day
and would have made illegally assisting a voter casting an
absentee ballot or accepting any payment for delivering ab-
sentee ballot applications or voted ballots a misdemeanor.
The bill was vetoed on May 19.
Change of address system
Chapter 167 would have authorized the Secretary of State
to establishments a change of address system for voters who
have filed a permanent change of address order with the U.S.
Postal Service. The bill was vetoed on May 19.
Minors allowed to vote and be elected delegates at
precinct caucuses
Chapter 168 would have allowed 17-year-olds enrolled in
school to vote and be elected as political party delegates and
officers at precinct caucuses if local political party units au-
thorize it. The bill was vetoed on May 19.
What did not become law...
Reverse referendum requirement for levy increases.
This would have required cities and counties to conduct
an election for all levy increases if 5 percent of the voters
petitioned for the vote.
HACA shift to schools. This would have shifted $180
million of city, county, and township HACA to school
districts, while allowing cities and counties to increase
their property taxes.
Elimination of the LGA inflation adjustment. This
was proposed by the Governor, and would have meant
$9 million less LGA to cities in 1998 and about $18 mil-
lion less in 1999.
Governor's salary increase. S.F. 412 would have in-
creased the salaries of the Governor, constitutional offic-
ers, judges, and commissioners.
Minimum wage increase
Sales tax repeal for local government purchases
TIF moratorium
Public utility personal property tax exemption
Electric utility industry restructuring
DWI. 10% to .08 % threshold change
1997 Law Summaries
Page
Law summary--1997 Omnibus Tax Bill
Levy limits
Levy limits will be imposed on all counties and on cities
with populations over 2,500 for taxes payable in 1998 and
1999. Special levies are exempt from the limit. Special lev-
ies include:
· Debt levies for principle and interest on all bonded indebt-
edness or for most certificates of indebtedness;
· Voter-approved levies assessed against market value;
· Levies for unreimbursed flood costs if they exceed 5 per-
cent of the city's 1997 levy;
· Levies for unreimbursed property tax abatements due to
flood damage (see description of tax abatement program
for flood victims, below);
· Levies for matching requirements for state and federal
grants, to the extent that the matching requirements exceed
the previous year matching requirements;
· Levies for reasonable expenses to prepare for or repair the
effects of other natural disasters, as necessary;
· Armory construction levies.
The Commissioner of Revenue will calculate levy limits and
notify your city by August 1 st. Follow the steps below to esti-
mate your pay 1998 levy limit.
1. Add your pay t997 certified property tax levy, HACA
LGA, LPA, and taconite aid.
2. Subtract from #I any special levies m get your levy limit
base.
3. Multiply the sum of #2 by 1.0224. This is the estimated
implicit price deflator (inflation) adjustment.
4. Add one plus the percent of household growth in your city
from 1995 to 1996. Multiply the sum by the total from #3.
This will give you your adjusted levy limit base for taxes
payable in 1998. If your city had no growth or negative
growth, skip this step. The household growth is based on
state demographer and Metropolitan Council estimates.
5. Subtract your certified 1998 HACA, LGA, LPA, and taco-
nite aid to get your payable 1998 levy limit.
6. Any special levies for taxes payable in 1998 can be levied
above the levy limit. The city must notify the commis-
sioner of revenue, by September 15 each year, the maxi-
mum amount of special levies it plans to levy in the fol-
lowing year, along with any necessary documentation.
The commissioner will review the proposed levies and
make any adjustments needed. The commissioner's deci-
sion is final.
7. If you need to levy above your limit for reasons other than
special levies, you must get approval by your voters in a
general or special election. To raise taxes payable in 1998
above the levy limit, the election must be held prior to
September 1 of this year. If the referenda fails, the county
auditor will certify your levy at your levy limit (#5) plus
(~pecial levies (#6).
fyou levy less than your limit for 1998, you retain that
levy authority for your 1999 levy limit.
Class rate changes
Class rate compression is the centerpiece of the tax bill. As
the table below demonstrates, commercial, industrial, public
utility, and rental property receive the most favorable reduc-
tions. Upper-tier commercial, industrial, and public utility
property will enjoy an immediate rate decrease from 4.6 to 4.0
percent for taxes payable in 1998. The Governor can recom-
mend future reductions to the target class rate of 3.5 percent in
future years as money becomes available to the state through
budget surpluses. The lower tier for commercial, industrial,
Class rates under H.F. 2163
Current Law HF 2163 Target
Payable Paya~e Class
1998 1998 Rate
Residential Homestead:
<$72,000 1.0% 1.0% --
$72,000 - $75,000 2.0 1.0 --
>$75,000 2.0 1.85 --
Residential Nonhomestead:
Single unit:
<$75,000 2.3 1.9 1.25%
>$75,000 2.3 2.1 1.85
2-3 unit and undeveloped land 2.3 2.1 --
Market-rote Apartments:
Regular 3.4 2.9 2.5
Small cities 2.3 2.3 --
Low4ncome Apartments:
Title 112.3 2.0* --
Farmer's Home Admin 2.0 1.9' --
Commerclal/Industriah
<$100,000 3.0 2.7 --
$100,000 - $150,000 4.6 2.7 --
>$150,000 4.6 4.0 3.5
Seasonal Recreational
Commerclak
Homestead resorts (1 c) 1,0 1.0 --
Seasonal resorts (4c) 2.3 2.1 --
Seasonal Recreational
Residential:
<$72,000 1.5 1.4 --
$72,000 - $75,000 2.5 1.4 --
>$75,000 2.5 2.5 --
Public Utility
Personal property 4.6 4.0 3.5
Attached machinery 4.6 4.0 3.5
Land & buildings 4.6 4.0 3.5
Disabled homestead 0.45 0.45 --
Agricultural land & buildings:
Homestead:
<$115,000 0.45 0.4 --
>$115,000
<320 acres 1.0 0.9 --
>320 acres 1.5 1.4 --
Non. Homesteed 1.5 1.4 --
· These classes are replaced by a new Iow-income housing class
4d effective for taxes payable in 1999, with a class rate of 1.0%
Page 18
League of Minnesota Cities
Cities
a~d public utility property is expanded to include the first
$150,000 of value (currently $100,000) and the rate is reduced
from 3.0 to 2.7 percent in pay 1998. The one-parcel-per-
county-per-owner limit for the lower tier is removed for non-
contiguous parcels. Apartments and single-family rental hous-
iag also receive significant rate reductions.
Homestead rates remain mostly unchanged, with the lower
tier being expanded to include the f'u-st $75,000 in value (cur-
rently $72,000) and remaining at the one percent rate. Home-
stead value above $75,000 is reduced from two percent to 1.85
percent beginning in pay 1998.
This class rate compression will cause a shift of property tax
burden from commercial, industrial, public utility, and rental
property to homesteads and other classes which receive little or
no class rate reductions. In past years, these shifts were
avoided by allocating HACA to local governments in the
amount of the lost tax base. This year, to mitigate the effect on
homeowners the bill include'~'~'~d-uCtion in the pay 1998 K-12
~ education levy of $85 million and a new Education
~ Credit for homeowners based upon the tax capacity
of the home and 32 percent of the school general levy tax rate,
u~p to a maximum credit of $225. According to fiscal analysts
from the Department ot Revenue and the legislature, most
homeowners across the state will see modest reductions in pay
1998 taxes. The table below shows the expected reduction i~
pay 1998 taxes compared to current law by property class.
Qualitying senior citi~zen homeowners with household in-
comes below $30,000 can have any property taxes above five
percent of their income deferred and put as a lien on their prop-
erty. The state will reimburse local governments for taxes
foregone through the program.
Estimated change in 1998 property taxes*
Residential homestead -5.8%
Residential nonhomestead -7.5%
Apartments -8.0%
Low-income apartments -5.9%
Cabins 0.8%
Resorts -0.1%
Commemial/Industrial < $100K -2.5%
Commercial/Industrial > $100K -6.3%
Public Utility -5.3%
Agicultural homestead -3.7%
Agicultural nonhomestead -0.4%
*comparing estimated 1998 taxes with new tax bill
to estimated 1998 taxes if tax bill had not passed
Single family housing in noncompliance
Any property that is in Minneapolis or St. Paul which would
otherwise qualify for a new single-unit non-residential
nonhomestead class rate of 1.9 percent on the first $75,000 of
market value, but is found to be out of compliance with local
housing codes, will instead be classified at the rate of 2.1 per-
cent unless the owner brings the property into compliance
within 60 days. This provision is effective upon local approval.
Low income housing property tax classification
The bill creates a single uniform property tax classification
for all low income rental housing property beginning with
taxes payable in 1999. The criteria are applied on a unit-hr-
unit basis, so multi-unit buildings may be split between low-in-
come and market rental classification. There are four require-
ments a unit must meet to receive the one percent class rate: 1.
Income limits for the occupant household; 2. Five-year rent re-
striction agreement with the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency (MHFA); 3. The unit must meet minimum housing
standards; 4. The unit must be certified as meeting the first
three requirements by MHFA.
Tax abatements and extensions for flood victims
County boards are allowed to abate all property taxes for
properties in the 55-county federal aid area which lost at least
50 percent of estimated market value from flood damage. The
property owners need not apply for the abatement, but local
and county assessors should notify the county board of eligible
parcels as soon as possible. The amount of taxes abated under
this section may be levied back in the following year and not
be counted towards the jurisdictions levy limit.
In addition, property taxes due on May 15 in the 55-county
federal aid area may be paid at any time on or before October
15 without penalties.
This old country store
This program will allow assessors to exclude the value of
improvements to business property from taxable market value
for five years if the following conditions are met: 1. The build-
ing must be at least 50 years old at the time of improvement or
damaged by the 1997 floods; 2. It must be located in a Greater
Minnesota city with a population of 10,000 or less; 3. It must
be valued at less than $100,000 prior to the improvements or
the flood damage; 4. The current year market value of the prop-
erty must be equal to or less than its market value in each of
the previous two years' assessments; 5. A building permit must
be issued prior to the improvement, or the assessor must be no-
tiffed by the owner prior to the improvement in cities and
towns with no permit process; 6. The proper~y has received no
public assistance, grants, or financing; 7. The property is not
receiving a property tax abatement under Minn. Stat. ~69.1813;
and 8. The improvements are made after f'mal enactment of the
bill and prior to January I, 1999.
Limited market value
The limited market value provision for residential home-
steads and nonhomesteads, agricultural homesteads and
northomesteads, and cabins is extended through assessment
year 2001. The maximum increase in assessed value on these
properties for tax purposes is changed to be the greater of 10
percent of the value in the preceding year's assessment or one-
fourth of the difference between the current assessment and the
1997 Law Summaries
Page 19
preceding assessment. Currently, the maximum increase is the
greater of 10 percent of the value or one-third of the difference.
The limitation does not apply to increases in value due to im-
provements to the property.
State aid programs
No changes in current law for LGA or HACA were included
in the f'mal bill. The House proposal to shift HACA to schools
and to the LGA formula was rejected. The inflation adjustment
to LGA is intact, so the LGA pool will increase by about $9
million for 1998. The only change to state aids in the bill is to
the Local Performance Aid program. The state appropriation
for LPA is increased by $1 million. The qualifications for LPA
have been modified. To receive LPA in 1998 and future years,
you must affirm to the Department of Revenue that your city
will spend the aid on a program or programs for which there is
a performance measurement system in place, and that the per-
formance measurement system must allow for the measurement
of continuous improvement.
$500 million rebate
The tax bill includes a variation on the one-time taxpayer re-
bate sought by the Governor. The rebate will be calculated on
1997 income tax returns as a credit to homeowners and renters
based upon property taxes paid in 1997.
Mandates
A new process for identifying potential state mandates on lo-
cal governments is established. Beginning in 1998, bills intro-
duced in the legislature that impose a mandate upon local gov-
ernments must include an attachment which describes the
policy goals of the mandate, performance standards for achiev-
ing the goals, reasons for each standard, sources of additional
revenue, input on the capacity of local governments to success-
fully implement the mandate, and reasons why less intrusive
methods could not be implemented in place of the mandate. In
addition, the chair or ranking minority member of either tax
committee can request a local fiscal impact note for any pro-
posed rule or bill which contains a potential mandate.
New mandates adopted by the state are defined as class A or
class B mandates. Class A mandates are those for which local
government participation is required. Class B mandates are
those which local governments may opt to administer and for
which the state provides 90 percent of all program and admin-
istrative costs. If the funding of a class B mandate drops below
85 percent, and the legislature fails to make up the funding
shortfall in the following year's budget, the local government
may opt out of the program. The Department of Finance, with
the assistance of local governments, is to prepare a biennial re-
pon on the cost of all class A mandates and the cost and cur-
rent state funding level of class B mandates.
The administrative cost of the new mandate program is esti-
mated to by $100,000 in 1998 and $200,000 in 1999 and future
years. The cost will be deducted from city and county HACA.
Truth in Taxation
The troth in taxation statement and process are revised under
the tax bill. The statement of proposed property taxes will con-
tinue to show the current year's taxes payable and the pro-
posed taxes payable for the following year for each taxing ju-
risdiction. In addition, two new columns of information will
be added which show: 1) The degree to which local spending
decisions have changed the property's tax burden; and 2) The
degree to which other factors including changes in class rates,
state aids, and property value assessments have changed the
property's tax burden. The school tax information will be fur-
ther divided into those levies which are mandated by the state,
those which are voter approved referendum and debt levies,
and those which are local discretionary levies. The sample
form below demonstrates how the new statement may look.
The Department of Revenue is working on the final form.
.Th_~ newspaper notice of the hearing must now include sum-
mary budget information.~ Joint truth in taxation hearings with
county and school officials are authorized for cities with a
population over 10,000. If a city with a population over
Your Proposed Property Tax for 1997
I 'n~'"n=t'--' =o nm'"'t ]
Eflect of Propo#d L.~CII Bu~el~ off Your
il) (31 (3} ~)
I'm~y Tm ~o I~n4ing ~ O~lt~ F~.m I~.~iiW ?m
Page 20
,
League of Minnesota Cities
',ities
10,000 elects to hold a joint hearing, it may invite a member of
the county board, the school board, and the metropolitan coun-
cil (if applicable) to its hearing.
The conunissioner of revenue has the authority to delay
implementation of all these TNT changes for any county which
cannot prepare the necessary data in a timely manner.
Repeal of property tax refund change
The provision of the 1995 tax bill which would have
changed the property tax refund from a direct payment to indi-
viduals to a credit on the property tax statement is repealed.
This repeal was supported by League policy.
SCORE tax
Both the SCORE tax and the solid waste generator assess-
ment fee are replaced with a new solid waste management tax.
The tax is assessed on both residential and commercial genera-
tors and on collection bags and stickers if the price includes
mixed municipal solid waste services. In addition, political
subdivisions are liable for the tax if they provide solid waste
management services, directly bill for private waste manage-
ment services, or subsidize the cost of waste management ser-
vices through other revenue sources.
Cities which provide solid waste management services must,
by resolution, determine the market price of the service, and
apply the tax to the market price. The market price is to be re-
viewed by the director of the Office of Environmental Assis-
tance and the Commissioners of the Pollution Control Agency
and Department of Revenue. The rate is 9.75 percent for resi-
dential generators and 17 percent for corm'nercial generators.
~Local boards of review
Effective for property assessments in 1998, the city council
or town board must ac~'-~-the iocal board oi' review unless the
council or board elects to transfer their board duties to the
county. If the council or board chooses to transfer the duty to
' the county, it must notify the assessor in writing by December
1. The transfer can be for a specitied number pt years, but not
less than three years, and it can be renewed. This option is
onl'"-~ available for towns and cities for which the assessment is
done by the county.
Lease-purchase and net debt
Effective for contracts entered after June 2, any obligation
created by lease-purchase agreement for real or personal prop-
erty greater than or equal to one million dollars will be in-
cluded in the calculation of net debt limits.
Sales tax exemptions
Although the League unsuccessfully sought to repeal the
sales tax on local government purchases, several new exemp-
tions were enacted, including: petroleum products purchased
by a political subdivision for use in emergency rescue vehicles
and fire apparatus, optical and thermal imaging devices used
by firefighters, goods and services for the metropolitan area
public safety radio communication system, and the sales of
transcripts of verbatim testimony by court reporters to parties
to the proceedings or their representatives. These exemptions
are effective for purchases made after June 30, 1997. Replace-
ment capital equipment will be exempt from the sales tax be-
ginning with purchases made after June 30, 1998.
Local option sales taxes
The bill establishes uniform rules for all new local option
sales taxes effective immediately. The new roles will apply to
existing local option sales taxes beginning January 1,2000.
These rules were recommended by the legislature's sales tax
advisory council. The rules include: 1. The local rate applies
to all taxable sales, regardless of lower or higher state rate on
certain sales; 2. Complementary use tax applies with all local
option sales taxes; 3. All state exemptions apply to the local
option tax; 4. All collection and administration of local option
sales taxes is to be done by the department of revenue, except
that a city that is collecting and administering its own sales and
use tax before January 1, 1998, may elect to retain its collec-
tion and administration authority. The act also includes autho-
rization for a local option sales tax for Willmar.
Property tax reform account
This provision establishes priorities for future budget sur-
pluses. Any revenue surplus in the November forecast of an
odd-numbered year must be used to ensure that the state budget
reserve is set at $522 million. Forty percent of the remaining
funds is deposited into the general fund. The other sixty per-
cent, along with state investment earnings and a one-time $46
million appropriation, is deposited into a new property tax re-
form account.
Resources deposited in the property tax reform account are
to be used to compress property tax class rates, to increase state
education aids and reduce the general education levy, to in-
crease the new education homestead credit program, and to in-
crease the property tax refund. The Govemor is to recommend
how the resources are to be allocated for these purposes.
Creation of corporations by political subdivisions
The bill prohibits cities and other political subdivisions from
forming for-profit or not-for-profit corporations, unless explicit
statutory authority exists. This provision is also included in
the public finance bill, Minnesota Laws 1997 chapter 219.
Tax reduction to border city enterprise zones
The commissioner of trade and economic development is au-
thorized to allocate an additional $1.5 million for tax reduc-
tions to border city enterprise zones in cities on the state's
western border. The tax reduction must be found by the mu-
nicipality to be necessary to retain or attract a business to the
zone. Enterprise zones receiving allocations under this provi-
sion may remain in effect through December 31, 1998.
1997 Law Summaries
Page 21
Regional development commissions
The statutes dealing with regional development commissions
(RDCs) have been updated and recodified. The current re-
gional boundaries are established in statute. Any future bound-
ary changes may be initiated by a county wishing to join a dif-
ferent commission, with the approval of that commission. The
levy limits in current law are maintained for existing RDCs.
Prevailing wage
Any construction project for an educational facility with an
estimated cost of more than $100,000 is subject to the prevail-
lng wage rules. Prior to this law the project would need to be
financed with state funds to be subject to prevailing wage
rules.
Payments to certain counties with casinos
Counties will receive 10 percent of the state annual share of
revenues where tribal tax agreements exist for reservations
with casinos in the county. To qualify, the county must have
either at least 30 percent of its market value exempt from ad
valorem taxation or a per capita income less than 80 percent of
the state average. $1.I million is appropriated annually. Pay-
ment will be made by February 28 of the year after the taxes
are collected. Effective July 1, 1997.
Year 200?eady
Any computer software or hardware purchased by the state
or a political subdivision with money appropriated from this
bill must be "year 2000 ready."
I
TIF spiffs
General TIF law modifications
New definition of tax increment
Creates a brand new definition for the terms "increment,"
"tax increment." "tax increment revenues," "revenues derived
from tax increment," and other similar terms to include:
· taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity (i.e. the in-
creased value, excluding excess taxes computed under
Minn. Stat. 469.177);
· proceeds from the sale or lease of tangible or intangible
property purchased with tax increments;
· repayments of loans or other advances made with tax in-
crements;
· investment earnings or other income from tax increments.
This purpose of this new definition is to ensure that incre-
ments do not lose their character as a result of being used for
purchases, leases, loans, advances, or investments. These mon-
ies must either be used for purchases specifically permitted in
the statute or distributed to the city, county and school district.
Effective for requests for certification made after July 31, 1979
and tax payments and investment earnings received after July
1, 1997. Effective for requests for certification made after June
30, 1982 and proceeds from sales or leases of properties and
repayments or loans or advances made after June 30, 1997.
Interior inspection
Requires an interior inspection in order for a municipality to
determine that a building is not disqualified as structurally sub-
standard for redevelopment and renewal and renovation dis-
tricts. An interior inspection is not required if the municipality
is denied access to the building and evidence is available to
support the conclusion that the building is substandard. Such
evidence would include information from previous building or
housing inspections, police or fire department inspections,
demonstrated exterior deterioration, or other similar evidence.
The authority is responsible for creating and retaining written
documentation as to why the interior inspection was not con-
ducted.
Soils district duration
Increases the maximum duration for soils condition districts
from 12 years after plan approval to 20 years after receipt of
the first increment.
Redevelopment district spending
Adds removal of structures containing contaminants or pol-
lution, rehabilitation, and removal or remediation of hazardous
waste to the list of activities which are explicitly permitted in
redevelopment districts. Language is added to clarify that this
list of permitted costs is merely illustrative, not exclusive, as
some have interpreted. Administrative expenses now specifi-
cally include the cost of preparing the development action re-
sponse plan. Effective retroactively for all districts, regardless
of when the request for certification was made.
Fiscal disparities "option A"
Economic development districts may no longer elect to have
the fiscal disparities contribution come from outside the TIF
district. Instead, the calculation of the contribution is required
to come from within the district. Other types of districts retain
the authority to choose "option A." Effective for requests for
certification made after June 30, 1997.
Small cities economic development districts
Allows increments from small cities' economic development
districts to be used for (1) qualified retail facilities which are
shopping centers with one or more retail stores, located within
one mile of the state border, outside the metro area, contain at
least 25,000 square feet of retail space in which new buildings
will be constructed or existing buildings will be substantially
rehabilitated, and would otherwise locate in another state or
country and (2) assistance to separately owned, 15,000 square
foot commercial facilities. The small city definition is required
to be met only in the year in which the request for certification
is made. For the purposes of the TIF Act, as small city is de-
Page 22
League of Minnesota Cities
b
s~
a
o
E
I'E.
'e
B~
hc
Sg
flo~
Brc
ape
loc:
£
A
law:
wit~-
:ifies
TIF laws --- continued
fined as a city with a 5,000 population or less which is located
more than 10 miles from a city with a population of 10,000 or
more.
Indexing of original tax capacity
Modifies the way in which the indexing of original tax ca-
pacity is computed in economic development districts. In cal-
culating the average percentage increase in market value, the
assessor's estimated market value attributable to new construc-
tion, extension of sewer water, other public utilities, or roads,
and platting during the five year period prior to certification
will be subtracted.
Land acquisition
Provides that where land acquisitions are not funded with
bonds secured by tax increment from the acquired property,
such land acquisitions may take place without a development
agreement. Effective retroactively for all districts, regardless
of when the request for certification was made.
Definition of population
Defines population for the purposes of the TIF Act as the
most recently available population estimate from either the fed-
eral census, a special census, the state demographer, or the
metropolitan council. This estimate applies for the calendar
year after that in which the estimate is obtained.
Blight criteria records
Restates that authorities must keep written documentation on
how the statutory criteria for blight has been met in redevelop-
ment and renewal and renovation districts.
Special legislation
Only those pieces of special legislation which appeared in
both the House and Senate versions of the omnibus tax bill
were included in the final bill with two exceptions, the City of
East Grand Forks due to the increased need precipitated by the
floods, and the Town of White. This includes the cities off
Brooklyn Center, Buffalo, Columbia Heights, Gaylord, Minne-
apolis (housing transition), and Minnetonka. Effective upon
local approval.
Effective for requests for certification made after July I,
1997 unless otherwise indicated.
Legislative TIF task force
A new legislative task force is created to recodify the TIF
laws and those statutes providing local economic development
powers into one law. The 12-member task force will consist of
six members from the House and six members from the Senate,
with at least two members of the minority caucus from each.
Notably, the task force is required to "consult and seek com-
ments from and participation by representatives of affected lo-
cal governments.' The recodification will be introduced in bill
form during the 1998 legislative session.
Abatement authority
Authorizes a new procedure by which political subdivisions
can abate property taxes. Property tax abatement will be au-
thorized where the benefits accruing to the municipality are ex-
pected to at least equal to the costs and a finding is made that
the project is in the public interest because it will increase or
preserve the local tax base, provide jobs, assist in providing,
acquiring or constructing public facilities, reduce blight, or
provide residents with access to services. Procedurally, the
municipality would adopt an abatement resolution after 30
days' published notice and a public hearing. The maximum
duration for an abatement is 10 years and the total amount of
property taxes which may be abated is limited to the greater of
$100,000 or five percent of the current year levy. Bonds may
be issued to provide an "up-front" abatement. The amount of
the abatement would be required to be added to the
municipality's levy for that year. If the school district is in-
volved, the state will not provide reimbursement for the lost
tax base, but rather, the school taxes paid by other properties in
the district would increase. Certain other limitations apply.
This provision is effective beginning with assessments in 1997
and for taxes payable in 1998.
The Property tax reform safety-net
Provides some measure of protection for existing TIF dis-
tricts against the property tax class rate reductions provided for
at the beginning of this article. The remedy is two-fold: TIF
grants and additional pooling authority. Where class rate
changes cause TIF district deficits, municipalities would apply
by March 1 to the Commissioner of Revenue for TIF grants
which would be paid by December 26. A total of $2 million is
appropriated and, in the event that grant entitlements exceed
this amount, each grant would be reduce proportionately. The
maximum grant would be the lesser of: (I) the amount of the
reduction in the district's revenues or (2) the total tax incre-
ments of the municipality, including any unspent increments,
minus the amount required during the calendar year to pay
binding contracts entered into and bonds issued and sold prior
to the day following final enactment (the Commissioner would
make this calculation based on reports made to the State Audi-
tor by July 1 of the year prior to the year the grant is to be
paid). To qualify for grants, the district's request for certifica-
tion must have been made prior to the enactment date and all
reports must have been timely filed with the Office of the State
Auditor. Notwithstanding current law pooling prohibitions,
pooling would be authorized to pay binding obligations entered
into prior to the day following final enactment. The Commis-
sioner of Revenue's written approval would be required. The
amount to be pooled is limited to the amount necessary to meet
a binding obligation which cannot be met as a result of class
rate reductions. Effective until January 1,2001.
1997 Law Summaries
Page 23
1998 City Aid Estimates
The following printout provides estimates for the 1998 LGA, HACA, and LPA distribution for
all cities. These are only estimates. The final numbers certified by the Department of Revenue
in July and August may be somewhat different due to updated formula factors. Please note that
these estimates are substantially different than the proposed LGA and HACA estimates printed in
the April 30 Cities Bulletin. The legislature did not adopt the proposal upon which those
estimates were based.
The first set of columns describes the 1997 LGA distribution and the estimated 1998 LGA
distribution for each city and the dollar increase or decrease from 1997 to 1998. The LGA
numbers are the initial formula amounts before reductions for state costs for the State Auditor's
office and other state agencies. These numbers also do not reflect any reductions in LGA due to
tax increment financing penalties.
The 1998 LGA estimates are based on an appropriation increase of 2.5 percent. This increase is
based upon the implicit price deflator for government goods and services. This inflation
adjustment to the LGA appropriation was enacted in 1994 as a replacement for the local
government trust fund. As the table below sbz v,s, this automatic adjustment has added $46
million to the LGA distribution to citio: ,lnce 1993.
Local Governmen Aid to Cifi
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
LGA base $322 322 322 322 322 322
Formula aid 8 15 25 37 46
Total LGA $322 330 337 347 359 368
The second set of columns provide estimates of the 1998 HACA distributions as well as the
change from the 1997 level. These estimates reflect increases in HACA to cities due to
reductions in the cabin property tax class rate enacted in 1996.
The final column is a rough estimate of the 1998 Local Performance Aid distribution for each
city, assuming each city applies for the aid. The requirements for qualifying for the aid have be
slightly changed. For a description of the changes, see the omnibus tax bill summary.
Please remember that these are estimates only, and should only be used for planning purposes.
The final certified aid amounts will also reflect annexations, consolidations, updated fiscal and
demographic data, as well as final interpretations by the Department of Revenue.
For more information contact Eric Willette at the League of Minnesota Cities, (800) 925-1122 or
(612) 281-1200.
Page 24
League of Minnesota Cities
Estimated LGA
1997 1998 I Change
~1997-1998
LGA LGA
Adam..___~. s
A__~dnan
Aitk__.___~ni
;Albany
~ Lea
Alberta 10,700
~ertville 82,780
Alden , 122,846
rAIdrich 1,275
'~xandria 1,210,559
~lpha 25,109
i AItu ra 43,021
2O,937
iAlvarado
!_Amboy
4£9,1471 444,026' 14,879i
126,039! 128,9511 2,912~
218,570 225,7971 7,2271
o o[ oj
299,177 309,057~ 9,880!
59,488 61,2561 1,7681
223,011 229,5341 6,5231
4,040,329
88,847
iAndover 120,927
261,752
iAnnandale
iAnoka
!~Apple Valley
'.Appleton
iArco
1,199,38O
382,031
428,652
16,956
IArden Hills 0
!Argyle 143,859
IArlington 302,318
Ashby 62,703
Askov 36,184 I
iAtwater 187,735 i
IAudubon 31,0661
I Aurora 486,523 I
[Austin 4,557,100 !
IAvoca 21,912 i
[Avon 86,9261
t Babbitt 114,251 !
Backus 35,313 !
er 69,4351
Balaton
4,115,847i 75,518!
11,040i 340!
92,594 9,814!
125,355 2,509J
1,226,616 16,0571
25,869 760!
43,222 201i
22,207 1,270t
91,678 2,831i
273,521 11,769,
1,231,370 31,990i
352,519! (29,5121
453,619 24,967
17,296 340
0 0
147,748 3,889
313,878 11,560;
65,526 2,823~
37,459 1,275!
192,884 5,149
32,114 1,048
502,717 16,194
4,633,234 76,134
22,546 634
88,733 1,807
124,337 10,086
35,758 445
71,320 1,885
286,276i 296,378 10,102i
~,~, 9~3-['_~__~_~3,9-8_0 ._. i ~_4_.,_00_7
Barnesville 233,257 248 107 14,850
Barnum ~4,~28-~- ' ' 76,0~3'J .... 1,165]
Barre~ -~0,72~ '- -~1,8i0 - i-,08~
-- ..... ......
BaRle Lake '~b3,~ -'-~5,9~6'j ..... ~58
~,~3~ 2~3,i8~[ - 6 ~55
)o~ 60,527 ...... ~.,145-
54,124 1,389
ou
trade
Plaine
ham
37,394 _ 37,884 490
____4_6_,110 __. ¢r7,_2_24 .... !_,~1~1~
o .0 o
16,927 17,120 '' i9~-
107,649 11 3~645
305,419 313,542 -' 8-,~-23-
'---6_-2,§~_61[ --63,8673/ .....
11,_2__77_j_ ~'~-_~_1_,89_~_L . 614J
1997
HACA
Estimated HACA Estimated
1998 Change 1998
HACA { 1997-1998. LPA
122,2181 122,2181 0
31,844 t 31,8441 O'
64,6231 64,623i 0
113,547t 113,797i 250
47,0841 47,2331 149
6,0491 6,8281 779
81,2951 81,295i 0
760,0641 760,064i 0
6,6901 6,690! OI
138,1411 138,219i 78!
47,499J 47,499i 0!
4921 496, 4!
381,1581 381,579[ 421i
8,280!
8,280 0!
15,396j 15,396 01
1,983i 1,992
42,425! 42,425
462,9381 462,938
126,878! 127,195
701,3011 701,301
2,704,6091 2,704,609
131,369[ 131,369
317
O~
7,568! 7,568 0i
90,683j 90,683
29,456 29,467 111
145,013 145,013 01
23,269 23,269 0i
7,975 7,995 20i
77,831 77,831 0I
25,158 25,161 3
187,213 187,394
1,320,989
1,320,807
3,2991
58,971T
3,299
59,337
181
182
366
33,561 62O
32,941!
14,095J 15,460
1,365
15,902[ 15,902
43,084
-'62,099
4.3,08~4 ....... 2
- 62,143~ - -4~
201,517 1,240
166,655 586
1_3,_5p_7 ...... ~.
14 ,__7_3~ .........
23_3,7_93 ....... 0_.
804 0
4,~,9-95 ' - --47'
. _ ..38;9_9_3
200,277
_ .1_66,_0_6_9
...... 1_5,8_5_5
.... 1_ 1_,_5_48
14,732
___ _23_3_,_793
804
2,208
965
1,470
3,590
2,209
503;
2,005
23,086
1701
2,6811
871
10,491[
200]
472~
4511
7041
25,990~
2,982!
22,232!
51,5871
2,6481
791
2,407
601
431
1,339
544
2,465
27,965
183
1,325
1,998
37O
568
1,79~
923
~Z5~,697'
626
-- 1~
4,033
347
190
312'
1,842
893
4,13g
195
169'
1997 Law Summaries
Page 25
Estimated
1997 1998
LGA LGA
LGA
Change
1997-1998
/Belview
I Bemidji
iBena
IBenson
Bertha
'Bethel
!Big Falls
86,894
2,320,646
89,015
2,357,513
2,121
36,867
16,585 408
846,368
135,588
16,993
868,046
137,367
16,888
17,195
56,068
21,678
1,779
(307
1,824
57,892
IBig Lake 287,835 297,862 10,027
iBigelow 21,376 22,255 879
!Bigfork 84,559 86,602 2,043
!Bingham Lake 20,460 90;
I Birchwood 2,735
!Bird Island
19,558I
3,197I
231,525I
3,2021
328,006
115,814
238,915
3,340
336,105
119,184
/4621
7,390
IBiscay
IBiwabik
i Blackduck
iBlaine
IBIomkest
;Bloomington
iBlue Earth
1,344,883
138
8,099
3,370
1,367,9421 23,059
19,638 20,033 395
!Blooming Prairie 306,114 320,035 13,921
0 0 0
715,202 747,847 32,645
iBluffton 4,086 4,766 680
~Bock 4,393 4,479
8,620
295,302
16,4117
2,1071
70,591
iBorup
Bovey
;Bowlus
8,120
290,423
15,753
2,042
86~
4,879
69,209
205,912
!Boy River
!Boyd
iBraham
658
65
1,382
211,5631 5,651
IBrainerd 2,141,479 2,192,059 50,580
!Brandon 58,927 61,363 2,436
1,050,190 20,998
!Breckenridge
Breezy Point
Brewster
1,071,188t
01 0
42,1281 2,042
40,086
76,758
~Bricelyn
i Brook Park
79,4841 2,726
17,770 18,171 401
JBrooklyn Center 1,924,684 2,024,500 99,816
Brooklyn Park _~ 1,794,774 1 846 776 52,002
!Bro.o. ks-~_~ _- . 'i-i- J_-_ _-'_- _-_9_~_~1'5_~_-~_.'.;i _' 9 4_~_9Z-_'.
',Brookston
· _j. 5,414 5 698 ..... 2-§4
iBr°°ten ......... L ..... ;I-1-4; 585- - 1-'~ 7 ~'8-1- -
[Br~Terviite- ........... ~']-' .... 8'~,114--- -9:1-;~,03 .... ~,,~-8~)'
~Brow~s-~-_-_--~_--.__ .---2~-~ 27~'- ~,{~533- 5,263'
iBrownsdale .78_,806_- .... 81,089 ..... ~,283
!Brownsvill~ .......... 35,390 367~§ ....... i-,(~98-
~Bro~nton '-'.-_~'_---- "1'3i 440- 1-_35,_86.'9__.~.- 4,4~9-
LBrun_o .... -:51-,2~8~ [" 21,453 164
IBuckman . ' ...... ii ~ ~,_2_40~1_._ 6,540 300
:Buffalo 602,696 ] 6;2i ,-675 ....
!BuffaJo Lak~- ............ 110~6~_~- 1~1-4~5~-~ .... ~,8-21-
.............. .... -6,440I
iBurnsvilie ......... _J_- 327 12~7- 327,1291" OI
iBurtrum ............... T -'-1-4,42~':- 14 941'] ..... 514]
i_B U_tt_e. d_i _ei-d _ - ..... 1~- .... 92,1§~~- ~5,i90-[-- · 3,009~
[By_r_on --- _[ ....~-9~-68'-- 2-01,§88] .... 6,82~.i
LCated~[a ....... ~ ~-~8,'~,~ -- 4~-3,~' 8~---- '1-~775
~C,~llaway I 33, ;i 38 §3,8541 .... 724
EstimatedI HACA
997 1998 Change
HACA HACA 1997-1998
[.. 29,474 29,474 0
229,281 229,697 416
2,385 2,399 14
104,709 104,709 0
14,499 14,499 0
5,929 5,929 0
7,749 7,903 154
166,260 168,174 1,914
3,401 3,401 0
18,459 18,524 65
8,859 8,859 O:
52,625 52,803 178i
101,326 101,326. 0
4,332 4,332 0
107,883 108,160 277
38,468 38,509 41
1,602,864 1,602,864 0
6,330 6,330
151,342 151,342t 0
3,655,570 3,655,644 74
334,1891 334,189 0
2,3501 2,350 0
401 401 0
1,094 1,094 0
67,825 67,825 0
7,282 7,282~ 0
920 964 44
21,174 21,174 0
40,591 40,591 0
557,424 557,781 357
19,116 19,126 10
128,129 128,129 0
57,561 97,258 39,697
16,851 16,851 0
36,949 36,949 0
2,8291 2,843 14
1,308,130 1,308,130 0
2,7~9,41~ 2,749,414 ..... O.
3,676 3,676 0
... ' ......
.__ _~,!98._ _~§,2~.......
16,263 16 263 0i
. ~5,~9-_2_/. '-~5,1'9(.- __.'~'
...... ~1_,56~ ..... ~! 90~__ 344
.72,513 .72,5)~ ....
.... 1,561 1,565 4
8,2~3' ' _~_ ~ ,~_3_ ......
........ ~4,347 ..... ~3§~3~ 2~1
72,200 72,2001 0
~2,84~ ' '~02,~-t .......... ~'
_ 3,251,~4_~__ 3,_25~,?~_L ....
3,888 3,8881 0
37868 37,868L 0
' ~7,1~--- ~-7,~i-~
4.818T .... ~.818 / 0
Estimated1998LPA
482
14,483
185
4,068 i
638
544
422
4,818 i
484i
197I
1,317
1,680
156t
1,358
931
53,595
231
2,598
110,2O3
4,707
241 !
151
138
8291
325
55
288
1,487
15,950
567
4,690
690
686
534
169
36,091
75,_866
194
127
771
97~)
988
884
566
1,012
113
252
928
1,108
212
724
3,725
Page 26
League of Minnesota Cities
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
.C~
C
C~
C
! C-
f 'o.c
vC
Estimated
1997 ~ 1998
LGA I LGA
LGA
Change
1997-1998
~dge
2a_.__nnon Falls
~n~ton
3a___rlos
145,7471 147,885i 2,138i
' 367,041i 373,2061 6,1651
, 38,8851 40,1461 1,261!
Mills
!Center City
467,447; 481,004[ 13,557I,
397,738i 403,700t 5,962~
67,317 68,6531 1,336/
934
33,8071 34,741!
2arlton 133,131i 137,897 4,766
~r 25,4371 26,589 1,152
iCass Lake 301,183! 306,2681 5,085!
782! 823
46,8371
;e_~vlon
;hamplin
~andler
Chanhassen
Chaska
41j
49,3471 2 510
43,2051 50,0491 6:844!
96,9341 99,692! 2,758~
499,2281 502,579i 3,3511
35,948i 36,7801 832~
405,44~ OI 0
433,302! 27,857
324,24~ 334,6411 10,397
C;hatfield
Chickamaw Beach 01 0
Chisago Ci~ 256,5801 263,099J 6,519
,Chisholm 1,547,523] 1,580,317i 32,794
IChokio
JCircle Pines
LClara City
IClaremont
iCladssa
!Clarkfield
i Clarks G rove
iClear Lake
iClearbrook
~Clearwater
101,8781 104,0141 2,1361
257,6581 258,3881 730i
224,287j 233,268! 8,981
93,705! 95,6891 1,984
~ 162,1901 3,082j
159,108~ ,
253,739t 259,9091 6,1701
77,876[ 80,266i 2,390!
46,812 47,756i
29,400i
944i
IClements 28,837
iCleve and 69,920 72,042 2,122
JClimax 38,316 39,022! 706
Clinton 147,739 150,284' 2,545
99,575 102,652] 3,0771
25,304 27,3971 2,093!
563
123,656 2,705
--~0,9~-~ ..... J25'
- -~7,0~t "407
65,40~ 3,997
- ~4,2~6 ~4,~31i
4,66~-, 225
. ~'_9.~i--'. _~,042'
1,027,077~ (1,645l
Clitherall 12,071 12,206 135
Clontarf 2,537 2 565 28
~ ......... ~-~ ~2'~-~' ~,325,(~8'1' - 49,868!
~-~ates ----_~: ..... -4-0--~'' - ~3-9-9]" ' (~
~,set - --
L~ok~ ............... ~3,~6~- 334,~¢
[~n~ .............. ~75~5~8 ~84,2~8-~ 8,670
~olerain~ .............. ~-~' -3~6,0~J ' ' ' 5,99i
~&0g~- ............... 35,~2' 37,9¢3 j ~,041
~lu~ Heights ~_~
Comfr¢~ 120,951
I ~~--
I C~ ........ 26~ I
J [Co%%~%. ........= '-- ~8~7~i
J ~ ...............4~2
I ...................
~ 1 '.Co~onwood '- ]~-~
~ ! - ......
Estimated ! HACA
997 1998 I Change
HACA ~ HACA i 1997-1998
44,4021 44,464 i 62
,
225,8271 225,830; 3
6,006! 6,006 1 0
, 0
144,6601 144,660 ',
0~
271,277~ 271,277 1
18,195', 18,1951 Ol
9,982! 9,9821 0~
53,517! 53,527! 8110iO
62,619! 62,619
27,009 i 27,090
345i 345
15,6761 15,905
104,075! 104,075
44,8271 44,827
901,2751 901,275
O~
OI
10,167[ 10,1671 0
1,050,4171 1,051,106 , 689
310,537! 310,537] 0
148,235i 148,2351 0
3,1121 3,626i 514
120,6621 122,284i 1,622j
531,452! 531,495 43[
23,490[ 23,490[ 01
205,830i 205,830i 0i
97,2671 97,2671 0
46,006! 46,006 0
36,2671 36,284 17
130,720i 130,720 0
17,9161 17,916 0
13,1261 13,126 0
14,368i 14,375 7
27,207i 28,533 1,326t
10,342i 10,342 0
55,034i 55,034i 0
21,335i 21,3351 0
41,1171 41,1171 0
8901 8931 3
6,169 6,169 0
· -
..... 2.-803 ~_ -_- ~-,_~ 3 L .-~-' -_~'i. _~-
818 818 0
.55_,3_ _2~ _ 58_,70_5 3,377
._9_6_,_5_1_._3.._ _96,5__49- ..... 36
188,101 188,101 0
- 13-1 5~58 - ~31 686 ..... -~0
95-9,8-2~)' 959,829 0
50,242, 50,242+ 0
6,043 _ 6,_04_3_ 0
'- ' 4~.-361-40 395 34
-2,3~-4,7241 ' '2-,~36~11_ .....
.... 2-6.4;850' 209-.~55 ..... d
I ..... 7'06[ ' '- y06!' O i
L -___61,115 61/il5 O,
I EstimatedI
998
LPA
473i
6,749!
290~
2,337!
4,414~
460!
4601
1,2111
985~
1,127~
1041
7061
2,755,
558
24,287[
3821
19,313,
17,752~
2,977i
188~
2,618~
6,555
652
6,033
1,660
677
787~
1,257
869~
4O2
711
9O3
246
912~
331
695
120
81
2,767
3,_47__2.
.__ !,3_~_5
8441
- - 2~;~8f"
541
'
164
--
76,055
--- 7,_~6
82[
279
1997 Law Summaries
Page 27
Estimated LGA
1997 1998 Change
LGA LGA 1997-1998
27,407
!Courtland
iCromwell
!Crookston
Crosby
~Crosslake
I Crystal
iCurrie
!Cuyuna
Cyrus
Dakota
Dalton
Danube
12,228
!Darfur
:Darwin
1,959,490
370,866
0
1,924,596
43,963~
19,8771
46,457
7,964
3O,34O
98,575
IDanvem 11,601
14,949
Dassel
Dawson
Dayton
Deephaven
Deer Creek
Deer River
iDeerwood
Degraff
Delano
L~elavan
tDelhi
De wood
Denham
~Dennison
IDent
4,142
166,291
361,948
40,151
0
31,512
161,680
68,261
4,257 4,981
375,079 377,991 2
43,799 44,998 1,199
13,527
28,34O 933
12,800 572
2,007,451 ~ 47,961
384,0761 13,21~
1,962,06~ 37,469
45,484,-19,877 1'52~
47,835 1,378
8,954 990
31,174 834i
101,016 2,441
12,070 469
15,390 441
4,428 286
171,019 4,728
375,327 13,379
45,241 5,090
69,458 1,197
724
558
0 0 0
18,605 19,249 644
13,030 13,414 384
Detroit Lakes 1,175,698 1,197,223 21,525
IDexter 59,990 60,856 866
!D worth 468,686 480,215 11,529
I Dodge Center 347,027 357,773 10,746
I Donaldson 1,651 1,735 84
25,182
5,842
IDonnelly
I Doran
Dover
D0.vr_ay ..............
26,519
5,892
Duluth
53,574
..... ;Z,6_t4L
1,337
50
5.4.,50_6_ ......... 9_32.
7,985 371
'-i-9~(~3~,~3g 46~,,~,5-
18,569,794
Dur~t--_- ~- i-_'.-~ _.~_~. _-'-_~.-'---1-~'9'~2- ...... 2~-,6-12 ........6'40-
Dundas ...... 33,~8-4'- --' -§-5-~4-1-7- ~,,~-~3-
Dundee ............... -8,677 .... ~,-3-3'1- ...... ---6-~**
6un~li- ............ -~416~"-" -~) ~62_-'- ~-,-o2~'
E~aga-n .............. _~_ .......... ~ ....... ~-~' ' 0
fEagle Bend ...... ----.~ i3-~,343~-- ' 1~(~32~ ..... ~,~8~
!Eagle Lake_ - -.'~.-_-. 144,121"i 1'5~123~ .
lEast Bethel 1 i'~',65~ ' 1;I-6:6:77- 1,024
East Gra~d'Forl~s .... 1,$51,6491 1,58(~,4d~' ' 28-,'7~5i
tEast Guil- [.a~ ......... 0-I .... o ....... o'
[E a~ton ............... 3-~; 32.~.-[ 37-~5 ~ ~ .........;I, 191
/Echo ........... ~- '7-61269~_'- 77;59~ ..... ~,~i28
/Eden Prairie ........ 4 ..... °--T- .... o- ...... o'
ISden V~Ji~, ...... i 143 869~-' 1~,6,59i-i 2,722
LEdg-erton ........... 14-§~-S-6~-- i'$gF0d2| '-E, 1~6'1
VEdi~- ................ bT .... O-f-- ........... o-1
1997
HACA
Estimated HACA
1998 Change
HACA 1997-1998
24,164
12,544
24,164 0
13,514
97O
525,704 0
120,917
51,677
1,045,857
12,990
6,702
525,704I
122,2411 1,324
87,088 35,411
1,045,857 0
12,990 0
7,699 997
11,095: 11,095 0
15,972i 16,177 205
7,5921 7,612, 20
53,9261 53,926f 0
5,11oI 5,11oI o
8,313 8,313t 0
2,958 2,958 0
98,751 98,751 0
143,989 143,9891 0
192,105 192,1051 0
218,089 218,2671 178
15,667 15,667 0
66,719 66,799 80
34,0961 1,968
0
32,128
886 886t
119,338 119,338I
27,172 27,172I
2,921. 2,921
41,515 41,795 280~
255 289 34
4,906 4,906 0
2,760 2,760 0
311,144 317,027 5,883
30,889 30,889 0
78,541 78,541 0
112,299 112,299 0
1,946 1,946 0
12,125 12,125 0
1,584 1,584 0
_12,344_
....... 1,874
5,366,687
.... 3,8~'
21,343
...... 2,0~7_.
10,262
_2,~_28,8_3_1_'
38,312
[... * ~6'9,3~_~I
L 1_61,89~.8_
_4_61,630
11,962
' 22,028
12,344 0
i~87~,- .... 0'
~',_3_ 6-- __7 ,-8 _~ 'j., 182
..... --3,_8.59_ .... o'
21,343 0
~.',~- ........ 5
~'E~ ..... ~
! 2,6-28,8~1- 0
' "38,:~1~- ..... 0'
'.i '6.9,3_2!i. .... 0-
164,124 2,226
461,630- "- 8
i:7,053- 5,091
- 2-~,(~2-§ ...... 0
"- 25,7d~-- ' 25,702~ 0
'-.-1-~-00,9~:1-_-' :1-,;I-~:111~7-
.... 42,!_52 42,i52' *
~.. 70,957 ~-1,00~ ....... 5~
L9~6,;~4' - 95~,954-' ........
.... L_ o o o
Estimated
1998
LPA
552i
273
10,315
2,7061
1,708
30,002
374
252
415
450
298
711
133
195
3O9
1,418
2,043
6,313
4,632
384
1,055
667
181
3,790
298
93
1,129
51
190
238
9,278
382
3,696
2,669
57t
288
87
552
72
108,622
152
610
127
271
71,870
664
2,251
11,405
1!~390
1,069
278
379
- i,~23
"-~ ~9
Page 28
League of Minnesota Cities
iFor~
' LF__oL
fifo×
fFra;
Fro
Estimated
1997 1998
LGA ~ LGA
LGA
Change
1997-1998!
14,957 II 15,872 915 ;'
3,355 3,858 5031
Lake 264,119 270,807! 6,688!
~ ) 76,190t 79,207{ 3,017i
ElizabetllI 21'315T 22'225 i 91°1
~er 256,054~ 243,3241 (12,730I
Elko 2,7141 3,260 t 546
~ ~I 13,894 i 238
EIkton
El~date t 80,132 82,307 { 2,175
El-~orthI 97,088 99,9621 2,874
E~ale ! 2,329 ~ 2,4561 127
Elm'---ore ~ 158,335i 163,261 i 4,926
~ { 7,899 i 8,139 ~~ 240-
E~ ' 976,006 998,499i 22,493
E~lysian 105,759 106,855 i 1,096
Emily 5,049 5,0491 0
E'-mmons 72,999 74,376[ 1,377
~rhard 11,870 12,027 i 157
Erskine 59,063 61,854i 2,791
~Evan 3,721 3,913 192
Evansville 92,302i 94,796 2,494
~veleth 1,198,364 1,236,079i 37,715
Excelsior 150,280 156,662 i 6,382
'Eyota 110,328 !I 117,5081 7,180
Fairfax 238,9741 247,262 8,288
Fairmont 2,236,786 ! 2,292,684i 55,898
Falcon Heights 201,714 208,364 6,650
Faribault 3,559,4671 3,649,545 90,078
Farmingtion 386,755 393,722 6,967
~, Farwell 16,338 16,535 197
Federal Dam 3,0381 3,040. 2
I Felton 30,368 ~ 31,118i 750
Fergus Falls 2,627,480 2,677,0381 49,558
Fertile 110,540 115,267 4,727
.Fifty Lakes 0 0 0
.Finlayson 17,671 18,189 518
Fisher 26,971 28,665 1,694
i FlensburcL_'- 18,361 19,036 675
~Floodwood 1_40,11__7 ...... !_ 43_, 3_0_5_ .... 3_,_18_.8.
[.Florence 8,697 8,922 225
i~Foley 2__9_9,!31 312.5_2~ 13,39'/
~Forada 900 900 6
Forest Lake 350,495 35_6.,.2_24.. _. __5_,7_29
Foreston 29,695 30,856 1,161
~ ..... 1_~61_ ..... 1_61_ . 0
Fosst.____op __ 30___~_1,1_98 .... 3_!_1,89_2 ~-_0~,_6-~ ~
: Fount_____ai n 31,574 .... _32,_53_5 ...... 96]
Foxhome 12_,318 12,782 464
Frankli____~n 125,762 --' 1--~-_8~_~._~" ~-i--~,_3~5_-_0
:razee 161,395 __~168,45.7 ...... _7,--06_2
!~- --~5,--035 36,053 ---1,-~1§
~ - ' 65,225 ....-66,253 1,028
:ddle_y~ - 1,646,064 -1-,-(~-9-6,-05~9---- 49,99~
=~-~i 44,883 ....... 4-613-~5- 1,462
~ 257,497 --2-~19--~ .... ~,6~5
_ ......... { 50
Garfield '_ ................. 8,90_4 j --~),~-6~'; .... ~06~
Estimated
1997 , 1998
HACA I HACA
HACA
Change
1997-1998
31,883! 31,883/
2,200i 2,208/ 8I
62,250! 62,274 24
48,826 0
48,826{
5,2011 5,201{ 0
601,246{ 601,384 138
21,1461 21,146
8,359 { 8,359 i
30,5151 30,515I
5,4861 5,493!
68,041! 68,041! Oi
12,2741 12,305i 31
316,340i 318,4981 2,158
40,6131 45,746i 5,133
59,4611 77,0461 17,585
14,898) 14,898 0
2,827i 2,828~ 1
24,2591 24,293i 34
3,830! 3,8301 Oi
15,897 15,929! 32
350,370 350,409! 39
146,925 147,058i 133
92,467 92,4671 0
107,255 107,255i 0
523,357 523,599[ 242
162,699 162,6991 0
728,633 728,633~ 0
383,304 383,304 0
2,045 2,045 0
815 845 30
8,008! 8,008 0
456,242~ 456,481 239
59,1181 59,118 0
14,6551 23,471 8,816
5,920~ 5,984 64
15,980i 15,980 0
7,4201
~;7-! 56,485
1~-' 1,966
65,858 .... -6'5~5-8'
3,858 4,247
4~'14-' 4,914
..... _1_,~_6_ ~-_ 1,181
102,722 102,722
..... 35_,_573 35,573
2,826 2,826
37,136 37,136
33,149 33,~-8'
14~-2-
54,253
1,055,575
389
1,177
0
0
0
0
29
21,958
.... 89,9_o_7_.
O~
..... 5_,830
. _1 ,_055_,_57_5 i .........
21,958_L 0
oI o
Estimated'
1998
LPA I
279;
287~,
1,5001
9691
212~
16,846!
341;
1751
71o!
732~
171~
881;
270i
4,953i
581!
891,
550
2221
5431
108r
723:
5,073)
2,989
1,963
1,694
14,379
6,790
23,745
9,774
95
147i
262~
16,324
t,083!
453
314!
517!
2641
-i
7141
221[
8,2901
4681
1,959i
415~
200~
378]
716T
_ _ _3_5,_7_62 i
307i
3J-~
1997 Law Summaries
Page 29
Estimated LGA
1997 1998 Change
LGA LGA 1997-1998
5,679 01
iGarrison
5,679
39,936
iGary
!Gaylord
iGem Lake
'Ga~in 40,705 769
53,139 888~
392,519
iGeneva
IGenola
52,251
380,131
ot o
42,676
280
43,877
298
8,721
43,359
151,389
i Georgetown
!Ghent
8,691
12,388
1,201
18
3O
1,538
14,688
41,821
!Gibbon 147,573 3,816
~Gilbe~ 626,487 643,301 16,814
!Gilman 1,627 1,723 96
!Glencoe
iGlenville
717,316 732,004
67,357,
70,715 3,358
!Glenwood 507,5571 522,907 15,350
!Glyndon 96,098! 100,000 3,902
37,989i 19,150
63,578t 64,855
iGolden Valley
iGonvick
I Good Thunder
8,8391
1,277~
2,795t
2,604~
450~
79,620 82,415
82,638 85,242
23,181 23,631
198,217 204,381 6,164
147,867! 152,420 4,553
51,7341 53,348 ~ ,,~ ~4
235,2261 239,942 4,716
145,846 t 14S,o06 3,960
1,325,445! 1,368,251 42,806
571,528t 585,541 14,013
4,288 Inot available
15,675 1 16,042 367
48,369t 49,510 1,141
4,325
147,154 151,479
10,753 ~ 12,449
1,696
!Goodhue
10,152! 10,670 518
01 0
!Goodridge
iGoodview
!Graceville
iGranada
!Grand Marais
I Grand Meadow
IGrand Rapids
!Granite Falls
I Grant
I G rasston
!Green Isle
~Greenbush
i G reenfietd
~ G reenwald
I Greenwood
!Grey Eagle
IGrove City
62,552 64,331
121,629 124,387
.... -290
4,686 ...... ~-9~,-
3oo,91Y b,~-~
- 6', ~-9--~ ......
10~15-49----3,055
1-75,026' -' 1,626
361'31~- ..... '433-
16,007 1 'l"
1_.1'3_,.3.712-- - ' ~4, 495~
53,417 ~)-07'
_' ( 8136_i
70,758 1,827
'939- .... (75j
32,1~- 1,061
2~'-,, 6-~-~ 5,420
~6-6'~ 4,12_9_
48,689 454
LG ry_gla ................. 36,323 36,867
................. _-] 7_,_2.9_-o% _
Hackensack . .___1_3,_86]_~ .... !3,86_1_
_H_adl__ey .... 3,_8_92
Hallock 291,31_3_
~_al__m~ ................. ~ 457
_H_als__tad ................99,494
Ham Lake 173,400
~_~urg .............. _-]'- ~35,931
_H~_rnmond 11,327.`
._H. ampto~-~_-_ .......... -- --15~,~"
_/--lan_c_ock -- ~08,877-
IHanley -~fl~ ....... ~- '--~,~;I-O-
HanOver ........... % 22 9i 1-'-
l~Hanska ......... -j- 68',93-1---
it~ard~n~ .......... Z ....
' H~ard~;i~:-k- ........ -]- .....31 ,-07_4_]~_
.' '.-I .....
2,758I
5441
1997
HACA
Estimated
1998
HACA
HACA
Change
1997-1998
4,127
13,723
11,924
174,084
8,586
4,747
13,723
11,924
174,084
8,616
24,232
24,232
887 887
6,677 6,677
14,269
93,284
14,269
93,284
177,995
1,509
62O
30
0
0
0
0
177,679 316
1,509 0
291,219 291,219 0
35,781 35,781 0
232,297
58,729
1,736,105
21,466
60,030
46,304
1,986
222,426
35,324
12,517
107,847
56,334
497,684
75,023
951,163
4,163
32,378
35,258
80,197
9,016
38,255
14,571
38,024
5,557
1,547
-12,8~-'
.... 6~i-
.... ~7,o-8-~
232,838 541
58,729 0
1,736,401 296
21,474 8
60,030 0
46,304 0
1,986 0
222,464 38
35,347 23
12,517 0
109,876 2,029
56,334 0
497,724 40
75,023 0
951,263 100
4,163 0
32,378 0
35,258 0
80,450 253
9,033 17
38,389 134
14,571 0
38,024 0
.~,5_5~ .... ~
1,547 0
-' ~3,9~ ...... ~ ~'
]]' '~7_1_.] ' '__-~-. ]]~
67,144 59
-" 42,6i'2- ..... ~5 6~'~- ......... 0_I
-- '~ 97,374] --¥9~19,~b' .... 576_]
...... ~43,3'1 ~- --43,3-~9-'! .... 4~[
...... 3, 67~- - 3,6-78. ']6]
-i8,9i6- -] _:i8',-~'~-] ]].]- ]0]
...... 40,9~' 40,976 0
..... __2o,6_5_t
..... 37,99!
32,166__
512
_ 6,53_2_-
__ __8.0_,4_8].
.... 2__6,96_5_
....... _13,0.5--1
37,991 0
32,166 0
51~ 7
O'
0
0
_.!,5~X
~0~481
26,975
13,05~
[EstimatedI
1998
175
179
246
2,537
571
568
107
90O
2,418
257
6,290i
993
3,289
1,158
26,515
372
724
855
138
3,9591
842]
477j
1,555j
1,251t
10,345
3,875
5,200
146
380
1,050
2,038
255
852
455
747
283
160
323
123
.-_]_ I
98
760
637
-
501
...... 9o~'
306
1,421
560
' 98'
284
1,368
387
iHoL
',Ho;
:Hut
'lon~
Iron
Isan.
Isle
Ivan
Jack
.Jan~
J~_~
J~
Page 30
League of Minnesota Cities
Estimated LGA ]
1997 1998 Change i
LGA LGA 1997-19981
/ 1,308,8461 1,318,855 i 10,009'
,
~,~"~atfield 1,208 I 1,381 i 173i
H~I~_~~ 185,217 ', 196,094i 1 O, 877i
~ 190,632 ! 196,497 i 5,865~
~d 38,121 'i 38,893 772;
_~--azel Run 9,094[ 9,426. 332~,
Hecto!. 213,759 219,723
.HeideLberg 1,045 1,234i 1891
'~'~erson 156,199 160,0801 3,881!
H~um 43,711 I 45,147 1,436i
H-~"~"~i n g 144,640i 148,185 3,545i
He--rte 1,7641 1,942i 178;
-ter'--'~an 124,795; 127,788[ 2,993!
Her'---'~antown 486,314[ 478,0651 (8,249~
Heron Lake 144,256 i 148,5871 4,331 '
~ H'-ewitt 31,782 i 33,008 i 1,226
:H~ibbing 4235,169t 4,328,425 "~ 93,256
~11 Cit7 50,794 ', 52,531 i 1,737
Hillman 1,760! 1,805 45
!~Hills 96,783 i 99,415 2,632
;~illtO@ 59,261 I 61,744i 2,483
iHinckley 133,578 i 140,328 6,750
~Hitterdal 42,719 ~: 43,606 887
!Hoffrnan 84,918 ! 87,583 i 2,665
iHokah 150,091 i 153,1781 3,087
IHod ngford 114,107! 115,8361 1,729
IHolland 36,856 37,3381 482
IHollandale 35,394 36,3061 912
~ Holloway 14,554 1 15'175 i ', 621
Holt 8,103 i 8,3921 289
Hopkins 834,195 ', 829 268! (4,927
'
Houston 191,692 i 197,8851 6,193
Howard Lake 175,014 i 182,1231 7,109
Hoyt Lakes 268,152 ', 276,748t 8,596
tHugo 28,679 i 24,650i (4,029
[Humboldt 6,583! 6,890! 307
Hutchinson 1,407,538 1,447,964~ 40,426
Ihlen 13,379
/~ndependence R-~-F~ t 0 t C
I~ntl Falls 2,24 2,286,145 42,982
Inver Grove Heights 474-,906' 470,807 ___~,09~-
Ion__a~ 33,413T __35,002 1,58~
Iron Junction 4,167 4,262 95
[ronton 105,699 - 707,895 _. _2,19~{
Isanti 243,346 253,297 ~9,951
Isl~e .~-- 67,434 67,636 202
Ivanh____oe . 140,800 _. -?-4-4,291
Jackson 896,528 919,996 j 23,46~
~_ane'----s_._~ille 280,504 '__- 294,985 'f_-_ :1-~,48i
_Jas__~.p_er 119,316 123,288 3,97;
J. effers 77,130. 78,958 1,82~
Jenkins __ ~8_~_ 11,9951 21,~
~---~-------- __2,9_80 ~_ 3',1~5-I i6~
.J.ord~n __ __ 292,036 ~_ 303,462"-' - 1-1-,~,~
iKandiyohi _ _ _~5,7_-~ ~_ 47,135' ' '~,38;,
IK~r~;~d ..... ~ .... 137,421 ~ 14!_,8__6_0J__ 4,43!
1997
HACA
Estimated i HACA
1998 Change
HACA 11997-1998,
986,2981 986,366 ! 68
1,652I 1,652 !
o
51,858 i 51,858 i 0!
143,439 ! 143,439 ! 0
10,277 [ 10,2771
o
1,667! 1,667~, O i
117,747t 117,7471 00t
1,5081 1,508 ~
55,397i 55,3971 0t
31,029t 31,108t 79i
12,0561 12,056 i 01
35,754[ 35,7901 36
688i 694[ 6
31,4461 31,446i 01
439,2091 439,2451 36
42,8721 42,872 0
13,2841 13,287 3!
1,212,240i 1,213,492 1,252
43,867 53,098 9,231i
202 202~ 0t
16,455i 16,4551 0
23,637! 23,637' 0
52,782! 52,787! 5
10,692i 10,692~ 0
22,380t 22,3801 0!
44,778t 44,7781 ~
55,3931 55,436i 43_.~
8,465t 8,465; 01
13,2141 13,214! O!
6,150i 6,150i Ot
1,0761 1,083i 7I
961,173! 961,223[ 5~
43,5401 43,544i 268
70,892! 71,160i
131,563 ~ 131,940 ! 377
220,249 220,3101 61
1,652 1,6521 0
941,154 67
..... 3,~65!' 0
178,712
9~1,0~_.7_.
3,365
944,513
8,898
48,311
80,589
27,982
36,964
284,277
134,633
179,441 729
531,884 24
944,513 0
8,900 2
1,377 0
48,528 217
80,589 0
33,972 5,990
36,964 0
284,277 0
134,633 0
15,727 L 15,727 0
~8~'~ -1~,~ -~
5 ~-'~-I -- - 5-~181 14-~
Estimated1998 I
LPA
20,785
80
2,180
1,656
299
100'
1,448
98
971
867
378i
957
604~
8,994I
22.642i
6oj
7681
2981
8121
8961
723~
3641
1,293I
2,034i
2,939
6,751
85[
15,856
124
3,826
9,926
__ ~2,~3
2O7
166
710
2,469
758
952
4,513
......
739
568
650
1,106
1997 Law Summaries
Page 31
Estimated LGA
1997 1998 Change
LGA LGA 1997-1998
I Kasota
~Kasson
! Keewatin
!Ke her
JKellogg
61,4961 65,1771 3,681
438,5681 453,9191 15,351
384,113 393,631t 9,518
27,608 1,405
29,013
45,470 46,661 1,191
39,549
:~ Kennedy 41,1271 1,578
i Kenneth 10,795 11,061 266
iKensington 37,847 39,007 1,160
iKent 16,041 16,3081 267
!Kenyon
226,191
234,8961 8,705
I Kerkhoven 121,575 4,119
!Kerrick 3,310 57
!Kettle River 27,805 492
;Kiester
IKilkenny
I Kimball
iK nbrae
!Kingston
!Kinney
~Lacrescent
I Lafayette
iLake Benton
iLake Bronson
128,417
27,639
I 47,586
989
2,914
74,639
297,779
84,104
185,290
50,538
74O,O96
iLake City
fLake Crystal
125,694I
3,367t
28,297
131,492
3,075
28,2911 652
49,287! 1,701
9501 (39)
3,398t 484
75,781t 1,142
300,568i 2,789
86,6351 2,531
188,7151 3,425i
51,5791 1,041
760,546t 2r,.o01
286,205 300,965 ~ 14,760
!Lake Elmo 4,494 4,4.94t 0
I Lake Henry 4,377 4,534 157
!Lake Lillian
45,061 46,020 959
[Lake Park 106,442 109,852 3,410
!Lake Saint Croix Beach 19,865 21,626 1,761
ILake Shore 0 0 0
ILake Wilson 51,877 53,037 1,160
'.Lakefield
!Lakeland
ILakeland Shores
493,450
23,831
480,054
20,716
13,396
(29,6421
!Lakev e 485,409 455,767
!Lamberton 179,320 184,099 4,779
!Lancaster
....... _L _ .59,796: 61 512 1,716J
ILandfall / 5,17-0-! '1 39_7._-~ (317731
ILengby ..... 22:.,007_ . 22,432 42¢'
! Leonard 1,882 2,022 140'
Leonidas_---__- .......... 43;97i' 44,226- -255
!Leroy - - 1i8;338~ 123;501 5,163-
!Lester Prai~:ie' .......... 14¢;4-9¢ - 1-52,62-7 ....
[Lesueui- ............ 63417§1 '- 646 793 .... :1'2,0'1-2'
[Lewisi-oE .................. 125,21~5--- 13-3,7~-~ [ .... 8,~27
Estimated
1997 1998
HACA HACA
HACA
Change
1997-1998
10,654 10,695t 41
276,047 276,047 0
98,748 98,801 53
5,727 5,7401 13
24,090 24,1821 92
35,422
35,422 0
2,303
2,303 0
13,567 13,567 0
3,681 3,681 0
153,952 154,251 299.
26,851 26,851 0i
759 781 22
9,510 9,535 25
48,873 48,873 0
6,924
45,319
6,924t
45,319I
9191 921
2,045 2,045
31,064 31,095
237,971t
30,807I
60,0421
14,548t
230,677
130,624
238,336
30,807
60,O42 0
14,548 0
232,278 1,601
130,624 0
178,925 179,011' 86
3,714 3,728 14
17,507 17,507 0
34,545 34,545 0
35,006 35,236i 230
21,787 31,859t 10,072
28,114 28,1141 0
0
31
192,440 192,4401 0
30,056 30,281 225
3,745 3,745 0
1,712,1941 1,712,352 158
72,0351 72,035 0
16,792 j_ 16,844 52
- ' 'i~i',91_-5~ 16,~1~- --' ~i
-54,0~'8--[ ....... ~'~,2-~i~ ...... i~)8'
..... ....... ....
...... ~3,~)69__L_ - --3~,o~9-~. ........ ~'
....... ~1,3~-~F~ --~,3~~ ...... ~
-- 7,4~0~-. '- -7,~0~T ........ ~'
44,4~:1'~ 44,5i~.]- ....... 6~'
..... b5,04 . - '- b-
88,0¢3] ¢,093q- ' - '0-
I 10,2~ .... 10 22~- ~
-" 76,3¢~ ..... ~6,3~ ....... ~
...... ........ ......
-.-~ ~8,203 1~9,4851 1,282
Esfimatedl
1998
LPA
855
5,087
1,400
465
547
411
98
3731
162
1,9931
94O
77
250
757
210
865
22
160
3O3
5,736
6O5
866
33~
5,733
2,727
7,796
112
285
833
1,434
1,018
406l
2,536
425
43,482
1,232
42O
790
137
601
120
.... 3,434j
2,640
84t
1,539J
4,858j
2,858
Page 32
League of Minnesota Cities
I Estimated
1997 1998
LGA LGA
LGA
Change
1997-1998
~Lakes
~LJsmore
iLJtchfle~d
~ttlefo_rk
~Fralrle
~Lo~_~v. ille
~ale
tLoretto
: Lou~s~------------------~ L
iLow~ry
ILucan
154,701 {
55,546
986,578
80,453
1,6o2,125
100,778
Canada
Falls
ach
309
65,034
557,251
6,667
94,976
17,656
3,585
47,129
49,945
Luverne
~yle
Eynd
~abel
967,688
88,177
Mahtomedi
43,595
157,307{ 2,6061
56,7031 1,1571
1,010.398 23,820!
90,452 9,999:
1,639,146 37,021
104,847 4,069
62 (2471
67,081 2,047
572,979 15,728I
6,667 0~
100,373= 5,397
17,281 (3751
3,772 187
48,322 1,193
50,733 788
991,727i 24,039
91,0991 2,922
44,254 659
180,723 3,168
177,555
Madelia 355,9651 371,858i 15,893
Madison 488,1051 504,093[ 15,988'I
aadison Lake 74,1561 76,195 2 0391
Magnolia 11,885t 13,268 1,3831
Mahnomen 272,521 282,311I 9,7901
163,526
Manchester
Manha~an Beach
Mankato
Manto~ille
Maple Grove
Maple Lake
Maple Plain
Mapleton
Mapleview
Map ewood
~a
Marine On Saint Croix
Marshall
Mayer
M__aynard
_Mazeppa
~Mcgrath
~cgregor
Mcintosh
162,3641 (1,162~
6,081 I 6,2931 212!
01 o[ o~
5,073,584 5,156,152[82,5681
131,316, 133,8201 2,504;
131,209[ 123,952 (7,257~
150,1651 154,273 4,1081
67,173! 83,239[ 16,066[
203,3901
58,637
675,633
247,508
60,170
0
1,453,839
78,003
_!.,2891
68,739/
114,645
70,069
14,949
102,532
7,141
526,115
181,631
6,315
0
7,891
29,4~_8_
M_~c.kinley
Me.___a. dowlands
Medford
Medicine Lake
~a
Vleire~Grove __
V~elr~ose __
/lena____h~q_a _
/l__en_dota
endota Heights
,~entor
~ i~-e River '
213,636 10,246 !
59,430 7931
754,266 78,633;
251,702 4,194!
60,970 800 ~
o _o.i
-~,4~8,70~[ --24,86~
105,404 / 2,481
1,3~__5_
69,832
2_-;i
70,345
..... _15,79_5
96,147
0
0 0
1,093
3,349
i-2_76'
846
0
..... 534,391[ .... --8,276.
186,298 ~ 4,667
..... oi .........
8,352t. 461
I Estimated j HACA
1997 [ 1998 Change
HACA ! HACA ,1997-1998
421,891I 421,956! 6~{
402,8251 402,825i
261,543! 261,565i 22
20,5331 20,539: 6
9111 930~ 19
162,671 i 162,671i 0
60,976! 60,9761 0
10,0491 10,840! 791
102,1611 102,161: 0
17,595i 17,5951 0
1,491i 1,509~ 18
17,3411 17,341i 0
17,306i 17,306, 0
173,2271 173,227 0
3~,804i 38,846 42
18,928! 18,928 0
58,836 58,836 0
101,026 101,026 0
171,271 171,271 0
53,272 53,4691 197
6,616 6,6161 0
69,354~ 69,354; 0
279,769~ 280,046 277
562! 562 0
353[ 688 335
1,853,2391 1,853,239i 0
69,163
2,091,964
69,163i 0
2,092,0921 128
78,306 78,306! 0
146,191 146,1911 0
108,973 108,9731 0
9,539 9,539i 0
1,559,920~ 1,560,0071 87
62,533i 62,536! 3
12,021 i 12,0211 0
..... ~,0~6~[__ ~4~933i 873
533,6441 533,6921 48
.... ~-~,-71--~ [ 18,71~j 0
~i ~02 5~,~2~ 22
..... ....
- '~0~41- 2~:~'
6,4521 6,497
54,143~ 54,143
15,3751 15,417
178
58
0
45
42
2-~,~2~~ 220,549 26
7~,-,-,-~59 7,0761 17
.... -1-09-~44~9- - 10~),~_ 0
57,331 -- '~E~ 1,01~
2~,2~' ~.~ 0
__ 4J~4~7~ ~[
3,821 3,821L o
.2 i , [3L - .... J¢
1997 Law Summaries
Estimated
1998
LPA
16,607i
312!
7,777!
11,839
9,630
1,107
281
2,461,
3,61 I
294
1,6781
6591
43!
2901
289I
5,776,
642!
387i
9411
2,-~
2,440i
9171
205'~
1,544
8,296
98
' 74,
40,5461
1,2311
56,188I
1,816I
2,700
1,976
262
42,519
786
259
775
15,635
654
543
947
81
479
839
153
139
969
473
4,429
155
3,386
1,425
203
13,640
359
Page 33
;qTo
Estimated
1997 1998
LGA LGA
LGA
Change
1997-1998
Miesville 27 ! (8)
Milaca 394,868 17,211
82,623
1,685
Milan
Millerville 703 29
Millville 6,825 429
856
Milroy
Miltona
Minn City
Minn Lake
Minneapolis
Minneiska
Minneota
Minnetonka
iMinnetonka Beach
I Minnetrista
!Mizpah
IMontevideo
!Montgome~
IMonticello
!Montrose
iMoorhead
rUoose Lake
iMora
IMorgan
iMorris
I Morristown
!Moron
!Motley
IMound
tMounds View
~tt Iron
Lake
IMurdock
IMyrtle
Nashua
Nashwauk
80,938
674
6,396
37,117
37,973
13,2721 13,430 158
15,179~ 15,949 770
--68,858,961
6,675
7,098
!Nassau
_el_s_on
erstrand
tNew Auburn 32,324
~ ev~ §r~h~-0n ........ ~5-8]~:~7-
[N~W'Germ~ ..... '1-~-, 1'60
~l-~w Ho~
[~nd~n
-~-e-w -M--~-~t
New Munich
N_e_w Prague
New Richland
New Trier
New Ulm
~1ew York Mills
Newfotden
_Newport
Nicollet
~ielsville
150,594 154,168 3,574
70,580,435 1,721,474
6,936 261
237,875 246,245 8,370
0 0
0 0 Oj
0 0 O!
2,6391 2,769 130
1,104,9141 1,134,437 29,523
448,295 463,783 15,488
o
0 0
82,263 85,790 3,527 l
4,499,614 4,572,296 72,682
197,498 207,993 10,495 ~
432,475 446,014 13,53¢~
240,055 244,918 4 ,o63-
1,079,110 1,105,50P 26,399
100,817 104,238 3,421
89,408 92,267 2,859
65,788 66,611 823~
327,731 320,495 (7,236~
666,685 689,026 22,341
243,031 260,146 17,115
430,528 445,993' 15,465 I
51,045 52,696, 1,651
5,454 5,604 150
676 625 (511
456,550 463,738 i 7,188
6,830 7,225 395
7,788 690
24,923 982
5_3,_9!_6] ~179~1 .... 8-75'
33A2_4]]._- -_1.':!0_0..
774,229 15,992
---
1,033,193 1,118,292 85,099
4. 800_-
......... 8,__3_75 1 _8,8_0_7_L .... 432
32,923 .33,997 1 ~074
498,667 510,936 12,269
2,430 2,588 158
]_ ~ 2,~-4 ,-_9-4~1- ' 2,673 i~7_ ' -4~,-8-~6'
.... _2_4.4_,~974 - ...... _250,.1.1_7 - _~,1_43-
..... 60_,_9_1_ 9 .... 6_ ~2,_4.5_1_ ...... _1 ,_5_ 32_
188,969 188,478 __]491)
90,251 93,712 3,461
17,106 17,529 423
1,193 ' - - ~,;2~;~- ........... ~1-'
Nimrod
I Estimated
997 1998
HACA HACA
HACA
Change
1997-1998
1,729 1,7291 0
91,033
30,871
119
1'907I
30,276
16,076
13,970
77,264
91,033 0
30,878 7
1191 0
1,9071
30,2761 0
16,077i I
13,970i
77,264
29,635,533t 29,636,777
82,677
0
1,244
82,677
3,774 3,86O 86
0
2,O63,499
2,062,504
68,513
68,608
995
95
271,587 273,199 1,612
1,1061 1,107 I
319,213
214,792
319,213
214,792
308,113
897,4061 897,406
67,210
308,113
55,657 0
0
67,273
0;
44,394
44,394
63
70,631 70,646 15
109,330 109,330 0
285,362 285,362 0
0
31,202
31,202
17,904
17,967
490,977 492,036
362,910 362,910
184,446~
184,352
63
1,059
0
94
149,306 149,306 0
14,531 14,531 0
1,571 1,571 0
1,795 1,795 0
128,953 128,985 32
1,958 1,958 0
2,5221 2,522 0
..... 12,699
12,697
12,699
9,884
12,697
810,113
477
0
16,872 0
9_1_8,61_0- ....9_]8_,635 .......... 25_.
37,380
-_
9,118
309,598
89,061
1,365
-- -~73,5~:~
].- _ ~0,7_9~-"
12,869
. ~7,405 25
22,046 0
..... _9,_11__8 ......... 0
309,598 0
89,061 0
1,365 0
673,523 0
60,798 0
12,875 6
-~'54~6~ ........... ~'
--~t~,4-~- ..... "~'
--:'i3o8 .......... 8-6
Estimated
1998
LPA
170
2,986
425
128
208
378
274
32O
857
463,940
171
1,811
6,980
3,157
2,024i
3,785
1,208
7,135
1,044
559
624
12,152
15,927
4,226
2,413
352
82
72
1,230
94
222
294
5O6
465
_2_8,5__7_8.
47O
~ 1,297
-
--'.-
5,073t
17,2801
- 1,258
101'
Page 34
League of Minnesota Cities
Estimated LGA
1997 1998 Change
LGA LGA 1997-1998
0 Ot 0
iN~sswa
iNorcross
Branch
? Mankato
North Oaks
-~orth Saint Paul
-~'~rthfield
20,435
20,796i 361
236,432 249,7991 13,367
18,161
1,566,940 1,585,101
0 O! 0
796,824 ~, 24,216
772,608
1,559,3471 1,600,822i 41,475
46,5181
No,home 47,566 1,048
=N__o~hrop 21,020 522
~,Norwood Young Amer.
,'~k Grove
~Oak Park Heights
~Oakdale
lOdessa
lOdin
,~.qema
20,498;
203,562! 199,255
16,1311 13,139
1O' 0
673,71 686,119
44,1761 44,729
13,453 14,011
26,497 27,423
(4,3o7:
(2,992',
0
12,4081
553i
558
926
[~Ogilvie 98,917 101,133 2,216
'.Okabena 35,151 36,118 967
iOklee 92,710 94,829 2,119
lOlivia 586,668 602,702[ 16,034
[Onamia 84,903 3,015
11,644
!Ormsby
iOrono
IOronoco
87,918 ,
12,248[ 60~3
Oi 893
59,620 60,513 i
~Orr 56,015 56,391 i 376i
!Ortonville 616,251 I 636'167 ~' 19,916 i
!Osakis 267,1681 277,166i 9,998
!Oslo 78,3331 79,7821 1,449
iOsseo 81,095 [ 90,7621 9,667
iOstrander 23,876[ 705
!Otsego
!O~e~ail
IOwatonna
23,171I
101,9381 113,9601 12,022
513 513[ 0
2,940 3341 2,981,896 i 41,562
4,898
IPalisade 5,1871 289
!Park Rapids
iParkers Prairie
!,Paynesville
iPease
'P~P~Ii~ Rapids
iPembe~on
!P~ennock
;P~eequotLakes
IPerham
:,Peterson
,Pierz
~er
~r~e Isl~.~d
i
475,9631 480,065 4,102
123,638 128,260 4,622
277,726 293,438 15,712
7,397 ..... 7,_79___2 ......... 3_9~
243,596 . 2~,_14~ 11,544
12,480 13,039 559
58,407 ~,-6~1 --~,22~'
259,086 275,766 16,680
10,574 ._i0~ ...... 38~
20,879 1,07~
90,225
61,209
368,732-
239,657
146,619
0
94,870
62,266
381,389
253,991
150,533
0
~estone 856,053
lainview 367,273
lato _3_11,460_L .... _32_,40__3
~ant Lake 61 6
R.~u _m~-- -- _ ..... ~4~:3.91h i~-.' 5-0,~_7_-~_
-.i ............. _o_! o
4,645_
1,057
12,657
881,259 25,206
378,103 ~-,~3~'
0
987
0
i Estimated
1997 i 1998
HACA I HACA
HACA
Change
1997-1996
23,490i 37,9731 14,483
5,0611 5,061 0
215,489[ 215,539 50
605,865 605,865 O~
93,071 93,141 70!
260,881 260,881 Oi
713,269 713,269
10,579 10,611 32
12,885 12,885 0
152,1671 152,167 0
119,517[ 120,930 1,413
74,3291 74,489 160
951,163[ 951,263! 100
8,319i 8,3251 6
6,784[ 6,7841 0i
7,821: 7,821[
13,776i 13,776i
21,7471 21,747!
28,017! 28,017 i
107,2051 107,205, O!
19,047 19,102~ 5~'
5,813i 5,813
300,673, 302,676~ 2,003
32,186i 32,1961 10
12,2881 12,308' 20
289,553; 290,222! 669
90,366~ 92,142i 1,776
26,691' 26,827! 136
133,3851 133,385! 0
0
14,550
14,550!
146,854 146,855 1
17,307 19,855 2,548
1,151,249 1,151,249 0
4,158 4,224 66
74,880 75,282 402
45,095 45,161 66
88
0
138,312 138,400
__L~§9 1,160
57,171 ..... 57,270 99
1~if23 13,723 ...........
..... 25,_6_7 .... ....... o'
39,519 41,699L 2,180
.... 7~,4~0 - 7~,~" ........ ~-5'
..... 2,~45 2,245 0
9,48~-- --9-,~6 ..... 2-3-
--- -- o'
25,647~ 25,973 326
1'~¢! 113,373 326
217,634[ 217,634 0
~,-~[ 41,248 103
2,265t 2,265 0
212,783 212,783 O,
43,271i 43,271 0
3,451 ~,~-~1 110
23,310i - -~3,~T6 0
Estim~ed
1998
LPA
1,921 ',
99i
6,7891
14,379,
4,660
16,247
19,865'
372
349i
10 i
3,7
7,7311
4,788I
30,222 ~
1891
158~
200~
6691
275 ~
543i
3,335 i
998
1901
9,479;
1,040~
335
2,659
1,693
458
3,261
347
7,7554
472,
25,909~
188
3,7901
1,201
2,895
223
2,416 !
293
615
_--1 ,__!2_1__.
__ _2_,8~8_5_
161
......
1,377
397
3,503
2,821
1,202
550
5,773
3,656
427
3541
"~4,76~
1997 Law Summaries
Page 35
t Estimated LGA
1997 1998 Change
LGA LGA 1997-1998
I Porter 36,187 t 36,9221 735
iPi'eston 306,3821 316,016 9,634
!Princeton 395,843i 399,403 3,560
IPrinsburg 84,267! 86,506 2,239
Prior Lake I 27,273 27,273 0
Proctor 444,515 459,452 14,937
Quamba 2,6191 2,891 272
IRacine 16,429 i 17,113 684
!Ramsey 329,8451 336,747 6,902i
tRandall 52,634 t 54,364 1,730i
i Randolph 9,5641 9,895 331
IRanier 18,045 18,562 517
109,465
Raymond 112,535 3,070 ~
Red Lake Falls 357,104 367,291 10,187
!Red Wing 37,920 37,920 0
IRedwood Falls 982,913! 1,008,757 25,844
!Regal 721 834 113
i Remer 49,753 51,535: 1,782
IRenville 280,7621 292,934; 12,172
i Revere 21,713 t 22,117; 404
[Rice 18,729 f 20,467; 1,738
!Richfield 3,361,777i 3,417,9421 56,165
i Richmond 111,830 115,100 3,27n
!Richville 3,568 3,873 .~0~
iRiverton 9,974 ~ 9,97~ ~ 01
IRobbinsdale 1,613,340! 1,64~,329 34,989
I Rochester 6,111,083 (4,248',
I Rock Creek 40,5191 5,701
Rockford 305,7321 6,091
Rockville 36,474 i 2,024
!Rogers
IRollingstone
i Ronneby
I Roosevett
1Roscoe
IRose Creek
!Roseau
I~ os_e_ _m o_u_n t_
iRoseville .......
~0t_hs~ay ..........
LR_o_u n__d __La__ke .........
LF!?y_alton
Rushford
_R. ushford Village_ .....
Rushmore
iRussell
;Ruthton
: R__u_t!_ed_ge .......
Sabin
tS_~acred Heart
~a_nborn
S n -ne
.........
; uk Centre . _
uk Rapids
6,115,331
34,818
299,641
34,45O
648
57,093
1,270
3,909
6,344
56,417
267,477
383,113
67,984
.... -56,43~,"
35,181
..... 57,218 216,966
33,561
5o,ooi-
49,585
1,729
..... ~-397-
.... ~-~-5-,-3 ~-6-
- -69,7151
296,817-i
778,084 793,104
1,047,134 1,071,593
7,382 6,734
58,935, 1,842
1,442i 1721
4,251 I 342!
6,933l 5~
56,907 4901
280,215, 12,738t
379,500 (3_,613_~
36,223 1,0421
51,379 1,378
50,835 1,250
158,737 3,411'
'-- ~,64TM .... 69'
8,123
24,459
Estimated
1997 1998
HACA HACA
HACA
Change
1997-1998
6,033 6,033 0.
123,987 124,056 69
180,174 180,231 57
35,485 35,485 0
901,135
203,325
1,191
10,770
905,681
203,393
1,191
4,546
68
10,770 0
505,676 505,713 37
20,254 20,257 3
9,234 9,234 0
2,133 2,160 27
39,566 39,566 0
140,680 140,680 0
1,188,157 1,188,680 523
355,180 355,180 0
1,424 1,424 0
14,222 14,365; 143
121,904 121,904~ 0
6,407
23,532
6,407
23,557
25
1,848,733 1,848,7331 0
64,968 65,0271 59
1,91oI 1,91oI 0
4,854 5,193 339
897,072 897,072 0
4,370,077 4,370,769 692
33,720 34,226 506
115,345 115,345 0
21,286 21,286 0
20,434 20,434 0
46,391 46,391 0
1,288 1,288 0
54~ 551 3
4,709 4,709 0
22,213; 22,213 0:
138,383! 138,383 0i
._ ~5~,.7~_ ........ 2
1,7~1.,124 109
21,524 0
29,912 0
.... 7~,3~ .......... 1~
40,691 52
17,658 0
27,485 0
12,442 0
~-,~- 267
550,773
-' _'.121,5~_~
25,902
29,912
~2,3-3~-
_1_03,014
40,639
27,485
12,442
2,649
- 4~,1-(~6- .... 42,~0E
37,280 37,280 0
29,073`-- 29,0~ ........
38,111-- 38,12-6
2;~63~- 2,~_6.--'_3~ ' - -0-
285~_0~-¢~- ~85,3~% ....
I ........
346,6~?~ 346,087, 2
tEstimatedI
1998
LPA
262
1,951
4,842
635
16,647
3,826
166
401
20,040
737
436
247
847
1,884
19,909~
6,510
61
437
1,750
141i
846
44,58oi
1,326
156
156
18,013
97,075
1,409i
3,788]
1.527~
23O
176
463
3,411
14,862
559
597
1,027
2,031
2,035
785
465
'4-93
425
~i'o
642
-- -75'1
574
2..47_5_
._ 98
- 8,677,
4-,752
11,686
S:
.St
.St?
.St;
.Si-
.St
.St.
Page 36
League of Minnesota Cities
Estimated LGA
997 1998 Change
LGA LGA 1997-1998
anion
;__dan
~afer
3ak~ee
lerburn
Sh.__9oreview
:Shorewood
Silve'-'---r Bay
~r Lake
~on
~py Eye
tSobieski
~olway
,S~uth Haven
~'South St. Paul
icer
pring Grove
~pring Hill
~pring Lake Park
'.Spring Park
~Spring Valley
iSpringfield
iSquaw Lake
iSt Anthony
~tSt Anthony
St Bonifacius
St Charles
64,4241 56,361( (8,063i
212,510 216,642 4,132i
13,839 ! 14,093 254 ~
165,851I 169,168! 3,3171
1,541! 1,6331 92:
17,4651 17,831i 366i
195,048! 220,467! 25,4191
45,539i 46,987[ 1,448[
235,7021
8,8771
0
O'
307,714 i
133,3891
3,504
550,897~
817,3121
3,5691
4,280t
24,5161
2,588,048!
93,643!
287,2441
3,019i
238,773
16,869 i
242,734 7,032;
9,462 585i
ol ol
o(
318,648i 10,934i
136,271 2,882!
3,376 (1281
568,201 17,3041
833,363 16,051i
4,077 508i
4,662, 382~
25,101 585!
2,641,962! 53,914;
95,520i 1,877~
293,061i 5,8171
3,131[ 112~
247,8811 9,1081
15,790i (1,079)
547,6401 567,6541 20,014;
399,3391 419,4201 20,081
4,284! 4,7061 422'
1,516
141,661
17,155
334,274
Clair 67,921
tSt Cloud
[St Francis
',St Hilaire
i~St James
S_} Joseph
iSt Leo
!St Louis Park
~ Martin
!St M.____a~'S Point
~t Michael
6,451,179
46,517
22,534 [
820,758
429,938
9,751
.... 1 ,_9__1_0,_0_79
___ 16,_94_0
0
139,567
44,754,277
472,748
1,230,317
3,118
26,075
!St Paul
;St Paul Park
!St Peter
st.___Rosa ......
~h_en
St Vincent
;tarbuck
;tee_.__Q_n _
~te_~phen
;tewart
~?~_ewa'rtVilie
1,8401 324!
148,711 i 7,050 :~
14,226[ (2,929!
347,7571 13,4831
70,501! 2,580i
6,847,263! 396,084j
53,252 6,735~,
23,306 772!
847,939 27,18~1i
. _ _4_48,86_3._ __18,92_5 i
__ _19,15j_ ..... 4o.oj
1,889,882 (20,197t
· - ~17-,~4-'-8- ....
-0- O~
- - 1-1-5,2~7~ - ~,300_~,
- '-~'~6,978 -- 4,2301
.... 3~5' .........
8,603 9,039! 436
---~-~,~ '-7~,~zI '--~5,~17
--~0-~,~6- --2~,~ ..... 6;4-0~-
95,103 __9~1j 3,548
151,053 -- 153,507'~ - '~,45~
~89,937 603,1831
I Estimated ! HACA
997 I 1998 I Change
HACA HACA i 1997-1998
580,5331 580,5331
59,306t 59,3061
3,805J 3,805, 0
35,9741 36,022: 48!
6131 616:
13,614i 13,614! 0
526,433! 526,433; OI
9,2991 9,299~ Oi
116,525 116,525;
2,291 2,292~ 1
984,704 985,216~ 512
420,880~ 421,493! 613
109,520 111,8841 2,364
75,341 75,3411 0
15,034 15,0341 0
157f193 157,1931 0
159,787 159,787~ 0i
3,334 3,334
2,1771 2,177 O!
4,6781 4,678 Oi
1,164,827! 1,164,827 O~
79,500i 82,434 2,9341
81,643 81,747 104i
3,781 3,781
187,228 187,228. 0
95,250 95,408~ 1581
215,508 215,5981 90i
196,171 196,171, O~
1,410 1,578 1681
1,531.
334,378
47,645,
1,531~ 01
334,378' 0
47,645 i 0
150,146 39
150,107
26,401 26,401 0
2,967,625 2,967,700 75
98,792
23,480
98,792; 0
23,480~ O!
' 149,458 149 458 0
'60,691. 60,754 63
- -~,853,(~§1' ~-- ~)~ ~-~'ff~)-F ..........
..... ~{ ....~d8f': --~
20,0~,247 _2~,~.~,Z~ ',. _. 502~
205,505 205,505i 0
__~38,~_ 438,235.L
...... ~,~ ....... 2~070 L
o]
..... %~S_9 ...... 40,325 '~ 15
2,454 2,454 i 0
i~;~7 "18~&7Z 0
" .......... 1~,~3 - 148;~-8~1 ......
43,29~ 43,59% 299
'- a75~ ....... 4~5~ [ .......
~ ---~Z6~5~ ...... ~0 ~ .... 8',
Estimated
1998
LPA
18,315;
75:
495,
17,437
279=
1,378i
1951
33,0301
8,6151
2,4711
435~
2,738i
4,698;
252!
95~
249:
25,6831
1,566!
96'
8,517,
2.2531
2,814i
1031
10,603i
1,5ooI
3,7611
8761
74,261,
3,918
382
...... _5 ,¢3_9_
5,457
55,243
356
472
4,0551
_ _
3,~¢A
1,470
23¢
879
718
5,938
1997 Law Summaries Page 37
Estimated t LGA
1997 1998 Change
LGA LGA 1997-1998
'Stillwater 957,111 979,120 22,009
Stockton 19,161
Storden
Strandquist
i Strathcona
iSturgeon Lake
Sunburg
~Sunfish Lake
Swanville
Taconite
;Tamarack
!Taopi
'Taunton
~Taylors Falls
iTenney
Tenstrike
64,859
20,818
66,009
1,657
1,150
11,183 11,533 350
2,696
4,770
13,820
57,285
118,531
5,418
1,659
2,845
5,509
14,181
0
58,150
119,787
5,480I
1,856
7,638
7,331
149
739
1,256j
307
82,767 83,631 864
1,729 1,729 0
2,028 2,404 376
Thief River Falls 1,254,070 1,288,258 34,188
Thomson 16,193 16,193 0
~Tintah 9,460 9,732 272
Tonka Bay 0 0
Tower
',Tracy
:Trail
Trimont
;Trommald
120,450i
122,388
587,289
4,092
161,635
8,76~
2,365
264,254
570,152
3,916
158,252
8,775
:Trosky
Truman
2,1021
256,282
:Turtle River t 13 27
iTwin Lakes I 37,876 37,972
:Twin Valley I 156,562 162,216
'Two Harbors 972,141 991,666
..Tyler 192,122 200,486
· Ulen 92,629 t
: Underwood 61,073
!..Upsala
1,938
17,137
176
(71
263
7,972
14
5,654
19,525
8,364
95,002 2,373
62,638 1,565
56,162 56.4991 337
', Urbank 2,171 ~ _,___2,358 r 187
~Utica 23,599 24,146t 547
V_ad~n_ais_He_~i.igh_ts_ _ . 6,127 588 (5,539)
~ Ve r_g_a_s_ ......... __- 10,382 ..... 11,31 g ...... 937
Vermillion 4,371 ~.,010 ..... (361'
',-V~rndal~ .......... 64,717 .... 66,853 .... _2,136"
Vernon Center 36,314 37,335 1,021
'~/~t_-.a_-. _--__~--~ Z__- '--'-_ 59:524.-:'_' _60,892 ...... ;i,368_-.
victoria
....... 0 0 O~
¥iki_ng ....... ._'_ _ _2_1~__7_-6~ r.* ~ ;2-2,1~2" -386
._Vi!lard 33,620 34,80i-- ¥,181-
_V!.n!ng ........ -9-~'~ ...... 9,7~3- ......293.
Virginia 3,296,199-' ~,~)81716- - 32,517
Wabash~,-- ............. , -~,~'5~:~ - 4-63,344- .... 16,801"
Wabasso .............. ;t-4 i~29-3-I 1-4_4,15;2 ~_,85~.
Wac°nial ........ _--i~i i" ~-2~77_,2__5.? 276,563 (694
[Wadena .... .~_ 615,142 640,827-' ' 25,685
IWahk°n .... '-~..b i ¢,2;I 6- -17,3-"i-2' ' - 96
waite Park I 3-~-1,938-- 367,838 ~ 5,900!
Waldorf ......... _~- ....~, 0~- .... ~2 55~ ...... 490[
Walnut G~;ove I ,'~¢ ~7 -_' ~E.~. ~' ~-.2.~794-1
I Estimated I HACA
997 1998 Change
HACA HACA 1997-1998
989,884 990,340 456
14,407 14,407 0
30,228 30,22'8 0
546 548 2
438 438 0
280
7,20~
3,28(
44,81.~
5,162
7,488
3,286
44,815
5,162
32,229
0
29.'
[,, 31,936
~ 2,050 2,149 99
1,9121 1,912 0
2,2581 2,258 0
85,841t 86,338 497
152t 152 0
1,486t 1,867 381
515,5191 515,592 73
3,609t 3,610 1
2,816/ 2,816t 0
76,6481 76,922 274
39,024i 40,320 1,296
0
0
84
0
0
43
0
0
170
0
o
146
5
0
29
396
0
169,861 169,661
213 21:
71,346 71,346
2,273 2,357
1,180 1,180
88,168 88,168
177 220
10,2861 10,286
59,3381 59,338
259,280f 259,4501
71,690 71,690
37,547 37,547
9,8551 10,001
10,431 10,436
1,802 1,802
8,022 8,022
369,257 369,286
5,0~Y 5,463
'- ~;0~9 ..... 27,0~9-'
13,962._~_ '{3,962-
2§,~51
'~8~,8~ '- 184,228
..... 2,89;2- -' 2,8~2-
..... 1~,$~- ....
. ~98,091 998,091
.... !¢6,700 ._ '~__~,2~5';
27,835 ~ 27,835
216,642- 216,93~
151,313i -151,348
8,0431 9,378'
i 3
50,5971~. 350,59~'
.....
L.~ _§8~§2, 38,682'
356'
0
1-01
1,545
297
35
i ,33~-
O~
Estimated
1998
LPA
19,843
732
347
113
51
316
147
583~
402~
105/
218t
10,211~
176t
2,5971
741
932 !
115j
156
1,629,
91!
180t
1,057,
4,569;
1,586
689
358
470
91
273
15,649
364
635
7O8
424
432
4,~23
308
891
5,~32
5,433
251
7,509!
1,235{
Page 38
League of Minnesota Cities
I Estimated
997 1998
LGA LGA
LGA
Change
1997-1998
i alters
Wr~--~altham
22 .
iWanam~ncjo
24,123i 24,480! 357
21,5421 22,1671 625
121,835! 124,4151 2,580
9,921! 10,250! 329
,Warba 8,082' 8,245[ 163
~ 279,838 14,053
;Warren 265,785i
~/arroad 106,6851 117,061 10,376
LWaseca 1,456,159! 1,485,065i 28,906
iWatertown 184,2981 188,2891 3,991
~Wate~ille 341,3281 351,1331 9,805
~Watkins 89,897[ 92,941! 3,044:
FWatson 40,153 1,135
IWaubun 33,636
! 41,288i
i 35,391i 1,755
w averly 84,982]
ayzata 0!
85,4691 487
lWelcome
~Vells
~Nendell
,~Nest Concord
643,9461
IWestbrook
o
139,715 ! 143,798 ,4,083
665,751 21,805
39,0611 39,869
808
124,766~ 128,869 4,103
IWestSaint Paul 1,156,1551 1,196,728 40,573
~West Union 1,752! 1,808' 56
201,959! 207,031 5,072~
Westport
Whalan
Wheaton
White Bear Lake
1,876[ 1,923' 47
Wilder
7,9211 8,2271 306
366,450! 381,079i 14,629
888,981i 919,1071 30,126
10,593i 10,927i 334
43,3071 44,3301 1,023
24,979! 26,0221 1,0431
2,452,655 60,551[
2,392,1041
27,906
Willernie
Williams
Willmar
719,609[
9771
Willow River 26,929 ,~
Wilmont 43,510! 45,338 1,828~
Wilton 263 ~ 300 37!
740,341
Windom
33,5731 34,307
Winger
Winnebago
iWinona
20,732i
734~
335,999i 349,113 13,1141
5,103,0871 5,282,284 179,197i
IWinsted
IWinthrop
W~n~ton
Wood Lake
Woo.___db~uD~ .............. 0
Woodland 0
Woodstock 26,705
WL.W~o [t_h i_n~_t o_n__' 1,940,8_62_
Wrenshall 65,179
292,07_4_~ 299,514 7,440[
~-~-0-, ,~ ~5~' ~-0§,0~-3 .... -7,588'1
~ ~-97~- 74~3 .... 8~0 ..... ¢3~
...... .... -2~53~f ...... 56~!
~ ...... ~6,~%~ ..... ~7~6 ....... 5~-~
0 0i
"' 0 ....... b!
27,508 803
1,971,7~1- 30,859
-~6,04~ ...... 86~'
:umbro Falls
:umbrota
1,572 1,990 418
120,167 .... 1__2_1,87_9 . __1,7?._
1,209 1,209 0
90,138 101,377 __ !.~1_,23_9_
12,487 13,3~;~' 857
4i ~,-5-~'~-'-.__~_--_~.~_~,-~5_-(" _~_?~(~
S~-~'TotaJ - -/--_-"~ ~iI359',347,3;7~)1368,328,°°4I 8"9~'0'6-3~'I
1997 i Estimated i HACA
1998 t Change
HACA i HACA 11997'1998
6,7061 6,7061 0
12 5901 12,590 ~ 0 I
62',636 ! 62,636 ! 0
4,633i 4,633i 0
2,9261 2,983i 57
46,1371 46,162 25
39,750! 39,820 70i
325,3241 325,324 ~
61,3731 61,373 0!
111,3661 115,978 4,612
69,7371 69,737 0i
16,7651 16,765 0
19,7371 19,737i 0
52,468! 55,675i 3,207
279,5501 279,880' 330
43,7191 43,719~ 0
85!706: 85,706i O~
8,505i 8,5051
53,902i 53,902
978,9271 978,963[ 361
1,4181 1,418, 0!
56,337~ 56,348! 11;
308 309~ li
3,514
151,387
3,547i 331
151,3871 0i
842,777 842,876i 99!
2,852 2,852 01
29,943 29,943 01
7,578 7,679 101~
661,233 661,253 20i
3,3871 3,415 28!
16,4261 16,426 0!
O! 10 101
352,882! 352,963~ 81
20,485i 20,4851 0
112,557i 112,557! 0
1,477,292! 1,477,5921 300
105,820 105,820 01
.... ......
6,259 i 6,259
- 2~7791 ..... 2§,~7-9-
1- o3- 5-3-31
.i-_-- ;32_;_1-46-! 32,248
24
102
4,817 4,817 0
712,641 712,696 55
7,171 ~ ......... ~--
--'-6'-,~45'I '--- ~,710 ...... -'~'
.... -2~-9-84-l -- 2~1 .....
l - -
[~,_898,732119'_7_,175,0421i 276,310i
Estimated'i
1998
LPA
2161
1,117
1241
174
2,268~
2,323,
10,477~
3,2521
2,275;
1,083~
256~
5051
794
5,058~
993;
3,071~
199!
1,129
24,625
100
1,070
60
109
2,100
32,776;
103~
723i
270,
23,696;
372'
4451
133,
5,776;
205,
1,964!
33,7571
__
197i
....... 42!
....
39,6351
615~
13,009!
415i
---
.....
2,3651
299',
· '_ . ~,_103,!
4,653,54_1-~
1997 Law Summaries
Page 39
League of Minnesota Cities staff working with
legislative issues
Jim Miller, Executive Director
(612) 281-1205 jmiller~lmnc.org
Gary Carlson, Director of Intergovernmental Relations
(612) 281-1255 gcarlson@Imnc.org
General revenue sources for cities
Local government trust fund
Aid to cities
Property tax system
Andrea Atherton, Intergovernmental Relations Representative
(612) 281-1258 atherton@lmnc.org
Electric utility deregulation
Local/tribal relations
Tax increment fi'-.ancing
Land use
Economic development and redevelopment
Fiscal issues
Ann Higgins, Intergovernmental Relations Representative
(612) 281-1257 ahiggins@lmnc.org
Telecommunications
Housing
Elections and ethics
Utility service districts
Eric Willette, Legislative Policy Analyst
(612) 281-1263 willette@lmnc.org
Mary Diedrich, Legislative Secretary
(612) 281-1259 diedrich@lmnc.org
Mickey Ojard, Legislative Secretary
(612) 281 - 1261 ojard@lrnnc.org
Page 40
League of Minnesota Cities
June 16, 1997
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Gray Freshwater Center, 2500 Shadywood Rd., Suite 19
471-9585, FAX 471-0632
NEWS RELEASE
Contact:
Gene Strommen
Project Manager
Greg Nybeck
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Public Access Limited Use Due to Herbicide Treatment for Milfoil
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Some public accesses on Lake Minnetonka will be subject to a 24 hour limited use
restriction to assist in the effectiveness of herbicide treatment scheduled in June.
Herbicide will be applied to certain public accesses to control the growth of Eurasian
watermilfoil as allowed by a MN Department of Natural Resources Permit.
The first access treatments are scheduled to start at 7:00 am, Monday, June 23, at
the following accesses: 1) County Highway 16, Wayzata Bay; 2) County Highway 51,
North Arm Bay; 3) County Highway 125, Mounds Park, Cooks Bay, and 4) Tuxedo
Blvd, Zimmerman Pass, Phelps Bay.
The second access treatments are scheduled to start at 7:00 am, Monday, June 30,
at the following accesses: 1) County Highway 101, Causeway, Grays Bay; 2) County
Highway 51, DN~ Access, Maxwell Bay, and 3) County Highway 15, Spring Park Bay.
An alternate public access will be about a mile away from the access scheduled for
treatment for public convenience. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District expresses
its appreciation to boaters for their cooperation during these two groups of public access
treatment. Questions concerning the treatment may be directed to the milfoil project
manager or executive director, 471-9588.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1997
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister
and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Absent and excused: Commissioners Jerry
Clappsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, Michael Mueller and Bill Voss. Also present: City Planner
Mark Koegler, Jon Sutherland Building Official and Linda Strong, Secretary. The following
interested citizens were also present: Donna and Doug Easthouse, Ken Grabow, Jim O'Hearn,
Joyce and Steve Matheson, David Kamolz, Harry Nasset, Jim Brunzell, Todd Rask, John
Edewaard, Scott and Linda Mack, Joyce Agnew, Mark Smith, Ernie Strong and Dave Willette.
MINUTES
APPROVAL OF THE MAY 19, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister and carried unanimously to approve the
Minutes of the May 19, 1997 Planning Commission as presented.
INFORMAL PUBLIC HE--G: TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF
MODIFICATION OF RESOLUTION//95-13, ITEM//16, FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK
1, TEAL POINTE AND TO CONSIDER A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR LOT 3 ONLY.
Chair Michael stated the format for public hearings. Staff gives their report, Commissioners
comment to staff, then the public hearing opens, and interested citizens can then speak.
Planner Mark Koegler stated the Planning Commission had heard this case on May 19, 1997 and
the Council heard this on May 27, 1997. The City Council decided it appropriate for the
abutting properties be notified of the proposed changes in the original Resolution of #95-13.
He then described the case briefly. The applicant is seeking approval of a front yard setback
variance and modification to one of the conditions of the approval resolution for the Teal Pointe
subdivision in order to construct a new home. The parcel in questions is Lot 3, Block 1 of Teal
Pointe which fronts on both a short street (Outlot A) and an unimproved portion of Drummond
Road. Because of the location of the lot, it is required to observe a 20 foot setback off of
Drummond Road. A 10 foot setback is being proposed, hence the variance of 10 feet.
Drummond Road is unimproved and is only platted.
When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was reviewed and subsequently approved, the
developer proposed vacation of parts of Drummond Road. In the course of the review of the
preliminary plat, the right-of-way was not vacated and the plat continued to identify an incorrect
10 foot setback from Drummond Road right-of-way.. Presumably, the plat was drawn assuming
setbacks with the right-of-way having been vacated. As a result, Caliber Homes is seeking a
Minutes- Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
10 foot setback variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the lot line.
The applicant is also seeking to change the proposed preliminary plat that included
cantilevered/cassion foundations for homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3, to the standard form of housing
with a full basement. Lots 1, 2 and 3 intrude into a bluff area as defined by the Shoreline
Ordinance. Because of the timing of this development relative to the adoption of Mound's
shoreland standards, the approval resolution granted, "A variance from Section 330:1225, Subd.
4(B) to allow minimal fill for home construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 within the bluff impact zone
and/or bluff area."
The resolution also stated, "Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered
structures. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a
set of plans prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City. The plans
shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which
details tree and ground cover replacement."
This idea of caisson/cantilevered construction on Lots 1-3 was offered by the developer at that
time as a means to lessen the impact on the steep slope areas. At this time, the current owner
of Lots 1-3 is seeking to modify this clause in the resolution to allow the construction of
traditional single family homes.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested 10 foot
front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-way of Drummond
Road. The facts of this case support a funding of practical difficulty.
Staff further recommends that item 16 of Resolution #95-13 be modified to remove the
requirement for caisson and cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be
amended to read: "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall
submit a set of plans prepared by a registered engineer and landscape architects for review by
the City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale not larger than 1" = 10'
identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an
erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note
all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided."
Complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement
shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to
issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be limited
to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
Chair Michael asked the Commission if they had any comments, they had none.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Chair Michael opened the Informal Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who
wished to speak on this item.
John Edewaard - 5125 Hanover Road. He stated he did not like the proposed variance. There
was no hardship, doesn't meet code. He did not like changing plans. The new owner should
have researched this before he purchased land. The original plat was approved because of the
house style change, now it is being recommended. He stated there were already 17 variances
and this had been well thought out once.
Koegler stated that other PDA's had had changes in the past, once the plat was approved.
Hanus asked Edewaard what his contention was with, the variance or the building style?
Edewaard stated some conditions had not been met, such as reseed and resod. The homes
should be built the way they were originally designed.
Hanus reiterated the proposal before the Commission.
Jim Brunzell, 5111 Windsor Road. He stated the neighbors had worked hard with the previous
developer to come to an agreement, now it was changing. He was losing his trust in
government. He purchased his home from previous developer, it had water problems in the
basement. Brunzell stated he did not think the style of home would work on the slopes.
Todd Rask, 5901 Drummond Road. He disagrees with the setback variance. The undeveloped
Drummond Road was being discussed amongst neighbors as being a nature trail with walkway
access to the slough area. He felt the slope was too steep for the style of home proposed.
Chair Michael asked if this trail plan would go through the Parks and Open Space Commission.
Harry Nassett, real estate agent, 2212 Fern Lane. He stated the plat map on view, was not the
way the plat was approved. The plat on view showed Drummond Road vacated and it was not
vacated. Lot 3 is 40 feet wide. The correct plat of lot 3 does not go into Drummond Road.
Nasset stated caisson style homes are not good for Minnesota climate due to the cold seeping
in. More earth would have to be moved installing caisson than a full basement. With retaining
walls, the grade will be more improved than with the open ground style. Holes for the caisson
would be larger and move more earth around than just digging a basement.
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the equipment used to dig a basement, would be a
backhoe and cause less impact on the hillside because it could cut into the hillside for a
foundation from at the top above the lot. In order to prepare footing holes, equipment would
have to drive over and around the slope.
Chair Michael asked why the original builder used caisson/cantilever style?
3
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
City Planner Koegler stated the former developer proposed this style of structure.
Chair Michaet commented that some time changes occur, something may prove to be better than
what was originally planned.
Chair Michael asked three times if there were any more comments from the interested citizens,
there were none. Chair Michael closed the informal public hearing.
Hanus stated the cantilever style portrayed a more environmental friendly style, now we are
hearing differently. The Commission would recommend the style that makes the most common
sense. He didn't think much could grow under the caisson style overhang and that a full
basement would not create as much erosion, especially if side elevations with landscaping were
considered. He was not concerned with pipe freezing issue, this could be taken care of through
special building efforts. The staff reports that there should not be further damage to the slopes.
He is sensitive to the neighbors concerns.
Weiland stated he also wants to protect the slope, and through the use of retaining walls, he
could approve the full basement style. He was concerned as to what could grow under the
cantilever.
Burma stated he had mixed thoughts. He was concerned that recently there had been instances
where the developer assumed a street vacation had been approved, and then, consequently, the
Commission granted variances to allow the building. He stated that sometime exceptions are
made.
Glister stated she had wanted a public hearing to discuss the proposed changes. She was willing
to consider the change. She was pleased citizens took the time to come to the meeting. She did
not want to change the building style of the original proposed cantilevered/caisson style home.
Chair Michael commented that there were four Commissioners not in attendance. He did have
in writing, comments from Michael Mueller. Chair Michael wondered if the Commission would
like to wait until more Commissioners were present.
Weiland stated more information should be added to the motion, regarding the oversight in not
vacating Drummond Road.
Hanus stated the conditions as they would be in the motion.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Burma to approve the requested 10 foot
front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-
way of Drummond road and to modify item //16 of Resolution 95-13 to
remove the requirement for cassion and cantilevered structures. To amend
Minutes- Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
the condition to say "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3,
the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and
landscape architects for review by the City. The plans shall contain a
detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10' identifying
existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory,
an erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. The grading plan
shall note all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate
details shall be provided." Complete plans for the proposed construction on
Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a
building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be
limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
Koegler stated the motion came directly from the staff report.
Chair Michael read Commissioner Mueller's comments for the record:
"The discussion we had with this development were many and the developer assured us
that the entire development would be architecturally planned including building facades and that
the bluff slopes would be least disturbed by the construction of some of the homes on caissons
where the grade was the steepest. I brought up at that time the open underside exposure of the
structures was a difficult and expensive way to build given the cold weather that we have in
order to protect the heating and plumbing systems from freeze-up. The developer assured us
that even though it would not be cheap, this type of construction is preferred in order to
minimize the impact to the bluff. He informed us that caisson drilling does not disturb as much
area as that which excavating machinery needs to move large amounts of fill material and the
turning radius and movement required to remove such material. The lots in Block 1 were
always of the largest concern as the slopes are very extreme.
No type of construction other than that approved on the preliminary and f'mal plat should
be allowed. It appears as though this is a request based solely and completely on a cost effective
method of construction and not on a hardship that was not at length at the time of the
preliminary plat approval. It is my understanding that a variance, or in this case a modification
change to the final plat, should not be done for the sole purpose of making the project less
expensive to complete. There are methods of assuring that the construction on caissons can be
done without freeze-up problems and the bluff would sustain the least amount disturbance and
infringement. I used to be an excavator, and I assure you that there is no way to excavate a
basement that disturbs the bluff equal to or less than caisson drilling."
Chair Michael stated the presumption was that Commissioner Mueller did not approve the
structure style change.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Chair Michael asked if there were comments from the Commission.
Weiland stated he would like to see plans for the retaining walls on Lots 1 and 2. He wanted
to make sure the retaining wails were installed.
Burma stated he agreed with Mueller on most points with the exception of the construction cost
being cheeper. The Commission should not request only the most expensive plan. There is no
reason to require a more expensive method if both methods have equal impact.
VOTE was called, motion carried 3-2. Glister and Michael voting nay.
Chair Michael stated the item goes to the City Council on June 24, 1997.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE #97-21' VARIANCE FOR DECK, JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOT 7 & 8 P/8, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0005.
Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report. The applicants are seeking setback variances in
order to construct a conforming deck addition. The existing home sits within 14 feet of the front
lot line and 5.8 feet of the north side lot line. This situation results in setback variances of 6
feet and .2 feet respectively. The lot is in compliance with all other zoning requirements
including impervious cover limitations.
Comments
The existing non-conforming home is in very good condition. The proposed construction
consists of an elevated deck that measures 19.6 feet by 8 feet. The new deck will tie into an
existing deck and provide a stairway connection to the rear yard. The proposed deck addition
observes a 69 foot setback from the O.H.W. of Lake Minnetonka.
Recommendation
The non-conforming aspects of the existing property are likely to remain well into the future.
The proposed construction conforms to all zoning requirements. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow the new deck
construction due to the "practical difficulty" that results from the setbacks of the existing home.
Hanus questioned why a detached garage needs to be farther from the street than a detached
garage. He then stated, an attached garage could easily become a part of the house.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma, and carried 6 - 0, to approve a
6 foot front yard variance and a .2 foot side yard variance for a existing non-
conforming structure to allow the construction of a conforming 19.6 x 8 foot
deck addition.
Weiland commented about the existing shed being conforming, and it was.
Chair Michael stated this item would be on the June 24, 1997 City Council agenda.
CASE//97-22: VARIANCE FOR SHED, DOUGLAS EASTHOUSE, 3042 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 50-51, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIV. PID 19-117-23 34
0075.
Building Official Jon Sutherland passed out photos that the applicant had provided. Sutherland
stated the applicant is seeking a variance to allow the reconstruction of a nonconforming shed
on the lakeside which was, according to the owner, torn down several years ago. The proposed
shed is to be setback 20 feet from the lake. A 50 foot setback is requires, resulting in a variance
request of 30 feet. This variance request also results in the recognition of a variance for the
existing nonconforming detached garage adjacent to the street. The detached garage was allowed
to be constructed by the City in 1979 by special agreement, and also reconstructed in 1991 when
it was damaged by a vehicle. All other issues with this property are fully conforming. The
applicant was present.
Comments
The Shoreland Management Ordinance allows for one water oriented accessory structure (a lock
box) provided that it does not have a floor area exceeding 20 square feet and four feet in height.
The lock box must also be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the lake. There does not
appear to be any findings of hardship. However, practical difficulty was determined in a similar
case adjacent to this property, at 3030 Island View Drive.
In the previous case, the neighboring properties had similar situations with topography and sheds
located in close proximity to the lake. Due to the need for storage and due to the steep slope,
small sheds were determined to be reasonable. A lock box was found to be on inadequate size
to accommodate the typical storage needs, and there were no other alternatives to locate a shed
on the property that was in conformance with the ordinance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested
due to practical difficulty.
Chair Michael read Commissioner Mueller's comment, "I concur with the staff recommendation
with the proviso that the shed be screened from the lake with year around (i.e. evergreen) plant
material."
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, I997
Sutherland stated the applicant can submit a application to the Planner for approval.
There were no questions from the Commission to the Staff.
MOTION by Burma, seconded Glister to concur with staff recommendation
and approve a 30 foot lake side setback to allow the construction of a shed
at 3042 Island View Drive. The shed is to only be 7 feet high. A screen
plan will be submitted the Building Official. The vote carried 5-0.
Weiland was concerned with how tall the shed would be. The applicant commented about 7-8
feet tall, and that it would be manufactured shed. Also, that it would meet the required
guidelines.
Mr. Easthouse will submit a shrubbery plan to the Building Official.
CASE #97-23: VARIANCE FOR DECK, KENNETH & CAROL GRABOW, 1732
CANARY LANE, LOT 10, 11, 12, BLOCK 11 DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 24
0015.
City Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report. The applicants are seeking approval of
variances to allow the replacement of an existing walkway, patio and deck that wraps around two
sides of the existing home. The existing home is nonconforming due to front yard, rear yard
and side yard setbacks and impervious cover. Setbacks and variances that currently pertain to
the parcel include:
Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback (south)
Rear Yard Setback (east)
Impervious Cover
Existing Required Variance
5.47' 20' 14.53
1.47 6' 4.3'
13' 15' 2'
44% 40% 4%
The proposed construction impacts the amount of impervious cover and the side yard setback
noted above. In the side yard area, the proposed deck (replacement) is required to observe a
6 foot setback since the deck at that point exceeds 30 inches above grade. In this location, the
property abuts the Wiota Commons which is held in perpetual open space. In order to
reconstruct the deck, either a variance needs to be granted or the deck could be reduced in depth
the comply with the 6 foot setback requirement. The remainder of the setbacks stem from the
location of the home on the lot which is an existing condition of the property.
Comments
The proposed improvements will actually reduce the amount of hardcover on the site to a total
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
that is very near the 40% threshold in the ordinance. By converting the walkway and patio to
a wooden deck construction, water will be able to penetrate the surface unlike the concrete
surfacing that currently exists. Therefore, the new decking will improve the hardcover situation
on the property.
Recommendation
Variances in Mound can be granted on the basis of either hardship or practical difficulty. In this
particular case, a finding of practical difficulty could be rendered by the Planning Commission
due to the placement of the home on the lot, the fact that the proposed deck will improve the
amount of impervious cover, and due to the fact that the lot borders a large commons area that
will always exist as open space. Based on a finding of practical difficulty, staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the identified variances in order to
reconstruct the existing walkway, patio and deck in the wooden decking configuration that is
proposed.
Weiland stated there would be more open area if the old shed was removed near the back
property line.
Mr. Grabow stated the shed is not used often and could be removed.
MOTION by Weiland to concur with staff recommendation to recognize
existing nonconforming house and setbacks and recommend approval of
variances to allow the replacement of existing walkway, patio and deck that
would be reduced to comply with the 6' setback from the Commons and to
remove shed at back of lot.
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated that the commons area adds green space to this lot.
Mr. Grabow stated he would gladly remove shed, but would rather not reduce the deck size to
meet the 6' setback.
MOTION by Wetland, seconded by Hanus to concur with staff, to recognize
existing nonconforming setbacks, to allow the reconstruction of walkway,
patio and deck. The applicant is to remove the existing nonconforming shed
on the property.
Hanus clarified that the deck as proposed, was contingent upon the removal of nonconforming
shed.
Michael clarified the shed is to be removed to add to the green cover.
The vote was called, the motion carried 5-0.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Mr. Grabow was concerned about the area where the shed is located, how would it look when
shed is removed and the back of neighbors shed will be exposed? He was told he could fence
the area to match the existing fence. He would have to locate lot line, the fence could go on
the lot line, or he could screen area.
CASE #97-24: VARIANCE FOR DWELLING, ERNEST STRONG, 4940
CRESTVIEW ROAD WILLETTE BUILDERS, LOT 9, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD
POINT, PID #13-1124-11 0091.
City Planner Mark Koegler gave his report. "Sometime prior to December of 1980, a fire
substantially destroyed an existing home located at 4940 Crestview Road (Lot 9, PID 13-117-24
11 0091). Records indicate that the City initiated an effort to clean up the site after the fire
presumably since the owner took no action to do so. As a result, the damaged home was
removed and the property eventually became tax forfeit. In May of 1983 the property was
included as part of Resolution 83-76 which reconveyed certain tax forfeit lands back to the State
and requested the County Board to impose conditions on the sale of the property and that such
lands only be sold to owners of lands adjoining and that said lands should be combined for tax
and land use purposes and comply with City Ordinances and regulations.
Later in 1983, the property was purchased by Ernest Strong, who owns an adjacent parcel of
land (Lot 8) that is immediately east of the subject site. For the past 14 years, Lot 9 has been
used as part of the lot area of Lot 8. At the time of the purchase in 1983, Hennepin County
apparently did not require that Lot 8 and 9 be combined as was the wish of the City of Mound
as expressed in Resolution 83-76. Therefore, for the past 15\4 years, Lot 9 has existed as a
separate lot of record under common ownership with the adjacent parcel. It is presumed that
Mr. Strong was aware that the lot was undersized and did not meet the lot area or width
requirements that were required by the Zoning Ordinance. The current Zoning Ordinance
standards were enacted in 1982, prior to the purchase.
At the present time, Willette Building Co. is a variance to allow a new home to be built on the
lot owned by Mr. Strong. In order for a new home to be built, the City will have to grant a lot
size variance of 4,335 square feet (5,665 sq. ft. in lieu of 10,000 sq. ft. required) and a lot
width variance of 25 feet (35 feet in lieu of 60 feet required). The proposed home has a total
width of 22.83 feet in order to comply with the required lot of record side yard setbacks of six
feet. Because of the narrowness of the lot, the home has a width dimension that is less than
most new garages and one which is not dimensionally or architecturally comparable to other
homes in the area.
Comments
A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical
difficulty. In this particular case, the hardship, if one exists was self imposed. The owner of
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
the property bought an undersized parcel that did not meet ordinance requirements as a buildable
lot but one which could easily be incorporated into the lot area of the adjacent parcel under
common ownership. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that
the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
Ao
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
Bo
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district since enactment of
the ordinance have no control.
Co
That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or
buildings in the same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Fo
The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
Staff does not feel that the subject request meets any of the identified circumstances, much less
all of the circumstances stated in the code. Additionally, the proposed home is inconsistent with
other homes in the area due to the undersized width of the lot and approval of the variance
would be contrary to the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The Mound Zoning
Ordinance was adopted to promote "the orderly development of residential areas." The subject
variance request does not represent orderly development.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the lot area and lot width
variances requested by Willette Building Co. because the request does not comply with the
circumstances identified in Section 350:530 of the Mound Zoning Code. Additionally, the
request is inconsistent with the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Code and does not represent
sound land use planning and development. If the variance request is subsequently denied by the
City Council, the resolution of denial should be recorded as part of Lot 9, the subject parcel.
If the City Council approves the requested variance and allows construction of the proposed
home, Lot 9 should be subject to the recertification of the special assessments that were levied
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
on the property both before and after the tax forfeiture. The combined amount of the
assessments is $5,198.30. Any resolution of approval should include a condition requiring
payment of the assessments at the time of building permit issuance."
Koegler stated the County is checking its vault for documentation regarding the lot combination.
Weiland asked if included in the assessments, is there a park dedication fee? Koegler stated it
is a lot of record and a park fee is not applicable.
Hanus commented on Commissioner Mueller's memo regarding this item regarding the
possibility of subdividing Lot 8 to give Lot 9 more land. Koegler stated the area there is not
a suitable area to attach to make the lot conforming. Hanus stated more land could make the
variance impact less. Koegler indicated not much.
Chair Michael asked if the Staff had received Mr. Strong' s information that the Commission had
received? Mr. Strong provided his packet of information to the Staff. It was commented that
Strong owns Lots 7, 8 and 9.
Mr. Strong thanked Staff for the report and stated he appreciated the Planner's comments. He
then addressed the Planner's concerns. He mentioned documents that he had handed out to the
Commission and Staff that referred to another similar case at 4925 Glen Elyn Road, an
undersized lot behind and to the east of his Lot 9, the one in discussion.
Minutes of the City Council on February 11, 1992, regarding 4925 Glen Elyn Road, that
it was a parcel purchased in 1960 as a tax forfeit lot and that it was an undersized lot by
approximately 5000 feet and required 10,000 square feet. He referred to the Planner's
comment regarding, "Resolution 83-76 which reconveyed certain tax forfeit lands back
to the State and requesting the County Board to impose conditions on the sale of said tax
forfeit lands to restrict the sale to owners of adjoining lands. The resolution stipulated
that the county board was requested to impose conditions on the sale of the property and
that such lands should only be sold to owners of lands adjoining and that said lands
should be combined for tax and land use purposes and comply with city ordinances and
regulations."
Strong's response was that no documentation exists to indicate that the above condition
has been conveyed to the Strongs, by the City of Mound or by Hennepin County. When
Lot 9 was purchased, Hennepin County did not require it to be combined with Lot 8.
As noted in Resolution #92-27, the Sharps also purchased a tax forfeit parcel of land.
The Planner's comment that it is presumed that Mr. Strong was aware that the lot was
undersized and did not meet the lot area width requirements that were required in the
Zoning Ordinance. Strong responded that the Lot 9 has existed as a separate parcel lot
of record, and entitles the owner to a building permit if they can meet the setbacks. He
stated he had owned the land for 14 years, there had been a home on the parcel prior to
3.2
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
his purchase.
Regarding the Planner's report that for a home to be built on the property, the variance
would be a lot size variance of 4,335 square feet and a lot width variance of 25 feet.
Mr. Strong's response was that his variance request is for less than the approved variance
for 4925 Glen Elyn Road, in Resolution #95-53, where the property there is zoned R-1,
10,000 square feet and a variance of 4,880 square feet was approved. There was also
no mention of a lot width variance granted on 4925 Glen Elyn Road and that lot is 50
feet wide, the zoning code states 60 feet wide.
Regarding the Planner's report on the width of the proposed house to be built, that it was
22.83 feet wide and less than most new garages now being built, and not being
dimensionally or architecturally comparable to other homes in the area.
Mr. Strong commented that the house proposed meets all setback requirements. Also,
that there are several homes in this immediate area that are not comparable
architecturally, i.e., 4945 Glen Elyn Road, where there will be a 4000 square foot home
on a 5000 square foot lot; a log home two doors to the east; and a home across Glen
Elyn road that was a small home and now has been basically been built around and the
small home removed.
Regarding the Planner's report where a variance can be granted only on a basis of
finding a hardship or practical difficulty.
Mr. Strong responded the hardship would be owning the lot for 14 years, paying taxes
and now being denied the right to build on the property.
Mr. Strong reiterated that when the lot was purchased, he knew it was small, but no mention
was made that it had to be combined to Lot 8, or that it was unbuildable, and there had been
a house on the lot prior to his purchase. He indicated the proposed home would be built by a
reputable builder and setbacks would be met.
Chair Michael asked if the Commission had comments.
Hanus requested to see Resolution//83-76, it was not in the packet. He stated the Sharp's
purchased their lot in 1960. Hanus addressed the comment fi.om the Assessor at Hennepin
County, which was not dated, and assumed it was some time after the 1982 adoption of the
zoning code. He also stated that there was no lot size requirement in 1960.
The Building Official left the meeting to locate Resolution #83-76.
Mark Koegler responded to Mr. Strong's comments stating his report contained public policy
13
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
objectives coming from the ordinance, and not a personal view.
Chair Michael mentioned a comment from information regarding the Sharp case that it was
reasonably impossible to add footage to the land on Glen Elyn. Was it possible to add land to
Strong's Lot 9 from Lot 8. Mr. Strong stated his lots 7 and 8 totaled about 10,500 square feet,
that could add 500 square feet to Lot 9.
Chair Michael stated then their could be mitigating circumstances. Hanus stated the case was
similar to the Sharp case.
Chair Michael commented on checking the laws that relate to standards when purchasing tax
forfeit land, and that there should be some way for the City to follow up when these lots change
owners. If the City requests these lots be combined, why doesn't the County follow up.
Hanus stated the reason the City wanted to release these lands was to sell to adjacent owners and
then to combine the lots to their current property, thus creating larger lots.
Strong stated if a tax forfeit lot is not sold to adjoining property owners, the lot goes to public
auction. Hanus stated these lots do not go for sale if the City puts restrictions on the property,
then it is not sold at auction.
Weiland stated Strong did not just purchase the land, it had been part of his yard for 14 years,
until now when he is applying for a building permit.
Hanus stated the paper trails have gotten better, it does not appear that Mr. Strong had any
conditions placed on property or notification of conditions.
Chair Michael invited citizens to speak if they wished.
Joyce Matheson, 4944 Crestview Road. She stated she was the other adjacent property owner.
She does not want a house to go on Lot 9, as the lot is small and long. She does not want a
high house to go in there so it overlooks into her yard. A home there would not beautify the
neighborhood.
Hanus stated maybe she could purchase the lot and merge it with hers.
Katherine Kasprzak, 4939 Glen Elyn Road. She stated she lives on Glen Elyn Road, behind
Lot 9. She stated sometimes change is good and the home at 4925 Glen Elyn was an
improvement to the neighborhood. The Strongs should not divide their lots to make an
undersized lot and gain a profit. She went on to say that her neighbor to the west, Brian
Johnson, is so close her children cannot play there.
Joyce Matheson stated they had wanted to buy part of the lot, split with Strongs. They would
14
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
have added it to their property and not build on it.
Strong stated he purchased the lot because homes were going up all around his. When he moved
in, the entire back area where Kasprzaks, Carrows and Sharps have homes now, was woods.
Koegler responded to Ms. Kasprzak's comment regarding the creation of a new undersized lot.
He stated Lot 9 is and has been an existing parcel and Strong was not dividing any property to
create an undersized parcel.
The Planning Secretary located Resolution #83-76. It was given to and reviewed by Council
Liaison Mark Hanus for review.
Chair Michael stated they may have to extend the length of the meeting, according to their work
rules, normal adjournment is 11 PM. He apologized to Bruce Chamberlain, Economic
Development Coordinator, regarding his program not being discussed that evening. He asked
if Bruce could return to the June 23, 1997 meeting. His response was positive.
Hanus had read Resolution #83-76. He asked whether the special assessments had been paid or
waived? They had been waived. He stated if the property was not purchased to build, special
assessments were not collected, he would encourage owner to attach to other lot. He also stated
the County should enforce the issue of requiring situations like this to be attached to current lots.
Chair Michael stated this was difficult, as he has known the applicant for several years.
Kasprzak stated the Johnson's, to their west has variances, and if Strongs build a home on the
property to the rear of them, her yard will be entombed, she would have to get several variances
to build a tree house.
Strong commented that his house was built 15 feet from the road and several lots in the area that
are an odd shape.
Chair Michael stated the biggest hurdle he has is that the land was purchased after the zoning
ordinance was enacted. The City Attorney states in many cases that buyer beware, although he
does suggest that reasonable use of the land be certainly called into question. He stated this was
a struggle and did anyone wish to make a motion or were there more comments?
MOTION by Burma, to recommend denial of the variance request.
The motion was seconded by Michael for the point of discussion. He asked for further
comments.
Burma stated the information presented by the applicant stated a similar case, and they were
similar, but they were also different. The Commission tries to not set a precedence from one
15
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
case to another. Each case should be looked at individually and decided on its own merits.
He was glad he had not been involved with the previous case. He felt that making an
exception, it could come back and haunt the Commission.
Chair Michael asked if the Commission had any further comments. He asked Mr. Strong if he
had any. Mr. Strong reiterated that when the property was purchased, he was not informed that
it was to be combined, there was a house on the property at one time and the water and sewer
are there. Weiland thought they may have been removed.
The vote was called.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Michael to recommend denial of the
variance request to construct a home at 4940 Crestview Road, Lot 9, Block
24, Shadywood Point. The vote carried unanimously, 5-0.
E. CASE #96-62: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, SCOTT & LINDA MACK,
4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, LOT 15,
BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID #30-117-23 22 0086.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, passed out photos he had received from the neighbors to the
west, as the neighbor was concerned about the water runoff.
Sutherland reviewed his report. On October 28, 1996 the Planning Commission tabled this case
requesting the applicant to provide the specific information as listed below. The applicant has
submitted the requested information and the staff comments are listed after each item. He
referred to the original staff report dated 10-28-96 for further reference.
An updated survey including: All existing and proposed structures including
decks, the joint driveway shall be delineated, existing and proposed elevations,
and a drainage and grading plan.
Staff Comments: The survey has been updated and now shows the lakeside deck is set back
43 feet to the lake. A 50 foot setback is required and this results in a 7 foot variance request.
The deck is also encroaching onto the city easements.
The encroachment can be resolved by expanding the easement to the south as required by the
City Public Works Director and the City Engineer. Both the Engineer and the Public Works
Director have reviewed the case, visited the site, and are comfortable with a simple 5-6 foot
expansion of the easement. The applicant must prepare the easement document for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Attorney, and the document must be recorded prior to
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
building permit issuance.
The joint driveway, existing and proposed elevations and a drainage plan are noted on the
revised survey. One option discussed with the owner and contractor is to move the proposed
garage to the north (about three feet away from the entry stairway), in order to save the existing
clump of birch trees. This issue can be accomplished prior to the building permit issuance, and
has a positive impact on drainage with the additional green space between the garage and the
lake.
2. The floor elevation of the proposed garage in relation to the driveway shall be
clarified.
Staff Comments: The floor elevation has been clarified and could be modified slightly if the
garage is moved further to the north as suggested by staff. Three feet was discussed
3. Location of off-site easements on adjacent properties shall be clarified.
Staff Comments: The location of the easements has been clarified and is not affected by the
proposal. (Note: the applicants proposed garage and the adjacent owners garage are about equal
distances to the property line and both will have about the same difficulty with access).
They will both have the same issue.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: The proposed garage will have a minor effect and slightly increase
the runoff/drainage on this and the adjacent properties. Directing stormwater around the west
side is preferred due to the additional green space on this side. The corm-nons property between
this site and the lake minimizes the excess of impervious surface and improves the stormwater
infiltration. The impervious surface is conforming at less than 40 %.
The pictures handed out show and exceptional occasion with the storm runoff, this is not a
normal rainfall runoff. The catch basin could have been blocked. The catch basin could not
handle a 50 year rainfall.
The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is
limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck, however, is located over
the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the lift
station on the southwest corner of the property.
Sutherland stated this is not the perfect situation, but it is manageable. Comments from the city
engineer stated the applicant should propose a drainage plan prepared by a registered land
surveyor. The City Engineer and the building official could meet with the owner on site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request to allow the existing nonconforming deck (after the fact) in
17
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
order to allow the construction of a detached garage that is conforming to the setbacks. The
proposed garage will enhance the use and function of the property. The deck has a minimal
encroachment and is a reasonable use of the riparian property. Approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1)
The encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved by expanding the easement
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent.
2)
The building permit for the garage and deck shall not be issued until proof of the
recording of the easement document has been filed with the City Clerk.
3)
The survey to be submitted with the building permit is subject to the review and approval
of the City Engineer and the Building Official.
Staff feels the garage is a reasonable use of the property. The site is limited due to the utility
easements on the lakeside. That has been an issue on other variance requests. The deck is not
conforming and no permit was taken. This can be corrected, by sliding the easement down.
He emphasized condition #3, to get additional and total review.
Hanus stated he was concerned with expanding the easement, he would rather see moving of
the easement. The expansion doesn't remove the encroachment into the easement, whereas
moving it would. Also, with the expansion to the south, there is big tree where the two
easements intersect. By expanding to the south, the tree is in the middle and it looks like a
truck could get between the easement and the tree. The easement might have to stay in the area.
Hanus commented about the fence on the west side. What had staff found? Sutherland stated
he did not think the fence on the west was permitted. Staff will check.
Hanus commented on the stairway by the south side of the house and there is landscaping that
is going on there. There has been a tree planted in the turning radius for a truck. He also
mentioned looking at the hardcover calculation, and it is in error. He calculated from the survey
and came up with over 40 %. There are many other areas that should be added to the hardcover
calculation. The house is 1228, not 1196 square feet. The driveway itself came up to about
1740 square feet. Also, a large area missed in the hardcover calculation is all around the house
where there is rock placed over plastic, which is exposed, to about 780 +/- feet and that was
on the east, west and south side. Hanus had not calculated the patio and areas on the north side.
He calculated 4284 square feet and he felt it more than that, instead of 3440. The permissable
amount is 4167 sq. ft.
Sutherland stated the poly under the rock could be modified.
Hanus commented regarding the deck on the lakeside. This deck needs to be viewed as new
proposed construction. He wondered if a deck permit would have been issued that is more
18
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
than 10 feet wide and encroaching onto the easement, if a permit could be obtained. He didn't
think it would have happened. He also commented that there are two decks encroaching the
easement.
Chair Michael commented on the required drainage plan. Sutherland stated the drainage on the
neighbors property to the west and the east is going to be worse based on the proposal.
Drainage could be better if the applicant could create other options. However, the site
topography is difficult. The hardcover could be modified and held at 40 %, and the garage could
be conforming, the drainage could be more natural to the contour.
Burma stated a previous issue of the shared driveways, and with a new garage, could the
property to the east have good use of the driveways. Sutherland stated the neighbor has the
same distance issue and the new garage would be the same. If a conflict were to arise, it would
be up to the neighbors to negotiate a solution. The new garage could be guttered and runoff
could be more directional towards the catch basin.
Hanus commented on the pitch of the roof of the proposed garage.
Sutherland stated if the roof gable is running north and south, then half of the water would go
to the east and half to the west, and it could be guttered. The area to the east is hardcover. It
would be better to be guttered over green space. Runoff goes from the applicant's property to
the west slightly and then wraps around a large tree. The elevations are less than the neighbor's
house. Jon stated that the Commission could ask for more specific review comments by the City
Engineer if they were concerned with the drainage issues. This information could either be
provided by the applicant or further review by the' engineer.
Burma commented on the door on the second story of the garage that did not have stairs or sky
rail to the house. Sutherland stated there were no plans at this time to connect to the house, or
the applicant would have provided them. Often there is storage space above, accessed by a
ladder.
Weiland asked if the garage could be
it could, it is conforming. Weiland
building permit issue. Mack stated
attached to the house by way of catwalk. Sutherland stated
commented on the foundation, Sutherland stated it was a
he had no plans to connect the garage to the house.
Chair Michael commented about the deck on the lakeside, had it been there when the house was
built? Mack stated it was supposed to be arranged by the contractor. Sutherland stated there
was no permit for the decks. Mack stated the lower deck was added onto the house as it was
built.
Hanus stated that by the drawing of the original house, in the packet, the lower deck was not
drawn in at all, only the upper deck was drawn on.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9. 1997
Weiland asked about what the law is when something has been built without a permit, do we
make them remove it?
Sutherland stated if they cannot get a building permit, it can be removed. He stated that if it
does not get a building permit, it will be removed.
Weiland suggested that this could be talked about at a workshop meeting.
Hanus stated they were being asked to recognize the non-permitted decks to approve the garage.
Sutherland stated the request for the garage raises the issue of the decks that are not conforming
and do not have a permit history. A permit could be issued, or the deck removed. Part of the
application is to approve the decks as they are, and that would allow an after the fact permit to
be issued according to the current code.
Hanus stated the intention to approve the permitting of the decks. Sutherland stated if the
Council does not approve the after the fact permits, the decks would be removed.
Weiland was opposed to approving the variance for the garage by including approval of the
decks as part of the agreement. If this happened, the non conforming decks could then remain
as is.
Chair Michael stated his major concern is the drainage. But, he doesn't want to see the
applicant not be able to build a garage. He would like to see some plan from the city engineer
or someone to assure him that this will not flood out the neighbors.
Sutherland referred to the Staff report, item #3, and that a survey is to be submitted with the
building permit application subject to the review and approval of City Engineer and Building
Official. If the Commission would like a revised survey prior, or, if the Commission is not
satisfied, this could be requested of the applicant. The City Engineer technically rejected this
survey, but said it is close. We could request the applicant to revise the survey. A drainage
tile system could be dug in the applicant's property could be required, it was an option. It
would have negative affects on the trees. A drain tile on the east side would have to go through
concrete.
Sutherland continued stating this plan is not consistent with the Shoreland Management
Ordinance, as the SMO doesn't want drainage to run over drain tile, it wants the runoff to be
filtered over green space. Perhaps, the solution would be to table this item until the applicant
revises the survey.
Hanus mentioned a small swail at the west end of the garage. With the swail, would it improve
the runoff, what would that envision?
20
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Sutherland stated the review process from the city included both properties, the neighbors need
to work together to accommodate the drainage. The runoff issue in the photos is not a normal
event. These two properties get the drainage from the whole neighborhood. The City could
build a new costly storm sewer and assess the neighbors, or we could encourage the neighbors
to work together. Mr. Smith's property could have his house foundation built up more. The
area of the property is uphill and the drainage from Mr. Smith's house only goes to one side.
There is no existing drainage easement that extends on both sides of the property. Sutherland
referred to new housing developments, that are designed with drainage easements on both sides
of the property. Mr. Smith, by virtue of topography, gets most of the water.
Glister commented on the 50 year rainfall calculation. This rain fall issue could happen any
time.
Mark Smith, 4665 Island View Drive. He is the neighbor to the applicant and stated he had no
problem with the new garage. He wanted a tangible plan regarding runoff. Engineers and
specialists were not willing to put anything in writing what would happen. Maybe, the other
residents in the neighborhood need to be directed to maintain their yards so there is not as much
runoff and erosion that plugs the storm drain.
Joyce Agnew, 4649 Island View Drive. She asked how far the garage was going to be set back,
would there be a mm around? She stated the Mack's currently have a two car garage right now.
Chair Michael stated when anyone in Mound wants to construct something, they should call the
city and inquire as to a building permit.
Jon Sutherland was requested to measure the distance of the garage from driveway.
Sutherland again stated the Commission could direct the applicant to submit a revised and more
complete survey for review by the engineer to address the concerns of the issue. This revised
survey could show the impervious surface limited to 40%, have the revised survey clarify
specifically all of the issues discussed. Also, submit the information to the abutting neighbors
and give them a chance to respond.
Weiland stated they had still not addressed the decks.
Sutherland stated the deck is 43 feet to the lot line, the dimension of the deck is 8' on the west
end, with a 12' bubble. Typically a 10' deck has been acceptable. Perhaps the deck does not
need to encroach into the easement. However, it would still be an encroachment into the
easement. This has been done before. Sutherland suggested meeting Mr. Hanus, Greg Skinner
and himself at the site to discuss the easement. Sutherland stated that changing the easement and
eliminating part of it, would require a public hearing. Hanus stated granting a permit for the
deck and stairway in the easement would not get approval either as it would set a precedence.
21
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Chair Michael asked for a motion to extend the work rules. An extension is needed to continue
the meeting beyond 11 pm. Agreement was to extend until 11:15 pm
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Weiland, and carried unanimously to extend the
meeting until 11:15 PM.
Mark Smith stated he would like it in writing and be able to understand the stormwater runoff
situation.
Chair Michael assured him that the drainage report that would be prepared by the city engineer
would be the one that the City will follow, if it is legal, it will be approved.
Hanus asked Smith if he would be willing to share the property where the swail is now? Smith
commented that it is shared now.
Sutherland stated changing the easement issue was subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer. The easement proposal, revised survey, revised drainage plan, accurate hardcover
specifications, needs to come from the applicant then the city will review it. The engineer and
attorney will comment.
The applicant, Scott Mack, thought the issues were provided in October. Sutherland stated the
information he provided, is not enough. The survey does not show where the water is going,
there is no documented evidence on the plan where the water is going. Maybe, you could get
a different surveyor. We have worked hard on this issue. The survey is still lacking much
needed information. The hardcover sheet is inaccurate, it needs to be addressed and corrected.
Sutherland further stated that the neighbor, Smith, could raise the grade of his property.
However, that would be much to ask of the neighbor to raise his grade to accommodate you.
Mr. Mack did not understand what to do for a plan.
Mark Koegler, City Planner, stated he could work with a civil engineer for example to do some
calculations and come up with the amount of stormwater that is coming through there now, the
amount that is coming off of the new roof, depending which way k is directed. That plan could
contain existing and proposed spot elevations and contours that would show the drainage pattern
and where it is going. John Cameron, City Engineer, may want to look at some of their
computations as to how much water is coming through there. That is the only way they can
assess how much is going into Mr. Smith's property and how much will go on your property.
22
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Chair Michael made the following motion to approve the variance request pending
the satisfactory completion by the applicant of the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
The revised survey and a revised drainage plan that would be submitted to
the City Engineer for review and comments.
There would be an impervious surface limit to 40%
The deck would be modified to 10' where it did not meet the 50' setback
from the easement.
Slightly modify the easement
The fence is not permitted to be in the easement, it needs to be reviewed.
Chair Michael moved, seconded by Glister.
Hanus questioned the motion as to it was to table the item until the issues are dealt with, or the
motion to approve subject to those conditions being corrected?
Michael would like motion be approve subject to the conditions. If the repons come to the
Building Official and Engineer and they approve them, it is fine with Michael.
Weiland, asked if the conditions were not met, it would come back to the Planning Commission?
Koegler stated yes.
Burma asked if they approve the request, are they revising the deck, to the 10'. Hanus stated
yes, but it still encroaches.
The vote was called, the vote carried 5-0.
This goes to the Council on June 24, 1997. Sutherland said if the information gets to staff in
time, and approved by staff, copies will go to the neighbors also.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister and carried by all to adjourn. The vote
was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 pm
Chair
Attest
23
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 24, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, June 24, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City
Attorney John Dean, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Koegler, and City Clerk Fran Clark.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a CouncihT~ember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda th, at are not listed and/or
items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO MOUND
WESTONKA GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM. (THIS SHOULD BE DONE
WHEN TEAM ARRIVES AT ABOUT 8:30 P.M.)
CONSENT AGENDA:
*A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1997 REGULAR MEETING.
*B.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 17, 1997 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING.
*C.
CASE 97-21: VARIANCE FOR DECK, JlM& SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE,
LOT 7 & 8 P/8, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0005.
*D.
CASE 97-22: VARIANCE FOR SHED, DOUGLAS EASTHOUSE, 3042 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE, LOTS 50-51, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1sr DIV., PID//19-117-23 34 0075.
CASE 97-23: VARIANCE FOR DECK, KENNETH & CAROL GRABOW, 1732 CANARY
LANE, LOT 10, 11, 12, BLOCK 11, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 24 0015.
*F. PAYMENT OF BILLS.
5. FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION MODIFICATION, CALIBER
BUILDERS, FRED JOItNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTS, LOT 3, BLOCK
.j./ll~,: 1, PID #25-11%24 12 0233.
6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
7. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: REQUEST TO
SELL CONCESSIONS AT MOUND BAY PARK DEPOT, WESTONKA HELPING YOUTII
(WHY). . ,,,~?
8. DISCUSSION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 235:27, SUBD. 1 OF THE
CITY CODE RELATlNG TO RECREATIONAL FIRES.