The URL can be used to link to this page

85-02-26 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1985 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes of February 12, 1985, Regular Meeting Pg. 392-403 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills for February Pg. 404 CASE #8~-qO?; Danial E. Sicheneder, 1742 Shorewood Lane, Part of Lots 20 & 21, Block 4, Shadywood Point Request: Front Yard Setback Variance Fence Height Variance Pg. 405-415 CASE ~8~-q02: Cal Haasken/Val Wirt'z, 3301 Warner Lane, W. 1/2 of Lot 54, Whipple Shores Request: Rear Yard Variance CASE #85-~10: Tim White, 2137 Cen~erview Lane, Lots 29 & 30, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park Request: Setback Variance Pg. 416-426 Pg. 427-432 Set Date for Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment of District Provisions and Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance No. 422 to Regulate Satellite Dish Antennas (Proposed Date: March 26, 1985) Pg. 433 Resolution Denying a Request for a Lot Size Variance at 1721 Dove Lane and Stating Findings of Fact Pg. 434-437 Quotations to Abandon City Water Wells No. 2 and No. 5 and Remodel Well Plumbing in No. 7 Pull Well - Pump No. 2 Keys Well Drilling Co. Stevens Well Co~ 950.00 808. O0 Pull Pump #5 and Grout Keys Well Drilling Co. Stevens Well Co. $2,300.00 $1,692.00 Remodel Plumbing in Well No. 7 Keys Well Drilling Co. Stevens Well Co. $2,550.00 $2,513.70 Pg. 438-441 9. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Page 390 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Request To Use Public Launch Near Mound Bay Park for Bass Tournament on June 8, 1985 Resolution Designating Additional Official Depositories for 1985 (Dain Bosworth, Inc., Kidder Peabody & Co., Offerman & Co., Inc.) Shoreland Management Ordinance (Discussion) ?~, 442 Pg. 443 Pg. 444-508 License Renewals: Cigarette Licenses, Garbage Haulers License and Bingo Permit Pg. 509-510 Proclaim March 3-10, 1985, Volunteers of America Week Pg. 511-512 Pg. 513 525 Pg. 526 Pg. 527 Pg. 528 Pg. 529-536 Pg. 537 Pg. 538 Pg. 539-545 Pg. 546 Pg. 547 Pg. 548-549 Pg. 550-553 Pg. 554-567 Payment of Bills INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Letter of Resignation of Park Director B. Letter of Resignation of Officer Bill Roth C. Gambling Report American Legion Post 398 D. Listing of Property Sales thru ~ebr.uary 1984 E. Donation Received from Helen Sharet F. Article on IRB Bond Issue G. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting 2/11/85 H. Letter from Hickok & Associates to MWCC I. Letter from Gen Olson J. Leaf Composting Information K. Twin Cities Labor Market Information L. 1985 Legislative Program Regional Tr. ansit Page 391 21 February 12, 1985 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on February 12, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also present were.: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Insurance Agent Earl Bailey, Insurance Consultant Bill Husbands, Recycling Committee Members Wendy Anderson, Jackie Meyer, Joyce Nelson and Kathy Kluth and the follOwing interested citizens: Ada Shepherd, George Shepherd, Sr. and George Shepherd, Jr., Steve Coddon, Coral P. Kruce, Florence Yule, Gloria Briggs, Virginia Crawford, Frank Ahrens, Jerry Petrowski, Dr. Chuck Carlson, Eldo Schmidt, Karen Holmberg, · Tod Holly, E. G. Schlee, Saul Smiley. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the January 22, 1985, Regular Council Meeting were presented for'consideration. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the January 22, 1985, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. "Motion. carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (SETBACK VARI- ANCES, LOCATIONAL VARIANCES), COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TOWN SOUARE PROJECT City Planner Mark Koegler explained that alt, three action items are related. He then presented the exhibit and explained the project. REZONING He explained that the project requires the rezoning of the northeast corner of the property from R-3 to B-1. The single famiIy residence located on the R-3 parcel would have to be removed making the property available for commercial development. The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions. There were none. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against the rezoning. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. February 12, 1985 The City Attorney recommended that no action be taken on this item at this time and the Council go on to the next public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The City Planner explained that under the current ordinances a drive-in bank facility is considered a conditional use in the B-1 zone. There'are also performance standards in the ordinance and the proposed bank location is not consistent with those in the following areas:' 1. Under the ordinance, driVe-in facilities are prohibited within 400 feet of churches. The existing church is within approximately 300 feet of the proposed drive-in bank. Thus requiring a 100 foot variance. 2. The performance standards state that loudspeakers shall not be located within 400 feet of any residentially zoned property or with 200 feet of any adjacent lot. As proposed, loudspeaker locations would fall within 255 feet of the adjacent church lot, approximately 86 feet from the lot across the street and within 320 feet of the R-3 zoning property along the eastern side of the Town Square site. ~ He further stated that is it very unlikely that the location of the bank or use of the loudspeakers will negatively impact any neighboring parcels. However, the site plan will require a 114 foot variance to the provision regulating the distance to an adjacent lot and an 80 foot variance from the required distance to a residential use. The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions. 'There were none. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone have any comments for or against the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The City Planner explained that the Mound Comprehensive Plan designates the Town Square parcel as commercial and residential in concurrence with the existing zoning. Thus, approval of the Town Square site plan will require an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan. This amendment requires formal review b~ the Metropolitan Council. The City Attorney recommended that the Council deal with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment first before taking action on the other items because Council approval of that and review by the Metro Council must happen before Town Square can move ahead. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: 23 February 12, 1985 RESOLUTION ~85-16 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SUBMITTING AN AMENDMENT OF MOUND'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE METROLPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR REVIEW Councilmember Paulsen asked if there was going to be a problem with ingress and egress at the bank. The City Planner stated that he felt this will be worked out. Councilmember Smith stated that he was not'.on the Council when this project was conceived and the TIF District was setup so he has some questions about the project and TIF that he knows cannot be answered tonight. The questions were: - How may new jobs will be created by the project? - Was a market impact study done? - What is the breakeven point? - Is there a market for this project? - Was a study done on how non-subsidized businesses will be impacted? - What revenues will be generated? Councilmember Smith further stated that he will have to vote against this project because it is a tax increment district and the public is taking the risk. He stated that at the recent League Conference LegislatoW Moe stated that TIF is risky for retail centers because of the 'Possible property tax reduction and because it should be used for industrial development not retail centers. He continued that the State Auditor has. stated, that TIF is over-utilized and if the bank and clinic will not put their money into the project why should the citizens. It might have a negative impact on other businesses in Mound. Mr. Saul Smiley was present and explained that this project has been 3 years in the making. The clinic, the bank, the drug store are existing businesses and John Bierbaum is assuring that other retail shops will be in the center. He stated that this project will be a good catalyst and will enhance other businesses property values. Mayor Polston stated that this project has been'in the planning for several years and at the time it started not alot was happening downtown. The Council had a choice to either ignore the downtown area and do nothing which would have caused downtown to continue to deteriorate or do something which will enhance the values downtown and make downtown desireable. Councilmember Jessen stated that she is aware that other cities have abused TIF but that Mound has only one industrial area, Tonka, and needs the TIF for the retail center. She stated that she is sure the existing businesses will make the center go. February 12, 1985 Councilmember Paulsen stated that this has been a long and tedious process and everyone, including Councilmember Smith, had a chance months ago to give input on the project if they wished. Councilmember Smith stated that he was just~urging caution because he feels there may be major changes 'in legislation that council affect TIF. Councilmember Peterson asked the City Attorney if he knew of any impending legislation .that could affect TIF.. The Attorney answered that he was not aware of any at this pOint. Councilmember Peterson stated that he has watched this TIF plan develop and it has been a difficult process, but he has confidence that Mound will progress and this will be a good project for the City. The vote .in RESOLUTION #85-16 was four in favor with Councilmember Smith voting nay. Motion carried. Councilmember Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a m'otion to continue Item 2.A. Rezoning and I~em 2.C. Conditional Use Permit for Town Square to a future meeting. This will allow time to submit the amended Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE...PERMIT FOR TOWNHOMES, AT 52~, 5257, 5271 & 5285 EDEN ROAD, LOTS 2],. 22, 23, ~ 2~ BLOCK 2~ SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F The City Manager explained that the applicant, Eugene G. Schlee, would like to construct two four-unit townhouse structures in the B-1 zoning district which requires a Conditional Use Permit~ The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval subject to six (6) conditions. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. No one responded. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Peterson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-17 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES, TWO GROUPS OF FOUR ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS (B-l) ZONE IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF EDEN ROAD, PID ~13-117-24 34 0034/0035/0036/0037 : The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 25 February 12, 1985 CASE ~8~-~02; STEVE CODDON, 1721 DOVE LANE,' LOT 6t, BLOCK DREAMWOOD, LOT SIZE VARIANCE The City Manager explained that the applicant is requesting a 2800 square foot lot size variance to remove an existing 609 square foot (plus or minus) structure and replace it with a conforming single family dwelling. The zoning in the R-2 District requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet. City records indicate the structure on the property has been vacant since June of 1982. The 1984 property tax information sheet indicates that the present structure on the property is valued at $100.00. The Planning Commission recommended denial because it would require granting a variance of almost 50% of the lot size. Mr. Coddon was present and explained that this was originally a summer cottage built in about 1920. It has had additions and extensions added to it and was used as a year round home from 1 950 to 1 976 by the original owner. Mr. Coddon recently · purchased it and originally wanted to fi'x it up enough to resell it as a handyman's special. When he had the Building Inspector over to look at it she suggested he tear it down and start over. That is why he is here tonight asking to be allowed to tear it down and replace it with a home the same size with a tuck under garage. The cottage has a full sewer assessment, water assessment and street assessment. He stated there is no property on either side to purchase to make the lot buildable. Councilmember Smith a~ked what the value of the property is now. Coddon.replied $11,500. Smith asked what the new home value would be. Coddon replied $60,000. Smith asked what the value would be if he fixed it up and sold it. Coddon replied,: in the $30,000 range. Mr. Coddon stated that if he were allowed to build a new home it would comply with all setbacks and size of home. Councilmember Jessen asked Mr. Coddon if he was aware when he purchased to the lot that it was undersized. Mr. Coddon stated, yes he knew it was undersized but that he onl,y intended to repair it when he purchased it. The Building InsPector stated that if Mr. Coddon were to rebuild.the present strucC<ure he would have to start from the foundation and go up. The building presently does not have frost footings, is inadequately insultated, only had a small space heater, wiring is bad, roof leaks, etc. Mr. Coddon stated he would rather remove the present stucture and replace it with a new home, but if he is not granted a lot size variance, he is prepared to do only what is necessary to repair it and resell it as a handyman's special. Councilmember Peterson asked the City Attorney what the code restrictions are in repairing a structure on a nonconforming lot. The City Attorney stated that there are several sections of the ordinance which might apply to the situation. One states that February 12, 1985 repairs (non-structural) can be done if the repairs do not constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of such structure. Another section states that when a nonconforming use of a structure or land is discontinued for 12 months, any future use shall be in conformity with the provisions in the ordinance. Mayor Polston reminded the Council that the request before the Council is .to tear the structure down and build a new home. Mayor Polston moved and Peterson seconded a motion to refer this matter.to the staff to.prepare a finding of fact for denial of the lot size variance request. Karen Holmberg, 1729 Canary Lane, submitted 2 petitions regarding the structure at 1721 Dove Lane. The first read as follows: "We the undersigned support the Mound Advisory Planning Commission's January 14, 1985, ruling against Case No. 85-402 and are opposed to a lot size variance that would allow a house to be built on ONE, 40 x 80 lot at 1721 Dove Lane (Lot 6, Block 11, Dreamwood) because this variance would be in violation of Mound's 198.1 Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum of 6,000 squ'are feet (TWO, 40 x 80 lots) in order to-build a 2800 square foot dwelling." Signed by 45 persons. The other read as follows: "We the undersigned would like to see the run-down, abandoned structure (valued at $100) at 1721 Dove Lane (Lot 6, Block 11, Dreamwood) condemned and removed as it is a fire hazzard, health hazzard and unsightly "eye- sore" to our lovely, lakeside community." Signed by 44 persons. She also submitted pictures of the structure at 1721 Dove Lane and a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Freidricks of 1709 Dove Lane stating that the structure is unrepairable and should be condemned and that it was their understanding that when the previous owner no longer lived there, it would be condemned. Mrs. Holmberg stated that she has done some research and found the at the water meter was removed in October of 1981 for nonpayment of the bill and that the structure has been vacant since April 1981 or almost 4 years. The Mayor had a telephone call and turned the meeting ove~ to Acting Mayor Pe%erson. The Building Inspector stated that in her opinion the cottage is structurally unsound and should be condemned. The vote on the original motion to refer to staff for findings of fact for denial was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston absent and excused. Motion carried. Mayor Polston returned to the meeting. 27 February 12, 1985 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO BEGIN ACQUISITION & RELOCATION PLANS FOR LYNWOOD BLVD, REALIGNMENT MSA PROJECT The City Manager explained that we are now ready to proceed with the acquisition and relocation part of the this project. He submitted a proposal from Von Klug & Associates for a maximum of $9,500.00 for acquisition services and $4,500 for relocation services. These services will include working with the bakery and the'locksmith primarily. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-18 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT (EXHIBIT "A") WITH YON KLUG & ASSOCIATES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1~,500. FOR THE LYNWOOD BLVD. MSA PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PROPOSAL FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM The Recycling Committee (Wendy Anderson, "Jackie Meyer, Joyce Nelson and Kathy Kluth) was present and explained their proposal to the Council. Ms. Anderson stated that Hauler C in the proposal has~indicate~ that he would drop the fee per month of the City Wide recycling from $1200/per month to $450/per month if we had. 40% participation. The City Manager stated that the Staff costs would probably be. cbnsiderably lower than the amount in the proposal because we would try to use Public Works to monitor the program. Ms. Anderson stated that we should be able to get 80% funding from Hennepin County for this project, which would leave approximately $7,405.81 to come from the General Fund or be assessed back to citizens. ,, Councilmember Jessen sugge, sted cutting publicity costs by cooperating with other organizations in the community who put out calendars, etc. Councilmember Smith asked what revenues would be generated by this Program. The Committee answered none, because the revenues are taken by the hauler who inturn reduces the hauling rates. Councilmember Smith then asked if other communities who h'ave recycling programs were contacted to see if they were gaining revenues. The Committee reported that they contacted approximately 12 other communities andonly 1 was generating revenues from the program. Delano, and they are only because all their workers are volunteers from the community. February 12, 1985 Councilmember Smith stated that he felt this should be a self- supporting program. Councilmember Paulsen asked how the Committee thought they would get the public enthused about recycling. Ms. Anderson stated they had talked about some amount of credit being given on sewer and water bills. Jackie Meyer stated that recycling is a necessity if we do not want to be buried in garbage someday. .Councilmember Jessen stated tha't she is on Hennepin County's Solid Waste Task Force and that the Metro Council is proposing that there be no more landfill dumping by 1990 so she is glad we are starting now to get prepared. She commended the Committee on their work. Councilmember Paulsen commended the Committee on their work and stated that consumers must do something to conserve. Mayor Polston stated that since Mound took the stand against a landfill site when Minnetrista was being considered, he is glad to see we are trying to do something to conserve our resources before it is mandated that we do something. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to accept the Report of the Recycling Committee and authorizing the Staff to refine costs, determine a hauler, and proceed to obtain funding for this project. The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Smith voting nay. Motion carried. CITY INSURANCE PACKAGE Insurance Agent Earl Bailey and Insurance Consultant Bill Husbands were present and asked if there were any questions sbout the cover letter from Mr. Bailey. The Council commended Mr. Bailey on the thorough job of covering everything in his letter. The quotes submitted were as follows:" The Hartford ..$117,102 The Home $ 92,347 League of MN. Cities $103,776 Nat'l Union $140,240 The City Manager reported that we had budgeted $102,000 so the Home quote is within budget. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-19 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 1985 INSURANCE PACKAGE FROM HOME INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $92,3~7 29 February 12, 1985 The votewas unanimously infarct. Motion' carried. COMMENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. PROPOSED WINE IN GROCERY STORE LEGISLATION Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm was present and'explained that there is proposed legislation to allow wine in grocery stores. He asked that the Council write a letter to Gen Olson and John Burger urging them not to support this legislation. Reasons for this would be not only because it would hurt the municipal liquor store profits which are used for important community projects but it would be difficult to monitor sales, especially to minors and would allow wine to be sold at hours different from those allowed in liquor stores. The Council discussed this item in detail and agreed to oppose the legislation. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to direct the City Manager to write a letter to our Legislators Gen Olson and John Burger expressing Mound's opposition to the sale of wine in grocery stores. The vote was unanimously in favor, Motion carried. Oo ANNOUNCEMENT OF MET COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING SEWER CAPACITY The City Manager presented a letter from the Metro Waste :Control Commission proposing a meeting for Thursday, February 21, 1985, at 7:00 P.M. in the Mound City Council Chambers with the Metro Council. This meeting will include the discussion of the sewer capacity concerns of Mound and area communities. Spring Park, Orono, and Minnetrista have also been invited. The Manager encouraged all who could to attend. PAYMENT OF BILL ALLIED PAINTING ~ RENOVATING ~ The City Manager explained" that the 1st pay estimate in the amount of $26,421.50 from Allied Painting and Renovating for the 1984 elevated tank restoration and improvements has been approved by Hickok & Associates for payment. We will still retain 10% for reasons outlined in John Lichter's letter of January 8, 1985. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve.the 1st pay estimate for Allied Painting & Renovating in the amount of $26,421.50. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. February 12, 1985 SET DATE FOR 1~8~ BOARD OF. REVIEW Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set Tuesday, May 28, 1985, at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers for the 1985 Board of Review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DOCK INSPECTOR'S CONTRACT The City Manager explained that the only difference between this contract and last years is that we will pay Mr. Rudolph $8.00 and we will not pay his mileage. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-20 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1985 DOCK INSPECTOR'S CONTRACT AS PRESENTED The vote was u.nanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion 'to approve the bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $194,800.01, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set March 12, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. for a Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit for a gas station/convenience store at 53XX Shoreline Blvd., PID #13-117-24 34 0061/0064 and part of 13-117-2q 34 0065, Super America. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set March 12, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. for a Public Hearing on Pelican Point applications for rezoning from R-1 to R-q; height, setback and parking stall size variances; conditional Use Permit approval for a planned development area; preliminary plat review and a comprehensive plan amendment for lands lying generally easterly from Tuxedo Blvd. & southerly of East Port Road - PID ~19-117-23 31 0003/0087/0088 and 19-117-23 42 0001. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ae LMCD Hearing Notices - Surfside Dock License and Boat Size Limitations for Lake Minnetonka. 31 De I. J. K. L® P. Q. R. S. T. February 12, 1985 Notice from PublicUtilitie$ Comm{$$ion - Re Continentsl rejection of rate increase· Proposed LMCD Ordinances. 1. Prohibiting the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages on Lake Minnetonka; Amending LMCD Code Section 4.41. 2. Limiting the Size of Boats and Watercraft on Lake Minnetonka, Adding New LMCD Code Section 4.021. Metr° Council Review - January 11, 1985 January 25, 1985 Chamber Waves for February, 1985. Labor Market Information for January, 1985. Article from Mpls. Tribune regarding crosswalks. AMM Newsletter from January. Downtown Idea Exchange - January 15, 1985 February Calendar Clipping from Wayzata News January 18. 1985, municipal docks. regarding Story from 'iCMA NeWsletter "Noah Builds an Ark in Decatur" Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes of January 14, 1985. Notice from Hennepin County - Re: in 1985. Rip-Rap on Seton Channel Memo Regarding IRB's. Gambling Report from American Legion for December 31, 1984. Wasteline - Met Council for January, 19851. Minutes of' Hennepin Co~'n~:'y Solid Waste Committee. Notice from Citizens League. Planning Commission Minutes from January 28, 1985. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:05 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Fran Clark, City Clerk Jon Elam.~ City Manager BILLS FEBRUARY 12,.1985 Air Comm 164.00 Burlington Northern 533.33 Henn Co. Treas 204.60 Henn Co. Fire Chiefs 10.O0 Henn Co. Chiefs of Police 20.00 Internatl Conf Bldg Officials 50.00 Lake Region Mutual Aid 10.00 Minn Comm 287.50 Metro Fone Communications 35.40 MN Crime Prevention Offic Assn 15.OO Pitney Bowes'. 59.25 Brad Roy 35.00 Saliterman, LTD 1,O70.63 Xerox Corp 170.4~, 18 37 64 82 2,665. Computer run 52,879. " 106,896. " 32,358. Grand Total ' 194,800. Feb radio contract RR lease to 2/15 Spec assessmnt fee 85 Dues 85 Dues Appllcation-Cert Exam 85 Dues Annual pager rent Feb pager rent Dues-Harrell Postage Meter--3-6/85 Reimb-eye glasses Feb rent-Liq store Feb pymt--Xerox 5600 O1 Delinquent water and sewer 2-20-85 11 001 1747 01 Pat Pletsch 010 !7~-~~~ 11 013 1689 31 Linde Hinch¢liff 11 022 1562 92 Kevin Clarke 025 1595 21 N.J.Hammerlund 11 031 1673 52 Neil Cook 11 031 1717 O1 Craig Hillerns 11 031 172t 21 Craig Hillerns 11 034 1742 21 Clarence DeWanz 11 058 5016 61 A. Alvarez 11 058 5016 61 A. Anderson 11 067 1904 81 Wa. yne Burkhalter 1~-~4~7--M9~-4~1 Jack Br~az_i_Le_ 11 067 1959 21 Creigh Thompson 11 070 1927 31 A.J.Chapman 11 085 4960' 91 Tom Hetty 11 085 5040 92 Tim Heyman 11 088 2147 91 David Heinsch 11 112 5917 01 Thomas Jerde 11 124 6090 01 Doug Rodewald 11 139 6200 31 John La'ughlin 11 166 2257 01Verlin Rayne 1-I I 11 187 5444 71 Suzanne Mc Queen ~i '] 2]4 2201 63 Jim Mc Namee -~4--224~-2180 Paid $1 7.5z 8o.8 o 192.93 107.69 1747 Lafayette Ln. 1733 Baywood Shores Dr. 1689 Avocet Ln. 1562 Dove Ln. Paid $40 O0 ~ · ~.841/~-~595 Eagle Ln. Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid -93.10 113.69 70.18 128.54 90.05 331.68 86.71 109.98 ~o~.71- 5O 4O 39 10 93 61 1 37 85 101 10 64 74 160.59 102.95 121.20 88.04 ~I1', I ~'- 62.99 1656 Finch Ln. 1673 Gull Ln . 1717 Gull Ln. 1721 Gull Ln. 1742 Heron Ln. 5000 Enchanted Rd. 5016 Enchanted Rd. 1904 Shorewood Ln. 1920 Shorewood Ln. 1957 Shorewoo'd Ln. 1927 Lakeside Ln. 4960- Three Pts. Blvd. 5040 Three Pts. Blvd. '2147 Grandview Blvd. 5917 Gumwood Rd. 6090 Aspen Rd. 6200 Birch Rd. 2257 Cottonwood Rd. 6256 Lynwood Blvd. 5444 Tonkawood Rd. 2149 Belmont Ln. 2201 Centerview Ln. 2180 Cardinal Ln. $3579.63 $2568.38 Delinquent water and sewer 2-20-85 11 001 1747 O1 11 010 1733 11 11 013 1689 31 11 022 1562 92 11 025 1595 21 11 028 1656 61 11 031 1673 52 11 031 1717 O1 11 031 1721 21 11 O34 1742 21 11 058 5016 61 11 058 5016 61 11 067 1904 81 11 067 1920 41 11 067 1959 21 11 070 1927 31 11 085 4960 91 11 085 5040 92 11 088 2147 91 11 112 5917 O1 11 124 6090 O1 11 139 6200 31 11 166 2257 O1 11 169 6256 21 11 187 5444 71 11 199 2149 O1 11 214 2201 63 11 220 2180 91 $197.52 280.80 192.93 107.69 156.84 93.10 113.69 70.18 128.54 90.05 331.68 86.71 109.98 283.71 5O.4O 3~.1o 93.61 137.85 lO1.1o 64.74 160.59 1 O2.95 121.20 91.11 88.O4 141.54 62.99 80.99 $3579.63 Yo¥ CASE NO. 85-407 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of February II, 1985: Board of Appeals Case No. 85-407 Location: 1742 Shorewood Lane Legal Desc.: Part of Lots 2I and 20 as de- scribed per attached., Block 4, 'Shadywood Point Request: Two (2) front yard setback variances and fence height variance Zoning District: R-2 Applicant Daniel E. Sicheneder I733 Shorewood Lane Mound, MN.'55364 The applicant is proposing to'~onstruct a 35 foot by 30 foot dwelling with an attached two story 22 by 24 foot garage and living area above ("L" shape). The proposed setbacks to the south is 15.23 feet and to the west is il feet off of Shorewood Lane. The proposed.garage would be approximately 25 feet in height~ above the street elevation at the southwest lot corner and 21 feet in height~ above the street, elevation at the northwest lot corner. He is ~_ro_pcz~in~ a 7 f___oot h~ 7r!'.'?~y_f_~nce along his south property line adjace_~?t tn Su~ri~ -[~. The applicant is a p'ro~p&ct~ve"D~yer tor the p~operty subdivided in '"A-pril, 1983, Resolution No. 83-59. The Zoning Code Section 23.408(5) states that lots which abut two or more streets shall provide the required front yards along every street (except for lots of record). The R-2 Zoning District requires 20 foot front yards and IO foot side- yard (except for. lots of.record). Comment s: The Sunrise Landing street is an unimproved right-of-way. The set- backs, if we allow for.lots of record, would be 6 foot sideyard, 20 foOt front yard, 20 foot front yard and a 50 foot la'keshore setback. The formerly approved subdivision did .not accomplish much of a change in the shape of the property. Basically, it squared up the (2) two lots of record, Lots 20 and 2I, by 5 feet+. The lot is shallow, 99.8 feet average. The lakeshore setback~f 50 feet and the 20 feet Shorewood Lane setback Would allow a structure of 29.8 feet (east to west). The lot width of 55 feet would allow a structure of 25 feet with a 10 foot sideyard and a 20 foot front yard (north to south). The lot changes at the north side, west to east, 9.2 feet and south side, west to east,. 5~8 feet. The west side of the property being higher at street side. The Fence Ordinance Section 23.415 allows 48 inches in height in the (street) front yard, 36 inches in height adjacent to shoreline meas- ured from the average.building construction iine, 50 feet~with a maximum of a 72 'inch (6 feot) fence. Recommend: Staff would recommend a 6'foot, l0 foot and a 20 foot setback due to shallowness and topography of the lot conditioned upon: 1) Driveway access to be from the improved right-of-way of Shorewood Lane;; 2) If the 2 story structure mass is an obstruction at Shorewood Lane, the 20 foot front yard could-be from the west property line; 3) Watershed District approval. Staff does not recommend the 7 foot high privacy fence as requested. ~ ,~ The abutting neighbors have been notified. Jan Bertrand Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 - Page 6 Case No.. 85-407 Two Front Yard Setback Variances & a.Fence Height Variance for 1742 Shorewood Lane -.Part of Lots 2~ & 20, Block 4, Shadywood Point Daniel E, Sicheneder and Keith Kullberg were present. The Building Official reviewed her report explaining applicant wants to con- struct a 1578'square foot dwelling ~ith an attached 2 story'garage with living area above. Garage would be about 25 feet in height above the street elevation at the SW lot corner and 2.1 feet at NW }or-corner. He is proposing an 84 inch' high privacy fence along property line.adjacent to Sunrise Landing which is unimproved. Discussed proposal at length; setbacks for lot of record and that basically ' the subdivision in 1983 squared up the two lots of record and the hardship is the shallowoess of the lot and its topography. Meyer moved and Vargo seconded a mot.ion to approve allowi'ng c6nstruct.ion of his house as planned with the two requested setback variances'with drive off of Shorewood except not allow fence height variance request. Discussed fence and that applicant believes fence from back of house to street would block out noise from snowmobiles, etc. Weiland thought using a 48 inch fence on the level part of property plus having a drainage ditch next to it would give him privacy. City Manager mentioned that any posts can not impede flow in the ditch.' ~ The vote was all in favor, ~xcept Jensen was opposed. Motion carried. This will be on the City Council agenda of February 26, 1985. e !C .TY.,,OF Street Address of' Property Legal Description of Property: Lot ' CITY OF HOUND Fee Pald ~':~.~,~ Date Filed PLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Block Add1 tion Owner's Address Applicant (if other than owner): Name.~:,~.~.~ ~. ~;c.~-~.-~-~ Day Phone No.~-~ · Address (~ ~'~/~-~-~ uvx.-.-..( ~- ,.~'t'~-¢,~ ,.~,~.~..~.,~ ~ 5--~'-~'~ Type of Request: Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D; ( ) Amendment ( ).Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: ~,. Present Zoning District 7. Existing Use(s) of Property 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property?~/~. If so,'list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken ~nd$ provide Resolution No.(s) ~_~--~-~: Copies of previous~resolutions shall accompany present request. 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. .' Signature Of Appl leant /-~~'~. . Date, Planning Commission RecoMmendation: to approve allowing construction of his house as planned with the two requested setback variances with driveway off of Shorewood except not allow fence height varianc~ Date 2-11-85 · Council Action: Resolution No. ~O? Date 2-26-85 4/82 Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (,2) Case # D. Location of: Signs, e sements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indlcate North compass dlrect$on F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zonin9 Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property'conform to.al. 1 use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes(~) No ( ) If "no", specify each nOn-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply withXall ~ea hel t and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is )ocatedl Yes ( ) No ~) If "no~, specify each non-conform)n~ use: D. ~hlch 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 { ) Sub-surface {~ Too shallow { ) Shape ( } Other: Specify: , E. Was the hardship described above created by the action Of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes (f) No ()~ If yes, explain: .~.'JJ-~i-~r, ~L.k~,i,~'~,;-:, ~,'..'~. F. ~as v U '.' ' ~ ' the hardship created by any oth~ man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes { } No ~ if yes, explain: G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No (x~) If no, how many other properties are similarly aff_ected? H.~ ~hat is the "minimum" ~dification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations ~ that wilJ permit you to makQ reasonable use of your land? .(Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) ~,,~ ~?~-'~,~c ~:'; ~C~ . L~r~' ~,~ ~--~. ~ . ~c ~ ~,..,-, I. ~]~ g~ntlng of th~ wrlan~ b~ materially detrimental tO property in ~ame zone, or to the ~nfor~ent of thl~ o~dinan~? Counc~member Charon moved the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO, 83-59 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIV.ISION OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT - PID #13-117-21~ 11 0020 - THAT WILL MAKE THE TWO LOTS CONFORMING WITH BOTH LOTS AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET · WHEREAS, an application to walve the subdivision requirements contained in · Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request'for a waiver has been reveiewed by the City Councli and the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS; it is determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive'the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessa.ry for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right;'and that granting t~e waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to -. other owners, and WHEREAS, this subdivision will make each lot at least.6,0OO.sqOare feet which is the proper square footage in the R-2 Zoning District. NOW,. THEREFORE, BE.IT RESQLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNES0'~: 1.' That the request of Keith Kullberg for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide propert~ of less than five acres, described as Lots 20 and 21', Block 4, Shadywood Point - PIP .#13-117-24 11 0020 - is approved ~o be divided ad follows: PARCEL "A" - That part of Lots 20 and 21, Block. 4, Shadywood Point, according'to.the recorded plat thereof lying northerly of the following described line and its westerly~extension: Commencin~ at the northwest corner of said Lot 211 thence southerly, al.ong the westerly'{'lihe of said Lot 21 a distance'of 5.00 feet to the point of beginning, of the line to be described; thence deflect 86 degrees 55 minutes ll seconds le~t to the easterly line of said Lot 20 and there terminating. PARCEL "B"'- That part of Lots 20.and 21, Block 4,. Shadywood Point, according to the recorded p!at thereof lying southerly of the following described line and i'ts easterly extension: Commencing ~t the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence southerly, along the westerly line of said Lot 21 a distance of 5.00 feet to ~he point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect ~6 degrees 55 minutes ll seconds left to the easterly line of said Lot. 20 and there terminating. That any deficiencies on said property resulting.from division are to be paid in full or waivers signed. It is determined that the foregoi.ng division will constitute a .. des. ir,able and stable community development and is in harmony with o adjacent properties. The owner shall submit as (EXHIBIT "A") a new survey showing the proper division. The City Clerk is authorized to.deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the Office of ~he Register of Deeds' o.r the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin"County to show compliance.with the subdivisi'on regulations of this City. .A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Paulsen and upon vote.being taken thereon; the followihg voted · in favor thereof: Charon, Paulsen and Polston; the following voted against the same: none; with Peterson and Swenson being absent and excusedl whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. At{est: City'Clerk Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 2]; thence southerly, along the westerly line of said Lot 2) a distance of S.O0 feet to the point of Deginning of the line to be described; thence deflect $6 degrees 55 minutes ll seconds left to the easterly line of said Lot ZO and there term(nat(ng, r : T,Hensen Pe!linen, Inc. d~r~ )an~ in~ o( the Iocalion O~ ~:~ buH~,n~. ,f ~nv Inr~w~. ,,,d J~' ~. to 326.16. '~ED 0~ MINNEHAHA CREEK /ATERSHEO DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARO OF MANAGERS: David H Cochran: Pres · Albert L. Lehman · John E. Thomas .Michael R. Carroll · Camille D. Andre ,James B. McWelhy ,James R Spensley LAKE MINNETONKA MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT NOTICE OF .PERMIT APPLICATION STATUS Permit Application No: 85-06 Date: January 18, 1985 Applicant: Daniel E. Sicheneder 1733 Shorewood Lane Mound, MN 55364 Location: city of Mound, Sec. 18AAD, southwestern shore of West Arm Bay, Lake Minnetonka Purpose: 50' setback variance At the regularly scheduled january 17, 1985 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed. Action was taken allowing District staff to issue your permit only after receipt of a revised survey showing the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark of 929.4 as a reference for the 50 foot setback dimension. _ Please be advised that the project is not authorized until the above has been submitted and you have been notified of permit issuance. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473-4224. Very truly yours, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for thee DJ/strict Cc: Board ~ G. Macomber :; ~6qqY~of Mound P. Thorp, Hansen, Thorp, & Pellinen, Inc. bt PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-407 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR PT. OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT (1742 SHOREWOOD LANE) WHEREAS, Mr. Daniel E. Sicheneder, applicant, and Mr. Keith Kullberg, owner, of the property described as that part of Lots 20 and 21, Block 4, Shadywood Point, according to the recorded plat thereof lying southerly of the following described line and its easterly extension: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence southerly, along the westerly line of said Lot 21 a distance of 5.0-0 feet to the point of beginning of the line to described; thence deflect 86 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds left to the easterly line of Sai~ Lot 20 and there terminating PID # 13-117-24-11 0020,(1742 Shorewood Lane) have applied for variances in setbacks to the front yards to the west and south and north side yard in order to construct a new dwelling; and WHEREAS, Exhibit "A~' has also been submitted to indicate the requested setbacks of 50+feet to lakeshore, 15.23 feet to Sunrise Landing, 11 feet to Shorewood Lane, and 6 feet to the north (1742 Shorewood Lane] property) lot line; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires 20 feet to property lin~.which abutt street right-of-ways in the R-2 zoning district and a 10 foot side yard except for lots of record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the setback variances and denied the requested 7 foot high privacy fence due to the shallowness of the lot with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the variances as requested and shown on Exhibit "A" for Pto of Lots 20 and 21, Block 4, Sha~ywood Point (Parcel B), PID #13-117-24-11 0020 upon the condition that the driveway access be provided from the improved Shorewood Lane right-of-way. CASE NO. 85-408 CITY OF MOUND · Mound, M~nnesota Planning Commission Agenda of February ll, 1985: Board of Appeals Case No. 85-408 Location: 3301 Warner Lane Legal Desc.: W. ½ of Lot 54, Whipple Shores Request: Rear'yard variance Zoning District: R-1 ARplicant Cal Haasken/Val Wirtz 405 Chestnut Street Chaska, MN. 55318 Phone: 448-5310 The applicant is requesting to construct a dwelling within 20 feet of Waterbury street front; 6 foot'rear yard, south side; plus 50 feet to lakeshore west side; and plus 10 foot side yard, east side. The Zoning Code Section 23.301(65) defines the Lot Line Front as abutting on existing or dedicated public street and (63) defines Lot Depth as the mean hori- zontal distance between front lot line and the rear lot line of a lot. The R-1 Zoning District allows a front yard for lots of record, with a lot depth from 60 feet or less, of 20 feet, a rear yard of 15 feet, lakeshore setback of 50 feet and side yard of 10 feet. Comments: In 1981, the approved subdivision, Resolution No. 81-127, created one parcel of 8,082 square feet~ and one parcel of 10,092 square feet+. Attached is a letter from our City Attorney outlining the possibl~ difficulties in subdividing the property. The attached site plan marked "Exhibit A" shows how a structure could be placed on the property with only a 4 foot encroachment into the front yard. However, the site elevations are not on the suWvey. The lot rises quite rapidly from west to east which could make a considerable modification in house design, if it were placed to the east as shown. The applicant is showing a 50 to 65 foot setback from the east side property line. Recommend: Due to topography and shallowness of the lot, a 9 foot rear yard vari- ance could be approved subject to the City ~Engineer's approval of site grading and Watershed District permits~. The abutting neighbors have been notified. a~nB~~ertrand JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 198.5 - Page 6 Case No. 85-408 Rear Yard Variance for 3301 Warner Lane W. 1/2 o~ Lot 54, Whipple Shores, Cai Haasken was present. The'Building Official explained the applicant has applied for a. rear yard . setback in order to construct a dwel'ling on this parcel which was subdivided in 1981., The existing street front is on Waterbury and the R-1 zoning a11ows, with a lot depth of 60 feet or less, a street front setback of 20 feet, a rear yard of 15 feet, lakeshore setback of 50 feet and side yard of 10 feet. Ele- vations are not shown on survey, the lot rises sharpiyfrom west to east and applicant is-proposing to pull house down the hill (50 to 65 feet from the east property .line). Due to topography and shallowness of the lot, she.is recommending approval of a ~ foot rear yard variance subject to City Engineer's approval of site grading and Watershed District permits, Byrnes moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to accept the 9 foot rear yard variance with the Staff's recommendations. The vote was unanimously'in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda of February 26, 1985. .) CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of Property. 3301 Warner Lane, Mound Case No. Fee Paid~-~. o Date Filed 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition Whipple Shores b4 (W½ of) Block PID No. '~-~'- J I 7- 7.-~'- 7-/ 3. Owner's N~me' Cal Haasken C/D with Val Wirtz fee owner DaY Phone No. 448-5310 Address 405 Chestnut Street, Chaska, MN ~'5'3/Y Applicant (if other than owner): Name Cal Haasken Address Day Phone No. Type of Request: (~'Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D~ ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: 'resent Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property. "Vacant Lot Has an application ever been made for zoning, var, lance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property?~J~¥~ If so, 'list'date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) ~J- Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. 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., o.r of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be require~b~~ "~--~ Signature of Applicant Dat /~,,~ ! ( Planning Commission Recommendation: . Accept the 9 foot rear yard variance with the Staff's recommendations. Date 2-11-85 il Action: Resolution No. Date 2-26-85 .Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case if D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. I!1. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing wi]l be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property~conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (4 No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conformiqg use: " Ce Do the exlstlng structures comply wlth all area height and bulk regulations' for the zone district in which it is located? Yes If "no", specify each non-conforming use'. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property-prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small' ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface (~') Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes (/~ No ( ) If yes, explaln: ~ -~, F. Was the hardship created by any ~ther man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes (~") No . ) if yes, explain: "7'-/~-~ ~' ~u~.~ t for/ y ~ G. Are the conditions of hardship ~hi.ch you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~ No ( ) If no, ho~ many other properties are slmllarly affected? H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site ~lans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additlonal sheets, if necessary.) ' / I~e ialJy d/trimentai to property in ~he I. Will granting of the variance mater same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? 138 April 21, i981 Councilmember Swenson moved the Following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 81-127 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND 1) GRANT SUBDIVISION OF LAND: 2) ALLOW A 5 FT. REAR YARD VARIANCE ON THE NEW STRUCTURE AND 3) BOND BE REQUt~E§' FOR REMOVAL OF OLD STRUCTURE IN THE AMOUNT OF 125~ OF THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF COST OF THE REMOVAL WHEREAS,'an applicant to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property owners. WHEREAS, it be noted that a 5 foot rear yard variance be allowed on the new structure which is west tract, and WHEREAS, a 125% bond be posted for removal of old structure, according to engineer'~ estimated'cost fo~ removal of same, in west tract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: 1) The request of Michael J. Byrne for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, and described as, Lot 54, Whipple Shores, be granted to be permit division of the following property in the following manner: EAST TRACT - That part of Lot 54 Whipple Shores which lies easterly of a line drawn southeasterly from a point on the~inortherly llne of said Lot 54 distant 141.6 feet westerly of the northeast~:corner of said Lot 54 to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 54 d~stant 83.1 feet westerly of the southeast corner of's~id lot 54 - 8,082+ sq. ft. zoned A-1 10,O00 sq. ft. WEST TRACT - That part of Eot 54, Whipple Shores which lies westerly of a line drawn southeasterly from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 54 distant 83.1 feet westerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 54 - 10,092+ sq. ft. zoned Afl 10,000 sq. ft. 2) That any and all deficiencies resulting from said subdivision either be paid in full or have waivers signed. 3) It is determined that the foregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmoney with ad- jacent properties. 139 April 21, 1981 h) The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Ulrick and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor there- of; Charon, Lindlan, Swenson and Ulrlck, the following voted against the same; Polston, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Acting City Clerk. Mayor/ Attest: A~ting City Clerk March 17, 1981 Wurst, Carroll.& Pearson Mr. Curtis Pearson 1512 First Bank Place West Mpls. Mn. 55402 Dear Curt: The proposed combination subdivison has been before the City Council on three previous occasions. Once again, a new owner is proposing to subdivide the same property and again for his benefit. I am sending you'this survey to have you concur with my interpretation of the City Ordinance. Lot 54, Whipple Shores, if it is split as proposed, by the yellow line, the westerly 1/2 or thereof of Lot 54 shall then front Waterbury Road of which will require a street front. The south boundry line then becomes a rear yard requiring a setback of 15 feet. That subdivision proposed line then becomes a sideyard requiring 10 feet and the lake front also becomes a sldeyard requiring a setback of 50 feet. I am wondering if'due to the fact there is a lake front and the street front of Waterbury Road, is it possible, or could it be possible to concede that this wester- ly portion of Lot 54 could be construed to be a corner lot? If that were possible, that Would increase the setbacks so as to provide for a structure to be placed legal- ly within the setbacks requiring no variances, therefore becoming a conforming use to the zoning. My feelings are such, that allowing this property to be subdivided, is going to do nothing more than create more problems for the City due to the fact that: 1. The easterly portion of Lot 54 will be undersized, incidently, the existing garage has been removed from the premises. Although the westerly portlo~ of Lot 54 does conform to zoning square footage requirements, the bui)dable area of the lot is such that the minimal size struc- ture cannot be constructed on the property without granting variances of zoning. I would hope that'you would undeEtake, within your expertise, as the time this comes before the City Council to properly advise them to the extent that this subdivision is not within the best interest of the City or even the existing and proposed zoning ordinance. The area is zoned A-1ResiUential. I would appreciate an opinion from you prior to the Planning Commission meeting of March 30, 1981 to either confirm or to inform me as to the interpretation'of exis! lng ordinance as to questions aforestated. HeWn ty K Truel sen Building Inspector / / PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE N0.85-408 RESOLUTION TO CONCURR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9 FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE FOR WEST OF LOT 54, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID# 25-117-24 21 0154 WHEREAS, Mr. Cal Haasken, the owner of property described as that part of Lot 54, Whipple Shores which lies westerly of a line drawn southeasterly from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 54 distant 83.1 feet westerly of the south- east corner of said Lot 54, PID# 25-117-24 21 0154 has applied for a variance in rear yard setback in order to construct a new dwelling; and WHEREAS, Exhibit '~' has also been submitted to indicate the requested setbacks to lakeshore of plus 50 feet, 20 feet to the improved right-of-way known as Waterbury, 6 feet to the south rear yard, and 50 to 65 foot setback from the east side property line; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 50 foot lakeshore setback, 15 foot rear yard, 20 foot front yard setback for lots of record in the R-1 district with lot depths from 60 feet or less, and side yards of 10 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval due to the shallowness and topography of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that ihe City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the requested rear yard 9~ft~ariance as shown on Exibit "8~' for that part of Lot 54, Whipple Shores which lies westerly of a line drawn southeasterly from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 to a point in the southRrly line of said Lot 54 distant 83.1 feet westerly of t§e southeast corner of said Lot 54, PID# 25-117-24 21 0154. CASE NO. 85-410 CITY OF M00Nb Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of February 1I, 1985: Board of Appeals Case No. 85-410 Location: 2137 Centerview Lane Legal Desc.: Lots 29 & 30, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addn. to Lakeside Park Request: Setback Variance ' Zoning District: R-2 ApPlicant Tim White 2137 Centervlew Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 934-6640 The applicant is requesting approval for a deck to be constructed. O foot to an accessory building and il to I7 feet from the alley right-of-way. The deck con- struction plans will be modified from what is presently on the site such as garage' door is to be removed, windows/doors are to be removed, additional treated beams and supports, etc. The applicant is proposing to construct the deck 8 to 9 feet from the ground with solid roof covering of EPDM rubber membrane; no guardrails or access to the deck area has been shown on the applicant's plans. The Zoning Code Section 23.302 requires the pri~clpal structure to be 5 feet or more from an accessory structure or the accessory building is considered part of the principal building. The setback of the existing shed is 2½ feet to the west property line. The Zoning Code Section 23.408(5) requires front yard setbacks of 20 feet minimum to each street. Comments and recommendation: The Zoning Ordinance does not define a setback to an alley or secondary access. The applicant, at the time of my inspection, was using the struc- ture as a garage. If the applicant wants to restrict the use only to a deck and is-willing to modify his structure:~ Staff would recommend that the 9 foot alley variance be granted condi- tioned upon submitting a registered land survey or locating the lot corner monuments, the use of the structure be iimlted to an above ground deck, and the structure may be placed 5 feet setback from the existing accessory shed. The abutting neighbors have bee~ notified. lB/ms CITY OF MOUND Fee Paid ''':,. TO ZO, CO , S IO, - ~__~x~}L.~t.. .... ~j (Please type the following infor~tion) . Legal Description of Property: Lot ~A ~ ~0 . Block Date Filed ~Z -~ :eP~ Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address "' Type of Request: (~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation S Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. .= *If other,'specify: ( )'Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )~Other sent Zoning District /~ Existing Use(s) of Property.. <+ Has an application ever oeen ma e or zoning, ,variance, or conditiona, l use permit or other zoning procedure for th,is property? ¢/~a~ If so,. list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. 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 accura, te. I consent to the entry tn or upon the premises described in this~!.~ .icatl°n'.bY any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecti~g~or Oi~ post,ng, mainl~aining and removing such' notices as may be requi by law."~-~\~/\~.~ ~' Signature of Appl'lcant~ Date.~ ~-~_ .6. Case No. 85-/~10. Setback Variance - 2137 Centerview Lane P1ann~ Lots 29 & 30, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park Applicant was not present. 4/82 9 feet above the ground. At the time of.the Building Official's inspecgion, the structure was being used as a garage.; no guardrails.or access to the deck was shown on applicant's plan. The Commission discussed request briefly; severe) members had been o'ut to the site. ' Byrnes moved and We)land seconded a motion to ~eny the request. 'The vote was all in favor of the denial except Kenneth Smith abstained. ~.~- The applicant's request was to construct a deck 0 feet to an accessory building and II to 17 feet from the alley right-of-way. The deck is proposed to be 8 to'- Request for Zonl.ng Variance P~ocedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements~ underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. A11 information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ()(~') No ( ) If "no'~, specify each n~n-conformi~g use: Ce Do the existing structures comply with all area helgh~ and bulk regulatlons for the zone district in which it is.located? Yes~) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: De 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 ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow (;~) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Ee Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests In the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~/) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (X.) 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, how many other properties are similarly afl, ct,d? H. What is the '~minlmum~' modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? I LEaL DESCRIPTION Lot ~ ~ ~0 Blk. ~ Addition SITE AREA ~q. Ft. AR~ OF SITE OCCUPIED BY BUILOINRS INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT T~ts form need not be used when plot plans drawn to scale of not less than 1'-20' are filed with permit application. (Each building site must have m separate plot plan.) For new buildings provide the following information: Elevation of existing & ad,Dining yard grades, location of proposed consturctton and existing improve- merits; show building, site, and setback dimensions. Show easements, finish .. contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation and sewer service elevation. Show location of water, sewer, gas and electrical .service lines. Show location of survey pins with elevations. Specify the use of each butldn9 and major portion thereof. To be completed by a registered land surveyor. 12/83 INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE . GRAPH SQUARES ARE 5' X 5' OR 1"=20' I/We certify that the prolooSed construclion will conform to the, cljmensions end use~hown above a~ that ~ chm~es will be m~ without ,.'..] " ~] ~ '/ iQ.L. OOOMSS~'8 ~ CIT~ OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARIN~ ON THE PROPOSED AM~ OF .~-IE D~CT PROVISIONS AND P~{FO~CE STANDARDS OF ~{E ZONING ORDINANCE NO. ~22 TO RE~LIATE SATEr.r.~TE DISH ~AS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on TueSday, ~,M~ 985, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Mall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held on the amendment of the District Provisions and Performance Standards of the Mound Zoning Ordinance to regulate the size and placement of satellite dish antennas. In residential districts, antennas will be limited to a maximum size of three meters and will be prohibited within any front yard area, side yard area or rooftop. In commercial and industrial districts, antennas not exceeding four meters in size are permitted in-side and rear yard areas. All persons at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PtrARSON~ ~. A. .JosEPH E. HAMILTON, ~. A. THO~aAS ~. UNDERWOOD, ~.A. ~OG£R .J. F£~LOW~ LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5S402 February 19, 1985 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, ~R~ 55364 Re: Steven Coddon's Variance Request Dear Jon: At the Council meeting on February 12, 1985, the City Council directed me to prepare a resolution of denial for Mr. Coddon's requested lot size variance. I am enclosing herewith proposed resolution with findings for the Council's consideration. Would you please review the re~olutio~ and if you have any comments or suggestions give me a call and if you find it in order, send it out to the Council for their comments and considerations. Ver~, truly yours, ¢l)~'~t~zs ~. vearson, City Attorney CAP:ej Enclosure RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A LOT SIZE VARIANCE AT 1721 DOVE LANE AND PREPARING FIND- INGS OF FACT WHEREAS, Section 23.605.5 of the Mound Zoning Codes provides that in R-2 zoning districts minimum lot~ area for a single-family detached dwelling shall be 6000 square feet, and WHEREAS, Steven Coddon has applied for a lot size variance for Lot 6, Block 11, Dreamwood requesting, that a 3200 square foot lot be given a variance to construct a new' dwelling on said property, and WHEREAS, Steven Coddon appeared before the Mound Plan- ning Commission on January 14, 1985 and explained that he was requesting a 2800 square foot lot size variance to remove an existing structure which is 609 square feet in size and that it was his desire to replace it with a new single-family home which would conform'to setbacks and Mr. Coddon further stated that he was a contract purchaser of the property and that he had pur- chased this property from owners who were buying the adjacent Lots 7, 8 and 9, but that the transfer of Lot 6 was approved because it had been a separate parcel of record and the owners of Lots 7, 8 and 9, B]k. 11, Dreamwood had never combined the four lots but had left Lot 6 as an individual parcel, and WHEREAS, Mr. Coddon further stated to the Planning Commission and to the City Council at its meeting that when he purchased the property he did so with the intention of fixing up the building and renting the property and that it was not his intention to construct a new home on the property at that time, and WHEREAS, Mr. Coddon has indicated to the City Council that he is and has been a real estate broker for a long period of time and did check the laws at the Mound city offices before he purchased this property and, therefore, he knew that the property was nonconforming and undersized by 2800 square feet. Mr. Coddon further indicated that he was prepared to fix anything' on the house and that the way he read the City ordinances had a right to do so, and WHEREAS, it became evident to the City Council at the Council meeting that b~. Coddon bought an undersized lot knowing that it did not meet the zoning standards and that he purchased said lot on a contract from the adjoining property owners who owned three additional lots and it appears that the property owners who had the four lots under their ownership could have divided the property in such a manner that any variance request would have had to be minimal, and ~WHEREAS, there was some discussion concerning what ¥~.~ Coddon might do with the property if he was not granted a variance to construct a new home but the Mayor pointed out to this Council that the matter before the Council for consideration was Mr. Coddon's request for a variance of a lot size and that he was asking to reduce the lot size requirement of the area from 6000 to 3200 square feet, and WHEREAS, Section 23.5061 of the City Zoning Ordinance establishes criteria for granting variances and that two of the provisions of said Ordinance appear to apply in this particular circumstance and that the special conditions or circumstances creating the need for a variance should not result from the actions of the applicant and in this case it appears that the applicant and his predecessor in ownership could have divided the property in such a manner that this great variance would not be required and further the ordinance provides that the variance requested must be the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and that does not appear to be true here because the property could have been divided to include a portion or all of Lot 7, Block 11, Dreamwood and then the lot would have been either in conformance with the City Ordinance or very near to conformance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL: 1. The application of Steven Coddon for a lot size variance to reduce the size of the required lot in an R-2 district from 6000 feet to 3200 square feet is hereby denied for the fol- lowing reasons: a. Lot 6, Block 11, Dreamwood was purchased'by the applicant from persons who were also in control of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 11, Dreamwood and therefore much of the problem that exists is the result of actions of the applicant and his predecessor of title that have created this alleged gross hardship. b. The applicant, being an experienced realtor, checked the regulations at the CitylHall before he bought the property, and made the purchase knowing full well that the property was severely undersized and a nonconforming use and that therefore there would be no right to build a new structure on this property which would require a 2800 square foot variance. c. Approval of construction of a new home on this parcel would result in a permanent establishment of a lot 3200 square feet in area, which is greatly under- sized and would be unbuildable in the future in case of a catastrophe and the opportunity to resolve this problem rests with the fee owner and contract purchasers in that they are still involved in the title to this property and are the owners of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 11, Dreamwood and that a better method can be developed for dividing these parcels to bring them into conformance or closer to conformance with the City Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is hereby determined that the granting of this variance would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public and of abutting properties and would affect the property rights of current and future residents of the City who are to be protected by a uniform set of standards applicable to all properties in the community. The Council further finds that the requested variance was largely self-inflicted and it would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordin- ance to authorize the construction of a new structure on that parcel making it a permanent problem for the community. Mayor Attest: City Clerk ct3? CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: Jon Elam, City Manager FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official DATE: February 25, 1985 SUBJECT: 1721 Dove Lane, Steve Coddon's Structure Report I have attached a letter from Max J. D~ubenberger from'Van Doren Hazard Stallings which summarizes some of our findings of the structure on Mr. Coddon's property at 1721 Dove Lane. It is his andlmy feeling, after our inspection on February 19, 1985, that the structure should be removed from the property as a hazardous and unsafe building. The City Council willneed to take further action to prohibit any remodeling and/or alterations to the structure and order the removal of the building under the State Statute provisions. If necessary, the building should be posted as "Unsafe for Human Occupancy" unless Mr. Coddon agrees to remove the structure within the next 60 days. I would like to expound on Mr. Daubenberger's comments. The heating s~stem of the buildi.ng is not capable of maintaining a room temperatuKe of 70u F at a point 3 feet above the floor-.in all habitable rooms as required under Section 1211 of the Uniform Building Code. A space heater with no duct work is in the structure. The-plumbing system has improper waste, vent and water distribution piping under the Minnesota Health Department Plumbing Code Sec- tions 120 through 135. The electrical system under National Electric Code provisions, for wiring, has improper installation and insufficient.outlets, receptacles and amperage; 60 amp service, for instance, requires a'minimum lO0 amp service to residential dwellings. The floor in the bathroom has settled and the water closet is broken with open sewer in the dwelling. The gas service distribution lines are improperly sized, inadequate appli.~nce shut off Yal'ves and anchors, and hazardous appliance vent at the water heater. All mechanical systems were inoperable and it is impossible to tell if the appliances and lines were capable of functioning. The'structure has shown signs of weather damage from the outdoor elements at the walls, ceilings, floors, etc. The ceiling heights within the structure are under the minimum. 7 foot 6 inch and 7 foot in several areas of the structure. The interior bearing partition walls within the structure are 2 inches and are inadequate to support imposed loading. The framing is not of standard or conventional methods. There is no evidence of ceiling joists to support a ceiling;,the existing tile ceiling has 1 by 2 inch furring strips. It is my recommendation that Mr. Coddon.be ordered to remove the building within 60 days; cap the water service to the main and cut the sewer service at the main as per Public Works requirements. All debris on the site is to be removed and the grade leveled. He would also be required to nQtify the other utilities to remove the services to the structure. JB/ms Pic~res taken at 1721Dove'-~ane on February 19, 1985. Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 February 21, 1985 Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: 1721 Dove .Lane Dear Ms. Bertrand: The enclosed is a summary of the general structural condition of the subject property based upon a visual inspection conducted on February 19, 1985: Exterior Conditions of Dwelli~ In general, the exterior condition of this dwelling is very poor and exhibits severe distress. Examples of this distress are: At exterior edge of the roof, the roof sheeting boards a~e exposed and have severely rotted. 2. Ail window sills exhibit severe rotting, and the exterior wall below the window sills on the front (east) side of the dwelling is exhibiting rotting due to planter construction directly adjoining the wall framing. 3. Portions of the exterior wal.1 at the rear (west) side of the residence consist of asbestos board with" no covering siding. separate lean-to addition projects beyond the rear wall of the dwelling with exterior covering materials including painted sheet rock. Ail exterior wall wood framing extends to the ground line, thus, allowing accumulation of moisture at the base of the wood frame construction. Se No roof vents exist in the roof soffit areas, thus, no ventilation of the roof is provided. Ms. Jan Bertrand Page Two February 21, 1985 B. Interior Conditions of Dwelling In general, the interior conditions of this dwelling are in a severe state of deterioration. The following conditions were observed: Throughout the entire dwelling, the plywood subflooring has severely rotted or delaminated. In the south room of the dwelling, the roof structure has begun rotting and water penetration into the interior space is evident. The east front room of the dwelling has ice buildup inside the dwelling which indicates a ruptured waterline has frozen or moisture has penetrated the front wall of the residence, thus, allowing the ioe buildup. The floor framing throughout the residence consists of 2 x 4 members with fhese members in many areas lying on their side at approximately 24 inches on center. Support of the floor framing consists of vertical 2 x 4's extending to earthen grade with no foundations apparent. 0 The exterior wood framing does not have top or bottom plates, and masonry at the base of the exterior walls is not continuous nor does it appear to extend to frost depth. Therefore, the entire dwelling would be susceptible to frost action. The roof framing of the entire dwelling appears to consist of 2 x 4 rafters at 24 inches on center. These roof rafters are 'framed in such a manner that they appear to be structurally unstable. 7. There does not appear to be header framing above all windows in the north and south exterior load bearing walls. Headers are necessary to provide adequate structural support above all windows or doors in exterior or interior load bearing walls. In general, this entire dwelling is in a severe state of distress and does not conform to building code requi~eme, hts. It is our opinion that this dwelling' cannot be repaired in any manner which will meet building code requirements. If you have any questions regarding our noted observations or recommendations, please contact our office. Sincerely yours, VAN DOREN-HA ZARD-STALLINGS Max J. Daubenberger, P.E. Partner MJD/rh Telephones: 646-7871 646-7872 WATER PRODUCERS February ll, 1985 413 North Lexington Parkway Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 City of Mound 53hl Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Attention: Mr. Greg Skinner Water Superintendent Subject: Pull Well-Pump No. 2 Pull Pump and Grout Up Well No. 5 Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit the following prices for doing the above work: 1. We will pull well-pump No. 2, and leave it at the site for inspec- tion, for a lump-sum price of ............. $ 950.00. We will pull pump No. 5 and grout up the well, all in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota State Board of Health, for a lump-sum price of .................. $2,300.00. GHK:lh Very truly yours, K~YS WELL DRILLING CO. .Ge.orge H.~Keys, President ct38 MEMBER National Water Well Drillers Auoclation Minnesota Well Drillers Association Sl v ns WELL DRILLING CO., Inc. WELLS - PUMPS - REPAIRING Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 PHONES Office 479-2591 Maple Plain 479-2250' Delano 972-3430 Buffalo 682-2851 January 50, 1985 Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent City o+ Mound Public Works Department 4845 Manchester Road Mound, MN 555&4 Dear Sir: .. Our price to pull the pump and grout Well #5 is $1&92.00. To pull the pump in Well ~2 is $808.00 Thank you +or the opportunity to bid on these jobs. Stevens Well Drilling Co., Inc. Brad Wake+laid, MEMBER Netionel Water Well Drillers Association Minnesota Well Drillers Association WELL DRILLING CO., Inc. WELLS - PUMPS - REPAIRING Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 PHONES Office 479-2591 Maple Plain 479-2250, Delano 972-3430 Buffalo 682-2851 January 50, 1985 Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent City of Mound Public Works Department 4845 Manchester Road Mound, MN 55564 Dear Sir: Our price to remodel the plumbing in Pumphouse #7 as per your drawing is $2515.70. Thank you for the opportunity to bid on this job. Stevens Well Drilling Co., Inc. Brad Wakefield, Estimator Telephones: 646-7871 646-7872 WATER PRODUCERS February ll, 1985 413 North Lexington Parkway Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 City of Mound 534! Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 5536h Attention: Mr. Greg Skinner Water Superintendent Subject: Install 6" Cla-Val and Crispin Air Valve and Vacuum Valve Gentlemen: In reply to your letter of February 5, 1985, we will change the piPing, and install a 6" Cla-Val and Crispin Air and Vacuum Valve, according to the piping diagram, for a lump-sumprice of ............ $2,550.00. GHK:lh Very truly yours, KEYS WELL DRILLING CO. Geo.rge H. I~S, Preside~3 February 8, 1985 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341-Maywood Rd. Mound, Minnesota Dear Mr. Elam: The Minnetonka Bass Club has hosted for the last several years a fishing tournament at the public launch near the Surfside, on CookS Bay. The contest is a catch and release, with full sanction of the Minnesota DNR. The date is: June 8, 1985 Hours: 0530-3:30 PM Ail necessary permits have been obtained. I would request that the council review this request and grant us the necessary authorization. I would further request a short letter from you so that I might forward to the Hennepin County Sheriff as their permit requires. If you have any questions please contact me at 938-8885. iorlur attention Earl L. Jonson in this matter. *Earl L. Johnson 13401-Maywood Lane Mtka. Minn. 55345 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1985 WHEREAS, Resolution #85-5 designated the official depositories for 1985; and WHEREAS, some additional financial institutions should be added as official depositories. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby designate the following additional financial institutions as official depositories for the City of Mound in 1985: Dain Bosworth, Inc. Kidder Peabody & Co. Offerman & Co., Inc. The foregoi.ng resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD IIOO FIRST BANK t~LAC£ WEST MINNEAPOLIS, NtlNNESOTA S5402 February 1, 1985 TELEPHONE (61Z) 338-4200 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, M~ 55364 Re: Shoreland Management Ordinance Dear Jon: At the last Council meeting, the question of a Shoreland Management Ordinance was discussed. The Council indicated that they would like to see a copy of the model ordinance and other ordinances which might at least get them started on studying the question of adoption of an ordinance and the type of ordinance to be adopted. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Model ' Ordinance as prepared by the DNR which is very long. I am also attaching thereto 6he City of Chanhassen ordinance which is short, but incorporates the state regulations, and I am enclosing a copy of those regulations for your file. The third document being enclosed is the Wayzata ordinance ,on shoreland zoning provisions. If you desire, you may want to make copies of these and transmit them to the Council along with their packet. I do not think it is something that anyone is going to jump into and immediately make a decision, because I have been unable to get through very much of this material and I am sure that'it requires a good deal of study so that we know the ramifications of each sect,ion, if you are aware of some ordinances which are simpler or less restrictive, then copies of those ordinances might also be eonsidered. I also suggest that since the developers are the ones who are pushing the City in this matter, they ought to be assigned the task of presenting us with some other examples of shoreland ordinances for our consideration. Very truly yours, '~'~'~ Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney CAP:Ih A SINGLE DISTRICT SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR MUNICIPALITIES lg84 F1 ood P1 ain/Shorel and Management Section Division of Waters Department o'f Natural Resources INTRODUCTION Some small cities within the state have not previously adopted land use management programs, but must now do so, at least for their shoreland areas, to meet requirements of the Shoreland Management Act. This sample ordinance was developed for use by such communities, if they desire, to meet requirements of the Act and of minimum standards contained in shoreland management regulations for municipalities of the Department of Natural Resources. It utilizes a basic 'single district approach which many con~nunities will find adequate for ~heir initial efforts to manage development and protect surface water resources. Implementation of the ordinance requires the City Council to designate a zoning administrator, and to establish a planning agency (department or commission) and a board of adjustment. A shoreland zoning map must be prepared, and fee schedules and forms developed for applications for building, sewage, well, grading and filling, and conditional use permits as well as certificates of occupancy, variances, and amendments. Shoreland Management Supplementary Report No. 3 gives examples of many of these forms. Several of the permits can be combined onto a single form.* Since several references to state statutes and agency regulations are incorporated into the ordinance, copies of these materials are indispensable for proper administration of the ordinance. They include: Enabling legislation, particularly M.S. 462; Sewage treatment standards of the Pollution Control Agency - 6 MCAR §4.8040 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards; Well construction standards - Minn. Reg. MHD 217-223, Water Well Construction Code. This ordinance may be further simplified when applied to many communities by deleting sections which are not needed such as particular water classes and associated dimensional standards. If a city is entirely served by municipal sewage and water supply systems, additional sections may be deleted. Those using the ordinance are cautioned to carefully tailor it to each city's needs. One example of such forms is presented in Local and Regional Planning in Minnesota, 1982, St. Paul, League of Minnesota Cities. ORDINANCE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SHORELAND AREAS OF THE CITY OF I. GENERAL PROVISIONS A) Statutory Authorization: This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization contained in the Laws of Minnesota 1973, Chapter 379, and in furtherance of the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes 1976, Chapters 105, llS, ll6 and 462. B) Pol icy: The uncontrol 1 ed use' of shorel ands of the city of affects the public health, safety and g~neral wel'fare not'on)y'Dy contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise development of shorelands of public waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to the municipalities of the state to r. egulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, preserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise utilization of waters and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by the City of . c) Definitions: For the purpose of this ordinance, certain terms or words used herein shall be interpreted as follows: The word "shall" is mandatory, 'not permissive. All distances unless otherwise specified shall be measured horizontally. "Boathouse" means a structure used solely for the storage ~f boats or boating equipment. "Building Line" means that line measured across 'the width of the. lot at the point where the principal structure is placed in accordance with setback provisions. "Clear-cutting" means the removal of an.entire stand of trees. "Conditional Use" means a use 'of shoreland which is permitted within a-~oning district only when allowed by the city after a public hearing, if certain conditions are met 'which eliminate or minimize the incompatibility of the conditional use with other permitted uses of the district. " Governing Body" means the city council by whatever name known. "Hardship" means the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not, created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under terms of the official controls. -1- "Lot" means a parcel of land designated by metes and bounds description, registered land survey',, auditors plot, or other accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by said description for the purpose of sale, lease, or separation thereof. For the purposes of these regulations, a lot shall be considered to be an individual building site which shall be occupied by no more than one principal structure equipped with sanitary facilities. "Nonconforming Use" means any use of land established before the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the use restrictions of a particular zoning district. This should not be confused with substandard dimensions of a conforming use. "Ordinary High Water Mark" means ~ mark delineating the highes~ water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic 'to predominantly terrestrial. "Planned Unit Development" means a type of development 'which may incorporate, a variety of land uses planned and developed as a unit. ne Planned Unit Development is distinguished from the traditional subdivision process of development in that zoning standards, such as density, height limits, and minimum lo~t sizes may be altered by negotiation and agreement between the developer, the municipality and the Commissioner of Natural Resources. "Cluster Development" is considered to be a type of Planned Unit Development and is subject to the same review criteria. "Planning Agency" means, the planning department as created by the governing body. co~ission or planning "Protected Waters"* means any waters of the State as defined in MinneSota Statutes 1980, Section 105.37, Subdivision 14. However, no lake, pond or flowage of less than ten acres in size and no river or stream having a total drainage area less than two square miles shall be regulated for the purposes of these regulations. "Setback" means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark or between a · s. tructure or sanitary facility and a road, well, highway, or property 1 i nes. "Public Waters" has been changed to "Protected Water". All regulations and requirements remain the same, only the name has been changed, -2- "Shoreland" means land located within the following distances from protected waters: (i) 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark.' of a lake, pond, or flowage; and (ii) 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain on such rivers or streams, whichever is greater· The pratical limits of shorelands may be less than the statutory limits where such limits are designated by natural drainage divides at lesser distances, as shown on the official zoning map of the City.- "Structure" means any building (including mobile homes) or appurtenance thereto, except aerial or underground lines such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph or gas lines, including towers, poles and other supporting appurtenances. "Subdivision" means improved or unimproved land or lands which are divided for the purpose of ready sale or lease, or divided successively within a five year period for the purpose of sale-or lease, into three or more lots or parcels of less than five acres each, contiguous in area and which are under common ownership or control. "Substandard Use" means any use of shoreland existing prior to the date of enactment of this ordinance which is permitted within the applicable zoning district but does not meet the minimum lot area and length or water frontage, structure setbacks, or other dimensional standards of the ordinance. "Variance" means any modification or variation of official controls where it is-determined that, because of hardships, strict enforcement of the official controls is impractical. II. DESIGNATION OF TYPES OF LAND USE A) Shoreland Management Classification: In order to guide the wise development and utilization of shorelands of protected water for the preservation of water quality, natural characteristics, economic values and the general health, safety and welfare, certain protected. waters in the City have been given a shoreland management classification. · These protected waters of the City have been classified by ~.he Commissioner of Natural Resources as follows: Natural Environment Lakes DNR I,D. # 2. (List here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) Recreational Development Lakes DNR I.D. # 2. (List here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) -3- B) eneral Development Lakes 2. (List here and on 3. Off~cial Zoning Map) DNR I.D. Natural Environmental Streams Legal Description 2. (List here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) Recreational Development Streams . Legal Description 2. (List here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) General Development Streams Legal Description 2. (List here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) The shorelands of the Municipality , Minnesota, are hereby designated as a Shoreland District: of Shoreland District· The purposes of the Shoreland District are to provide for the wise utilization of shoreland areas to preserve, the quality and natural-character of the protected waters of the City, manage the development of shoreland areas suitable for residential development, and to protect these areas from 'encroachment by' commercial and industrial establishments. The following map(s) are designated as the official shoreland zoning map(s) of the Municipality of , Minnesota. Final determination of the exact location of land use district ..boundaries shall be made by the Zoning Administrator, subject to 'appeal to the 'Board of Adjustment as provided in. Section IX.,B),3.,b) of this ordinance. !. Permitted Uses a) All general agricultural pasture and minimum tillage cropland uses; except that no wetlands shall be drained, to facilitate cultivation of shoreland areas. b) Forestry. c) Parks, waysides and. golf courses which do not maintain overnight camping facilities ® d) e) f) g) h) Nature areas, hiking and riding trails, wildlife preserves, and designated official wetland areas. Designated historical sites. Aerial or underground utility line crossings such as electrical, telephone, telegraph, or gas lines, which provide essential services, to other permitted uses. Non-residential structures used structures to permitted uses. solely as accessory Single family residentia.1 uses. i) Multi-family residential uses. Conditional Uses a) Mobile home parks provided they shall be licensed by and in conformance with the standards prescribed by the Minnesota Department of Health, · except where provisions of this ordinance are more restrictive, and then ·those provisions shal 1 prevail. b) Recreational camping areas provided they shall be licensed by and in conformance with the standards prescribed by the Minnesota Department of Health, except where provisions of this ordinance are more restrictive, and then those provisions shall prevail. c) Restaurants, drive-ins, dinner clubs, taverns, and private cl ubs. d) Hotels, motels, resorts, and other permanent buildings which provide sleeping accommodations on a transient rental basis. e) Retail businesses, novelty shops and service facilities. f) Industrial uses which, by 'their nature, require location within shoreland areas. Prohibited Uses. Any uses which are not Permitted or Conditional Uses are prohibited. III. ZONING PROVISIONS A) The following standards shall apply to all shorelands of the protected waters listed in Section II of this ordinance within the City. 1. Unsewered Areas: NATURAL ENV I ROt~I.IENT WATERS RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WATERS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT i~AT£RS B) Lot Area (sq. it.) 80,000 40,000 20,000 Water frontage and lot width at building line (ft) Structure setback from Ordinary High Water Mark (ft) Structure setback from roads and highways (ft) 200 200 150 1 O0 100 75 ...... 50 Federal, State or County ...... ...... 20 Municipal or Private .......... Road and Parking area setback from Ordinary High Water Mark Same as structure setback, when feasible, but in all instances at least 50 feet. Structure height limitation (ft) Maximum l'ot area covered by impervious surface (%) Sewage system setback from Ordinary High Wat6f Mark (ft) 35 30 30 30 150 75 5O Sewered Areas: All provisions for unswered areas shall apply to sewered areas except for the following, which sha.ll'supsersede the provisions applied to unsewered areas: Lot Area (sq. ft.) .waterfront lots other lots 40,000 20,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Water frontage and lot width at building line (ft) 125 Structure setback from OrJinary High Water Mark (ft) · 150 75 75 75 50 Substandard Lots: Lots of record in the office of the County Register of Deeds (or Registrar of Titles) prior to ~ (date.of enactment of ordinance) which d6 not meet the requirements of Section III, A) may be allowed as building sites provided: a) b) Such use is permitted in the shoreland district The lot is in separate ownership from abutting lands, and c) All other sanitary and dimensional requirements of thi shoreland ordinance are complied with insofar as practical. c) D) E) Roads and Parking Areas: Roads and parking areas shall be loCated to retard runoff to surface waters in accordance with the following criteria. Where feasible and practical, all roads and parking areas shall meet the setback requirements established for structures in Section III A) of this Ordinance. In .no instance shall these impervious surfaces be placed less than 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Natural 'vegetation or other natural materials Shall be u.sed to screen parking areas when vi6wed from the water. Elevation of Lowest Floor: Structures shall be placed at an elevation consistent with the. City's flood plain management controls. In areas not regulated by flood plain management controls the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basements, shall be placed shall be determined as follows: a) For lakes, ponds, and flowages by (a) an elevation of available flood information and consistent with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota or (b) placing the lowest floor at a level at least three (3) feet above the highest known water level. In those instances where sufficient data on known high water levels are not available, the ordinary high water mark shall be used. b) For rivers and streams, by an evaluation of available flood information and consistent with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota. Exceptions to Structure Setback Requirements Setback requirements from the ordinary high water mark shalll not apply to boathouses, piers, and docks. Location of piers and docks shall be contolled by applicable state and local regulations. Boathouses may be .allowed as a conditional~ use provided they are not used for habitation and do not contain sanitary facilities. On undeveloped shoreland lots that have two (2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new residential structure may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high water mark or fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater, provided all other prowslons ot the snoreland district are complied with. -7- IV. SHORELAND ALTERATIONS A) The removal of natural vegetation shall be restricted to prevent erosion into protected.waters, to consume nutrients in the soil, and to preserve shoreland aesthetics. Removal of natural vegetation in the shoreland district shall be subject to the following provisions. Selective removal of natural vegetation is allowed, provided that sufficient Vegetative cover remains to screen cars, dwellings and other structures when viewed from the water. 2. -Clear cutting of natural vegetation is prohibited. Natural vegetation shall be .restored insofar as feasible after any construction project is completed to retard surface runoff and soil erosion. The provisions of this section shall not apply to permitted uses- which normally require the removal of natural vegetation. B) Grading and filling in shoreland areas, or any alteration of the natural topography where the slope of the land is toward a protected water or a watercourse leading to. a protected water must be authorized by a permit. The permit may be granted subjeci to the conditions that: - The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established. 3. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed. 4. Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards. C) Excavations on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to a protected water shall require a permit from the Zoning Administrator before construction is begun. Such permit may be obtained only after the Commissioner of Natural' Resources has issued a permit to work in the beds of protected waters, D) Any work which will change or diminish.the course, current, or cWoss section of a protected water or wetland shall be approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources, and such approval shall be construed to mean the issuance by the Commissioner of Natural Resources, of a permit under the procedures of Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.42 and other related statutes. ¥. SEWAGE TREATMENT Any premises intended for human occupancy shall be provided with ~n adequate method of sewage treatment to be maintained in accordance with acceptable practices. -8- A) Public or municipal collection and treatment facilities shall be used where available and where feasible. B) The standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), "Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards and Appendices", (6 MCAR §4.8040) are hereby adopted by reference and make a part of this ordinance. c) Permit. No person, firm, or c6rporation shall install, alter, repair, ~or extend any individual sewage treatment system without first obtaining a permit therefor from the Zoning Administrator for the City. plication for permits shall be made in writing upon printed anks or forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall be signed by the applicant. Each application for a permit shall include: a correct legal- description of the property on which the proposed installation, alteration, repair or extension is to take place; a ~lan of the site 'of reasonable scale and accuracy showing the location of any proposed or existing buildings, water supply, property lines, and underground or overhead utility lines; a complete plan of the sewage treatment system showing the location, size and design of all parts of the system to be installed, altered, repaired, or extended; the name of the person, firm, or corporation who is to install the system; any further information as required by the Zoning Administrator. D) Compliance. All individual sewage treatment systems within the shoreland overlay district shall be designed, installed, and' maintained in accordance with the MPCA standards listed,in Section V, B) of this ordinance. E) Inspection. Any installation, alteration, repair or extension of an individual sewage treatment system shall be inspected to .ensure compliance by the Zoning Administrator or a qualified inspector following completion of the work but prior to covering of the system. All existing sewage treatment systems .inconsistent with the standards referenced in Section V, B) of this Ordinance shall be brought into' confoPmance or discontinued, within five (5) years from the date of enactment of this ordinance. Any nonconforming sanitary facility foun'd to be. a public 'nuisance shall be brought into conformity or discontinued within 30 days after receiving written notice from the Zoning Admi ni strator. VI. WATER SUPPLY Public or private supplies of water for domestic purposes shall conform to Minnesota Department of Heal th standards for water quality. A) Public or municipal water supplies shall be used where available and where feasible. -g- Permit. No person, firm, or corporation shall install, alter, repair or extend any private well without first obtaining a permit therefor from the Zoning Administrator for the City. 0 Application for permits shall be made in writing upon printed blanks or forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall be signed by the applicant. Each application for a per~it shall include: a correct legal description of the property on which the proposed installation, alteration, repair or extension is to take 'place; a plan of the site of reasonable scale and accuracy showing the location of any proposed or existing buildings, sewage treatment facilities, property lines; a complete plan of the water supply 'system ~ho.win9 the location, size and design of all parts, of the sy_stem o De installed, altered, repaired, or extended; the name of the person, firm, or corporation who is to install the system; any further information as required by the Zoning Administrator. c) D) £) Private wells shall be located in a manner to be free' from flooding and the top shall be so constructed and located as to be above all possible sources of pollution. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be flood proofed. No private well shall be located clo~ser than three (3) feet to the outside basement wall of a dwelling. The outside basement footing shall be continuous across the opening of the well alcove. No well shall be located closer than fifteen (15) feet to a property line. Private wells shall be located in accordance with the standards of the Minnesota Health Department: MHD 217 "Location of Wells",.(c)(1). VII. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS A) LA)JD SUITABILITY No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable for the proposed use by the Governing Body for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations wit)~ severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, ii unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply ~or sewage treatment capabilities or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of' the future residents of the "proposed subdivision or of the community. The Governing Body in applying the provisions of this section shall in writing recite the particular facts upon which it bases' its conclusions that the land is not suitable for the proposed use and afford the subdivider an opportunity to present evidence regarding such suitability at a public hearing as provided in Section~ X.,B). Thereafter the Governing Body may affirm, modify or withdraw its determination of unsuitability. B) Design Standards: All subdivision layouts shall be developed in proper relation to existing and proposed streets, topography, surface water, vegetative cover, other natural features, and the most advantageous development of adjoining areas. 2. Lot Si ze a) b) Lots within a subdivision shall be of a size and shape to satisfy the requirements of Section III., A). No land below the orJinary high water mark may be' used in computing minimum lot areas. ¢) The shape of individual lots may rende~' portions unusable for instal 1 lng private sewage treatment systems · er providing adequate separating distances between them and watercourses or water wells. Therefore, any part of a lot less than (30) feet wide shall not be used in computing the minimum lot area. 3. Public Streets a) Public streets shall be designed and located to take into account: 1 ) Exi sting and planned streets 2) Topographic conditions, including the bearing capacity and erosion potential of the soil, 3) Public convenience and safety, including facilitating fire protection, snow plowing and pedestrian traffic, 4) Requirements of public utility facilities, The proposed uses of land to be served, 6) Anticipated traffic volumes, and 7) Further resubdivision possibilities. b) Width: Public streets shall be of the right-of-way, roadway and surface width specified by the Municipal Highway Engineer and approved by the Governing Body. -ll- 0 c) Construction Standards for Public Streets: Where there are no local road standards,' the m(n(mum standards of the Minnesota Department of Highways shall apply. The subdivider shall grade the roadbeds in the roadway width to subgrade and shall surface all roadways to the width prescribed by these regulations. d) Sale of Lands Abutting on. Private Way: No person shall sell any parcel of land in a subdivision located in shoreland areas if it abuts on a road which has not been accepted as a public road unless the seller informs the purchaser in writing of the fact that the road is not a public road and is not required to be maintained b.y the municipality. Storm Drainage Storm drainage f~cilities, where required, shall be designed to' permit the unimpeded flow of natural watercourses; insure the drainage of all points along the line of streets; and provide positive drainage away from on-site sewage treatment facilities. In designing storm drainage facilities, special consideration shall be given to protection against shoreland erosion and siltation of surface wQters and preventing excess run-off on adjacent property. Water Supply Facilities Where there is ay existing public water supply system on or near the subdivision, the Municipal Planning Agency shall determine the feasibility of service and the requirements to be followed by the subdivider in connecting to the system. Where there is no existing public water supply, individual water supply systems will be permitted in accordance with the minimum standards and regulations of the Minnesota Department of Health. Sanitary Sewerage a) b) In areas that have a sanitary sewer system on or near the proposed subdivision, the Municipal Planning Agency shall determine the feasibility of service :and the procedures to be followed by the subdivider in joining the system. . In areas that are not to be served by sanitary sewer systems, on-site sewage treatment systems utilizing septic tank and soil absorption fields will be permitted bnly wh~re soil borings and percolation tests indicate the systems will function adequately. Individual sewage treatment systems shall be constructed to meet the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as referenced in Section V.,B) of this ordinance. The subdivider shall carry out sufficient soil borings and percolation tests to adequately portray the character of c) the soil, ground water levels, and depth to bedrock. Each lot shall have at least (50%) of its area free of all the limiting conditions set forth in Section VII., A) of this.. ordinance. c) The Municipal Planning Agency may prohibit the installation of sewage treatment facilities utilizing septic tank and soil absorption fields where such systems would impair water quality, and may require alternative methods of waste treatment and disposal including, but not limited to, biological and/or tertiary treatment plants, or incinerator or chemical toilets. d) Plans. for private 'sewage treatment systems not ut~lizin, g septic tank and soil absorption fields, as specified in paragraph (c), shall be approved in writing by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The subdivider shall clearly indicate on the face of the plat and in any deed. of conveyance that septic tank and soil absorption fields are not to be used. Improvements: The Municipal Planning Agency may require that before final approval of any plat, the subdivider shall install required street, sanitary sewage and utility improvements or if such improvements are not installed at the time that the final plat is submitted for approval, the subdivider shall, before recording the plat, enter into a contract with the Municipality agreeing to install the required improvements and shall file with said contract a surety bond meeting the approval of the Municipal Attorney as a guarantee that such improvements wi 11 be completed by the subdi vi der or hi s subcontractors not later than one year from the date' of recording of the plat or later if specified. One week prior to the time each improvement is to be installed and upon its completion, the subdivider must notify the Municipal Planning Agency so that adequate inspections can be made. D) Dedications: The Municipal Planning Agency may require that suitablelsites lin subdivisions be dedicated or reserved for future public use, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, .public access and ~open spaces as needed by the subdivision. Any part of a streetlor other public way which is indicated-on a comprehensive plan or plan component shall conform to the arrangements, width and location indicated, and shall be offered for dedication to the municipality. ® The Municipal Planning Agency may require that easements for drainage ways of widths sufficient to accommodate anticipated storm water run-off be provided. -13- E) F) e The Municipal Planning Agenc~v mas require that easements for public utilities be provided. Procedures for submitting a plat: All plats, replats or any modifications thereof shall be submitted to the Governing Body in the manner set forth in Minnesota Statutes 1976, Section 462.358. Any proposed plat in shoreland areas which is inconsistent with the'provisions of this ordinance shall be .reviewed by the 'Commissioner of Natural Resources before approval of the municipality may be granted. Such review shall require that proposed plats be received, by the Commissioner of N~tural Resources at least ten (10) days before a hearing is called by the municipality for consideration of approval of a final plat. Copies of all plats within shoreland areas shall be submitted to- the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of final approval by the municipality. 3. Survey'Monuments The subdivider shall install survey monuments in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1976, Section 505.02. Planned Unit Development (PUD). Altered zoning standards may be allowed as exceptions to this ordinance for PUD's provided preliminary plans are approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to th6ir approval by the City, and further provided: Central sewage facilities shall be installed which .meet applicable standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the PUD is connected to a municipal sanitary sewer. Open space is preserved through the use of restrictive deed convenants, public dedications, or other methods. The following factors are carefully evaluated to ensure the increased density of development is consistent with the resource limitations of the protected wateh: a) suitability of the site for the proposed use; b) c) physical and aesthetic impact of increased density; level of current development; d) amount and ownership of undeveloped shoreland; e) levels and types of water surface use and public accesses; f) possible effects on over-all public use. Any con~nercial, recreational, community, or religious facility allowed as part of the planned .unit development shall conform to all applicable federal and state regulations including, but no limited to the following: a) licensing provisions or procedures; b) waste disposal requlations.; c)- water supply regulations; d) building codes; e) safety regulations; f) regulations concerning the appropriation and use of Protected Waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 105.37, Subdivision 14; and g) applicable regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. The final plan for a planned unit development shall' not be modified, amended, repeal ed, or otherwise altered unless approved in writing by the developer, the municipality, and the Commi ssi oner. ® There are centralized shoreline recreation facilities such as beaches, docks and boat launching facilities. VIII. NONCONFORMING AND SUBSTANDARD USES A) Nonconforming uses: Any uses in existence prior to the date of enactment of this ordinance which do not conform to the use restrictions of the shoreland district are nonconforming uses. All sanitary facilities inconsisent with Section V.,B) shall be brought into conformity or discontinued within five (5) years from the date of enactment of this ordinance. Any nonconforming sanitary facility found to be a public · nuisance shall be brought into conformity or discontinued within 30 · .days after receiving written notice from the zoning administrator. All other nonconforming uses shall .be subject to the following conditions: No such use shall be expanded or enlarged except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. No structural alteration, addition, or repair to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50 percent of its assessed value at the time of its becoming a nonconforming use unless permanently changed to' a conforming use. -15- e If such use is discontinued for twelve {12) consecutive months, any future use of the building or premises shall conform to this ordinance. The assessor shall' notify the Zoning Administrator 'in writing of instances of nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months. m Uses or adjuncts thereof which are nuisances shall not be permitted to continue as nonconforming uses. B) Substandard uses: Any' uses of shorelands in existence prior to the date of enactment of this ordinance which are permitted within the shoreland district but do not meet the minimum lot area, setbacks or other dimensional requirements of this ordinance are substandard uses. Substandard uses, including substandard, sanitary facilities, shall be allowed to continue. However, any structural alteration or addition to a substandard use which will increase the substandard dimensions shall not be allowed. IX. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT A) Zoning administrator: The office.of the Zoning Administrator is hereby established, for which the Governing Body may appoint such employee or employees of the municipality as it may deem proper. The term of office of the Zoning Administrator shall be indefinite and shall terminate at the pleasure of the Governing Body. 1. Duties The Zoning Administrator shall: a) Act as Building Inspector for the Municipality;. b) Enforce and administer the provisions of this ordinance; c) d) Issue permits and certificates of occupancy and maintain records thereof; ,, Receive and forward to the Governin~ Body' and the Municipal Planning Agency all applications for conditional ~use permits; e) Receive and forward all applications and petitions' for matters to come before the Board of Adjustment; f) Receive and forward to the Governing Body and the Municipal Planning Agency all applications for amendments to this ord i nanc e; g,) Forward notices of public hearings to consider variances, amendments or conditional uses to the Commissioner of Natural Resources at least 'ten (10) days prior to 'such hearing. B) h) Forward amendments and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under this ordinance to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (lO) days of. final action or amendment. i) Inspect all construction and development to ensure the standards of this ordinance are being complied with; J) Have the authority to'enter upon such 'lands and premises as necessary to ensure the standards of this ordinance are being complied with; k) l) Provide and maintain a public information bureau relative to matters arising 6ut of this ordinance; and Maintain the shoreland Zoning Map as required in Section II. ,B). Board of Adjustment: A Board of Adjustment is hereby established and vested with such authority as is hereinafter provided and as provided in Minnesota Statutes 1976, Chapter 462. Such Board shall consist, of three members. The three (3) members shall be appointed by the Governing Body. The board members shall be appointed for terms coinciding with terms on the Municipal Planning Agency· The Board of Adjustment shall elect a chairman and vice chairman from. amongst its members. It shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business and shall keep a public record of its transactions, findings and determinations. The meetings of the Board of Adjustment shal'l be held at the call of the chairman and at such other times as the Board in its rules of procedure may specify. 3. Powers. The Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers: a) To grant a variance as provided in Section IX, C) of this ordinance. b) To interpr, et zoning district boundaries on official zoning maps. .. c) To permit the extension of a zoning district where the boundary line thereof divides a lot in one ownership at the time of the passage of this ordinance, but such extension of any district shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet. d) To act upon all questions as they may arise in the administration of this ordinance; and to hear and decide appeals from and to review any order, requicements, decisioR or determination made by an administrative official charged with enforcing this ordinance adopted pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1976, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6 and Section 462.359. -17- ( C) Variances from standards: D) In any case where, upon application of any responsible parties to the Board of Adjustment, it appears, that by reason of exceptional. circumstances, the ·strict enforcement of any provision of 'the' standards would cause unnecessary hardship or that strict conformity with the standards would be unreasonable, impractical or not feasible under the circumstances, the Board of Adjustment may permit a variance therefrom upon such' conditions as it may prescribe for management of shorelands consistent with the general purposes of this ordinance and the intent of this and all other applicable state and local regulations and laws, provided that: l. The condition causing the hardship is unique to that property. e The variance is proved necessary in order to secure for the applicant a right or rights that are enjoyed by other owners in the same area or district. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest or damaging to the rights of other persons or to property values in the neighborhood. me The granting of the variance will not be contrary to management policies of the area or district. No variance shall be granted simply because there are no objections or because those who do not object outnumber those who do; nor for any other reason than a proved hardship. Conditional uses: 1. Application for Condition Use Permit Any use listed as a conditional use in this ordinance shall be permitted only upon application to the Zoning Administrator and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Governing Body after review by the Municipal Planning Agency. Standards Applicable to all Conditional Uses In reviewing a Conditional Use Permit the Municipal Pla.nning Agency shall evaluate the effect of the proposed use upon: a) The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. b) The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation. c) Existing topographic and drainage features and vegetative cover on the site. d) The location of the site with respect to flood plains and floodways of rivers or streams. -18- e) The erosion potential of.the site based upon degree and direction of slope, soil type and vegetative cover. f) The location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. g) .'The need of the proposed use for a shoreland location. h). Its compatabilitywith uses on adjacent land. i) The amount of liquid wastes to be generated and the ._ adequacy of the proposed treatment systems. j) Locational policies of the municipality which include: 1) Domestic uses shall be generally preferred; Uses not inherently a source of pollution within an area shall be preferred over uses that are 'or may be a pollution source; 3) Use locations within an area tending to minimize the possiblity of pollution shall be preferred over use locations tending to increase that possibility. Conditions Attached to C-onditional Uses Upon consideration of the factors listed above, the Governing Body may attach such conditions, in addition to those required elsewhere in this ordinance, that it deems necessary in furthering the purposes of this ordinance. Violation of any of these conditions shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. Such conditions may include specifications for, without limitation because of specific enumeration: type of shore cover; increased setbacks and yards; specified sewage treatment and water supply facilities; landscaping and planting screens; period of operation; operational control; sureties; deed restrictions; locations of piers, docks, parking and signs; type of construction or any other requirements necessary to fullfill the purpose and intent of this ordinance. In order to secure information upon which to base~ its determination the Municipal Planning Agency may require the applicant to furnish, in addition to the information required for a .zoning permit, the following information: a) A plan of the area showing contours, soil types, high water mark, groundwater conditions, bedrock, slope and vegetative cover. b) Location of buildings, parking areas, traffic access, driveways, walkways, piers, open spaces and landscaping. c) Plans of buildings, sewage treatment facilities, water supply systems, and arrangements of operations. -19- E) me Se d) Specifications for areas of proposed filling, grading, lag00ning or dredging. e) Other pertinent information necessary to determine if the proposed use meets the requirements of this ordinance. The Municipal Planning Agency in evaluating each application may request the -County Soil and Water Conservation District to'make available expert assistance from those state and federal agencies which are assisting said district under a memorandum of understanding and any other state or federal agency which can 'provide technical assi stance. Notice and Public Hearing Before making a recommendation upon an application for Conditional Use Permit the Municipal Planning Agency shall hold- a public hearing. Notice of such public hearing specifying the time, place, and matters to come before the Agency shall be published in the official paper of the Municipality at least ten (lO) days in advance of such hearing. In its recommendations to the Governing Body, the Agency may suggest additional conditions to those already imposed. The Governing Body shall 'make the determination to issue a Conditional-Use Permit. Fees The applicant, upon filing his application, shall pay a fee to the zoning Administrator not to exceed administrative costs. Such fees shall be determined by the Governing Body. Permits and certificate of occupancy: 1. Bui 1 ding Permit a) b) Hereafter no person shall erect, alter, or move any building or part thereof without first securing a building permit therefor. No permit fee shall be charged for an alteration costing less than one thousand dollars ($1,000). Application for a building permit :shall be made to the Zoning Administrator on forms to be furnished by' the Municipality. Each application for a permit to construct or alter a building shall be accompanied by a plan drawn to scale showing the dimensions of the lot to be 'built.upon and the size and location of the building and accessory buildings to be erected. Applications for any kind of building permit shall contain such other information as imay be deemed necessary for the proper enforcement of this ordinance or any other. The Zoning Administrator shall issue the building permit only after determining' that the -20- F) building plans, together with the application, comply with the terms of this ordinance, except where such setback does not comply with the planning of future road construction, which information shall be furnished by the Municipality. 2. Other Permi ts Permits for installing water supply and sewage 'treatment systems or grading and filling must also be obtained from the Zoning Administrator before construction is begun. Permit fees and inspection fees may be established by resolution of the Governing Body and 'shall be collected by the .Zoning Administrator for deposit with the Municipality and credited to the General Revenue Fund. 4. Certificate of Occupancy a) A certificate of occupancy shall be obtained from the Zoning Administrator before any building hereafter erected Or structurally altered is occupied or used or the use of any such building is altered. b) Application for a certificate of occupancy for a new building or for an existing building which has been altered shall be made to the Zoning Administrator as part of the application for a 'building permit as required in Section IX. ,E),l. c) Every certificate of occupancy shall state that the building or proposed use of a building or land complies with all provisions of law and this ordinance.. A record of all certificates of occupancy shall be kept on file in the office of the Zoning Administrator, and copies shall be furnished on request to any person having a proprietary or tenancy interest in the building or land affected. Enforcement: This ordianance shall be administered and enforced by the Zoning Administrator, who is hereby designated the enforcing officer. In the event of a violation or a threatened violation of 'this ordinance, the Governing Body or any member thereof, in addition to other remedies, may institute appropriate actions or proceedings to prevent, restrain, correct or abate 'such violations or threatened violations, and it shall be the duty of the Municipal Attorney to institute such action. 5 Any taxpayer or taxpayers of the Municipality may institute mandamus proceedings in the District Court to compel specific performance by the proper official or officials of any duty required by this ordinance. -21- me Any person, finn, or corporation who shall violate any of the provisions hereof or who shall fail to comply with any of the provisions or who shall make any false statement in any document required to be submitted under the provisions hereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars {$500.00) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. G) Joint exercise of powers: To facilitate administration of this ordinance, the Governing Body : may enter into joint powers agreements with adjacent or otherwise similarily situated, local units of government for the .purpose of jointly administering and enforcing shoreland management ordinances pursuant to the procedures and authority of Minnesota Statutes 1976, Section 394.32 and Section 471.59. IX. AMENDMENT A) Application: This ordinance may be amended whenever the public necessity and the general welfare require such .amendment by following the procedure specified in this section. Requests' for amendment of this ordinance shall be initiated by a petition of the owner or owners of the actual property; a recommendation of the Municipal Planning Agency; or by action of the Governing Body. An application for an amendment shall be filed with the office of the Zoning Administrator, who shall forward the application to the Municipal Planning Agency for study and report. This application may not be acted upon by the Governing Body until it has received the recon~nendation of the Planning Agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the Planning Agency. .4.. Notice shall be sent by letter, when an:'~ amendment application has been filed for"a"change in district boundaries, to: all property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet as to the time and place of the public hearing. Such notice shall include a map or plat of the lands proposed to be changed and all lands within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundaries of the property proposed to be rezoned, together with the names and addresses of the owners of the lands in such as the name appears on the records of the Municipality. -22- B) Public hearing: Upon receipt in proper from of the application and other requested material, the Municipal Planning Agency shall conduct a public hearing in the manner prescribed by Minnesota Statutes 1976, Section 462.357. C) Authorization: Following the public hearing, the Municipal Plannin~ Agency shall make a report of its recommendations on the proposea amendment and shall file a copy with the Governing Body within Sixty (60) days after the hearing. D) Fees: To defray the administrative costs of processing of requests for an, amendment to this ordinance, a fee not exceeding administrative costs shall be paid by the petitioner. Such fee shall be determined by the Governing Body. XI. DATE OF EFFECT This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval, as provided by law. -23-4061F CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SHORELAND AREAS OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDINANCE NO. 65 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Statutory Authorization. This ShoreLand Management Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization contained in M.S. S105.485, Subd. 6, as an interim ordinance pending the.development and adoption of a final ordinance and official control ordinance to regulate the development of shoreland areas of this City. . Sec. 2. Operative Provisions. 2.01.~ ~e~ulation of Shoreland .Development. Chapter Six: NR 82~84, Standards and Criteria For the Management of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota, as filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State and the Minnesota ComMissioner of Administration on M~rch 15, 1976, is hereby adopted, incorporated by reference herein, and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set forth h~rein, as an interim ordinance'for the management of shoreland areas of this City.' As herein incorporate~, said regulation NR 82-84 shall have ~he force.of law and as such be.fully enforceable. 2.02. Relationshi~ to Existing Ordinances. The standards set forth in s~id regulations NR 82-84 shall apply to all shorelands of all public waters,..as those terms are defined in said regulations, wi'thin the'City.of Chanhassen. Where the standards of other ordinances of the City are more restrictive than the requirements set forth in said regulations NR 82-84, then the more restrictive standards shall apply. Sec. 3. Classification of Lakes. The lakes of the City of Chanhassen are hereby classified into the following c~assifications for purposes of this ordinance and the aforesaid regulations: a. Natural Environment Lakes: - Rice Marsh Lake Harrison St. Joe Rice Silver Recreational Development Lakes: Riley Lucy Ann Susan Minnewashta ~ Christmas General Development Lakes: Lotus Violation. 4.01. Penalties. Any person, firm, or corporation who shall violate any. o ~hl Provisions hereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upun conviction thereof, sha~l be punished by a fine not to exceed $300.00 or by imprisonment for not to exceed ninety (90) days Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. 4.02. Enforcement. In the event any building or structure is erected, con.str.ucte altered, repaired, used, converted, maintained, or any ... shoreland is altered or used in violation of this ordinance, the Zoning Admini. s{rator of the City may 'institute any proper action or proceeding in the name of the C-ity (a) to prevent such un]awful erection, construction, alteration, repair, conversion, maintenance or use; or'(b) to restrain'or abate such violation; or (c) to prevent the .use or occupancy of any such building, structure, or land. Sec. 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force .and effect from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the Council this 18th day. Q.f --~----J_ul¥ , 1977. Walter lto--b~s,~ Mayoi~ ~ City Clerk/Manager Publish in Carvcr County Herald on. July 1977. -2- CHAPTER SIX: NR 82-84 STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SHORELAND AREAS OF MINNESOTA NR 82 GENERAl, PROVISIONS (a) Statement of Policy The uncontrolled use of shorelands adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare by contributing to pollution of public waters and by impairing the local tax base. In accordance with the authority granted in the Laws of. Minnesota 1973, Chapter 3'/9, and in furtherance of the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes 19'/4, Chapters 105, 115, 116, and 462, the Commissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the Commis- sioner, does hereby provide the municipalities of the State with minimum standards and criteria for the subdivision, use, and development of the shore- lands of public waters located in municipalities in order to preserve and en- hance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural en- vironmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise utilization of water and related land resources of the State. (b) Scope (1) To achieve the policies declared in NR 82(a), the Commissioner here sets forth minimum standards and criteria for the wise use and development of shorelands in NR 82-84 which include: (aa) Classification of public waters. Cob) Regulations providing for the designation of land use zoning dis- triers compatible with shoreland management classification. (cc) Regulations providing' minimum dimensions for the size and length of water frontage of lots suitable for building sites. (dd) Regulations governing the placement of structures in relation to shorelines and roads. (ee) Regulations governing the amount of impeln,ious surface allowed on each lot. (ff) Regulations governing the 'type and placemen, t of sanitary and waste diposal facilities. (gg) Regulations governing the alteration of natural shorelands in municipalities. (hh) Regulations governing the placement of roads and parking areas in shoreland areas. . (ii) Regulations governing the subdivision of shoreland areas in municipalities. (jj) Provisions for the enforcement and administration of municipal shoreJand management ordinances. '(2) These are minimum standards aad criteria for municipal shoreland 1 NR Sl SnORELA.~,'D MA.NAClrMIrN'r management ordinances. Each municipality shall be responsible for the ministration and enforcement of the shoreland management ordinance adopted in compliance with these standards and criteria. Nothing in .these standards and criteria shall be construed as prohibiting or discourag'.mg municipality from adopting and enforcing ordinances, rules, or regulatior. which are more restrictive. (c) Jurisdiction These minimum standards and criteria apply to those shorelands of public. waters of the State which are located in municipalities. (d) Definitions For the purpose of these regulation-~, certain terms or words used herein shall be interpreted as follows: the word "shall" is mandatory, not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally .... "Boathouse', means a structure used solely for the storage of boats or boat- hag equipment. "Building Line" means that line measured across the width of the lot at the point where the main structure is placed in accordance with setback provi- sions. "Clear-cutting" means the removal of an entire stand of trees. "Conditional Use" means a use of shorelands which is permitted within a zoning district only when allowed by the municipality after a public hearing, if certain conditions are met which eliminate or minimize the incompatibility with other permitted uses of the district. "Crowding Potential" means the ratio of total acreage of a water body to shore miles. ~ "Hardship" means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by th. landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential charactt of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under terms of the official controls. "Lot" means a parcel of land designated by metes and .bounds, registered land survey, auditors plot, or other accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by said description for the purISose of Sale, .lease, or separation thereof. For the purposes of these regulations, a lot shall be con- sidered to be an individual building site which shall be occupied by no more than one principal structure equipped with sanitary facilities. "Mtmcipality" means any city. : "Nonconforming Use" means any use of land established before the ef- fective date of a municipal ordinance which does not conform to the use restrictions of a particular zoning district. This should not be confused with substandard dimensions of a c'onforming use. "Ordinary High'Water Mark". means a mark delir;eating the highest water · level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave 2 evidence ~p~n ~e lan~s~pe. The ~r~ high ~ater marg is c~ · at po~t where ~e natural vegetation changes from pr~ominantly aquatic to predominantly te=es~i~. "Plied Unit ~evelopment" mea~ a type of development ~hich may ~- co. orate a v~iety of land u~ pla~efl ~d developed ~ a unit. ~e PI~ UNt Development is disthguished from ~e ~aditionM su~ivision pr~e~ of development h ~at ~g st~d~ds such ~ densi~, setbacks, height 1~, ~d m~um lot siz~ may be altered by negotiation ~d a~eement betw~n · e developer, ~e m~icipaliW and the Co~issioner. "Public Waters" me~s ~y waters of ~e S~te which se~e a beneficial public purpose, as defined in M~eso~ Statutes 1974, Section 105.37, Sub- division 6. However, no lake, pond, or toWage of less ~an 10 acr~ ~ s~ ~d no river or s~eam hav~g a total draNage ~ea le~ ~an two square miles n~d be regulated by ~e m~icipali~ for ~e pu~oses of ~ese regulations. A body of water created by a private user where ~ere was no previous shore- l~d, ~ de~ here~, for a desi~at~ private use au~or~ed by ~e Com- mNsioner sh~ be exempt from ~e provisions of ~ese regulation. ~e o~cial detemhation of ~e sNe ~d physi~l 1~ of drahage ar~s of rivers and s~eams sh~ be made by ~e Commissioner. ~e o~ciM sNe of l~es, ponds, or flowag~ sh~l be ~e ~e~ listed in &e Division of Water, SoRs and MNerals Bu~etin 25, ~ ~ventoo' of Minn~ ~ or ~ ~e event ~at l~es, ponds or flowages ~e not listed &erein, o~cial dete~in~- fion of s~ and physical ~i~ shall be made by ~e Com~ssioner in co- operation wi~ m~icipMifi~. "Setback" m~ns fie mhimum hofi~ntal dist~ce between a s~ct~e or s~ita~ facility ~d ~e ordina~ high water mark or between a s~ct~e or s~ita~ facRi~ and a road, M~way, or prope~ lhe. "Shoreland" m~ns land located wi~N ~e fo~owhg dis~ces from public water: (i) 1,000 feet from ~e ordh~ N~ water m~k of a l~e, ~nd, or towage; and (ii) 300 feet from a river or s~em, or ~e la.ward extent of a flood pla~ designated by ordinance on such a river or s~eam, whichever ~ greater. ~e practical l~ts of shorelands may be l~s ~ ~e statuto~ l~its whenever ~e waters hvolved ~e bounded by to~aphic divides which extend landward from ~e waten for lesser dist~ and when a~ proved by ~e Commissioner. "S~ct~e" means any building or app~en~ce ~ereto, except aerial or underground utility lines, such ~ sewer, elec~ic, telephone, telegraph, or gas l~es, ~cludhg towers, pol~, and o~er suppon~g app~enances. "Subdivision" m~ns improved or unimprov~ l~d or l~ds wNch ~e divided for ~e pu~ose of s~e or lease, or divided successively withh a five ye~ period for ~e pu~ose of sale or le~e, into ~ree or more lots or parcels of less ~an five acres each, contiguo~ in area ~d which are under common o~ersMp or consol. "Subst~dard Use" means any u~ of shorelands efis~g prior to ~e date of enac~ent of any municipal ordnance which is ~mitted withN ~e a~ plicable zonhg dis~ct but do~ not meet ~e mh~um lot ~ea and len~h of water Iron.ge, s~ct~e ~t~cks, or o~er d~ension~ st~d~ds of ~e ord~ce. N~ ~'~ SHOR. F..LA~N'D MA~AGEM~"~ "Varig.ncc" means any m~cation or variation of o~cial ~n~ols where it ~ dele~ned ~a~ ~cau~ of hardships, s~ct enforcement of ~e o~cial consols is impractical (e) Severability The provisions of these regulations shall be severable, and the invalidity of any paragraph, subparagraph, or subdivision thereof shall not make void any other paragraph, subparagraph, subdivision, or any 'other part. (0 Shoreland Mm~agement Clzz6fficafion System (1) The Commissioner shall classify all public waters in municipalities in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Reg. Cons. 71 (a)(1), (2) and (3) and the following criteria: (aa) Those waters whose shores are presently characterized by indus- trial, commercial or high density residential development shall be classified as General Development. Cob) Those waters whose shores are presently characterized by medi- um density residential development with or without limited service-oriented commercial development shall be classified as Recreational Developme. nt. (cc) Those waters whose shores are presently characterized by low density, single-family residential development shall be classified as Natural Environment. (dd) Those waters whose shores are not yet densely developed, so that the future character of the waters is a matter of choice, shall be classified as either Natural Environment or Recreational Developmen. t, depending on: (i) Existing natural characteristics of the waters and shorelands. (ii) The ability of the waters and adjacent shorelands, based on size and crowding potential, to accept, without degradation, medium density shoreland development. (iii) State, regional, county, and municipal plans. (h,) Existing land use restrictions. (2) Supporting data for thc shoreland management classification is sup- plied by the records and ~es of the Department of Natural Resources, Bul- letin No. 25 of the Division of Waters, Soils and Minerals (1968); other supporting data is provided in ~'~'~nn~;Of~.~$ Lnkeshore, Part 2, Statistical Sum- mary, Department of Geography, University of Minnesota; and additional supporling data may be supplied, as needed, by thc Commi~ioner. (3) Classification Procedures Public waters shall be classified by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall document each classification with appropriate supporting data. He shall submit a preliminary list of classifiedpublic waters to each affected munic- ipality. Each affected municipality shall be given an opportunity to request a change in the proposed classification. If a municipality feels such a change is needed, a written request with supporting data may be submitted to the Commissioner for consideration. If a municipality requests a change in a 4 RULES A~']D REGULATIONS N'R ~.~ proposed ah0rcl d m agcmcnt class cati0n and public water is 10cat p~ly wi~ ~e j~i~tion of ~o~er gove~en~ ~i~ ~e ~mm~- sioner review reco enda ona of o er ove en l prior to mak~g a ~ d~ision on '~e propos~ cb~ge. (4) Reclass~cation ~e Co~i~ioner may, as ~ ne~ ~es, recl~si~ any public water. ~so, ~y m~icip~i~ may at ~y ~e submit a resolution ~d sup~g dam request~g a ch~ge ~ any shorel~d ~agement class~cation of wa- - ters wi~in its j~sdiction to ~e Comm~sioner for co~idera~on. (5) Cla~ca~on System ~ Mod~cafion and Expansion ~e Co~issioner may, ~ ~e need ~es, m~ or exp~d ~e shore- l~d class~cafion system to provide specie.ed shoreland ~nagement reg- ulatio~ based upon unique ch~acteristics ~d capabilities of any p~blic water(s). ~ 83 ~ USE COBOL PRO.IONS " (a) ~ U~ D~i~fion ~e development of shorelands of public waters shMl be con~oll~ by means of land use zon~g disWic~ w~ch are designat~ to be compatible wi~ · e closes of public waters set fo~ ~ NR 82 (0. ~nd use zon~g d~c~ shall be established to provide for: (1) ~e m~agement of ~eas ~suitable for development due to wet soils, steep slopes, flood~g, ~adequate drayage, severe erosion potential, or ~y o~er feat~e l~ely to be h~ffi to ~e h~, safew or welf~e of ~e re~iden~ of ~e co~. (2) ~e rese~ation of areas suitable for r~idential development from" encroac~ent by co~erci~ and ~dus~al uses. (3) ~e central~tion of se~ice fa~fli6~ for residenti~ ~eas ~d en- hancement of economic gro~ for ~ose areas suitable for l~ited ~mmer- cial development. (4) ~e m~agement of ~e~ where use may be d~ected toward com- mercial or ~dus~i~ uses, rather th~ s~ictly residen6al uses, which by the~ nature reqube location ~ shoreland arem. (b) Criteria for Land Use Zoning District Designation The land use zoning districts established by municipalities shall be based on considerations of: preservation of natural areas; present ownership mud development of shoreland areas; shoreland soil types and their engineering capabilities; topographic characteristics; vegetative cover; municipal socio- economic development needs and plans as they involve water and related land resources; the land requirements of industry which, by its nature, re- quires location in shoreland areas; a.nd the necessity to preserve and restore certain areas having significant historical or ecological value. (c) Zoning Provisions In order to reduce the effects o~ over-crowding, to prevent pollution of waters of the State, to provide ample space on lots for sanitary facilities, to $ minimize fl~ damage, to m~t~ pro~ value, ~d to ma~ na~ characlerisgcs of shorelands ~d adja~nt water ~, municip~ .sborel~d or~ces sha~ ~n~ol lot s~s, placement of s~ct~ on 1o~, and altera- tions of ~oreland ~. (1) ~t S~e ~ 1o~ ~tend~ ~ ~iden~ bu~g gt~ platt~ or creat~ by metes ~d bo~ds description ~t~ ~e date of enac~ent of ~e municip~ ~orel~d ord~cc ~ confo~ ~ ~e follo~g ~ensions: (aa) For Na~ Envko~ent W~ters: ~ not se~ .by public ~wer sh~ be le~ g0,000 squ~e f~t (nppro~ately 2 a~es) in ~ea and at least 2~ f~t ~ wid~ at ~e b~d~g ~e ~d at ~e ord~a~ ~h water m~k (for lo~ abutt~g a public water). ~ ~ed by public sewer and which abut a public water sh~ be at least 40,0~ squ~e feet (approx- ~ately 1 acre) ~ ~ea ~d at l~t 125 f~t ~ 'wid~ at ~e buffd~g l~e ~d at ~e ord~a~ hi~ water ~ ~ o~er 1o~ se~ by. a public.. '. sewer sh~l be at l~t 20,000 squ~e feet (appro~mately ~ acre) ~ ~ and at l~t 125 feet ~ wid~ at ~e bulldog l~e. ~b) For R~r~fional Development Waters: ~ not s~ed by Ifc sewer shall be at le~t 40,~0 squ~e feet (appro~mately 1 acre) in ~ea ~d at least 150 feet ~ wid~ at ~e buffd~g l~c ~d at ~e ordina~ high water m~k (for lots abutt~g a public wa~r). ~ se~ by public sewer and w~ch abut a public water sh~ be at l~t 20,000 squ~e feet (a~ pro~ately ~ acre) ~ ~ ~d at least 75 feet ~ wid~ at ~e buBd~g l~e and at ~e ordin~ high water m~k. ~ o~er lo~ se~ed by a public sewer shah be at l~st 15,000 squ~e feet ~ ~ ~d at l~st 75 f~t ~ ~dth at ~e (qc) ~or General Development Water: ~ not served by a public . sewer shah be at le~t 20,~0 squ~e feet (appro~ately ~ acre) ~ ~ea ~d at least 1~ f~t ~ wld~ at ~e bu~d~g l~e ~d at ~e ord~a~ high water mark (for fca abut~g a public water). ~ se~ed by a public sewer and which abut a public water, shah be at le~t 15,000 square feet ~ ~ea ~d at least 75 feet ~ wid~ at ~e bu~d~g l~e and at ~e ord~a~ hi~ water mark. ~1 o~er lo~ se~ed by a public sewer sh~ be at least 10,000 square feet ~ ~ ~d at l~st 75 feet ~ wid~ at the bu~d~g line. (dd) Subs~dard ~: ~ts of r~ord ~ ~e o~ce of ~e Count~ Regist~ of Dee~ on ~e date of enactment of ~e Mu~cip~ Shoreland Ordi- nance which do not meet ~e requirements of HR 83 (c) (1) (aa) ~rou~ (dd) may be allowed ~ buffding sites prodded such use is permitted ~ ~e ~ng dis~ict, ~e lot is in separate o~ershlp ~om abutt~g lands ~d sanit~ '~d dimensional requkements of ~e shorel~d ordinance ~e complied with ins~ f~ as practicable. ~ch municip~ ord~ce may, ~nsistent wi~ these standards ~d criteria, set a m~um ske for substandard 1o~ or ~pose other res~ictions on ~e development of substandard lots, ~clud~g the pr~ hibition of development un~l the substantival lot(s) are se~ by public sewer and water. (~) ~ceptions ~ Ex~ptio~ to ~e provisiom of NR 83 (c) (1) (~) ~ougb (ce) may be ~r~tted for Pl~ed U~t ~evelopmen~ pur- suant to NR 83 (e) (4). (2) Placement of S~c~ on ~ ~e placement of s~cm~ on lorn ~ ~ con~olled by ~e municipal 6 shoreland ordinance in accordance with thc class o! public waters, high water elevation, and location of roads and highways. (aa) Thc fol]owlng minimum setbacks for each class of public .waters shall apply to all structures except those specified as exceptions in NR 83 (c) (2) (i) For l~atural Environment Waters: at least 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots not served by public sewer and at least 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots served by public sewer.. (ii} For Recreational Development Waters: at least 100 feet from the ordinm'y high water mark for lots not served by public sewer and at least 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots served by public sewer. (iii) For General Development Waters: at least ?$ feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots not served by public sewer and at least 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots served by public sewe~. (iv) Furthermore, no structure shall be erected in the floodway of - a river or stream as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 104.02. Cob) High Water Elevations -- In addition to the setback require- ments of ~R 83 (c) (2), municipal shoreland ordinances shall control place- ment of structures in relation to high water elevation- Structures shall be placed at an elevation consistent with any applicable local flood plain man- agement ordinances. When fill is required to meet this elevation, the fill shall be allowed to stabilize to accepted engineering standards before construction is begun. When no ordinances exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, shall be placed shall be determined as follows: (i) For lakes, ponds, and flowages by (a) an evaluation of available flood information and consistent with Statcwide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas of l~iinnesota or CO) placing thc lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the highest known water level. In those instances where sufficient data on known high water levels are not available, the ordinary high water mark shall be used. (ii) For rivers and stre~rn~, by an evaluation of available flood in- formation and consistent with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Manage- ment of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota. (cc) Proximity to Roads and Highways -- No s~ructure shah be placed nearer than $0 feet from the right-of-way line o~ any federal, state, or county trunk highway; or 20 feet from the right-of-way line of any town road, public street, or others not classified. (dd) All structures, except non-residential agricultural structures, shall not exceed 35 feet in height, unless such structures are approved as part of a planned unit development pursuant to the procedures set forth in NR 83 (e). (4). (ee) The total area of all impervious surfaces on a lot shall not exceed 30 percent of the total lot area. (fO Exceptions: (i) Boathouses may be located landward of the ordinary high water 7 mark as a ~ndi~on~ us= provid~ ~cy =e not us~ for habi~tion ~d ~ey do not cont~ sani~ (ii) ~cagon of pica ~d doc~ sha~ ~ ~ntro~ed by applicabl~ s~te ~d Io~ re~atio~ (iii) ~ere development e~ on bo~ sides of a proposed b~d~ site, s~ct~ sctbac~ may be ~ter~ to ~e sctbac~ of c~sl~g s~ct~es ~to a~o~L 0v) ~mmerci~, ~d~i~, or p~iu~ o~n space u~s rcq~r~g l~afion on public waters may be ~ow~ ~ ~ndifion~ ~ closer to such waters ~ ~e setbac~ specked ~ NR gB (c) (2). (~) Shoreland ~terafions (aa) Nat~ vegetation ~ shoreland areas shah be preened ~far as pracfi~ ~d re~onable ~ order to re~d s~/ace ~off ~ ~fl erosi6n, ~d to u~ excess nu~en~. ~e remov~ of hat.al veg~fion sh~ be con~o~ed by ~e' m~cipal shorel~d ore.ce ~ ~rd~ce ~ ~e fol- low~g criteria: (i) Clearcutt~g sh~l be prohibited, except as n~a~ for plac~g public roads, u~ifies, s~c~es, ~d p~g ~eas. (fi) Natural vege~fion sh~ be r~tor~ ~sof~ ~ legible' any cons~cfion projcc~ (~i) Selective cut~g of ~s and underbrush sh~l be ~owcd long ~ s~cicnt cover is ]eft to screen motor veMd~ ~d st~ct~es when viewed from ~e water. ~b) Gra~g ~d ~g ~ shorel~d ~ or ~y o~er subst~fial alteration of ~e hated topo~phy ~a~ be con~olled by ~e m~icipal shorel~d oraln~ce ~ acne.ce wi~ ~e foNo~t criteria: (i) ~e smdl~t ~o~t of b~e ~o~d sh~ be exposed for short a ~e ~ f~sible. -. (~) Tem~ra~ ~ound cover, such as m~ch, shall be u~ and pe~ent vegetative cover, such ~ sod, sh~ be provide. (rio Me~o~ to prevent erosion and ~ap sed~ent shall be ployed. (iv) Nffi sh~ be stab~ked to accept~ en~eerin$ s~nd~ds. (cc) ~terations of Beds of Pubic Waters (i) ~y work which will change or d~ish ~e ~se, c~en~ or cross s~fion of a public water shah be approved by ~e Commissioner before · e work is begun. ~h ~cludes cons~ction of channels ~d ditches, lag~n~g, ~edg~E of l~ or s~e~ bottom for remov~ of'muck, silt or weeds, ~d ~ ~ ~e I~e or s~eam bed. Approv~ shE1 be cons~ed to mean ~e issu~ce by ~e ~issioner of a pe~t under ~e pr~ures of M~esota Statutes 1974, Section I0~.42 ~d o~er rela~d s~tutes. (fi) Excavafio~ on shorelands where ~e ~tend~ p~os~ h con- n~ion to a public water, such ~ boat slips, can~s, lagoon, and harbsrs, · sh~ be con~o~ by ~e municip~ ~orel~d ordnance. Pe~i~ion for 8 RL~LF_.S A.,~D P.~i~ULATIO~S 1~'R ~ such excavations may be given o~y alter ~e ~i~i0ner h~ approv~ ~e propos~ co~ection to public waters. Approval sh~l be given o~y ff ~e proposed work is ~nslstent with ~pplicable state regulatlom for work. ~ b~s of public waters. (4) Placement of Roads ~d Par~g ~e~ ~ ~e placement of roads ~d p~k~g ~eas shall ~ con~oged ~ order to re~d ~e ~off of s~ace waters ~d excess nu~icn~. ~e placement of roads ~d park~g ~e~ sh~ be con~o~ by the municip~ shorel~d ordnance ~ accord~ce with the fo~ow~g criteria: (~) No ~pervious surface sh~l be placed wi~ 50 f~t of ~e ord~ ~gh water m~k. (bb) ~ere feasible and pracdc~, a~ roads and p~k~g ~ shall m~t ~e setback requiremen~ establish~ for s~uct~es ~ NR 83 (c) (2). (cc) Namr~ vegetation or o~er natur~ materials sh~l ~ use~ in ord~ to scr~n par~g areas when viewed from ~e water. ' ' (5) M~cipalifi~ may, under sp~iaI c~c~stances ~d with the ~m- missioner's approval, adopt shorel~d m~agement ord~ces which ~e not ~ s~ct ~nfo~ity wi~ NR 83 (c) "Zon~g Provisions" provided ~at ~e pro~sed ord~ce ~ based upon ~dividual pubic water capabiliti~ ~d · at ~e p~ of M~mota Statutes 1974, S~on 105.484 are satisfied. (d) Sanit~y Provisions In order to insure safe and healthful conditions, to prevent pollution and contamination of surface and ground waters, and to guide development com- patible with the natural characteristics of shorelands and related water re- sources, municipal shoreland ordinances shall control individual water supply and waste disposal systems in respect to location, construction, repair, use, and maintenance; and shall control commercial, agricultural, industrial and municipal waste disposal, and solid waste disposal sites. (1) Water Supply ' , (aa) Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes shall conform to Minnesota Department o~[ Health Standards for water quality. Cob) Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to flooding and upslope from any source of contamination. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be flood proofed in accordance with accepted en- gineering standards. (2) Sewage and Waste Disposal Any premises used for human occupancy shall be provided with an adequate method of sewage disposal to be maintained in accordance with acceptable practices. (aa) Public or municipal collection and treatment facilities shall b~ used where available or feas~le. COb) All private sew, age and other sanitary waste disposal systems .shall conform to applicable ~standards, criteria, rules, and regulations of the Minnesota Department of Health, the Pollution Control Age. ncy, and any ~ ~3 SHORELA~'D MANAGEMENY applicable local government regulations in terms of size, construction, use, and maintenance. (cc) Location and installation of a septic tank and soil absorption system shall be such that, with reasonable maintenance, it will function 'in a san/tary manner and will not create a nuisance, endanger the quality, of any domestic water supply, or pollute or contaminate any waters of the Slate. In determining a suitable location for the system, consideration shall be given to the size and shape of the lot, slope of natural and finished grade, soil permeability, high ground water elevation, geology, proximity to existing or future water supplies, accessibility for maintenance, and possible expansion of the ~ystem. (dd) Septic tank and soil absorption systems shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark in accordance with the class of public waters: (i) On Natural .Environment Waters, at least 150 fee{; ~ ('fi) On Recreational Development Waters, at least 7$~feet; and (iii) On General Development Waters, at least 50 feet. (ee) Soll absorption systems shall not be allowed in the following areas for disposal of domestic sewage: (1) Low, swampy areas or areas subject to recurrent flooding; (ii) Areas where the highest known ground water ~able, bedrock or impervious soil conditions are within four feet of the bottom of the system; and (ih') Areas of ground slope which create a danger of seepage of the effluent onto the surface of the ground. .~ (fO Municipal shoreland ordinances may require or allow alternative methods of sewage disposal such' a~ holding tanks, privies, electric or gas incinerators, biological and/or tertiary waste treatment plants or land dis- posal systems, provided such facilities meet the standards, criteria, rules, and regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health. ~g) Public sewage disposal and commercial, agricultural, solid waste, and industrial waste disposal shall be subject to the standards, criteria, rules, and regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (e) . Subdivislon Provlstons (1) Land Suitability , .. No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the municipality for the proposed use because of flooding, inadequate drainage, .soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage dis- posal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the. community. (2) Inconsistent Pla~ Reviewed by Comm;ssioner AU plats which are inconsistent w/th the municipal shoreland ordinance shall ('.. lO be reviewed by the Commissioner before approval by the municipality may be granted. Such review shall require that the proposed plats be received by the Commissioner st lust 10 days before a he~ing is c~lled by the munic. ipality for consideration of approvat of a final plat. (3) Copies of Plats Supplied to Commissioner Copies of all plats within shoreland areas shall be submitted to the Commis- sioner within 10 days of final approval by the municipality. (4) Planned U~it Development Altered zoning standards may be allowed as exceptions to the municipal shoreland ordinance for planned unit developments provided:. (aa) Preliminary plans shall be approved by the Commissioner prior to their approval by the municipality. (bb) Central sewage facilities shall be installed which at least ~eet the applicable standards, criteria, rules, or regulations of the Minnesota De;' partment of Health and the Pollution Control Agency or the plmuned unit development is connected to a municipal sanitary sewer. . (cc) Open space is preserved. This may be accomplished through the use of restrictive deed covenants, public dedications, or other methods. (dd) That the following factors are carefully evaluated to ensure that the i~creased density of development is consistent with the resource limita- tions of the public water: (i) Suitability of the site for the proposed use; (ii) Physical and aesthetic impact of increased density; (iii) Level of current development; (iv) Amount and ownership o~ undeveloped shoreland; (v) Levels and types of water surface use and public access; a~d (vi) Possible effects on over-all public use. (ee) Any commercial, recreational, community, or religious facility allowed as part of the planned unit development shall co~orm to all ap- plicable federal and state regulations including, but not limited to the follow- ~ng: (i) Licensing provisions or procedures; (ii) Waste disposal regulations; (iii) Water supply regulations; (iv) Build~ng codes; (v) Safety regulations; (vi) l~eg~lations concerning the appropriation and use of Public Waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1974, Chapter 10S; and (vii) Applicable regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Qual- ity Council. ~ (fi') The final plan for a planned unit development, shall not be 11 modified, ~nded, replied, or o~e~is~ ~tered by ~e develo~r, ~e m~cip~ity, ~d ~e ~m~ioner. ~ ~ere ~ cen~ed shorel~e recr~a~on fac~i~ ~uch beach., d~h ~d ~t h~c~g f~c~ities. ~ 84 G~ ~~~ON (a) Admln~fion ~d ~o~ment M~cip~ties shah provide for ~e a~s~ation ~d e~orcement M~icip~ Shorel~d Or~ adopted p~suant to M~e~ S~mtes 1974, Section 462.36Z (1) Pe~t S~t~m Ia order to ~aeiHtate orderly and e~aient ad~ation and e~oreement mu~eip~ shor~land ordinances, multiplies sh~l ~tab~sh pe~it pr~ ~ures for building ~ns~etion, ~st~a~on of s~w~ ~d water faeili~s, ~d ~ad~g ~d ~g ~ ~oreHn~ ~e~. (2) V~e~ sh~l only be ~ant~ when ~er~ ~ p~ieular h~dships which m~ a~et e~orcem~nt o~ o~eial oontrols ~praefieal. ~ey sh~ not c~eumvent ~ general pu~oses and intent va~ane~ may be ~anted ~at would ~ng ~s~ ~ w~eh th~ sub]e~ prope~ is locate. ~nditions may be impos~ in ~ ~anting o~ valances to ~ur~ comp]i~ and to prote~ adjacent prope~ies and ~e pubic int~resL (3) ~oneo~o~ng Under au~o~ o~ ~innesota Statutes 1974, Section 462, municipalities may adopt provisions to regulate, control, and reduce the number or extent of and ~adu~ly alienate nonco~or~ng and substandard uses. Municipal- ities sha~ provid~ ~or ~e el~nation N~ 83 (d) (2) (bb), (2) (ce), and (2) exceed 5 ye~s from ~e date of enactment of ~e munleipal ordinance. ~) ~o~t ~erc~e o~ ~owe~ ~ order W fac~itat~ more logi~l, consisten~ ~d e~cient adm~tion . m~ieipal shorel~d management ord~ees, municip~ities ~e encouraged, wherever ~easibl~ and practicable, to enter ~to ]o~t powers a~eements wi~ adjacent or othe~ise s~ilafly situated l~al units pu~os~ of join~y adm~iste~ng and enfore~g shorel~d management ordi- nates pu~uant w ~e proceduz~ ~d au~ority of Mi~esota Statutes 1974, See~on 394.32 and 471.59. (c) Notification (1) Copies of all notices o~ any public he~gs to consider v~i~ees, amendments, or conditional uses under ~e municipal shoreland management ordinance shall be received by the Co~issioner at least 10 days prior such hear~gs. (2} A ~py of amendments and final ~ecisions ~g valances or di~on~ uses under ~e municip~ sho?eland management o~dlnanee shall received by ~e Commissioner wi~in 10 da~s of ~nal action or ~endment. (Filed March 15. 1976) 12 ORDINANCE NO'. 418 , AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 801 OF THE WAYZATA CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING SHORELAND ZONING PROVISIONS AND. DISTRICT. t THE CITY OF WAYZATA ORDAINS: Section 1. Definitions Pertainin9 to Shoreland Matters. Article III, Section 302 of the Wayzata Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding tile following provisions: Boathouse - A structure used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. ~ Hardship - A situation where property in question cannot be put to a reason-- able use under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considera- tions alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under terms of the official controls. Clear-cutting - The removal of an entire stand of trees. Channel - A natural or artificial depression of perceptible extent, with definite bed and banks to confine and conduct water either contin- uously or periodically. Dredging ' To enlarge or clean-out a waterbody, watercourse, or wetland. Flood - A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the state of a lake that results in the inundation of normally.dry areas. Flood Plain - The areas adjoining a watercourse, which have been or hereafter may be covered by a regional flood. Flood, Regional - A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average, frequency in the magnitude of the lO0-year recurrency interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. Floodway - The channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry and discharge a regional flood. Obstruction - Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment' levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure or matter in, along, across or projecting into any channel, watercourse or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. Ordinary High Water Mark {OHW) - A mark del'ineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high. water mark is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. .Public Waters - Any waters Of the State, as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1979, Section 105.37, Subdivision 14, not including, however, a lake, pond or flowage of less than ten {10) acres in size or a river or stream having a total drainage area less than two {2} square miles. In addi-.' tion, bodies of water created b~ private users, where there was no previous shoreland {for a designated private use authorized by the Commissioner of Natural Resources) shall also not be considered public waters and thus exempt from the provisions of Article XXII of this Ordinance. The official determination of the size and physical limits of drainage areas of rivers and streams shall be made by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. lhe official size of lakes, ponds, or flowages "' shall be the areas listed in the Division of Waters, Soils and Hinerals Bulletin 25, an Inventory of Minnesota Lakes, or in the event that lakes, ponds or flowages are not listed therein, official determination o( size and physical limits shall be made by the Commissioner in coopera- tion with the City of Wayzata. Public Waters° General Development - Those Waters whose shores are generally characterized by industrial, commercial or high density residential development as determined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Standards and Critiera for the Management of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota {Minn. Reg. NR 82). Public Waters, Recreational Deve)opment - Those waters whose Shores are generally characterized by medium density residential development with or without limited service-oriented commercial development as determined by Minn. Reg. NR 82. Slope - The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal'usually expressed in percent or degree. Substandard Shoreland Use - Any use of shorelands existing prior to 1982 which is permitted within the applicable zoning district~ but does not meet the minimum lot area, length of water frontage, structure set- backs, or other dimensional standards of the Shoreland Overlay District. Surface Waters, General Development {GD)'- {See Public Waters - Genaral · . Development). ~ Surface Waters, Recreational Development I(RD) - (See Public Waters - Recreational Development). Visually InconSpicuous - Difficult to see or not readily noticeable. Water Body - A body of water (lake, pond) in a depression of land or ex- panded part of a river, or an enclosed basin that holds water and is surrounded by land. Watercourse - A channel or depression through which water flows, such as rivers, streams, or creeks, and may flow year-round or intermittently. Section 2. District Classification Listings. Article VIII, Section 801 of the Wayzata Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read: In order to classify, regulate and restrict the 1.ocation of trade and in-. dustry and the location of buildings designated for specific uses, to regulate and limit the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected or altered, to regulate and limit the intensity of the use of lot areas, and tO regulate and determine the areas of yards, recreation and open space within and surrounding such buildings, the City of Wayzata is hereby divided into fifteen (15) districts. The use, height and area regulations shall be uniform in each district, and said districts shall be known as: R-lA Low Density SinglJ Family Residence District Article IX R-1 Low Density Single Family Residence District Article X R-2 Single Family Residence District o Article XI m' R-3 Single Family Residence District Article XII R-4 Low Density Multiple Residence District Article XIII R-5 Averao. e Density Multiple Residence District Article XIV R-6 High Density Multiple Residence District Article XV INS Institutional District Article XVI C-1 Office and Limited Commercial District Article XVII C-2 Shopping Center Business District Arti~.Ze XVIII C-3 Service District ArticZe XIX C-4 Central Business District Article XX R-D Research and Development District Article XXI S Shoreland Overlay Di strict Article XXII~ PUD Planned Unit Development District Article XXIIA Section 3. Shoreland Over]ay District. Article XXII of the Wayzata Zohing Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: ARTICLE XXII, S SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT SECTION 2201, PURPOSE The intent of this Article is to reduce the effects of overcrowding, to prevent pollution of watersof the community, to provide ample space on lots for sanitary facilities, to minimize flood damages, to maintain pro- perty values, and to maintain natural characteristics of shorelands and adjacent water areas by controlling lot sizes, placement of structures on lots, and alteration of shoreland areas. SECTION 2202, SHORELAND DISTRICTS The shorelands within the City df Wayzata are hereby designated as ~horeland districts and the requirements set forth in this Ordinance shall govern development and other activities within these districts. The classification of the shoreland areas shall govern the use, alteration and development of these areas according to said classification as per M.S. ~ 104.485, M.S. and Hinnesota Regulations NR 82-84. SECTION .2203., DISTRICT APPLICATION The "S" District shall be applied to and superimposed upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this Ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "S" District shall be in addition to those established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of districts, the more re- strictive requirements shall apply. SECTION 2204, BOUNDARIES The boundaries of the Shoreland District are established within the follow- ing distances from the ordinary high water mark of the surface water de- pending on the size of the surface water as indicated'on the ~layzata Shoreland District Map. SURFACE WATER Greater than ten (10) acres (Table 1) DISTANCE (FEET)* 1,000 Rivers and Streams (draining an area greater than two (2) square miles)' 300** *The practical distance may be less whenever the waters-.involved are bounded by topographical divides which extend landward from the w~ters for lesser distances and prevent flowage toward the surface water. **The distance requirement shall be increased to the limit of the flood plain when the flood plain is greater than three hundred (300) feet. SECTION 2205, SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION The surface waters affected by this Section and which require controlled development of their shoreland (shoreland district) are shown on the map designated as the official "Shoreland Map of the City of Wayzata" which is properly approved and made a part of the Ordinance and filed with the Zoning Administrator. Surface waters generally greater than ten (10) aCres and given an identification number by the State of Minnesota are defined in Section 302 of this Ordinance and'listed in Table 1. Other surface~ waters affected by this Ordinance, generally having less than ten (10) acres, are classified as stormw~t~r treatment and control areas and thus r~gulated under the provisions of Chapter 807, Stormwater Treatment and Control, of the Wayzata City Code. 4 TABLE 1 SURFACE WATER DISTRIBUTION 'DNR Identification 'Number Name 27-133 27-95 27.138 Lake Minnetonka Gleason Lake Gleason Creek Peavey Lake SECTION 2206, MINIMUM LOT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 2206.1 Lot area above OHW (ordinary high water mark) Non-sewered Sewered, abutting water Sewered, non-abutting RD Recreational Development 2 acres 20,000 sq.ft. 15,000 sq.ft. 2206.2 Lot width* Non-sewered Sewered Classification 2206.3 Setback from OHW** Non-sewered Sewered GD RD GD RD GD General Development 2 acres 15,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 150 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. '75 ft. 2206.4 Maximum impervious surface to lot area ratio*** 30% 30% 2206.5 Maximum building height 40 ft. 40 ft. 2206.6 Side yard setbacks (subject to individual district requirements) 2206.7 22O6.8 Setback of roads, parking and other impervious surfaces from OHW**** Setback of septic tank and soil absorption systems from OHW 50 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft. 50 ft. 22O6.9 Structure height (lowest floor) above OHW***** 3 ft. 3 ft. *Lot width is measured at the building line and the OHW. ~*Setback requir'ements from ti~e orJinary high water mark shall not apply to · bo.athouses, piers and docks. Boathouses may be permitted to be located up to the ordinary high water mark provided they sha~l not be used for habita- tion and they shall not contain sanitary facilities. Where development exists on both .sides of a proposed building site, building setbacks'.may ~e altered to more closely conform to adjacent building setbacks (also .se~ Section 503.5). ***See Section 2209.6 for exceptions. ****Where feasible and practical,'all roads and parking areas shall meet the setback requirements established for structures in 2206.3 above. Natural vegetation or other natural materials shall be required in order to screen parking areas when viewed from the water. Parking areas of more than fQur (4) spaces shall be screened in accordance with.a landscaping plan sub- .. mitted and approved by the City Council. *****Does not include boathouses, piers and docks. SECTION 2207 SUBSTANDARD SHORELAND USE Any lot of record filed in the office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds on or before I January 1983, which does not meet the dimensional re- quirements of this Article may be allowed as a building s~te subject to approval of a shoreland impact plan ~see Section 2209.1) and provided: 2207.1 The lot meets all standards of the applicable~zoning use district. 2207.2 2207.3 The lot is in separate ownership from abutting lands. All sanitary and dimensional requirements of the Shoreland District are complied with insofar as practical (no less than'sixty {60%) percent of width and setback requirements).., SECTION 2208, RELATIONSHIP TO FLOOD PLAIN Placement of all structures shall comply with Chapter 806, Wayzata Flood Plain Regulations, of the Wayzata City Code. SECTION 2209, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2209.1 Shoreland Impact Plan. Except fo~ situations listed in 2209.2 below, landoWners or developers .desiring to develop land or con-' struct any dwelling or any other artificial obstruction on land located within any Shoreland District within the City. of Wayzata shall first submit a conditional use permit application as-regulated -by Article XXIV of this Ordinance and a plan of development, here- inafter referred to as "shoreland impact plan", which shall set forth proposed provisions for sediment control, water management, maintenance of landscaped features, and any additional matters intended to set forth proposed changes requested by the applicant and affirmatively disclose what, if any, change will be made in ~e natural condition of the earth, including loss of chang~ of eart 6 22O9.2 2209.3 2209,4 2209.5 ground cover, destruction of trees, grade course~ and marshes. The plan shall minimize tree removal, ground co~er change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade changes as much as possible, and shall affirmatively provide for the.relocation or replantin9 of as many trees as possible which are proposed to be removed. The purpos~ of the shorland impact plan shall be to eliminate as much as possi- ble potential pollution, erosion and siltation. Exceptions. 2209.2-1 No conditional use permit or shoreland impact plan shall be required for the development of permitted accessory uses contained within the R-1A,'R-2, R-2, and R-3 Districts. 2209.2-2 No conditional use permit or shoreland impact plan shall be required for the development of permitted principal uses contained within the Districts, provided that such uses are constructed on standard lots and in 'compliance with dimensional standards of this Article and that all such uses are serviced with public sanitary sewer. 2209.2-3 The provisions otherwise set forth in this Ordinance and in other applicable local ordinances shall apply to all plats except Planned Unit Development (see Section 221!). Subdivision. No land shall be subdivided which is d6termined by the City or the Commissioner of Natural Resources to be unsuitable by reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock forma- tions with severe limitations for development, severe erosion po- tential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage trea~ent capabilities or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or the con~nunity. Sewage and Waste Disposal. Any premises used for human occupancy shall be provided with public sanitary sewage disposal, except as provided in Chapter 405, Private Sewage Disposal Systems, of the Wayzata City Code. Water Supply. Any private supply or'water for domestic purposes shall conform to Minnesota Department of Health Standards f6r water quality. Private Wells, where allowed, shall be placed in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from any source of contamina- tion. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be flood-proofed in accordance with City standards. 2209.6 Stormwater Treatment.- Where appropriate measures are taken to treat stormwater runoff and/or prevent stormwater from directly entering a public water, the impervious surface to lot area ratio may be allowed to exceed thi'rtY (30%) percent in the commercial distr~cts. ~nong others, such measures may include sediment basins (debris .basins, desilting basins or silt traps), installation of debris guards and microsilt basins on storm sewer inlets, oil skimming devices, etc. When impervious surface exceeds thirty (30%) perce~ of the total lot area, a shoreland impact plan shall be submitted. as provided in Section 2209.1. SECTION 2210, SHORELAND ALTERATIONS 2210.1 The removal of natural vegetation shall.be restricted to prevent: erosion into public Wet,ers, to consume nutrients in the soil, and to preserve shoreland aesthetics. 221n.2 2210.1-1 2210.1-2 2210.1-3 Clearcutting is prohibited, except as necessary for placing public roads, utilities, structures, and parking areas. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project. Selective cutting of trees and underbrush is allowed as long as sufficient cover is left to make cars and structures visually inconspicuous when viewed from the water. Grading and Filling. 2210.2-1 Grading and filling within Shoreland Districts, or any alteration of t~e natural topography., where the slope of the land is toward a public water oF water course 'lead- ing to a public water must be approved by the Building Official and a permit obtained prior to the commence- ment of any work thereon. The permit may be granted subject to the conditions that: a. No more than one-third (1/3) of the surface area of a lot shall be devoid of vegetative ground. cover at any time. ~ · ~. b. Temporary ground 'cover such as mulch shall be used and permanent cover such as sod shall be planted as soon as possible. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment shall be employed in accordance with Chapter ,iSubdivision. Regulations, of the Wayzata City Code. Fill shall not be placed in areas lower in elevatio" than the ordinary high water mark. 8 fe he Fill shall be stabilized accordin9 to ~ccepted engineering standards. ' Fill shall not restrict a floodway or destroy t~e storage capacity of a flood plain. The maximum slope of the finished surface which slopes toward a water body or a water course leading to such water body shall be six (6) units horizontal to one (1) vertical. No grading or filling shall be permitted within twenty (20) feet of the ordinary high water mark of a water body. 2210.2-2 Any work which will change or diminish the course, current, or cross section of a public water must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources as per ~.i.S. ~ 105.42 before the work is begun. This includes construction of channels and ditches, lagooning, dredging of lake bottom for the removal of muck, silt or weeds, and filling the lake bed, including low lying marsh areas. Approval shall be con- strued to mean the issuance by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources of a permit under the procedures of Minnesota Statute, 1974, Section 42 and other related statutes. 2210.~-3.Excavation on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall require a permit from the Building Official prior to commencement of construction. Such permit shall be obtained only after the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources has approved the proposed connection to public waters. Approval will be given only if the proposed work is consistent with appli- cable state regulations for work in beds of public waters. SECTION 2211, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The Planned Unit Development provisions contalined in Article XXIIA of this Ordinance may beutilized'within a Shoreland District, provided that the following requirements are satisfactorily, met. 2211,1 Preliminary plans shall be approved by the Department of Natural Resources prior to City approval. 2211.2 Sufficient open space is preserved through the use of restrictive ~deed covenants, public dedications, etc' 2211.3 The following factors are carefully evaluated to ensure that any increased density of development is consistent with the resource limitations of the public water: 2211.3-1 Suitability of the site for the proposed use. 2211.3-2 Physical and aesthetic impact of any increased density. · 2211.3-3 Level of current development. 2211.3-4 Amount and ownership of undeveloped shoreland. 2211.3-5 L6vels and types of water surface use and public access. 2211.3-6 Possible effects on overall public use. 2211.4' Any commercial, recreational, community, or religious facility allowed as part of the planned unit development conforms to all applicable federal and state regulations including, but not limited to the following: 2211.4-1 Licensing provisions or procedures. ~J~.:,-~ Waste disposal regulations. 22_l~1J)-~t .Water supply regulations. ' 2211.4-4 Building codes. 2211.4-5 Safety regulations. 2211.4-6 Regulations concerning the appropriate use of Public Waters as defined in )linnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, as may be amended. Applicable regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. 2211.4-i' Storm sewer. 221!.5 The final PUD plan Shall not be modified or altered in any way w.ithout written approval from the Department of Natural Resources. 2211.6 PUD's incorporating shoreline recreational facilities such as beaches, docks, or boat launching facilities, etc. shall be designed such that said facilities are centralized for common utilization. SECTION 2212, VARIANCE Variances may be granted by the City Council in accordance with Article XXV of this Ordinance in extraordinary cases, but only when the proposed use is determined to be in the public interest, and no variance shall be granted which the Council determines will or has a ~endency to: 2212.1 Result in the ~lacement of an artificial obstruction which will restrict the passage of storm and. flood water in such a man,er as to increase the height of flooding, except obstructions approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with sound flood p)ain management. 2212.2 Result in incompatible l'and uses or which would be detrimental to the protection of surface and ground water supplies. 2212.3 Be not in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives for the City of Wayzata or which will increase or cause danger to lifP or property. 10 2212,4 Be inconsistent with the objectives of encouraging land uses compa- tible with the preservation of the natural land forms, vegetation and the marshes and wetlands within the City. of Uayzata. 2212.5 2212.6 Shall constitute a hardship as defined in Article III, Section 302. of the Wayzata Zoning Ordinance. No permit or variance shall be issued unless the applicant has sub- mitted a Shoreland Impact Plan as required and set forth in this Article. In granting any variance the Council may attach such conditions as they deem necessary to insure compliance with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. SECTION 2213, DNR NOTIFICATION' PROCEDURE 2213.~ Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances," ~mendments, or conditional uses under this Article shall be received by the Commissioner of Natural Resources at least ten (10) days prior to such hearings. 2213.2 A copy of amendments and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under this Article shall be received by the Con~nissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of final action or amendment. SECTION 2214, SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS 2214.1 Land Suitability. No land shall be subdivided which is held un- suitable by the City for the proposed use because of flooding, in- adequate drainage, soil and rock formations w~th severe limitations for .development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the'community. 2214.2 2214.3 Inconsistent Plats Reviewed by Commissioner. All plats which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Article shall be reviewed by the Commissioner before approval by the City may be granted. Such review shall require that the proposed plats be received by the Commissioner at least 10 days before a hearing is called by the City for consideration of approval of a,final plat. Copies of Plats Supplied to CommissioneP. Copies of all plats within shoreland areas shall be submitted to the Commissioner withi~n 10 days of final approval by the City. SECTION 2215, EFFECT OF PERMIT The granting of any permit, variance or subdivision approval under pro- visions of this Article shall in no way affect the owner's capability to obtain the approval required by any other statute, ordinance or legisla- tion of any state agency or subdivision hereof. Approval may be expressly given in conjunction with other per!nits applied for, but no approval shall be implied from the grant of such permits nor from the necessity to apply for a permit as descUibed herein. 11 Section 4. Effective Date. upon its passage and publication. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect Adopted this 215t day of June 1983 ATTEST: Mayor City Manager 12 SECTION 22. "S", SHORELAND DISTRICT Subd. A Shoreland Districts. The shorelands within the City of Spring Park are hereby designated as shoreland districts and the requirements set forth in this OFdlnance shall govern development and other activities within these districts. The classification of the shoreland areas shall govern the use, alteration and development of these areas according to said classification as per M.S. § 105.485, M.S. § 104.31-104.40, and Minnesota Regulations NR 78-84 and NR 2900. Subd. B District Application. The "S"~ Shoreland District shall be applied to and superimposed upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this Ordinance. The regulations and re- quirements imposed by the "S", Shoreland District shall be in addition to those established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint applica- tion of districts~ the more restrictive requirements shall apply. Subd. C Boundaries. The boundaries of the Shoreland District are established within the following distances from the ordinary high water mark of the surface water, depending on the size ot: the surface water as indicated on the Spring Park Shoreland District Map. SURFACE WATER DISTANCE (FEET)* Greater than ten (10) acres (Table 1) 1 , 000 In the case of conflict between the map and the property descriptions in NR 2900, the latter shall prevail. Subd. D Shoreland Classification. The surface waters affected by this Section and which require controlled development of their shoreland (shoreland district) are shown on the map designated as the official "Shoreland Map of the City of Spring Park" which is properly approved and made a part o1: the Ordinance and filed with the Zoning Administrator. SurfaCe waters generally greater than ten (10) acres and given an identification number by the State of Minnesota as defined in Section 2 of this Ordinance and listed in Table 1. Other'sur- Face waters affected by this Ordinance, generally having less than ten (10) acres, are classified as Wetland Systems and thus regulated under the pro- visions of Section 23 of this Ordinance. 123 Sec. 22, Subd. D " TABLE 1 SURFACE WATER DISTRIBUTION DNR Identification Number No me Classification 27-133 Lake Minnetonka GD Subd. E Minimum Lot and Setback Recluirem~nts. The following chart sets forth the minimum area setbacks and other re- quirements of each respect[.ve classification· . GD General Devel opment be Minimum lot size above normal high water mark Sewered, abuttlng water Sewered, nonabuttlng Lot width* Sewered 15,000 sci .ft. 15,000 sq .ft. 80 ft. Setback from ordinary high water mark Sewered 75 ft. Setback from public streets* Abutting federal, 'State or county road Abutting town or publ lc road Maximum impervious surface to area ratio 50 ft. 30 ft. 30% ge Maximum Side yard b.uildlng height setback** 35 ft. 20 ft. 2 124 he Ordinary setback of roads and parking (impervious surface) areas from ordinary high water mark*** Structure height (lowest floor) above high water elevation**** GD General Development 50 ft. 3 ft. *Setback requ]rements from the ordinary high water mark shall not apply to boathouses, .piers and docks. Boathouses may be permitted to be located up to the ordinary high water mark provided they shall not be used for habitation and they shall not contain sanitary facilities. Where develop- ment exists on both sides of a proposed building site, building setbacks may be altered to more closely conform to adjacent building setbacks. **Also subject to regulations and exceptions as provided in Sections 10 through 19 of this Ordinance. ***Where feasible and practical, all roads and parking areas she, ll meet the setback requirements established for structures in (c) above· Natural vegetation'or other natural materials shall be required in order to screen parking areas when viewed from the water· Parking areas of more than four (4) spaces shall be screened in accordance with a lands.caplng plan submitted and approved by the City Council· ****Does not include boathouses, piers and docks. 125 Sec. ZZ, 5ubd. b, Z. Subd. F Substandard Lot. Any lot of record filed in the offlce of the Hennepln County Register of Deeds on the effective date of tMs Ordinance amendment which does not meet the area 'requirements of this 'Ordinance may be allowed as a building site subiect to the approval . 'oF a shoreland impact plan and provided: The lot meets all standards of the applicable, zoning use regulations. Except for lot area lot wldth~ all other sanitary and dlmenslonal requirements of the Shoreland District are complied with insofar as practical. '. Placement of Structures. Placement of structures shall comply with the provisions of Section 21 of this Ordinance. Development Regulations. I. 'Landowners or developers desiring to develop land or construct any other artificial obstruction on land located within any Shor.eland District within the City of Spring Park shall, first submit a plan of development, herelnafter referred to as "shoreland impact plan"~ which' shall set forth proposed provisions for sediment control~ water management~ maintenance · of landscaped features'~ and any additional matters [ntended ¢o improve or maintain the quality of the environment. Such a plan shall set forth proposed changes requested by the applicant and affirmatively disclose what, if any~ change will be made in the natural condition of the earth, including loss or change of earth ground cover, destrucHon of trees, grade courses and marshes. The plan shall m~nlmlze tree removal~ ground cover change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade changes as much as posslble~ and shall affirmatively provide for the relocation of replanHng of as many trees as possible which are proposed to be removed. The purpose of the shoreland ~mpact plan shall be to eliminate as much as possible potential pollution, erosion and siltation. a. Exceptlons. .' (1) No shoreland impact plan shall be required for the develop- ment of permitted uses or permitted accessory uses con- rained within the "R-I" and "R-2" Districts. 126 Sec. 22, Subd. G, 2.a.(1) Subd. G Shorel Subdivision. No land shall be subdivided which is determined by the City or the Commissioner ot~ Natural Resources to be un- suitable by reason of floodlng~ inadequate drainage, soil 'and rock formations w]th severe I]mltations for development, severe erosion potentlal, unfavorable topography~ inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health~ safety, or welfare of'the future residents of the proposed subdivision or the community. Sewage and Waste Disposal. All premises used for human occupancy shall be hooked up to public sanitary sewer collection and treatment facilities. Water Supply. Any private supply otr water for domestic purposes shall conform to Minnesota Department of Health Standards for water quality. Private wells ~hall 'be placed in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from any source of contamlnat[on. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be floodproofed in accordance with City standards. and Alterations. The removal of natUral vegetation shall be restricted t° prevent erosion into public waters~ to consume nutrients in the soil, and to ~reserve shoreland aesthetics. Clearcuttlng is prohibited, except as necessary for placing public roads, utilitles~ structures~ and parking areas. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as Feasible after any construction project. Grading and Filling· a. Grading and filling within Shoreland Districts, or any alteration of the natural topography where the slope of the land is toward a public water or water course leading to a public water must be approved by the City Engineer or the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and a permit obtained prior to the commencement of any work thereon. The permit may be granted subject to the condi- tions that: (1) No more than one-third (1/3) of the surface area of a lot shall be devoid ol~ vegetative ground cover at any time. 127 3oi (2) (3) (4) Temporary ground cover such as mulch shall be used and permanent cover such as sod shall be planted as soon as possible. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment shall be employed ~n accordance with the Spring Park SubdivisiOn Ordl nance. (5) Fill shall not be placed in areas lower in elevation than the normal high water mark. Fill shall be stt:blized according to accepted engineering standards. (6) (7) Fill shall not restrict a floodway or destroy the storage capacity of a flood plain. The maximum slope c~f the finished surface which slopes toward a water body or a water course leading to such water body shall be six (6) units horizontal to one (1) vertical. - (8) No grading or filling shall be permitted within twenty (20) feet of the normal high water mark of a water body. Any work which will change or diminish the course, current, or cross section of a public water must be approved by the Depart- ment of Natural Resources as per M.S. § 105.44. before the work is begun. This includes construction of channels and ditches, lagoonlng, dredging of lake bottom for the removal of muck, silt or weedst and filling the lake bed, including Iow lying marsh areas. Approval shall be construed to mean the issuance by the 'Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources of a.permlt under the pro- cedures of'Minnesota Statute, 1974, Section 42 and other ~elated statutes. Excavatlonon shorelands where the intended purpose is connected to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall require a permit from the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distr[ct prior to commencement of construction. Such permit shall be obtained only after the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources has approved the proposed con- nection to public waters. Approval will be given only if the proposed work is consistent with applicabJe state regulations for work in beds of public waters. 128 Sec. 22, Subd. H, 7. Sul~d. H Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development provisions contaJned in Section 6 of this Ordinance, may be utilized within a Shot. land District, provided that the following requirements are satisfactorily met. " Preliminary plans shall be approved by the Department of Natural Resources prior to City approval .. 2. The proposed PUD development is served by public sanitary sewer. e Sufficient open space is preserved through the use of restrictive deed covenants,.publ]c dedications, etc. The following factors are carefully evaluated to ensure that the increased density of development is consistent with the resource limitations of the public water: .. Suitability of the site for the proposed use. Physical and aesthetic impact of increased density'. Level of current development. Amount and ownership of undeveloped shoreland. Levels and types of water surface use and public access· Possible effects on overall public use. Any commerclal, recreational, communlty, or religious facility allowed as.part of the planned unit development conforms to all applicable federal and state regulations includlng, but not limited to the following: ge Licensing provlsions or procedures. Waste disposal regulations. Water supply regulations. Building codes. Safety regulations. Regulations concerning the appropriate use of Public Waters as defined 1n Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, as may be amended. Applicable regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Storm sewer. The final PUD plan shall not be modified or altered in any way without written approval Eom the Department of Natural Resources. PUD~s incorporating shoreline recreational facilities such as beaches, docks, or boat launching facilitles~ etc. shall be designed such that said facilities are centralized for common utilization. 129 Subd. I Subcl. J Variance. Variances may be granted by the City Council upon application as 'required in Section 5 at~ this Ordinance in extraordinary cases, but only when the proposed use is determined to be in the public interest and no variance shall be .. granted which the Council determines will or has a tendency to: ~esult in the placement of an artificial obstruction which will restrict the passage of storm and flood water in such a manner as to increase the height of flooding, except obstructions approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with sound flood plain management. Result in incompatible lancl uses or whleh would be' detrimental.to. the protection of surl:ace an~l ground water supplies. Be not in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives' for the City of Spring Park "or which will. increase or cause danger to life or property. · Be inconsistent with the objectives °t: encouraging land uses compatible with the preservation of the natural land forms~ vegetation and the marshes and wetlands within the City of Spring Park· " No permit or variance shall be issued unless the applicant has sub- mitted a Shoreland Impact Plan as required and set forth' in this Ordlnance. In granting any variance the Council may attach such conditions as they deem necessary to insure compliance with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. e All variances to the requirements of this Section must be certified in accordance with NR 81 (b) and Subd. J of this Section. e Contrary to the purpose and intent of the zoning provisions herein established by these standards and criterla~ and is consistent with the comprehensive management plan adopted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Alter the essential character of the locality as established by the management plar~'. Effect ot: Permit. The granting of any permit, variance or subdivision 6pproval under provisions of this Section shall in no way affect the owner's capability .to obtain the approval required by any other statute, ordinance or legislation of any state agency or subdivision hereof. Approval may be expressly given in conjunction with other permits applied for, but no approval shall be implied from the grant of such permits nor from the necessity to apply for a permit as described herein. : 130 SECTION 23. "W", WETLAND SYSTEMS DISTRICT Subd. A Purpose. A district relating to Iow lands, marshes, wetlands, dralnagew, ays, water bodies~ and water courses regulating alteration and development of such Ic~nds and providing for the issuance of permits therefore, and speci- fically to: Reduce danger to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Spring Park by protecting surface and ground water supplies from the impairment which resul.ts from incompatible land 'uses and alterations, and by providing safe and sanitary drainage. e Restrict and control land development so it will not impede the flow of flood water or cause danger to life or property. Designate suffable land uses that are compatible w~th the preservation of the natural vegetation and marshes which are a pr]nclpal factor in the maintenance of constant rates of water flow through the year and which sustain species of wildlife and plant growth. e Regulate runoff of surface waters from developed areas to prevent pollutants such as motor oils, sand, salt and other foreign materials from being carried directly into the nearest natural stream, lake or other public or private waters. . Regulate th'e alteration of wetland systems to prevent excessive sedi- ment pollution, increased and rapid water runoff, excessive nutrient runoff pollution and to maintain the aesthetic appearance of. the wetlands. e Prevent the development of structures in areas which will adversely affect the public passage and use of creeks, marshes, Iow lands and water courses within the City. Subd. B District Application· The "W"~ Wetland Systems District shall be applied to and superimposed upon all Residential', Commercial or Industrial Districts contained here- in existing or amended by the text and map of this Ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "W", Wetland Systems District shall be in addition to flood plain and shoreland and those established for the District which jointly apply. Under the joint application of districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. 131 Sec. 2:~, Sub.J. 8, Z. Subd. C Subd. D The Wetlands Systems District within the City of Spring Park is defined and established to include those areas identified by the City Engineer which include any water course, natural drainage- system, water body, or wetland, that may be subject to periodic boundary lines shall be established at the edge of the aforesaid areas and depicted on the Spring Park Zoning Map.. Permltted Uses. The following operations and uses are permitted in the "Wetland Systems District" as a matter of right, subject to any other appllcable code, ordinance 'or law: Nurseries, gardening, aqd harvesting of crops. Conservation of soll vegetation, water, fish and wildlife. Scientific research and educational activities that teach principles of ecology and conservation. e Leisure aCtivities such as hiking, nature studies, canoeing, boating, camping, waterskling, skindlving, horseback riding, field trails, and general outdoor recreation including play and sporting areas that are not inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance. 5. Essential services. Prohiblted Uses. Except as may hereinafter be condltlonally permitted, it shall be unlawful for any person to: Place, deposit or permit to be deposited, debris, fill or any materlal including structures into, wlthln or upon any water body, water course, or wetland, flood plaln or natural dralnage system. Dig, dredge, or in any other way alter or remove any material from water bodies, water courses, wetlands, flgod plalns, or natural drainage system. , Erect structures for human hab]tatlon. Dam or relocate any water course, or change the natural drainage system. .... 5. Clear and/or cut trees or other vegetation. 6. Permanently store materlals. 132 Subd. E 7. Erect s~gns. Be Dispose of waste materials, including but not limited to sewage, garbage, rubbish and other discarded materials. Development Regulatlons. Landowners or developers desi'ring to develop or construct any dwelling or any other art[ficial obstruction, on land located within any of the Wetland Districts within the City of Spring Park shall first submit a conditional use permit application as regulated in Section 4 of this Ordinance and a plan of development, hereinafter referred to as !'wetland system impact plan", which shall set forth proposed pro- visions for sediment control, water management, ma]ntenance of landscaped features;, and any addlt[onal matters intended to improve or maintain the quality of the environment. Such a plan shall set forth proposed changes requested by the applicant and affirmatively disclose what, if any, change will be made in the natura'l condition of the earth, including loss or change of earth ground cover, destruction of' trees, grade changes and its effect, if any, upon lakes, streams, water courses and marshes, lowlands and wetlands in the area. The plan shall minimize tree removal, ground cover change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade changes as much as possible, and shall affirmatively provide for the relocation or replanting of as many trees as possible .which are proposed to be removed. The purpose of the wetland systems impact plan shall be to eliminate as much as possible potential pollution, erosion and siltation. State Permit Required. No person shall fill or excavate in any wetland having an area of 2 1/2 acres or greater or in any water course draining greater than two (2) square miles without first obtaining a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources· 133 Sec, 74 : SECTION 24. E NACTME NT This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication according to law, passed by the City Council of the City of Spring Park this day of , 19 . CITY OF SPRING PARK~.MINNESOTA ATTEST: BY: Jerome P. Rockvam~ Mayor Patricla Osmonson~ Clerk/Administrator 5'o ? 134 .0 0 "0 0 CZ. i',,! I February 21, 1985 LICENSE RENEWALS -- Ail expire Feb. 28, 1985. New license period 3-1-85 to 2-28-86 Cigarette A1 & Alma's Supper Club American Legion #398 Ben Franklin Bob's Bait Shop Donnies on the Lake, Inc. Duane's 66 Getty Oil Co. Grimm's Store Martin & Son Boat Rental Meyers Mound Service Mound Lanes Mound Municipal Liquor Store · Mound Superette (formerly Tom Thumb) PDQ Food Stores of Minn., Inc. Quast Vending/Mobil Stevens Market (new Super Valu Store) SuperAmerica Stations. Inc. Snyder Drug Mound Super Valu - Two Months, March & April Garbage Blackowiak & Son Dependable Services Westonka Sanitation Woodlake Sanitary Service Village Sanitation, Inc. BINGO PERMIT - March 26, 1985 7:00 to 10:00 PM Mound Fire Dept. - 2415 Wilshire Blvd. APP'L!CA~ION FOR BINGO' PERMIT ., Date_~--.J /{-~.,b (If an organization, 'give organization ..~ . ' ~ ' B~ngo .Man.ager (Name) " '' Addre's s Address of where Bingo will be played Dates and Hou~s Bingo will be played *Note: (Attach separate sheet' if more room necessary),. .Is Licen'se Fee' attached? Yes N'~ ~ Amo'unt Fidelity Bond: '., '. ". '." ....... (a) Amount /~ C:) ~ ~0 ~__._.' , * (Minimum $10,000.) Cc) Name of Bonding CompS'ny Expirati:on Date..of Bond Fraterna!..;'re!igious,] vet.e~.a~ .and other'non-profit organizat'ion's may re~ues.~ the Bond t~ be waive'd. Please. indi'cate, below, if you are making .such a request. Si tu~. of person makin9 a.pp~.ic'atio o7o Ray C. Tremont National Director THE VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA MINNESOTA 6007 Golden Valley Road - Minneapolis, MN 55422 * (612) 546-3242 February 19, 1985 Jack L. Dlgnum Midwest Regional Director James E. Hogie, Jr. District Director Mayor Bob Polston City of Mound Mound City Offices 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mayor Polston: Volunteers of. America, one of this nation's largest human service organizations, has been helping others for 89 years. In 1985 Volunteers of America Week is scheduled for March 3-10, which commemorates the founding of the organization on March 8, 1896. We would like you to proclaim the week.on our behalf. We believe private human service agencies such as ours are among the organizations the public is counting on to find new solutions for social problems. Today Volunteers of America is involving more and more citizens to actively participate in its community- based programs so more human needs can be met. Your personal proclamation would be encouraging to ea'ch diner in our Senior Nutrition Program at the Westonka Senior Center, our volunteers and staff, and the many people who help support our work through their contributions. We sincerely hope you will agree to proclaim March 3-10, 1985 Volunteers of America Week and join with us in celebrating our 89th year of helping others. Respectfully yours, James E. Hogie, Jr. strict Director JEH/skh Enclosure VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA FACT SHEET Founding: March 8, 1896 Place of Founding: New York City Founded in Minnesota: June 4, 1896 Minnesota District Director: James E. Hogie, Jr. (1980-present) Minnesota Headquarters: 6007 Golden Valley Road Minneapolis, Minnesota (612) 546-3242 office (612) 427-1398 home 55422 National President: Raymond C. Tremont (1980-present) National Headquarters: 3813 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 (504) 837-2652 The Volunteers of America, a national Christian human service organization, has an 89 year history of serving people in need; regardless of their race, color or creed. The word "volunteer" in Volunteers of America, means those who selflessly dedicate themselves to a mission or cause as their professional and personal career. Its staff is comprised of people who not only have administrative and/or professional social work expertise but who also have a commitment to the Christian mission of the organization which is the reaching and uplifting of all people. In addition to nearly 300 staff, last year, more than 1,800 persons volunteered their talents to help enrich the program services in Minnesota. At the present time, Volunteers of America operates the following services: two resi- dential treatment centers for emotionally handicapped boys (Bar-None and Galloway); three programs serving autistic, autistic-like and developmentally disabled children and youth (In-Home Respite Care, Intensive Treatment Center and Forestview Annex); three homes for elderly and/or mentally disturbed adults (Hacienda, Timberlane and White House); 41 dining sites for seniors in Anoka and H~nnepin Counties (Senior Nut- rition Program); 40 treatment foster'homes (Family Treatment Services); a pre-release and work-release correctional program.serving men (Residential Center); and a women's jail, work house and work-release correctional facility (Woodview). Additional services of the Volunteers of America in Minnesota, but not administered by the District Office, are four lQngterm care facilities (nursing homes) and four housing complexes for low-income families and the elderly. Care centers are located in Crystal, Edina, Maplewood and Sleepy Eye. Two housing units are in downtown Minn- eapolis on the Nicollet Mall, one is in New Hope and the other in Coon Rapids. The Volunteers of America is a 501(c) (3) organization and is eligible to receive tax deductible gifts. BILLS; FEBRUARY 26, 1985 Computer run check register 2/15/85 Computer run check register 2/21/85 page 3 page 9 10,292.72 106,880.61 Total Bills 117,173.33 ~d 0 bI I I-- o-/y (/) CL ,if I I I ~d I ! I I LaS 0 12[ t~ U *-9 t~ hJ U. v td bJ · 1: 0 0 IIIIII Z 0 U (..~ U g w .,J b IIIIII IIII11 111 bJ b~ Ld g Q. ;2> U III:IIIIIII IIIrlllllli llllllllll 6J IlL L~ IZ , q'-...n i CZ) Il.. r % I I I % t bJ CD h LL ~D u (/)LO ht (/J CASE NO. 85-409 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MAJOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AT 1632 COMMERCE BOULEVARD - PID # 13-117-2422 0016 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, March~, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Major Auto Repair Business at 1632 Commerce Boulevard and on site legally described as follows: The north 100 feet of the west 200 feet of Lot 26 subject to road, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka. PID Number 13-117-24 22 0016 All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Cla~k, City Clerk ..t ,' ....... "~',~.! i'i CiTY OF MOUND , FEB I., .,I ' ' ' ~,:,t~ ......... )/.~.-j~,.i""'"'~.l APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION i;': . .,...i., i~';OU'I' ' t (Pi type the following information) · , ,,....~ ~ .' ..... .~-.'"']' ease 1. Street Address of Property /~ ~ 2 (. m ~/.~_~~ 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot p~ ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ Applicant .(if other than owner): Address C/ ~P ~ Y~ ~P~ ~~ ~~/~ 5. Type of Request: '( ) Variance (~ Conditional Use Permit (~ Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) ~etland Permit ( ) P.U.D. Fee Pald ~o. Date Fi led /-.~ - ~-- Day Phone No. /~JT~.- ~'~ ~ ~-j~/, Amendment (.) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: 7. Existing Use(s) of Property ~T ~ /~ /~ ~'L~-' 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning,'variance, or conditional use' permit or other zoning procedure for this property? b"f-"~' If so, llst dat~(s)of list date(s) of application, action taken and~prov'ide Resolution No.(s) CClg'ies ~f'previoiJs r~solutlons shall accompany present request. certify 'that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required ,,aDers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in ',:)on the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City ')und for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such ,:,ces as may be requireJ/~aw. Planning Commission Recommendation: Council Action: Date Resolution No. Date February 1~, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-20 RESOLUTION GRANTING ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR RESOLUTION ~SB-2B WHEREAS, on February 15, 198B, the City Council approved Resolut'ion #83-23, entitled, "Resolution to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve a 10 foot street setback variance as requested for Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Har'rison Shores (PID ~13-117-24 21'0049); and WHEREAS, 'the applieantS,..Walt and Joan 'Helland -has requested that this variance resolution be granted an extension of 1 year because they have not been able to sell their present home and begin construction of their new home. NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the' City of Mound does hereby grant a 1 year extension of Resolution ~83-23 until February 15, 1985.. · The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Coun¢ilmember ~haron. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk February .15, 1983 ~ Councilmember Paterson moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 83-23 WHEREAS WHEREAS, RESOLUTION TO CONCUR.WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATI. ON TO APPROVE A 10 FOOT STREET SETBACK VARIANCE . AS REQUESTED FOR EOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON 5HORE~ -' PID #13-117-24 21 0049. the owner, Mr. & Mrs. Walter F. Helland, of'the property described as. Lots 3 and 4,.Block 4., Replat of Harrison Shores, PlO #13-1i7-24 21 0049 has applied for a'building setback variance of 10 feet frcrn the required 30 foot street front.off from.Three Points Boulevard on 'Lbt 4 pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance'Section 23.403 which would disallow the lot to be. defined a~'a lot of record, and the City Code r~qutres the existing principal structure to be 10 feet from the side lot llnes and It is 8.9 feet at its closest point, 50 feet from the shoreline (Mean High Water elevation), 30 feet from the street front on Lot 3 and it is 23.33 feet at Its closest point, 'and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the property owner has requested that Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrlson Shores be a separate parcel thereby creating a future building slte with the lot width and area, building bulk and height, and, except for. a bulldlng setback variance of 10 feet to Three Points Boulevard, all other setbacks'to be~c0nfoqming, a proposed driveway easement to be bbtained from Lot 3 for garage access, and the Planning Commls;lon recommended approval of this variance, due to the unusual shape of the orlginal platted lot as to provide maximum utilization of lake shore land to property owners; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE cITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council. does hereby concur wlth the Planning Commission recommendation to approve a I0 foot street front variance for Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. Also the City Council recognizes the existing Lot 3 non-conforming building setbacks. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and' property owner that a survey be submitted and reviewed 'by the Bulldlng Inspe6tor ~nd/or City Engineer to assure..c.ompllan~e with this ~esolution before a building permit is issued to construct on Lot 4, Bldck 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. · A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Paulsen and upon vote being taken thereon; the roi-lowing voted ~n favor thereof: Charon, Paulsen, Peterson,.Swenson and Polston; the followlng voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared, passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Attest: City Clerk Mayor CITY of MOUND 5341 I,'~AYV,/OOD RO~D MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 DATE: February 14, 1985 TO: City Manager FROM: Park Director Please accept this letter as notification of my resignation from the position of Park Director, effective March 9, 1985. Even though this declsi'on was reached after several months of consideration, it was not an easy one to make, but I am sure the change for both me and the City will be a gOod one. I would like to thank you and the City for my years as an employee and also for the education and experience I have gained here. ~~ ~~-~k~I~ResRectf~l ly Submitted P.S. Besides being a great place to work, Mound has the best group of people I have ever worked with. Thanks again. CB:bam CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD RO,~D MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO:Chief Len Harrell Mound Police:Dept. This letter is to formally advise you that lam resigning .from my position as a police officer with the Mound Police Dept.My last day of emp. loyment with the City of Mound will be 5-9-85. As you already know, I have accepted a position with the Bfinnetonka Police Dept. The information I have available thus far indicates thatI will be starting that position on 5-11-85. I would like you and the rest of the }~und. Police Dept. to know that the decision to change depts..was ~ot made easly. The past 11 years have been very rewarding and exciting. The officers that I worked with and the situations that we handled together will be remembered for a long ,long time. I 'am confident that the training and experience that I recieved with the Hound Police Dept. will help me considerably in my new position. I look foreward to the new challenges that await me and hope the very best to you and the rest of the department. William E Roth #14 Mound Police Dept. American Legion Post 398 DATE J~nu~rv 31, lq85 G~mBling report CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE GROSS: ~ 26z0. O0 ¢26~0.00 EXPENSES: Supol i e s Sales ta× ~356.15 1~9.~,2 PAYOUT AS PRIZES: PROFIT: 505.5f ~'~= 57 1~ O0. O0 !~' 00. O0 DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS: Leg. State P~ow]~in~ qour. Alsno A:F.S. =oys State P]onts for Vets. ~-xo~6.1~: Check Book Oslsnce .... ,~ ~" 90. O0 25, oo 95:; oo 125.00 33 .oo 10.00 .e =?8. O0 ,I I -4 ,I ,I I ,i o o ,0 o ~0 o ~ ,o o o ,o o o o r~ o o o m o o o o ,0 o o o o o o o ~ o o o o o o o o o .~ o o o ~ o o o o o o o o 0 ~-' o o o o o o -- -- o o o . -- o o o o o ~-' o o o o ~-, o .-I r- r'- I'-' i'll o o o o o o o o o o o o o o )-, ~ )-. ~-, )-* o o o o o o o o m ITl o o o o o o o o o o ~. o o o o o )-. o o o o o o o o o o .-'l i'- r' r-- ITl C~ Ill ii I r~ X i.~ ~ '/Chicago Says Playskool should stay. Suit claims 0bl/gati0n By RODD ZOLKOS ~ Instead, the num/~er of w°~'k-~-~ at the facility declined to about 700 CHICAGO -- Legal action in- at the time of the closing. volving this city and Playskool Inc. has raised fundamental questions about a company's obligations under an industrial development bond issue. The questions center around whether an IDB issue constitutes a long-term' e0mmitment by a com- pany to remain in the sponsoring city. Those who disagree with this posture argue that such a commit- ment would discourage the use of IDBs and would run counter to the issues' intent of stimulating devel- opment. On Dee. 4, Chicago officials filed a five-count complaint in Cook County Circuit Court contending that by accepting the proceeds from a $1 million IDB issue in 1980, Playskool was committed to re- maining in the city throughout the bond's 20-year life. City attorneys hope to force the toy manufacturer, which has an- nounced it will dose its Chicago plant, to remain in the city through February 2000. Playskool, which is owned by Milton Bradley, Springfield, Mass., announced last September its plans to move from the facility on Chi- cago's Northwest side to an existing Milton Bradley site in East Long- meadow, Mass., or a Hasbro Indus- tries plant in Northvale, N.J. Hasbro purchased Milton Brad- ley 12 days before Playskool an- nounced it would close the Chicago facility. The complaint names Playskool, as well as Milton Brad- ley Co. and Hasbro Industries Inc., as defendants. Playskool attorneys are seeking a dismissal of the city's suit. At the heart of their effort is that the toy- maker paid off the bond Dec. 6, ter- minating the loan agreement and making moot the city's suit. News of the plant's closing has brought cries of betrayal from city officials, neighborhood groups and employees. "It really isn't a good situation," said Chicago Alderman Bernard Hansen, who is chairman of the Chicago City Council's Eco- nomic Development Committee. "Back in 1980 when they issued the bond, they promised first to stay in the city, and second to in- crease jobs from 1,200 to 1,600," Mr. Hansen said. At that time, company officials claimed additional machinery, such as puzzle-making and toy paint and packaging equipment, would form the focus ora "development project" that would add 446 work- ers to the 1,156 already employed by Playskool in Chicago. The $1 million IDB issue repre- sented 2.3% of Playskool's total cap- ital expenditures of $43 million at the 17-acre site, according to docu- ments Playskool entered in court. In the wake of Playskool's an- nouncement, Mr. Hansen's com- mittee and others in the city have begun to look into ways to strengthen the language of IDB agreements. "We're working on a formula to · add to the bond itself that would strengthen the language so things like this would not happen," Mr. Hansen said. Meanwhile, officials in the Chi- cago Department of Economic De- velopment are looking more I closely at IDB applicants, and are !planning to institute more thor- !ough methods of monitoring the use of the bonds. "The department is entering into certain steps with applicants to es- tablish that they are going to hive to do certain things before we exer- cise our bond authority," said Rick Michal, a loan processing officer in the economic development office. Playskool attorneys, however, .suggest in their motion to dismiss the city's suit that efforts to commit an IDB user to remain in an area would drive businesses away from cities. In a memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss Chicago's suit, Richard Schultz and Stephen Gorman of Foran, Wiss & Schultz, the law firm representing Play- skool, contend that requiring com- mitments to remain in a city for the term of an IDB "diametrically op- poses'' the purpose of the bonds. "Certainly no business will seek such financing to come to, or re- main in, Chicago knowing the city will attempt to use the bond as a vehicle to prevent the company from leaving Chicago and to share in monies owed to the company arising out of unrelated litigation," the memorandum states. The city's suit also asks that the $6 million awarded Playskool to settle a suit against the general con- tractor and architect of a building constructed in 1973 on the site be used to maintain that facility, or that the city be awarded damages in the amount of that judgment. Chicago officials' position, ac- cording to Playskool's memoran- dum, would establish that "by be- coming the conduit for a loan to Playskool, the city became ve.~ed with the right to participate as a bus/ness partner." The toy maker's attorneys con- tend that Chicago incurred no ex- pense in issuing the bonds because Playskool had agreed to reimburse the city for expenses from the issue. Also, the city assumed no risk or obligation: It lent only its good name, enabling the IDB issue to qualify for tax-exempt status that allowed it to be sold at a low inter- est rate, they argue. The bond documents themselves, according to Playskool's memoran- dum, "do not contain any unambig- uous promise to continue operating the Chicago facilities until the year 2000.' In addition, the documents provide that the city assigned to the bond's trustee "all rights and inter- ests which the city had in the loan agreement, including the right to bring actions and proceedings,~ ef- fectively barring the city from fil- ing suit. "The very concept that the city, which contributed no more than its name,.., can use that tenuous rela- tionship as a basis to hold Playskool and all of its property hostage in the city of Chicago for 15 years, is "constitutionally abhorrent," the memorandum states. Chicago's success in preventing Playskool from leaving the city would violate both the U.S. Consti- tution and the minois Constitution, Playskool attorneys claim. All these arguments are unneces- sary in seeking dismissal of the suit, however, because the bond has been paid and the agreement ter- minated, they state. "The city is not entitled to a spe- cific performance of or a declara- tion of rights under a contract that no longer has any force or effect." Attorneys for Chicago and Plays- kool agreed Dec. 14, to an order re- quiring that, through February, Playskool not shut down its re- maining production lines in the city without giving the city 10 days' notice. Meanwhile, city officials con- tinue to attempt to reach an out-of- court settlement with the toy maker. "Right from the start the city said it would be ready to discuss some reasonable termination plan," said He/'b Kaplan, assistant Chicago corporation counsel. "We haven't abandoned negotiations as a means for disposing of this case." City officials decided to bring the suit after Playskool officials can- celed a scheduled meeting with Chicago Mayor Harold Washing- ton, Mr. Kaplan said. ''That was one of the reasons for the suit," he said. "We felt they had acted in bad faith. We felt they were playing games with us and we felt a lawsuit was the only way to progress. Hopefully they'll be more conciliatory now." Since the suit was filed, Stephen Hassenfeld, chief executive of Has- bro Bradley, has discussed the clos- ing with Mr. Washington and, ac- cording to a Hasbro news release, "the meeting was constructive." · MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 11, 1985 Present were: Chair Liz Jensen; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese, Kenneth Smith, Michael Vargo and Frank Weiland; Council Repre- sentative Steve Smith; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler'; City Engi- neer John Cameron; Building Official Jan Bertrand'and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were the following interested persons: Steven'E. Amick, Bill Habicht, Joseph G. Fink, Lewis R. Cradit, Maurice D. Hiller, Dan Sicheneder, Jerry Babb, Don Bryce~ Mike'Gilbertson, Duane Gilbertson, Paul Kroening, Freda J. Olson, Hark Anderson, Ferner Johnson, Doug Easthouse, Joe Detling, Steve Cor), K.H. Erickson, J. Ramier, R. A. White, John Schluter, Ma6k Schiel, Dean Sulander, John Winston, Oran D. Poweil, John T. Adams, Scott Powe~l, Greg Kopischke, M. H. Schmeizer, Matt L. Ruppert, Tom Roden, C. J. Briggs, T. C. Turner, Ron Johnson, Mrs. Bee, Jim Hirsh, Jim Regan, Paul Madson, Keith Kullberg and Councilmember Gary Paulsen. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1985 were presented for consideration. Weiland moved .and Michael seconded a motion to approve the ~inutes of the January 28, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1.- Case No. B4-'331 Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit - ~Superamerica Stations, Inc. for site at $3XX Shoreline Boulevard Metes and Bounds Description,'paKt of Block 4, Shirley Hills Unit F PID Numbers.13-117-24 34 0061/0064 and part of 0065. Steve Amick and Attorney Bill Habicht represented Superamerica. The City Planner Hark Koegler' commented 'that the request SuperamerJca made in April of 1984 to relocate to the former Metro Station site had been denied and .. now they have been involved in a land exchange'and are requesting a conditional use permit for construction of a new station/store at the corner of Cypress Lane and Shoreline Boulevard. He reviewed his report. Basically the lot size and setbacks of the proposed structure exceed the minimums. He commented that a preliminary plat will be required for splitting portion of Lot 4, Shirley Hills Unit F. A driveway entrance variance will be required for accesses wider than 22 feet. He further stated that the Engineer's r~commendations should be in- corporated as Item il of the Staff's recommendations which are as follows: 1. Superamerica should not'.be' required to construct a bumper type fence between the station and the adjacen~ commercial property. Such a fence seems un- .~ necessary due to the open nature of the site. 2. The exterior of the building shall contain a brick veneer on all appropriate wall surfaces. The Planning Commission has determined that 14 off-street parking spaces are adequate to serve the needs of the SuperAmerica station store. 4. SuperAmerica sha]l submit a sign permit applicatiOn for the proposed station store prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Grading and drainage plans should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.. Planning Commission Minutes February ll, 1~85 - Page Z 6. Landscaping plans should be submitted to the City Planner prlor to issuance of a building permit. 7. Access permits for the driveway entrances onto Shoreline Boulevard shall be secured from Hennepin County. 8. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Water- shed'District for review, and permit approval. 9. Concrete curbing shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveway and parking areas. 10. A preliminary plat consistent with the City's subdivision requi.rements shall be submitted and approved prior'to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Incorporate the recommendations in the City Engineer's letter of February 6, 1985: A. A more complete site plan needs to be prepared which includes all proposed improvements such as signs, underground storage tanks and piping, hard surfacing, curbs, etc. B. Submit plans showing existing and proposed grading with approval con- tingent upon the approval of the grading and drainage plan. C. Inclusion of an utility plan and its approval; plan to show all utilities including gas, electric, etc. D. Approval of a landscape plan and a lighting plan also to be a condition. William Habicht, Attorney for SuperAmerica, stated that SuperAmerlca wants to erect and maintain a nice station which will provide better service for the people of the City. They are willing to accommodate any reasonable request. Steve Amick explained the proposed construction of the structure -- exterior will be a brick veneer embedded in concrete. All signage will comply. They have already communicated with Hennepin County as to the driveway access permits.- Lighting will be included in the landscaping plan. The land exchange and ownership of the land was discussed briefly including that the tanks are to be removed from the Metro Station site. The Commissioners had questions and comments on outdoor displays, whether landscaping plan would be comparable to the plan on previous site and what traffic might be generated. The Chair then opened the public hearing. .No one present had any questions or com- ments. The public hearing was closed. Michael moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the 11 stipulations. The vote was unanimously in favor. The City Council.will be asked to set the public hearing for March 12, 1985. Case No. 85-405 Pelican Point - Rezoning, PDA (Conditional Use Permit) Approval, Site Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Metes & Bounds Description - Lands lying generally easterly from Tuxedo Boulevard and southerly of East Port Road; PID Numbers 19-117-23 31 0003/0087/0088 and 19-117-23 42 0001 The Planner stated that the project is back except for the preliminary plat. most noteworthy change is the reduction of height of structures from 8 to 6 stories and to 96 units instead of the originally proposed 126 units. Each The Planning Commi.ssion Minutes February ll, 1~)85 - Page 3 building would have 32 units. A total of 249 parking stalls would provide 192 underground spaces and 57 outdoor spaces. He stated 'that the City Council seemed dedicated to beginning a draft of a Shoreland Management Ordinance. The DNR has expressed concerns about the bridge and also the project's height and density. Responding to these issues, the applicant has ~removed the bridge, relocated the docks to the north side Of the point and modified the building height and number of condominium units. The Planne~ reviewed the approvals that would be required and that the two major issues concerning the project remain unchanged (height and density); although the reduction of the height from 85 feet to 65 feet should substanti- ally reduce the visual impact. He reviewed the comments and recommendations in his report including that the rezoning remains a prominent issue. John Adams, Project Manager, introduced Oran Powell, one of the developers; John Winston; Paul Madson from Arvid Elness Architects and Greg K~pischke from Westwood'Planning and Engineering and then briefly reviewed the modifications, their intention and desire to build a project of the highest possible quality while preserving the amenities of the site. Paul Madson reviewed the number of and square footage of the various units of each building, placement, amenities of the site, proposed phases for construc- tion--gave a brief overview of the project. After which he showed photographs. taken from various points of helium balloons at 'the 65 foot height to show how building height would compare with the height of the mature trees on site. Also addressed shadows cast and'how they wouldn't reach across Tuxedo. The revised plans, are for.five'story buildings plus a pent house as 6th story with a l0 foot setback to help minimize the height of the buildings. Greg Kopischke addressed utilities and traffic. He stated that Minnegasco, NSP and Contel believe they have sufficient capacity for this project. He thought the site does have adequate water pressure to serve the 65 foot buildings. They will take some pressure tests and see exactly what pressure they'll have at the upper floors; it may mean auxiliary pumps are needed--this would be the problem of the developer. The sanitary sewer could be available from one of two locations; Dorchester or Tuxedo; they will have to be reviewed by the City Engineer. He has looked at traffic and feels the typical user in project will not fit the normal mode; times would be off peak and a good number would be away during the winter months or on the lake in the summer months. The park dedication fee of approximately $42,000 could be used to upgrade the neighborhood parks. Taxes generated would be approximately $664,800. John Adams concluded the reports with the hope that the project.would be a welcome addition to the community. The utilities were discussed. Council Representative Steve Smith questioned, if in the event of an overload, were the developers willing to stand the cost of the improvements. The City Engineer, John Cameron, advised that a prelimi- nary study of the sanitary sewer at Wilshire and Tuxedo showed it to be at or near capacity/any additions would probably overload the wet well---talking about $12 to $15,000 to put wet well in to upgrade either location of sewer. The Chair opened the public hearing. The following persons had questions or comments: Plenning Commission Minutes February Il, 198~ - Page 4 SKIP JOHNSON, 3018 Island V~ew'Drive, noted that regardless of screening effe'ct of trees, the overall length of the three buildings makes a huge mass. RON JOHNSON, 4416 Dorchester Road, commented he would not have built out here if land had been zoned R-4; doesn't want or like tall buildings; if this is rezoned, he wants assurance his ]and will.be zoned R-4'so someday he can move home out and derive a big profit. MRS. 'BEE, 4333 Wilshire Boulevard, commented lake is bOmbarded with boats now from. Lakewinds and these people'that will buy $200/$400,000 units will buy very large boats and the docks will be veryclose. MR. K. H. ERICKSON.of Casco Point stated she was right about the boat traffic and population. You don't dare go into Excelsior Bay now and it looks like Mound is going to do the same as the tax hungry Excelsior Council. JIM HIRSCH, 3054 Island View .Drive, questioned what should be considered in changing the zoning and what was the number of.docks requested. The Chair responded'to his questions. SKIP JOHNSON stated that if the City is putting together a Shor~tand Management Ordinance, it appears the ordinance would have a lot to say what happens to this project The Planner advised that the Commissioner of the DNR has final reviewal. Steve Smith wanted clarification that the Council had only requested they be provided with a model ordinance to look at. STEVE CORL, 42'25 Wilshlre Boulevard, asked if Shoreland Management Ordinance deals with height of buildings and stated no building on Lake Minnetonka is over 3 stories, why should Mound be first? JIM REGAN, 5334 Piper Road, is opposed to any rezonlng from R-l; believes a mistake was made on Lakewinds. City is now negotiating on a two lane highway; at minimum it would mean 96 cars vs 60. Believes traffic would be backed.up all the way to Al & Alma's in morning. MARK ANDERSON, 4513 Montgomery Road, commented City has no long range plan; sort of patch work; and believes that is cause of, a lot of problems the City has. Weiland stated the City has'a plan and he should come in and see the Comprehensive Plan. ~ DON BRYCE, Fire Chief, spoke in favor of the project and the fire protection and roads these people are planning for this complex. He stated we have to grow. Doesn't think we should be so,concerned about boats as 85% of' boats are trailered in. He's watched the City - been .out here 42 years. ORAN POWELL stated they want to move into. this project themselves; make it a deluxe project---a real success. DOUG EASTHOUSE, 3042 Island View Drive, noted he was at the first meeting. RON JOHNSON commented that Turnquist had a beautiful plan for about 26'units and thinks they ought to think about just 26 to 30 units. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 - Page 5 MIKE GILBERTSON, 2888 Tuxedo Boulevard, is against the 6 story buildings. Thinks 800 feet of 6 story buildings not for any part of the lake and especi; ally not this 'area---feels property values will do down. He'd like theirs rezoned to R-4 too, if this goes to R-4. T. J. EFFERTZ, 4757 Island View Drive, commented no one is rezoning his more than R-1. FREDA OLSON, 4414 WiIshire Boulevard, objected to anything over 4 stories in height. ' The Chair closed the public hearing., Reese addressed the i'ssue as he sees it and read an art[cie from the Minne- apolis Star which appeared February 4th relative to,the development on the shores of Lake Calhoun.: - "In summer as wind surfers glide out on Lake Calhoun and in winter as cross- country skiers glide around its edges, they see a wide, flat expanse reaching to'a distant-horizon.. But city officials see the horizon closing in on the lake, with.buildings cluttering its profile and more and more people trampling its shores. For example:' Since 1975 more than I,O00 housing units have been built or are being planned for the northwest quadrant near the lake .... What's. happening on the north shore illustrates many of the problems.the city is facing ~n its attempts to preserve one of'its most.attractive amenities-- its chain of'lakes: how to-encourage development and'best use of the land while keeping the lake as open and unspoiled as possible and available to everyone. .One Councilmember said she fears.that the high-rise buildings c~uld diminish the landscape on Calhoun's north shore. This area could become the Cedar- Riverside for the rich." Reese Stated if we act in haste, we'll repent in leisure. Primary concern is what we are doing to our shore and feels we better wait for tomorrow's proposal. He's opposed. Michael stated he's lived in community only 8 years; he is opposed to the height; but he's for the project. Thinks it certainly o~ght to be looked at from all angles. Good project and developers ought to at'least be commended for coming back with a more workable p'ian. Byrnes moved and Reese seconded a motion to recommend turning down. the approval of the rezoning from R-1 to R-4. Vargo thinks .this is an appropriate use. Steve Smith concerned with who has to pay for overloading .the utility sys'tem. He resents anyone, but the citizens telling him to pass the Shoreland Management Ordinance - against the project. Reese feels they'd be opening pandora's box by expanding the R-4 zoning. Chair Jensen stated she's not for R-4 around the lake; but would like to promote ex- pansion grOwth of the City. Kenneth Smith feels there is kind of blackmail by both sides. Feels project is nice; they did drop height and he doesn't believe development is going to stop. He's for the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 - Page The vote was:' Byrnes, Meyer, Reese, S. Smith and Jensen in favor of the denial; Michael, K. Smith, Vargo and Weiland opposed to the denial. Motion approved by 5 to 4 vote. Case No. 85-407 Two Front Yard Setback Variances & a Fence Height Variance for 1742 Shorewood Lane -.Part of Lots 21 & 20, Block 4, Shadywood Point Daniel E..Sicheneder and Keith Kullberg were present. The Building Official reviewed her report explaining applicant wants to con- · struct a 1578 square foot dwelling with an attached 2 story garage with living area above. Garage would be about 25 feet in height above the street elevation at the SW lot corner and. 21 feet at NW lot corner. He is proposing an 84 inch high privacy fence along property line .adjacent to Sunrise Landing which is unimproved. Discussed proposal at length; setbacks for lot of record and that basically the subdivision in 1983 squared up the two lots of record and the hardship is the shallowness of the lot and its topography. Meyer moved and Vargo seconded a mot.ion to approve allowing construction of his house as planned with the two requested setback va'riances with dri've off of Shorewood except, not allow fence height variance request. Discussed fence and that applicant believes fence from back of house to street d block out noise from snowmobiles, etc. Weiland thought using a 48 inch on the level part of property plus having a drainage ditch next to it would give him privacy~ City Manager mentioned that any posts can not impede flow in the ditch. The vote was all in favor, except Jensen was opposed. Motion carried. This will be on the City Council agenda of February 26, 1985. Case No. 85-408 Rear Yard Variance for 3301 Warner Lane W. 1/2 of Lot 54, Whipple Shores. Cal Haasken was present. The Building Official explained the applicant has applied!for a rear yard setback in order to construct a dwelling on this parcel w~ich was subdivided in'1981. The existing street front is.on Waterbury and the R-1 zoning allows, with a lot depth of 60 feet or less, a street front setback of 20 feet, a rear yard of 15 feet, lakeshore setback of 50 feet and side yard of 10 feet. Ele- vations are not shown on survey, the lot rises sharply from west to east and. applicant is proposing to pull house down the hill (50 to 65 feet from the east property line). 'Due to topography and shallowness of the lot, she is recommending approval of a 9 foot rear yard variance subject to City Engineer's approval of site grading and Watershed District permits. Byrnes moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to accept the 9 foot rear yard variance with the Staff's recommendations. The vote was unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda of February 26,. 1985. Planning Commission Minutes ' February 11, 1985 - Page 7 Case No. 85-409 Conditional Use Permit for an Automobile Repair Business - 1632 Commerce Boulevard; N. 100 Ft. of the W. 200 Ft. subject to road, Part of Lot 26, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka Paul Kroening and Joe Ram)er were present. The Building Official reviewed her report on this request to operate a major aUtomobile repair business in the existing 40 by 80 foot steel building just south of Minnetrista's border at the north end of Commerce. The applicant is proposing to leave the parking area with a gravel surface, improve the building, install slgnage, provide an 8 by. lO foot storage shed for parts refuse, and install outdoor parking area Jighting. The General Busi-ness District B-2 al)ows major auto repair by conditidnaJ use. The Minnetrista property to north is zoned residential, but has a grandfathered auto repair use. B-2 District requires a 50 foot setback from the side or rear if abutting residential. The Commission discussed the request at length. Joe Ram)er., owner of auto repair shop in Minnetrista, stated he plans to clean up his area and put up a stockade fence to shleid cars from view. Minnetrlsta will allow hookup to their water system. Kroening stated that the owner, Fritz Widmer, has a designer to prepare ptans for property and he will also furnish a bond. Vargo expressed concerns about appearance of the entrance to Mound and preventi.ng run off from operation affecting the wetlands. Byrnes moved and Reese seconded a motion to approve a conceptual approval. The vote was unanimous'iy in favor. Applicant to get plans'and come back to the Planning Commission. Case No. 85-410 Setback Variance - 2137 Centerview Lane Lots 29 & 30, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park Applicant was not present. The applicant's request was to construct a deck 0 feet to an accessory building and II to 17 feet from the alley right-of-way. The deck is proposed to be 8 to 9 feet above the ground. At the time of-the Building Official's inspection, the structure was being used as a garage; no guardrails or access to the deck was shown on applicant's plan. The Commission discussed request briefly; several members had been out to the site. Byrnes moved and We)land seconded a motion to ~eny the request. The vote · was ail in favor.of the denial except Kenneth Smith abstained. Other discussion: The Planner asked the Commission if they would hear Captain Billy's request on February 25th and they declined. Commissioner Meyer reported the sub-committee had met on accessory apartments and had a good brain rapping session; they would like one more month and to come back with a rough draft at the March discussion meeting. ADJOURNMENT Byrnes moved and Meyer seconded a motion to adjourn. favor and meeting was adjourned at l]:O0 P.M.' The vote was unanimously in 5~"' Liz Jensen, Chair February 20, 1985 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473-4224 Mr. Ray Payne, Director of Engineering Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 350 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Mound Sewer System Work Plan Dear Ray: Based on our meeting of February 19th with MWCC and City of Mound staff members, we believe the following work outline should substantially resolve fl ow metering and MWCC system I/I questions: 1) Conduct drawdown tests at the Enchanted Island Lift Station to verify pumping rates. 2) Calibrate Event Recorders at the following lift stations; Halsted's Bay, Jennings Bay, Enchanted Island, and Spring Park. 3) Investigate and/or televise MWCC interceptor sewers in Mound. Ray Odde's comparison of Mound per capita flows to surrounding communities was enlightening and will be transmitted to the Mound City Council. As we stated in the meeting the City must have confidence in metered flows prior to implementing further flow reduction work. To help accomplish this end, we suggest MWCC compile a list of meter calibration activities, schedules, etc., and forward this information to the city. We look forward to resolving this issue and appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES John C. Lichter, P.E. cc: Jon E1 am GEN OLSON Senator 43rd District 116 State Office Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 (612) 296-1282 Home: 6750 County Road 110 West Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-3306 Senate State of Minnesota February 20, 1985 Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jon: Thank you for conveying the wishes of the Mound City Council on the wine in grocery store issue. I am not supporting the efforts to pass that measure and am inclined not to vote for it either should it come to the floor of the Senate. As you probably know, this is the major legislative effort of the grocers this session. The measure as proposed would require local referendum to implement. If cities do not have provision for initiative, city councils could effectively determine whether the issue would even be considered. That has some ominous ramifications though if communities see this as a way to vie for grocery stores as part of commercial develop- ment attracting them away from communities without that provision. Even though I do support the dairy industry, the argument of increased sale of cheese by being able to sell wine is not enough to counter the concerns you express. Again, thanks for communicating you~ city council position. Sincerely, Gert Ol$on State Senator' GO:bk COMMITTEES · Education · Local and Urban Government · Energy and Housing SERVINGS: Deephaven. Eden Prairie (portions of), Excelsior. Greenwood. Long Lake, Minnetonka (portions of), Minnctonka Beach. Minnetrista, Mound, Orono. St. Bonifacius. Shorewood, Sp{ing Park, Tonka Bay and Woodland DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY A-'1603 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0'163 Ei BIE[IN J. 6'12-348-6846 February lg, 1985 Hennepin County_ Municipality: As a potential large-scale user of leaf compost, I would like to inform you of its availability, free of charge. Since 1972, the Department of Environment and Energy has operated a leaf compostingprogram. The purpose of the program is to produce a soil conditioner which can be used as bedding material, garden mulch, and soil extender when mixedwith soils (40% compost/60% soil) while diverting these yard "wastes" from being dumped in landfills. This year, Hennepin County_ at no cost will deliver, for municipal use, leaf compo_st quantities of 14 cu. yds. or more within the CQunty. Please fill out the attached waiver form indicating the volume you desire and return to the address shown. Compost delivery will be during April. and May. It should be noted that generally there is no limit, other than availability, on how much leaf compost a user may receive. For more information, call Bill Brenna or Dick Obermeyer at: 935-3381. Sincerely, Luther D. Nelson Director Attachment LDN:MSB :dlr HENNEPIN COUNTY an c:qual opportunity ~mp!oycr Bill Brenna Dept. of Environment & Energy 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343 I hereby authorize the delivery and dumping of compost material, which consists of leaves and grass clippings, on the property described below of which I am the legal and fee owner. Street Address: I further agree to save the County of Hennepin and its Department of Environment and Energy free and harmless from any liability to persons or property resulting from the delivery and dumping of such material~ upon the described property(l), and hereby waive any and all claims against said County of Hennepin and its Bureau of Public Service which might arise from such delivery and dumping. (1) "Property" shall be construed to mean but is not limited to: houses, structures and other fixtures, personal property, sidewalks, curbing, gutters, trees, shrubs, and sod. (Signature) Name (print) Address Telephone Date TWIN LABOR CITIES MARKET INFORMATION LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS VOL. 9 No. 2 FEBRUARY 1985 The Twin Cities metropolitan area unemployment rate rose to 4.6 percent in December from a revised 4.5 reading the previous month. This was significantly less than the 0.4 of a percentage point increase that typically occurs this time of year from temporary seasonal layoffs in the construction and manufacturing industries. Employment declined slightly, as it usually does, but unemployment was up much less than the average November to December amount. This is quite a surprise since both initial Unemployment Insurance claims and total regular claimants jumped sharply during the month even on a seasonally adjusted basis. They now stand fairly close to year ago levels. It may be that the surge of new and re-entrants to the labor force has subsided relieving upward pressure on the unemployment rate. This is quite fortuitous as the economy has not been very strong lately, especially the goods producing segments. Average weekly hours in manufacturing, a percursor of'employment trends, have edged down during the second half of 1984. Furthermore, residential building permits have pathetically low the past three months - stuck at levels not witnessed since ~ Lack of employment growth in these sectors won't adversely affect the unemployment rate if the others remain healthy and if labor force growth continues to slow. LA30R FORCE ESTIMATES (not seasonally adjusted) AREA CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT UNFJ~PLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT I~ATE DEC.~ NOV.~ DEC.. DEC.. DEC.. DEC.. DEC.~ NOV.. DEC.. DEC.. NOV._ DEC. 1984v 1984K 1983K 1984v 1984~ 1983~ 1984~ 1984~ 1983~ 1984~ 1984K 19g3 Mi nneapol t s- St. Paul SI~SA* 1,244.8 1,243.8 1,203.4 1,187.2 1,188.2 1,134.7 57.6 55.6 68.6 4.6 4.5 5.7 County: A~oka 118,515 117,894 114,374 112,385 112,487 107,422 6,130 5,407 6,952 5.2 4.6 8.1 C~rver 22,203 22,037 21,555 21,242 21,261 20,304 961 776 1,251 4.3 3.5 8.8 Cbtsago 15,855 15,555 15,489 14,746 14,759 14,095 1,109 796 1,394 7.0 5.1 9.0 D~kota 117,390 116,573 113,505 111,303 111,404 106,388 6,087 5,169 7,117 5.2 4.4 6.3 )(enneptn 563,490 565,381 543,813 539,801 540,293 515,968 23,689 25,088 27,845 4.2 4.4 5.1 Ramsey 275,691 276,387 266,861 263,639 263,878 251,998 12,052 12,509 14,863 4.4 4.5 5.6 Scott 26,830 26,315 25,886 25,106 25,128 23,997 1,724 1,187 1,889 6.4 4.5 7.3 Washington 68,178 67,937 66,247 65,121 65,180 62,246 3,057 2,757 4,001 4.5 .4.1 6.0 Wright 36,609 35,766 35,629 33,809 33,839 32,316 2,800 1,927 3,313 7.6 5.4 9.3 Bloomington 48,756 49,094 47,213 46,922 46,964 44,850 1,834 2,130 2,363 3.8 4.3 5.0 Minneapolis 222,429 223,O18 214,449 212,702 212,895 203,310 9,727 10,123 11,139 4.4 4.5 5.2 St. Paul 162,699 163,251 157,367 154,949 155,090 148,107 7,750 8,161 9,260 4.8 ~.0 5.9 Minnesota* 2,227.2 2,245.5 2,175.2 2,076.2 2,108.9 2~007.2 1SI.O 136.6 168.0 6.8 6.1 7.7 United Statese 114,028 114,115 111,795 106,049 106,246 102,803 7,978 7,869 8,992 7.0 6.9 "8.(~ p · Preliminary R - Revised U.S,, Minnesota, and S~SA data in thousands. EMPLOYMENT, HOURS AND EARNINGS in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area PERCENT PRODUCTION WORKERS' HOURS & EARNINGS~l/ EMPLOYMENT CHANGE Average Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekly I~(DJST~Y (000) FROM Earnings Earnings Hours DEC. Month Year Month Year DEC. Year DEC. Year DEC. Year ]984 Ago Ago Ago A~o 1984 Ago 1984 Aqo 1984 Aqo T~TAb NONAGRICULTURAL ]168.8 1170.4 '1106.6 -0.] 5.6 XX XX XX XX XX XX ~A~dFACTURING 252.0 253.2 237.8 -0.5 $.g 428.45 426.01 10.45 10.34 41.0 41.2 Durable Goods 161.3 162.9 ]51.7 -1.0 6.3 438.04 435.87 ]0.38 10.28 42.2 42.4 Lumber & Furniture 7.1 7.2 6.3 -1.7 13.1 430.42 415.27 10.98 10.33 39.2 40.2 Stone, Clay & Glass 3.6 4.1 3.5 -10.2 5.0 410.52 382.]4 9.94 10.03 4].3 38.] Primary Metals 4.5 4.6 4.3 -0.7 4.3 370.00 384.07 9.25 B.87 40.0 43.3 Fabricated Metals 26.0 26.] 26.4 -0.6 -].4 502.85 496.65 I];64 ]1.47 43.2 43.3 Non-Electrical Machinery 68.6 68.6 63.3 0.0 B.4 447.88 442.12 10.44 ]0.33 42.9 42.B Office & Computing Equipment 36.4 36.4 33.0 0.0 10.1 XX XX XX XX XX XX Electrical Machinery 19.3 19.8 17.5 -2.5 I0.1 384.38 394.74 8.96 9.31 42.9 42.4 Transportation Equipment 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.3 1.7 561.56 501.77 13.09 12.42 42.9 40.4 Scientific Instruments 23.9 23.9 22.6 0.0' 5.4 413.50 432.51 9.94 9.92 41.6 43.6 Miscellaneous 4.1 4.5 3.6 -8.9 12.9 374.25 333.21 9.98 B.61 37.5 38.7 ~tondurable Goods 90.7 90.3 86.2 0.4 11.7 412.23 411.08 10.57 10.46 39.0 39.3 Food & Kindred Products 17.6 17.4 18.2 1.2 -3.2 394.97 394.70 9.61 9.58 41.1 41.2 Textiles & Apparel 2.4 2.4 2.2 -1.0 8.1 229.69 ~213.53 6.47 5.74 35.5 37.2 Paper & Allied Products 25.8 25.6 24.5 0.7 6.5 464.25 459.14 11.08 10.88 41.9 42.2 Printing ~ Pt, blishing 27.1 27.1 25.0 0.1 B.3 396.29 399.16 11.52 11.47 34.4 34.B rh~mi~l & Petroleum Product~ 8.1 8.~ 7.8 -1.0 6.3 496.53 477.60 12.26 11.97 40.5 39.9 Rubber, Plastic, and Leather 9.1 9.5 8.5 0.4 1].7 354.90 366.02 8.72 9.06 40.7 40.4 I~DN~NUFACTuRING 916.9 917.2 868.7 0.0 5.5 XX XX XX XX XX XX CONSTRUCTION 43.3 47.9 37.4 -9.8 15.6 616.52 588.25 16.31 16.25 37.B 36.2 Building Construction 12.7 13.1 10.7 -2.5 18.6 634.00 577.80 16.01 16.05 39.6 36.0 Highway & Heavy Construction 3.6 6.4 3.1 -44.7 14.2 487.$1 465.46 14.09 13.69 34.6 34.0 Special Trades Contracting 27.0 28.4 23.6 -5.2 14.4 623.28 607.36 16.71 16.64 37.3 36.5 TRANSPORTATION 46.5 46.0 41,B 1.0 11.3 XX ' XX XX XX ' XX XX Railroads 5.9 .6.0 6.5 -1.7 -8.8 568.00 534.11 14.20 11.34 40.0 47.1 Trucking & Warehousing 17.1 16.6 15.3 3.0 11.8 404.71 480.96 12.19 12.46 33.2 38.6 PUBLIC UTILITIES & COMM. 20.9 21.1 21.2 -1.0 -1.5 509.68 511.12 13.17 12.81 38.7 39,9 TRADE 290.7 '286.7 272.0 1.4 6.9 241.49 241.47 7.97 7.84 30.3 30.8 Retail Trade 218.4 214.8 200.6 1.7 8.9 195.72 191.31 6.99 6.76 28.0 28.3 General Merchandise Stores 43.1 40.8 36.3 B.B 18.8 176.90 182.07 6.10 5.95 29.0 30.6 Food Stores 25.2 25.0 24.6 0.6 2.4 250.50 241.31 B.24 B.18 30.4 29.5 Eating & Drinking Places 67.6 67.9 62.3 -0.5 8.5 98.41 85.81 4.62 4.54 21.3 18.9 Specialty Merchandise~/ 82.4 81.0 77.4 1.7 6.6 269.86 264.92 B.34 7.69 32.4 34.5 Wholesale Trade 72.3 71.9 71.4 0.5 1.3 402.92 407.42 10.52 10.42 38.3 39.1 FINANCE, INS. & REAL ESTATE 79.0 78.5 76.4 O.B 3.4 322.50 305.33 8.60 8.23 37.5 37.1 Finance 32.9 32.7 33.0 0.7 -0.2 336.70 317.46 9.10 8.65 37.0 36.7 Insurance 32.0 31.8 29.7 0.9 7.7 361.47 345.98 8.71 8.48 41.5 40.8 Real Estate 14.0 14.1 13.7 -0.6 2.5 209.20 196.95 7.02 6.50 29.B 30.3 SERVICE & MISCELLANEOUS 280.7 279.5 265.3 0.4 5.8 XX XX XX XX XX XX Lodging & Recreation 25.9 25.B 24.6 0.2 5.2 171.34 141.64 6.60 5.88 25.9 24.1 Personal Services 12.0 11.9 11.2 0.6 6.B XX XX XX XX XX XX Business Services 65.4 64.9 57.6 0.9 13.7 XX ~XX XX XX XX XX Repair'Services 14.2 13.B 13.0 2.5 9.3 265.72 263.34 7.32 6.93 36.3 38.0 Health Services 73.3 73.2 74.3 0.2 -1.3 256.26 229.97 8.32 7.93 30.8 29.0 Hospitals 27.S 27.6 30.~ -0.4 -8.g 273.60 266.68 B.SS 9.39 32.0 28.4 Nursing Homes 20.1 20.0 20.1 0.7 0.0 201.32 190.02 7.19 6.86 28.0 27.7 Other Health 25.7 25.6 24.0 O.B 7.1 XX XX XX XX XX XX Legal Services 9.0 8.9 8.3 0.8 8.9 446.75 397.25 12.14 11.19 36.8 35.5 Private Education 16.3 16.3 16.1 -0.4 1.2 Other Services~/ 60.6 60.0 56.7 1.1 6.8 GOVERNMENT 155.9 IB7.S 154.6 -1,0 0.9 Federal 18.5 18.3 17.7 1.2 4.7 State 46.1 47.9 47.2 -3.8 -2.4 Local 91.3 91.3 89.7 0.1 1.8 *' Less than .05 lff Average earnings data are on a "gross" basis and are derived from reports of payroll for full- and part-time production or nonsupervisory workers. The payroll is reported before deductions of any kind. Bonuses, retro- active pay, tips, payment in kind, and "fringe benefits" are excluded. [/ Includes Building Materials, Automotive, Apparel, Home Furnishings, Drug, Mail Order and Miscellaneous Retailing. ~/ Includes Social Services, Membership Organizations, and Miscellaneous Services such as Engineering and Accounting. Source: Current Employment Statistics Program (Figures rounded to nearest hundred). EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONDITIONS re was little change in employment iwin Cities me{ropolitan a~ea esta- ~hments from November to December. The number of nonagricultural wage and salary jobs fell by 1,600, but this loss can be wholly explained by a greater than usual drop in state govern- ment. The education component of this sector had a sharply reduced staff as the end of fall quarter campus activity pheceeded our survey week this year. The other sectors of the local economy behaved as they normally do at this time of the year with typical increases in trade and services and decreases in construction and manufacturing. While employment is still up 5.6 percent from the December 1983 level, growth has abated. One month's figures are not enough, however, to pronounce the economy stagnant. It may just be that the torrid pace of job creation experi- enced during most of 1984 has merely slowed down. ~ARACTERlSTICS OF THE INSURED U~PLOYED (Regular Benefits Program) Percent C~nge %~ustry Ind ,. F~: Percent Percent ~pattoni] ~nth Year of Long-Te~ Percent At~c~nt Nmber Ago Ago Totl~ Un~p~ oye~ Wa, eh Constmct~on 4,07~ 260.5 -Il.1~ 23.7 2.3 ~nuflc~rtng 4.918 38.4 15.2 28.6 19.3 35.3 ~r~ble 6~ds 3,544 45.9 17.7 20.6 13.9 34.0 Nondur~ble 6o~s 1,374 22.2 9.1 8.0 21.3 3B.6 trans., C~., mhd Rqblt: Uti)tries BO7 45.9 4.4 4.7 16.5 17.8 Wholesale lr~de 1,338 22.9 6.0 7.B 20.9 29.4 Retmtl Trm~e 1,531 15.5 -21.2 B.g 19.9 37.4 ~ml [state 833 8.6 -19.9 4.8 25.1 59.3 Services 2,455 10.5 -15.4 14.3 25.1 47.1 Public ~tn. 39B 37.2 -6.4 2.3 8.5 37.7 All Other 672 320.0 1.4 3.9 0.9 8.9 Znf. Not Available 184 . l~tml, All ~cupmtions 17,210 53.8 -1.9 100.0 14.3 28.6 P~f., Tech., ~r. 2,700 5.6 1.5 15.7 27.0 39.3 Clerical 1,981 9.3 -6.9 11.5 22.2 76.5 ~les 708 18.0 1.6 4.1 23.9 29.2 Service 951 7.? -21.8 5.5 24.6 42.7 Fa~., For,, Fish. 484 202.5 9.8 2.8 1.2 7.6 P~cesstng 362 50.8 36.6 ' 2.1 20.7 16.9 ~chtne Trades 1,322 33.4 28.6 7.7 15.B 19.0 Be~rk ~ 1,775 52.1 10.4 10.3 11.8 54.0 St~ctural Work 4,074 209.1 -11.5 23.7 3.6 2.7 ~tscellmneous 2~836 96.3 -1.0 16.~ 8.4 10.9 Inf. Not Available 42 - . NOT~: Percen~ges ~y not ~tal ~ lO0.O due ~ tndepe~ent ~unding. ~ Long-Te~ un~ployed refers ~ un~plo~nt insurance clat~nts whose ~urrent spell of un~plo~ent has lasted l~ ~ks or longer. Economic Indicators Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area Latest Month Available Initial UI Claimsl/* Dec. U! Claimants-Regularl/* Dec. Avg Wkly Hours in Mfg,/* Dec. Help Wanted Index2_/* Dec. Mortgage Rate3/ Dec. Residential Bldg Permits4/* Nov. Retail Sales (Millions)~7* Nov. Consumer Price Index6__/~ Dec. US Employment Cost Index§/ Dec. Current Previous Percent Change Period Period Year Ago Year Ago 2,138 1,643~ 2,165 -1.2 16,390' 14,219. 16,669 -1.7. 40.0 40.9' 40.2 -0.5 90 81 63 42.9 13.72 12.00 12.05 - 1,089 1,075 1,297 .-16.0 1,440 1,422 1,169 23.2 327.9 328.0 317.5 3.3 123.9 122.4 117.8 5.2 Sources · l/ MDES, 2_/ The Conference Board, 3__/ Minneapolis Star & Tribune via Data ~esources, Inc., 4/ Metropolitan Council, 5__/ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, and 6/ Bureau of LaboF Statistics. tes seasonally-adjusted data. THE ,]OB MARKET Much has been written about the transition of the U.S. economy from a goods-producing economy to a service-producing economy. This month's Job Market section focuses on the service industries. Each month data collected from establishments by Researdh Offices of State Employment Security Agencies is sent to Washington, D.C. and combined to make national estimates of nonagricultural wage and salary jobs by industry. This national data is published in Employment and Earnings at a much more detailed level than is possible in local publications such as this one. Publication criteria regarding confidentiality and reliability of the sample often make it' impossible to publish detailed industry .data at a local level. The following lists give some insight into which service industries have added employees over the past year and which have trimmed payrolls. Both the number of employees and the percentage change are shown. Although the numbers are for the Nation, this trend, s are probably also.occurring.in the Twin Cities area. Five Service Industries which have Added Most Jobs 1. Personnel Supply Services 2. Miscellaneous Business Services 3. Hotels, Motels, and Tourist Courts 4. Computer and Data Processing Services 5. Engineering and Architectural Services Employment Percent Change Change 173,200 24.5 % 130,800 8.2 78,700 6.8 57,200. 13.2 54,900' 9.5 Five Service Industries which have Lost the Most Jobs 1. Hospitals 2. Amusement and Recreation Services 3. Membership Organizations 4. Private Colleges and Universities 5. Medical and Dental Laboratories Five Fastest Growing Service Industries 1. Personnel Supply Services 2. Individual and Family Social Services 3. Computer and Data Processing Services 4. Museums, Botanical, and Zoological Gardens 5. Photographic Studios, Portrait -68,400 -2.3 -6,500 -0.8 -4,900 -0.3 -2,700 -0.3 -1,700 -1.5 173,200 43,000 57,200 5,000 6,200 24.5 16.0 13.2 12.9 10.9 Source: ~mployment and Earninqs, December 1984,'.U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available Publications: Important Minnesota Occupations by Industry. This publication~ presents occupational employment data on approximately 200 occupations which employ over 1,000 people in-Minnesota. It summarizes the results of surveys of establishments conducted over the period 1979-1982. This publication is useful to those interested in occupational staffing pattern trends. Please call 296-8724 to request a copy. No charge. 4 b34~ Mi~YV,.'OOD fiGAD I,:OU!,iE). '~Q,h~q,~4ESO'TA 5.5364 ~632) 4'2-11~5 February 20, 1985 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Attached is a summary of the 1985 Legislative Program for the Regional Transit Board. It is useful because it lays out, in modest detail', the various' transit programs that exist (MTC, Metro Mobility, etc.), but also points out how much Federal subsidy the MTC receives each year. In 1985, $10,O10;OO0 or-9.74% is projected as Federal assistance. This is one area the President sought to eliminate in his Budget. When you see that property tax income will provide $41,293,000 to the MTC in 1985 (40.17%), they may well attempt to make up this reduction by increasing the property tax or the fares. In Mound in 1984, the property tax will provide 47.65% of the Budget, nearly the same as the MTC. JE:fc enc. Attachment 1 REGIONAL TRARSIT BOARD 1985 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM (adopted Feb. 4, 198g APPROPRIATIONS The Regional Transit Board's 1985-87 Biennial Budget request is comprised of two budget activities -- Metropolitan Transit Assistance and Metropolitan Transit Administration. The Metropolitan Transit Assistance Activity is further divided into five budget programs --'the Metro Mobility Program; the Private Operator's Program; the'Metropolitan Transit commission (MTC) Program; Metropolitan Transit Service Demonstration Program (Opt-Out}; and the Rural and Small Urban Program. The Metropolitan Transit Administration Activity encompasses RTB administrative costs associated with the planning and coordination of public transit resources within the metropolitan area. The RTB's 1985-87 appropriations request is summarized below in Table 1; followed by a short narrative on each budget activity. TABLE 1 REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD 1985-87 BIENNIAL BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET ACTIVITY TOTAL FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1985-87 1986 1987 BIENNIUM Metro Mobility $ 5,350,000 $ 5,724,600 $11,074,600 Private .Operators 1,032,700 1,104,900 2,137,600 14,260,000 19,097,000 33,357,000 Opt-Out · 731,900 783,100 1,515,000 Rural/Small Urban 816,700 872,300 1,689,000 -Administration lr099,500 1,099,500 2,199,000 Total $23,290,800, $28,681,400 $51,972,20~ A. Metro Mobility Metro Mobility is a coordinated transportation system that provides public transit for disabled individuals in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The project had its beginnings in 1976 as a demonstration program in a small area of Minneapolis. That service, called Project Mobility, was operated by the MTC. The service was expanded to a larger area in Minneapolis in 1978, and then expanded again in 1979. The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Council and the MTC, developed Metro Mobility to coordinate Project Mobility and several private providers. Currently, service is available in both central cities and the first ring suburban communities. Six taxi companies, one private non-profit company, one private for-profit company and the -2- MTC'S Project Mobility participate in the program. There were over 10,000 persons certified to use Metro Mobility in the fall of 1984. The 198S-87 biennial request of $11,074,600 represents the amount necessary to maintain the existing level of service for the project. In preparing this budget request, no growth in service miles was assumed. The request is based on existing contracts and inflated by 7.0 percent annually to represent the same service level. Contracts include the Metro Mobility Transportation Center, Project Mobility and the private providers (Morley Bus Co., Suburban Paratransit and six taxa companies). Private OPerators The private operators budget activity provides financial assistance to two private bus companies which operate regular route public transit service in Anoka, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties. North Suburban Lines operates local and express bus service between Southern Anoka County and Northern Ramsey County and downtown St. Paul. Medicine Lake Lines provides service between downtown Minneapolis and the suburban communities of Crystal, New Hope, Golden Valley, Plymouth, and Medina. The 1985-87 biennial request represents .the amount necessary to maintain the existing level of service. The budget request for this activity assumes no ~hange in service levels and an annual' inflation rate of 7.0 percent. C. Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) The level of funding requested for the 1985-87 biennium is $33,357,000. This request includes $9.2 million for social fare reimbursement and $24,157,000 for operating assistance grants~ M.S. 473.408 requires the MTC to provide reduced "social fare" rates for =he elderly, h~ndicapped and youths during off-peak hours. The difference between these reduced rates and the regularly charged full adult fare is made' up by the State of Minnesota through a special appropriation. The level of funding requested for the continuation of this program during the 1985-87 biennium is, $9.2 million. During the next biennium, MTC regular route service miles will grow modestly by about 2.6 percent primarily due to four major service enhancements in the region and the expansion of non-traditional services such as subregional service and timed-transfer. To maintain the current network of MTC service and implement innovative and improved ~ransit service, the MTC will need $24,157,000 in state operating assistance grants during the next biennium. -3- In determining the level of state operating assistance needed by the M~C during the next biennium, the following assumptions have been made: Passenger Revenues: No change in fares. Ridership to grow in 1985 by 1.5% over 1984 actual levels. ~o subsequent year ridership increases. Investment Income: Invested funds to earn 10%. Short term tax anticipation borrowing based upon cash flow needs. Ail Other Revenues: Continued at levels of 1984 estimated actual for advertising special (U of M Express and charter fares). SUBSIDIES Federal Grants: Continuation of Section 9 operating assistance at $8.5 million. Limited additional funding. Regional Transit Board: Uses Mn/DOT subsidy projections necessary to maintain minimum working capital balance of $15 million. Funding sources to include property taxes and state .subsidies. Regular Transit: 1985 service enhancements continued. Project Mobility: Continuation of existing (1984) service Plan. Labor and Fringes: 5% wage increases for union employees on each May 1 from 1985 through 1987. 5% wage increases for administrative employees on each January 1 from 1985 through 1987. Productivity to reflect full 15% part-time driver utilization. Yearly hiring progression savings varies by pro~ected seniority of ~he labor force. Complement positions to remain at 421 from July 1, 1985 forward. Pension as lowered in 1983 legislation (3.9%). FICA at 7.05% in 1985 and 7.15% thereafter. Hospitalization premiums returning to historical trends in 1986 and 1987. Workers compensation expense to level off, increasing only 1% per year after 1985. Casualty & Liability: No increases in 1986 or 1987, budgeted at $2,030,000. General Inflation: per year affecting all non-detailed expenses. The enclosed chart shows M~C revenue and expense projections for next biennium. De -4- Opt-Out The amount needed next biennium to continue transit service under the opt-out program is $1,515,000. The opt-out program was first enacted by the Legislature in 1981 as the Metropolitan Transit Service Demonstration Program. As part of the RTB enabling legislation passed in 1984, the Opt-out program was transferred from Mn/DOT to the RTB and renamed the Replacement Service Program. In order to 'be eligible to opt-ou~, a community must meet the following requirements: (1) be within the metropolitan transit taxing district; (2) not be served by the MTC or be served by bus routes which begin or end in the community; and (3) have fewer than four schedules runs of MTC bus service during off-peak hours. In addition to meeting the above eligibility requirements, the 1984 Legislature limited participation in the opt-out program to those communities which were receiving financial assistance or submitted an application or a letter of intent to apply for assistance under the program by July 1, 1984. About fifteen suburban metropolitan communities are eligible to participate in the opt-out program under the criteria lis=ed above. Plymouth was the first city to opt-out of the MTC system. In Oc~ber, 1983, Medicine Lake Lines began operating Metrolink Service between Plymouth and downtown Minneapolis. Midday circulator service in the city of Plymouth is also provided. Shakopee followed Plymouth's lead and began operating service under the opt-out law in Sap=ember, 1984. Chaska and Eden Prairie are studying the feasibility of opting-out.- E. Small Urban and Rural System Beginning with the 1985-87 biennium the RTB will administer the grant programs for the metropolitan small urban and rural systems that were previously funded through Mn/DOT. The amount necessary to fund these programs for the nexWc biennium is $1,689,000. The budget request for the small urban and rural program was prepared on the basis that state assistance will increase 7.0 percent annually and there will be no change in service levels from the fiscal year 1985 level. In addition, the request includes $162,000 in fiscal year 1986 and $172,000 ~n fiscal year 1987 for capital needs. County transit services are provided in five metropolitan counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota (DARTS), Scott and Washington. The services provided are primarily for the elderly and handicapped. Cc~munity transit services or small urban system service are provided in five metropolitan area communities: Columbia Heights, Hastings, -5- Hopkins, St. Louis Park and White Bear Lake. These systems generally proviae local circulator service, primarily ~0r %he transit dependent. F. RTB Administration $2,199,000 iS the amount needed by the RTB in the 1985-87 budget period to administer transit assistance programs.for grant recipients in the metro region and to plan, coordinate and implement transit programs in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The budget request recognizes that the RTB has nineteen authorized. full-time employees who will be Organized into two divisions -- (1) Planning and Programs, and (2) Administration. The administrative functions of the RTB include: · · · · · The preparation of a transit implementation and financial plan. Certification of transit property tax levy. The assumption of Mn/DOT's operating contracts with metropolitan area providers. The preparation of required budgets, staffing plans and financial plans. The review and approval of MTC budget. Study and report to the legislature on statutorily required issues. The implemen=a=ion of a =ransit information program. The administration of para~ransit con~rac=s. The assumption of the ridesharing program. The assumption of the opt-out program. The implementation of a local government participation program. GF/kal/4042 12-27-84 REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD 1985 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM II. 1. e OTHER STATUTORY CHANGES MTC IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROVISION Article 3, Sec. 121 (codified as M.S. 473.384, Subd. ~) prohibits the RTB from entering into a contract for operating assistance with a non-MTC provider .unless it "determines that the service to be assisted under the contract will not impose an undue hardship on the ridership or financial condition of the Commission, cause the dismissal of persons that are employed by the Commission, or reduce the total level of service in the metropolftan area provided by the Commission." While this provision may offer protection to the MTC and its union employees, it does so by placing an unwakranted statutory barrier to competition for the provision of transit services in the metropolitan area. The major complaint aired against the MTC during legislative . hearings on the RTB bill and before the Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Transit was that the MTC was unwilling to open markets to other transit providers. The RTB was established, in part, to open these markets by exploring and evaluating the economic and service benefits of providing transit services on a competitive bid basis. Unfortunately, the MTC impact assessment provision creates a major impediment to lowering costs on some of the MTC's non-productive and marginal suburban routes. The RTB will be prohibited from bidding out this service to lower cost private operators if the contract would cause the dismissal of MTC employees or reduce the total level of MTC service. Recommendation: Repeal M.S. 473.384, Subd. 7, the ~TC imppct assessment provision, to. give the RTB the needed flexibility to design better and more cost effective service through the use of competively negotiated service contracts. METRO MOBILITY MANA(~/~NT POLICY COMMITTEE Article 3, S~c. 122 (codified as M.S. 473.386) transfers the responsibility for the Metro Mobility program from Mn/DOT to the RTB. Subdivision 2 of this section continues the role of the Metro Mobility Management Policy Committee as the body that sets management policy for the Metro Mobility project. There has been some concern in the past regarding the vested interests of representatives of the Management Policy Committee and their ability to set objective policy for the project. Since the RTB is made up of individuals f~om a variety of different backgrounds with a diversity of interests, it may be more appropriate for th% RTB to develop policy for the Metro Mobility project. While it may have made some sense to have such a policy committee when the project was run by an agency in the executive branch of state government, that necessity is lessened when the responsibility for the Metro Mobility program is placed in a quasi-legislative policy body. o -2- Furthermore, if the RTB is to be the policy authority on all metropolitan transit concerns and ultimately have control over the policy direction of the Metro Mobility project, it should be the authority which establishes the policy for the project in the first instance. Recommendation: Amend M.S. 473.386, Subd. 2, to provide that the RTB is to Set management policies for the Metro Mobility project. Membership from.the Advisory Task Force and the Management Policy Committee would be merged to provide one advisory committee to the RTB on Metro Mobility concerns. RIDESEARING LEGISLATION The following two legislative proposals were approved by the Metropolitan Ridesharing Board on December 13, 1984. Rideshare Tax Incentives The ridesharing board has developed a series of tax incentives to promote the use of alternative modes of commuter transportation such as vanpooling as follows: 1. Excise tax exemption for purchase of. vans for vanpools. 2. 20% tax credit for purchase of vans by individuals or corporations for vanpooling. 3. 20% tax credit for employer-paid compensation of rideshare coordinators. 4. Tax deduction for employers who subsidize transit and rideshare activities including transit passes, vanpool/ bus fares and free parking for carpoo!s/vanpools. 5. Accelerated depreciation on constructing facility improvements for ridesharing and transit such as preferential parking and shelters. Emerpency Exemption from Class B License Requirements M.S. 171.02 requires that drivers of v~hicles designed for carrying more than !0 passengers must have a Class B license. Certain situations have arisen where the regular driver of a con~nuter vanpool has been unavailable to drive, leaving the responsibility to a passenger who possesses a valid Class C license but does not hav~ a Class B license. ~i The ridesharing board would like to amend the law to allow backup drivers or passengers of commuter vanpools, who do not possess a Class B license, to legally drive the vehicle when the regular licensed driver is unavailable. The law would have to be amended to grant a specific exemption to the Class B licensing requirements for individuals to drive the van during emergency situations where the regular licensed driver of the vanpool is not available to drive the van. DEBT AUTHOR!ZATIf~N Article III, Sec. 124 (codified as M.S. 473,39) provides that the RTB may not issue obligations in excess of the amount specificall? authorized by 7& -3- law (emphasis added). Since the RTB does not currently have any debt authorization specifically in statute, the RTB will need to request that the Legislature provide for debt authorization during the 1985 session in an amount necessary to cover any bonded indebtedness for planned capital projects the RTB will undertake in the next biennium. Recon~endation: Establish in law a debt authorization for the RTB in an amount (to be determined) necessary to successfully c~mplete the RTB's capital improvement program during the next biennium. C~NDEMNATION AUTHORITY Article III, Sec. 117 (codified as M.S. 473.375, Subd. 4) provides that the RTB may acquire property by purchase, lease or gift but does not give the RTB the power to condemn property necessary for the accomplishment of its purposes. The board may find it necessary at some point in the future to use the power of eminent domain to acquire property, particularly if the RTB takes an active role in the construction of a light rail system in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It should be noted that the MTC and the Eennepin County Regional Rail Authority have the power to condemn property. Recommendation: Amend M.S. 473.375, Subd. 4, to give the RTB general condemnation authority. TERMS OF RTB MEMBERS Article III, Sec. 116 (codified as M.S. 473.373, Subd. 4) establishes initial terms for members of the RTB as follows: the Chairman and members representing Districts B, E, F, J, K, L and N have initial terms expiring the first Monday in January in 1987. Members representing Districts A, C, D, G, H, I and M have initial terms which expire the first Monday in January in 1989. This section, however, is silent as to the duration of subsequent terms of RTB members after initial terms expire. To head-off the potential for any confusion over the length of terms of RTB members, this section should be amended to clearly state.that 9fret initial terms expire, the term of an RTB member is four years and until a successor is appointed and qualified. Recommendation: Amend M.S..473.373, Subd. 4 to clarify that the terms of RTB members subsequent to the members' initial terms are four years by adding the following sentence: "Thereafter the term of each member and the chairman is four years and until a successor is appointed and qualified." CARRY-OVER OF MOTOR VEHIC~ EXCISE TAX FUNDS During the 1984 session, ~.he entire portion of the metropolitan share of the Transit Assistance Fund in fiscal year 1985 was dedicated for planning and engineering design for light rail transit in the University, Southwest and Hiawatha corridors (see Chapter 654, Article 3, Sec. l(i)). Current estimates indicate that about $10 million will be -4- available fo= ~his ~urpose. These funds must be spent or obli~ated by June 30, 1985 or the unspent monies will cancel back to the Transit Assistance Fund. Further legislation during the 1985 session will be needed to carry-over any unspent portion of these funds for light rail or other transit purposes. Recommendation: Seek the necessary legislation neede~ to carry-over these funds for further engineering and planning design for light rail transit and other eligible transit projects. TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND - DIRECT APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO RTB Article 3, Sec. 74 (codified as M.S. 174.32) creates the Transit Assistance Fund to receive the transit share of money distributed from the motor vehicle excise tax. This section provides that 80% of the fund is to be distributed to metropolitan area transit programs and 20% is to be spent outstate. This section further provides that the Commissioner of Transportation is responsible for the distribution of these funds to' eligible recipients such as cities, public transit systems, regional rail authorities and private providers. The RTB enabling legislation clearly indicates that the RTB is th~ agency charged with the planning and funding of all--transit programs in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Minnesota Department of Transportation, the agency formerly charged with providing financial assistance to both ou.~state and certain metropolitan transit programs, is now responsible only for those transit progr~m~ outside the metropolitan area. Ail other transit functions of Mn/DOT that are in metropolitan area are transferred to the RTB. (See Article 3, Sec. 63 to 72). The direct allocation of the metropolitan share of the Transit Assistance Fund ~o the Commissioner of Transportation for distribution by him to eligible transit programs in the metropolitan area is .clearly contradictory to the intent of the RTB legislation. The metropolitan share of the Transit Assistance Fund should come directly to the RTB for distribution to metropolitan transit programs thereby avoiding an inconsistent and unnecessary step in the funds allocation process. Recommendation: Amend M.S. 174.32 to provide that'the metropolitan share of the Transit Assistance Fund is to be appropriated to the RTB, not the Commissioner of Transportation.. The RTB would allocate these funds according to its budget priorities. PER DIEM CDMPENSATION FOR MTC CHAIRMAN Amend Article'III, Sec. 15 of the RTB/MTC enabling legislation (M.S. 15A.081, Subd. 7) to clarify that the chairman of the MTC is to be paid per diem compensation as provided for other members of the commission.. Article III, Sec. 15 of the transit reorganization bill sets the MTC's =hairman's salary at zero. Article III, Sec. 126, Subd. 7, of the same bill further provides that each member of the MTC must be compensated as -5- provided in M.S~ 473.141, Sub~. 7, which distinguishes between a per diem compensation for members of the commission and a salary for the chairman. ~t states~ "Each commission member shall be paid a per diem compensation of $50 for each meeting and fo= such other services as authorized by the commission, and shall be paid for all actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties .in the same manner and amount as state empl'oyees. The chairman shall receive a salary in an amount fixed by section 15A.081 and shall be reimbursed for reasonable expenses to the same extent as a member." Upon discussion with legislators regarding their intent, the MTC has opted to compensate the chairman in the form of $50 per diem for any day in which the chairman is reguired to perform services for the commission, as stated in its adopted bylaws. Although this arrangement of per diem payments to the chairman is an acceptable method of compensation, the statutes should be changed to allow the MTC to do so. 10. UNCLASSIFIED PENSION PLAN - CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF ~C Amend M.S. 352D.02, Sub~. 1, Clause 5, to allow the Chief Administrator of the M~C to participate in the State Unclassified Employees Retirement Program. The law now permits the Chief Administrator of the Waste Control Commission and the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Council to participate in the unclassified plan. The Regional Transit Board may also wish to pursue this option for its Executive Director. The unclassifie~ pension plan was established by the legislature in 1971 to provide pension benefits to agency heads, political appointees, etc., whose public service would likely amount to less than the ten years of service needed to qualify for a regular MSRS pension. Under the unclassified plan, the employee contributes 4% of his salary and his employer 6% of salary to the employee's account. The primary advantage to the unclassified plan is that thirty days after terminating MSI~S covered employment, the employee may withdraw the full value of the account, including the ~mpl0yer's contribution. A change in state law to allow for this coverage would be an asset to the MTC commissioners in searching for a qualified Chief Administrator, should that ihdividual be barred from working for the M~C under contract with a private management firm. 11. ELDERLY MEMBER ON REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD Amend M.S. 15.0591, Subd. 2, Clause 20, to provide that the RTB, not the MTC, be required to have an elderly member on its board. -6- The 1984 law, as passed, provides that the Metropolitan Transit commiss~on "o= ~ts successor" must have an elderly member on its board. Since the MTC is still a viable legal entity, it is unclear whether the elderly member should serve on the MTC or RTB. However, since the RTB fill be the policymaker on issues of importance to senior citizens, this would suggest that the elderly member would best be placed on the RTB, requiring that the law be amended to clearly indicate that the senior citizen representative will serve on the RTB. 12. SIZE OF MTC Amend M.S. 473.404, Subdivision 2, to ~llow for increased'size of MTC board fr~ three to five members - o~e from Minneapolis, one from St. Paul and three serving at large from the suburban service area of the M~C. Existing law (M.S. 473.404, Subd. 2) requires ~e MTC board to consist of three commissioners, which creates .some administrative problems in committee assignments and quorum, as defined by the Minnesota open meeting law. If the board were increased to'five members from its current level of three members, the MTC could more effectively organize into committees of the Commission and it WOuld be more reasonable to meet the requirements of the open meeting law. 13. FARE CAP REMOVAL Amend Laws 1981, Chapter 363, Sec. 55, Subd. l(i), to remove restrictions on MTC fares. Since 1981, the MTC has operated under a statutorily mandated fare cap. This has reduced MTC's flexibility with respect to the setting of fares, particularly the "base fare." It is the RTB's and the MTC's .plan to, during this current biennium, conduct an overall fare study, beginning with a thorough review of the results of its own fare pricing strategy s~udy, in order to make recommendations to the RTB on t_he proper s=ructLlre (inc!u~ing fare simplification) of MTC user fees. The RTB and M~C jointly feel that any statutory fare restrictions will impede the ability of the MTC to properly assess where fares should be, and the RTB to subsequently act on these recommendations. 14. FUTURE BONDING AUTHORITY Amend M.S. 473.436, Subd. 5~ to allow the MTC additional bonding authority up to $7.0 million over the course of the 1985-87 biennium. The MTC's current approved 1985 capital budget and TIP will require another sale Of bonds to fund capital fleet and facilities prior to the end of the upcoming biennium. The sum required is $7.0 million, which can be produced either by the RTB sale of bonds or by MTC, with prior approval by the RT~3.. This wiil allow MTC to complete its planned capital improvements program through June, 1987. 15. -7- FREE BUS PASSES FOR PARTICIPANTS IN T~E WORK INCENTIVE PROGRAM Laws of 1984, Chapter 654, Article 3, Sec. l(i) requires the MTC to give 575 monthly 'All You Can Ride" passes each month to the Department of Economic Security's Work Incentive Program for use by its participants. This mandated distribution of free monthly bus passes to the Work Incentive Program is scheduled to end, by law, on June 30., 1985. The Department of Economic Security has requested tha~ the free distribution of bus passes to participants in the Work Incentive Program be continued. The M~C concurs with the department's request with one condition - that the law be amended t~ provide that the free passes given to participants in the Work Incentive Program be considered a social fare for which the MTC can receive reimbursement in the same manner as reduced fares for the elderly are reimbursed. According to data supplied by the Department of Economic Security, an average of 385 passes have been distributed to Work Incentive Program participants each month, resulting in an average monthly revenue loss to the MTC of $12,685. The M~C strongly feels that the state should assume the responsibility for farebox revenue loss caused by mandated free and reduced fares. This would require an increase in state assistance to the MTC of $304,440 during the next biennium. GF/kal/4029 011~1185