The URL can be used to link to this page

1984-10-09 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AMENDED AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2. 3. 4. 5. Approve Minutes of September 6, 1984, Special Meeting Pg. 2794-2797 Approve Minutes of September 13, 1984, Special Meeting. Pg. 2798 Approve Minutes of September 18, 1984, Regular Meeting Pg. 2799-2807 Approve Minutes of September 25, 1984, Regular Meeting Pg. 2808-2817 PUBLIC HEARING.[ Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Print Shop at 2434 Commerce Blvd. - Jim Jagodzinski Pg. 2818-2829 PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider Amending the Wetlands Map and Provision of Wetlands Ordinance, Sections 23.110 through 23.1150 Pg. 2830-2832 PUBLIC ~EARINGS ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS,[ A. Unpaid Tree RemOval Charges C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. Unpaid Garbage Removal Charges Unpaid Weed & Grass Cutting Charges Unpaid Sidewalk Repair Charges Levy #9421 Levy #9618 Levy #9619 Levy #9419 Levy # 9422 Levy #9430 Unpaid Delinquent Utility Bills Levy #9423 Supplemental Assessment - 78 Streets Levy #9424 Supplemental Assessment - 79 Streets Levy #9425 Supplemental Assessment - 80 Streets Levy #9426 Supplementa~ Assessment - Sewer 3180 Levy #9427 Supplemental Assessment - Sewer 3388 Levy #9428 Supplemental Assessment - Water 3397 Levy #9429 CASE ~8~-~63: G M GEnt., 510 Wayzata Blvd. (5846 Idlewood Road), Lot 2, Block 1, The Highlands Request: Lot Size Variance Request to Discuss Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Allow for Accessory Apartments within the R-1 District (Discussion Item) Pg. 2833-2834 Pg. 2833 Pg. 2833 Pg. 2833 Pg. 2835 Pg. 2836-2844 Pg. 2845-2881 10. 11. Proposal for a Community Recycling Program Presentation of Committee Report - Kathy Kluth and Jackie Meyer Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Pg. 2882 12. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Application for a Bingo Permit - Mound Fire Dept. Auxiliary Report on County Road 125 & Tuxedo Blvd. Intersection Use of a Payment Box for Collection of Utility Bills Set Date for a Public Heaing on Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Multiple Dwelling & Marina (Surfside) at 2670 Commerce Blvd. (SUGGESTED DATE - November 13, 1984) Request .to Extend Variance Resolution #82-141 for One Year: Kevin Hetchler, 4913 Island View Drive Approval of Final Plat for Lost Lake Addition Subdivision Set Date for Bid Opening 1984-85 CBD Snow Removal Contract & Fall Clean-Up (Suggested Date: October 22, 1984, at 10:00 A.M.) Request of Dow-Sat Cable T.V. to Add Spectrum Sports as a Pay Service Quote for Tree Moving Payment of Bills A. Reappointment of Eldo Schmidt to the HRA - 5 yr. term (August 29, 1984 - August 29, 1989) B.Revenue Sharing Handicapped Grievance Procedure C. Budget Resolutions for 1985 General Fund & Tax Levy INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS' A. Planning Commission Minutes B. Metro Council Review - September 14, 1984 C. Copy of Letter from Mrs. Gall L. DuPuis D. News Clippings on Various Issues E. "Minnesota" - Deed Publication F. Police Chief Correspondence G. 'Letter from PCA H. Monthly "Chamber Waves" Newsletter Pg. 2883 Pg. 2884-2885 Pg. 2886-2889 Pg. 2890-2895 Pg. 2896-2901 Pg. 2902-2908 Pg. 2909-2911 Pg. 2912 Pg. 2913 Pg. 291 4-2917 Pg. 291.8-2919 Pg. 2920 Pg. 2921-2924 Pg. 2925-2928 Pg. 2929 Pg. 2930-2931 Pg. 2932-2933 Page I. Magazine Art "Planning Comm. Speak Out" J. Ehlers & Associates Newsletter K. Approval Letter from State RE: Lynwood Project L. October Calendar - Humphrey Institute M. Floodplain Management Newsletter - DNR N. Article on IRB Allocation in Minnesota Pg. 2934-2941 Pg. 2942-2943 Pg. 2944-2945 Pg. 2946-2949 Pg. 2950-2955 Pg. 2956-2960 Page 179 September 6, 1984 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of the Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on September 6, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, Police Chief Lenny Harrell, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Nancy Clough, Clara Paz, Harold Meeker, Ralph Paz, GreEt & Connie Murray, Mike Murray, Steve Smith, Frank Ahrens, Buzz Sycks, Kathy Kluth, Larry Connolly. The Mayor opened the meeting and explained that this is an information meeting for the purpose of providing the citizens of Mound with information on the City's financial condition and to solicit suggestions-regarding the 1985 City Budget. The City Manager presented a 22 page document about City finances in 1984. This included information on the following: 1. How 1984 taxes were distributed among taxing authorities. 2. Assessed valuation for the past 4 years and what role it plays in taxes. -3. How mills are computed and how the total property taxes payable are determined. An example of how Mound's mill rate ranks-with the other 46 cities in Henhepin County. It ranks 26. 5. A comparison of how Mound compares to 6 other cities in per capita taxes. 6. A comparison of how Mound compares to 6 other cities in assessed value per capita. 7. A comparison of how 5 other cities compare to Mound in productive efficiency by dividing the population by the number of employees. 8. General Fund summary of revenues and expenditures 1984 Approved, 1984 Projected, and 1985 Proposed. 9. General Fund revenue 1984 Approved, 1984 Projected, and 1985 Proposed. 10. A breakdown of City costs for 1984. 11. Tax breakdown of a home in Three Points are, Highland area, lakeshore and Island Park. 12. Number of homestead residential properties. 13. 1984 salary analysis. 14. Staffing pattern and salary comparison of Lake area police agencies. 15. List of City assisted business development projects 1982-1984. 16. List of new or relocated businesses. R 180 September 6, 1984 17. List of businesses that have left Mound or gone out of business and what is in its place, 1981-1984. The Mayor then opened the meeting to the public for comments and suggestions. HAROLD MEEKER, 5132 Waterbury Road. Stated that he is tired of reading all the negative items that have been in the newspaper. He has taken the time to talk to the City Council and the City Staff and find out the answers to his questions and feels the City Council and the Staff are all doing a fine job. GREGG MURRAY, 2717 Shannon Lane. Stated that he thought this meeting would pertain more to the proposed 1985 Budget. He also stated that he would like to see a copy of the last two previous years Budgets. His concern was about the Police Department because Orono only pays $33,000 per square mile for what they cover and Mound pays $100,000 per square mile. He stated he felt the Police budget is way too high.. He suggested that the City look into contracting with Orono for police protection and save approximately $200,000. Mound only covers 42 miles of paved roads and Orono covers 112 miles of improved and unimproved roads. He further stated that he is irratated with the Police Department because they seem to be patroling the softball fields in excess. Police Chief Lenny Harrell stated that Mound answers more calls for service than 0rono. In comparing the number of calls this year Mound has answered approximately 4000, which does not include tickets and 0rono who logs every call, including tickets, approximately 4400. The FBI recommends .1.5 officers per 1,000 of population. Councilmember Peterson stated that the number of people served is a big factor to consider. GREGG MURRAY stated that he feels that contracting with Orono is something Mound should consider and he offers the idea as a way to save money. Orono's charges would be based on the following formula: 50% assessed value, 25% population, 12 1/2% miles of road and 12 1/2% square miles of area. Mayor Polston stated that basing costs on assessed valuation Mound would be the looser. Councilmember Charon stated that she feels officer per capita is important. Police Chief Harrell asked Mr. Murray how many police officers he thought worked in a shift. Mr. Murray stated he was only 181 September 6, 1984 interested in Wednesday between the hours of 6 and 10 P.M. The ?oliee Chief stated that there are 2 per 4600 people but that there are 26 volunteer reserves who also are helping out at no cost to the taxpayers of Mound. STEYE SMITH, 4701 Tuxedo Blvd. Stated that the previous questioner asked to see the last two previous years budgets and that he has researched the State Statutes and finds that the City Manager is directed to show the 2 previous years budgets when presenting the proposed budget. He asked why the City Manager was not adhering to the Statutes and asked the Council how they can compare and approve a budget when they don't have the last 2 years to compare. Mayor Polston stated that the handout tonight is not the formal Budget document and that it has not been completed yet. This is an informal informational meeting on the City finances and a chance for the public to give input as to what they would like to see in the proposed 1985 Budget for services, etc. The formal Budget hearings are scheduled for September 17 and 19 and the public will have access to the proposed budget before those dates. The public is more than welcome to a copy of the proposed budget which will comply with the Statutes. FRANK AHRENS, 4673 Island View Drive. Stated that the Governor wants tax relief ~s his major thrust in the 1985 Legislative Session and he would like to see the City do their part to hold down costs. He feels there has been a dramatic increase in taxes in the last several years. He also stated that he wanted a copy of the proposed Budget before tonight. H~ would also like to know what the Council's goals and objectives are, i.e. how many roads will be seal coated, etc. Mayor Polston stated that he applauds the Governor for his tax relief position and he hopes that he will be able to do something about that tax situation. The Mayor then restated that the proposed Budget will be available to the public for inspection before the Budget hearings. BUZZ SYCKES, Beachwood Road. Stated that there are still unanswered questions about the January Mpls. Star article about Mound being the 3rd highest city in Hennepin County as far as taxes. The City Manager stated that that article referred to the city in 1981 and 1982 not the present. That was because when he came in 1981 there had been excessived spending in the previous two years,- and the reserves were down to practically nothing. The City did not have the insurance coverage it should have had. The City Council made cutbacks in personnel at that time but still had to increase the millrate to avoid bankruptcy. · 182 September 6, 1984 The Mayor thanked the people who came and offered suggestions. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to adjourn at 8:35 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk 183 September 13, 1984 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on September 13, 1984, at 4:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councllmembers Pinky Charon, Gary Paulsen, and Russ Peterson. Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused. Also present were:. City Manager Jon Elam and Police Chief Lenny Harrell. The Mayor opened the meeting. The City Manager explained that there is a need to reschedule the Budget Hearings from September 17 and 18 to September 26 and 27 in order to provide the Staff time to complete the full Budget and to allow the public and the Council adequate time to review and discusss the Budget plan. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to reschedule the Budget Hearings from September 17 and 18 to September 26 and 27, at 7:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager reported that~the appropriate notice will be given to the newspaper rescheduling the meetings. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to adjourn at 4:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager 18~ September 18, 1984 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota met in regular session on September 18, 1984, at 7:BO P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5B41 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, and Gary Paulsen. Mayor Polston was absent and excused. Councilmember Peterson arrived at 7:50 P.M. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Police Chief Lenny Harrell, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Orr Fenstad and Sara Miller. Acting Mayor Charon opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PRINTING SHOP AT 2~$~ COMMERCE BLVD Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to set October 9, 198~, for a public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit for a printing shop at 2343 Commerce Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. POLICY STATEMENT ON COMPETITIVE BIDDING The City Manager stated that the City Attorney has submitted a set of guidelines to be followed in making contracts for the purchase of supplies, materials or equipment, on the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of City property, as requested by the Council on August 13, 1984. The City Manager suggested one change in the proposed resolution. That being in number 2 which should read: "In all purchases between $1,000 and $10,000, he shall so far as practicable acquire at least two written quotations." The Council agreed to amend the proposed resolution. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution with the amendment as stated above: RESOLUTION #8q-133 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR CITY PURCHASES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS ~1.20 ~ ~1.21 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO CONCEALED WEAPONS The Poiice Chief submitted the proposed ordinance amendment. He then explained that he and Jim Larson, Prosecuting Attorney have ~85 September 18, 1984 have gone over this proposed amendment and tried to exclude any sporting weapons. Councilmember Paulsen questioned the definitions of bows and arrows and the Section 51.20, subd. 8 which requires a permit for "persons firing salutes over the graves of deceased persons" and Sub. 6 which uses the term "public officer". The Council discussed the three items and decided to change Subd. 8 to read as follows: .,Permits, Subject to reasonable regulation by the Police Chief for the protection of persons and property, the Police Chief may issue special permits to duly organized clubs and their members for shooting or practicing on lands owned or leased by the club or trap shooters shooting on grounds selected for that purpose, or to persons firing salutes over the graves of deceased persons". The City Attorney suggested that Subd. 6 be changed to read as follows: "The possession by any person other than a public officer, as defined in section 51.21, Subd. 1, of any deadly weapon concealed or furtively carried on the person is hereby prohibited". Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following amendment to Sections ~51.20 and ~51.21 of the City Code with the above changes: ORDINANCE ~68 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 51.20 AND 51.21 OF THE CITY COD~RELATING TO WEAPONS The vote was un~nimous!y in, favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTIONS CANCELLING OR REDUCING THE TAX LEV~ ON. VARIOUS BONDS Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $8~-13U RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE OF 196~ IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,000.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $8~-135 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTT AUDITOR NOT TO LEVY $22,231.13 FOR THE 1976 WATER REVENUE BONDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-136 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,700.00 goo 186 September 18, 1984 The vote was unanimously in favor. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-137 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1976 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,275.61 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-138 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,125.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-139 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,805.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: · RESOLUTION $8q-1~0 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR NOT TO LEV~ $20,984.00 FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1981 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $84-141 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR NOT TO LEVY $14,012.00 FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1984 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INTERSECTION OF TUXEDO BLVD, ~ WILSHIRE BLVD~ The City Manager explained that the City has received a letter from Sara Miller regarding several traffic problems that she feels exist at the intersection of Tuxedo and Wilshire. This coupled with the opening of the new Black Lake Bridge have prompted her to call these potential dangers to the Council's attention. The Police Chief has gone out and gone over these with Ms. Miller and will be meeting with the County tomorrow to see if they can be eliminated. ~ 87 September 18, 1984 The Police Chief was present 'and stated that when he meets with the County tomorrow he will be suggesting that they install 5 signs at or near the intersection. 1 Stop sign on Wilshire Blvd. 1 Stop sign on Tuxedo Blvd. ' 2 informational signs "Stop Ahead". 1 Keep right of median sign. He 'will also be suggesting that the County move the median back. Crv Fenstad asked that the City provide some garbage cans near the new Black Lake Bridge to curb the littering of the fishermen. The City Manager stated he will have the Park Dept. take care of this~and that no littering signs are on order for the area. Councilmember Russ Peterson arrived at 7:50 P.M. COMMENTS ~ ,SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Acting Mayor Charon asked if there, were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. ~EQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION #8~-19~ FOR 1 YEAR The City Manager explained that Douglas Thelen of 3103 Devon Lane has requested an extension of his variance in Resolution ~83-193 for one year because he is unable to get his building permit before the resolution becomes null and void. The Staff has recommended approval. ~. . Paulsen moved and Petersou seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-1~2 RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION ~83-193 The vOte was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION ~8~-160 (FINAL PLAT OF LANG- DON VIEW SUBDIVISION) FOR 1 YEAR The City Manager explained that Richard Heggemeyer has requested a one year extension for Resolution ~83-160 because he is having trouble with the abstracting of the 7 lots. The Staff is recommending approval. Coun¢ilmember Paulsen asked if the subdivider is complying with all grading requirements. The City Manager stated yes. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-1~3 RESOLUTION GRANTING A 1 YEAR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION ~83-160 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 188 September 18, 198~ PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $130,731,14, when funds are available. I roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF OUOTATION TO INSTALL EXPANDED CATCH BASINS The City Manager explained that there are several catch basins that:need to be expanded to handle storm water. The catch basins are located at: 1. Hazelwood & Bartlett Blvd. 2. Highview & Bay Ridge. 3. 4925 Bartlett Blvd. The City received the following quotations: 1. QRS, Inc. $7,639.50 2. Jedlicki, Inc. $9,225.00 The QRS quotation is recommended for approval. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the quotation of ORS, Inc. for the expansion of 3 catch basins as described, in the amount of $7,639.50. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF OUOTATION FOR DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK REPAIR, The City Manager explained that the City has received quotations for the repair of certain sidewalks in the downtown area. Most of the cost of this repair work will be assessed back to specific property owners. The quotations were are follows: 1. Victor Carlson & Sons $8,164.34 2. Carlson & LaVine Const. $8,995.00 The Staff is recommending approval of the quote from Victor Carlson & Sons. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the quotation of ¥ictor Carlson I Sons, in the amount of $8,164.34 for the repair of sidewalks in the downtown area. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CHANGE HEARING DATES The City Manager explained that because notices did not get into the newspaper, it will be necessary to change several hearing dates. 1'89 September 18, 1984 Peterson moved and Faulsen seconded a motion to change the hearing date on a Wetlands Permit for Lots 11-22, Block 24, Wychwood, from September 18, 1984, to September 25, 1984. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and P'aulsen seconded a motion to change the hearing date on a Conditional Use Permit for Townhouses in the 1700 Block of Commerce Blvd. from September 18, 1984, to September 25, 1984. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to change the hearing date for the Delinquent Utility Assessments from September 25, 198~, to October 9, 1984. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Dock Inspector's Report for 1984. B. Letter from Bill Husbands regarding risk management. C. Liquor Store Report - August, 1984. Report from Braun Environmental regarding Lost Lake. Letter from.PCA regarding Lost Lake classifying the Lost Lake Dump (Tonka/Mound) as a, Class. D Site. Letter from Hennepin County Dept. of Environment & Energy regarding a tax on the disposal of solid waste. Letter from Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation regarding the new pedestrian signs that will be installed in Mound tOmorrow. The City Manager showed the Council one of the signs which reads, "PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ZONE - LAWS ENFORCED". Informational letters regarding Halstead Bay copper sulfate treatments. I. Letter from DNR regarding Lake Minnetonka Task Force. J. Newsletter from West Hennepin Human Services for August. K. Metropolitan Council Review - August 24, 1984. Letter from Dept. of Revenue State of Minnesota regarding the Tax Amnesty Bill. M. Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes - September 10, 1984. N. Memo for the League regarding IRB Allocations. O® 190 September 18, 1984 Twin Cities Labor Market Information - September, 1984. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 8:05 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Cierk American Nat'l Bank Earl F. Andersen riO1 ly Bostrom Bury Carlson Donald Bryce Bryan Rock Products Chris Bollis Braun Environmental Lab Coast to Coast Coca Cola City Club Distrib City Wide Services Copy Duplicating Channing L. Bete Robert Cheney Century Auto Body Dependable Serg:ices Duane' S 66 Day Distri'b East Side Beverage E1 Marketing Jon Elam Flexible Pipe Tool Griggs Beer G 1 enwood Ing 1 ewood Henn Co. Treas Eugene Hickok & Assoc Henri Co-op Seed Exchange Shl rley Hawks Henn Co. Sheriff Dept Helman Fire Equip Hayden Murphy ' Island' Park Skelly Kromer Co. Kool Kube Ice Glen Litfi'n Truckin9 Lowel Is Auto Lyman Lumber Louisvi ]la Landfi I l MacQueen Equip Marina Auto Supply Miller Davis Mound Fire Dept Meyer's Mound Ser~i'ce Clty of Mound Metro Fone Communications MN Recreation & Park Martins Navarre 66 Navarre Hdwe N.S.P. Pogreba Distrib Pepsi Cola Bottling Royal Crown Beverage 500.00 73.33 254.00 205.60 100. O0 468.63 1OO.OO 1,565.64 190.56 370.80 8,019.35 13.OO 15.O0 31O.OO 367.00 225.40 33.00 6O. OO 4,409.00 5,024. OO 458.OO 49.48 172.90 2,O16.37 45.OO 939.75 2,186.37 14.OO 12.98 121 .O4 472.50 29.94 :. '69.90 23.25 284.80 15O.O0 128.10 15.OO 5.00 1,227.05 859.21 163.51 5,671.7O 17O. 3O 36. OO 23.60 7o. oo 30.00 320.97 4,644.37 6,460.60 454.65 161.25 Spring Park Car Wash Twin City Home Juice Thorpe Distrib Treas--MCFOA Un'tog Rental Xerox LOG IS Wm Mueller & Sons McCombs Knutson Mi nnegasco Real One Acquisition Reo Raj Kennel s Ruffr i dge-Johnson St. Boni Farm Store Francis Salden State Treas-SurplUs Suburban Ti re Steven's Well Drilling Sate11 ite Industries. S.O.S. Printing Don Streicher Guns Thurk Bros. Chev Thrifty Snyder Drug Westonka Sanitation Wurst, Pearson Water Products Co. Widmer Bros. Ziegler, Inc. Adlrondack Direct Communication Auditors Capital Carbide Fi re Rescue Supply Anchor Paper Acro-MN Amer Natl Bank Bill Clark 0il Jon Elam Griggs, Cooper Henn Co. Recorder Hegdahl Constr Henn Co. Arty Office R.E. Johnson R.E. Johnson Johnson Bros. Liquor Kathy Kluth Mound Postmaster City of Mound City of Mound Metro Waste Control Betty Muel]er Metro Waste Control Delores Maas Douglas Olson 99.oo 80.24 6,714.90 15.oo 2(:, 1. ~1 1,272.8O l, 779.92 1,716.70 2,330.00 58.54 708.05 259.00 60.14 34.95 17.95 30. O0 164.92 15.OO 162.85 67.40 305. O0 153.21 18.47 200.00 1,525.o0 268.48 409.OO 52.56 677.95 59.86 47.19 12.50 ' 334.58 87.45 5, O00. O0 1,636.22 325 .OO 3,303.26 1 O8. OO 2, O00. O0 25. O0 443.96 540.20 4,133.94 13.20 6OO. O0 83.88 40.69 29,986.80 45O. O0 1,683 .OO 209.44 5.O8 (con t BILLS ...... SEPTEMBER 18, 1~84 (cont) P.D.Q. Food Stores 1,446.75 Ed Phillips 3,467.52 Quality Wine 2,325.54 Del Rudolph 371.25 Del Rudolph 28.38 Del Rudolph 262.50 State Agcy Revol.v. Fund 31.61 John Taffe 230.00 John Taffe 307.50 Antonie Vandersteeg 100.00 Peggy Wheeler 35.00 Peggy Wheeler 175.O0 Western Tree Service 1,570.50 TOTAL BILLS 130,731.14 191 September 2~, 1984 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on September 25, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, and Russ Peterson. Councilmember Paulsen arrived at 7:35 P.M. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Michael Banicki, Bob Anderson, Bev Prouty, Jori Albinson, Rich Ahmann, Dale'Ellen Vaughn, Jon Nelson, Margaret Hanson, Robert Hanson, Seneca Seaman, and Jim Nordby. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the August 28, 1984, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration, as corrected by the City Clerk. Jessen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the August 28_, 198~, Regular Meeting, as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Paulsen arrived at 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TOWNHOUSES IN 1700 BLOCK OF COMMERCE BLYD,~ PERMA BUILT~ INC,~ mPORT HARRISON TOWNHOUSES Mr. James Nordby, Agent for the townhouses, presented the plan and the changes that were made by the Planning Commission, which were to raise the level of the garage to 933.67 feet, and maintaining a 50 foot setback from the lagoon. He explained that the Watershed District suggested that they put in a pond which will take the drainage from the entire site. They have also changed the sewer and water line location. Councilmember Charon asked if the brush on the lot would be cut down. Mr. Nordby stated that yes they will be maintaining the area. Councilmember Peterson questioned the 35 foot height restriction. The Building Inspector explained that they do not need a variance for this because it is measured by the mean (average of the roof pitch). September 25, 1984 The City Manager explained that the two variances needed are sideyard variances of 4 and 8.5 feet from the B-2 residential setback standards of Section 2B.6BO.5(B) and are necessary to permit maximum utilization of the property since they exceed the 20 feet minimum setback standards as established in Section 2B.620.7(d). Mayor Polston asked that the revised site plans, building plans, renderings and the engineering requirements as set forth in the City Engineer's letter of August 10, 1984, be marked as exhibits and become a part of the resolution. The Staff stated this would be added to the proposed resolution, also a change in ~2 from condominium to townhouse. Councilmember Jessen asked the developer about boat dockage for the units. Mr. Nordby stated that the units would be allowed one boat each and that the maximum length would be 20 to 22 feet with an $ foot beam width because of the limited space. Councilmember Paulsen asked if this proposal meets the requirements of the Wetlands Ordinance. The Building Inspector replied yes. Mr. Nordby explained that they will be taking out poor soil and filling with a granual fill and compaction. Councilmember Paulsen asked if the Fire Department has gone over the plans for the townhouses. The Building InspeCtor stated yes and that the Fire Dept. had no objections. Access was not a problem because they feel the 20 foot setback is sufficient. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there were any comments from the public present for or against the granting of this Conditional Use Permit. JON NELSON, owner of property to the east asked if the developer has a plan for the lakeshore site. Mr. Nordby answered yes, but that it is in his car. Mr. Nelson stated that since he is interested in developing his property in a similar manner he will be interested in seeing the plans. DALE VAUGHN, owner of an interest in the property to the south of the site asked about where the rip-rap would'be placed. Mr. Nordby stated just at the outlet of the ponding area. She also asked about the boat dockage and how the owners would be using this. Mr. Nordby stated that they would haVe to tie up to the seawall. She also asked about the trees on the property line. Mr. Nordby stated that he will work this out with her. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: 193 September 2), 1984 RESOLUTION #8~-1~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT, TOWNHOUSE MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS {B-2) ZONE IN THE 1700 BLOCK OF COMMERCE BLYD, PID ~13-117- 2~ 22 0252 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. FUBLIC HEARING; WETLANDS PERMIT FOR LOTS ll-22,..BLOCK .]~ WYCHWOOD~ MICHAEL J, BANICKI The. Mayor asked if there were any questions from the Council before he opened the public hearing. The City Manager stated that it was the Planning Commission~- thought that Mr. Banicki has improved the area in excess of any damage that may have been done. Councilmember Jessen asked Mr. Banicki if he had started the work before the Wetlands Ordinance was approved or after. Mr. Banicki stated that it was his understanding that he could do what he has done if the area was under 1 acre. He felt he just misunderstood the ordinance. Councilmember Jessen asked what the site looked like before he started filling it. Mr. Banicki stated that is was like a dump with old snowmobile frames, tires, etc. which he has since'pulled out.' He further stated that where he has filled was dry land-and that his understanding is the high water elevation is 931 and he has not filled below that. level. Councilmember Jessen complimented Mr. Banicki on the looks of the site, but stated she is disappointed because he kn~w about the Wetlands Ordinance and went ahead and filled anyway without a permit initially. She stated that she feels it is important that the Wetlands Ordinance is upheld. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anybody present who wished to speak for or against the granting of the proposed Wetlands Permit. There was noone. The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this permit. Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION f8~-1~5 RESOLUTION TO APPROYE THE WETLANDS PERMIT FOR MICHAEL J. BANICKI, PID #19-117-23 32 0001 September 25, 1984 Councilmember Peterson stated that he feels Mr. Banicki has done slot to improve the property and there was a lack of understanding of the Wetlands Ordinance which may have caused confusion. Councilmembers Paulsen and Charon agreed. Mayor Polston asked if what Mr. Bantcki did is allowed under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance because he did not want to approve something which might destroy the integrety of the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that this is allowed under the provisions of the Wetlands Ordinance and read the applicable section. He suggested that Council incorporate the survey and findings in the resolution of approval. The maker of the motion agreed and so did the seconder. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE $8~-357: ROBERT & MARGARET HANSON, 5~2~ BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 27, THE BARTLETT PLACE, UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA, ~ECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT WIDTH ~ SETr BACKS TO SIDEYARD The City Manager explained that the applicant has applied for a variance in setback to sideyard for an existing building and lot width to construct a 24 x 23 foot attached garage with the required setbacks to the side lot lines of 10 feet and 6 feet for lots of record. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-1~6 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE REQUEST TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND THE LOT WIDTH FOR LOT 27, THE BARTLETT PLACE UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA (PID ~2~-117- 2~ 23 0027) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE $8~-358: SCOTT MILES, 2235 COMMERCE BLVD, SIGN PERMIT The City Manager explained that Mr. Miles applied for 2 separate sign permits. One was approved by the Planning Commission for a wall sign and the other which was not approved was for a roof top, flashing sign. The Council agreed that they were not in favor of the flashing sign. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: September 25, 1R8~ RESOLUTION #8tt-147 RESOLBTION TO CONCUR ~ITR THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN PERMIT FOR A WALL MOUNTED SIGN TO SCOTT MILES, 2235 COMMERCE BLVD., PID #13-117-24 33 0046 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~84-359:. JAMES C, HILL~ 504~ BARTLETT BLVD,, PID ~2~-117- 24 12 0024, FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE ~ SETBACK ~ARIANCE The City Manager explained that Mr. Hill has applied for a variance to construct a 6 foot high privacy fence within the required front yard and an above ground pool within 23 feet at the closest point to the lot line with a deck attached to the pool within 12 feet of the lot line. He further explained that the need for these variances are because of the shape of the lot. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances requested and the 6 foot fence with the stipulation that if the pool were removed at any time, the fence would also be removed. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION fSq-148 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISS!~ON RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SOUTHWESTERLY 10 FEET~OF LOT '3,:"ALL .OF LOTS 4, 5 AND 29, -AND SOUTHWESTERLY 50 FEET OF LOT 30, BLOCK 5, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID' ~2q-117-2~ 12 0024 (50~5 BARTLETT BLVD.) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~84-361: PETER 4, KIM JOHNSON, $1q0 PRIEST LANE, LO~ q,BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES~ FRONT YARD, ~ LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE The City Manager explained that Mr. & Mrs. Johnson have applied for a variance in setback to the lakeshore and street front to construct a home on a vacant parcel. The Planning Commission has recommended approval because of the shallowness of the lot and to afford the owner reasonable use of the property. Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE SETBACK VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR LOT ~, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES ADDITION, PID ~23-117-2q 3q 0078 2 12. 196 September 25, 1984 The City Attorney asked about the elevation of the home on the lot. The Building Inspector replied that it is 934.7 at grade at rear of house,. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. GRADING PERMIT; ANTHONY YANDERSTEEG, 1851 COMMERCE BLVD. The .City Manager explained that for some time the area behind Anthony's Floral has been filled with a variety of materials~ Mr. Vandersteeg has requested a grading and reclamation permit for the area. The Staff is recommending approval of this permit with the following conditions: 1. The Exhibit "A" fill area be adhered to by the applicant with the silt fencing installed at the perimeter continuously and maintained in good condition. 2. Seeding or sodding shall be accomplished by october 1, 1986, or when filling is completed, whichever date is sooner. B. The fill material that has been placed will have all material removed that will support decay. At the recommendation of the Building Official, a soils engineering firm will be retained and a report submitted to the City Engineer to verify compliance of this at the owner's expense. 4. Submit to the City Engineer any other required permits; i.e. Waterched District. 5. No further fill material will support decay with (or record) to be kept by the property owner of furture fill to be used stating the date received, where the fill was transported from, the name of the transporter and the number of yards received. 6. The owner is required to provide garbage/refuse service by an independent service for his floral and home use. 7. Erosion and dust control shall be by the use of haybales staked and secured in place or equal and dust control as approved by the City Engineer and Minnehaha Creeek Watershed District. 8. A bond shall be submitted in the amount of $5,000. in favor of the City of Mound to cover possible corrective measures the City may incur to roads and streets. 9. This permit will expire October 1, 1986, or may be renewed .by the City Manager. 10. The permit is non-transferable to a new property owner and it may be revoked after notification to the property owner. ' The Council discussed number 8 on the list of conditions and decided'to delete it because this type of bond is very expensive~ and probably would not be necessary. 197 September 25, 19§4 Mr. Yandersteeg was present and stated that he will follow the guidelines as outlined and that he has hired Mr. Illles to help with the grading.and clean up. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-150 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GRADING AND LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT FOR GO¥'T LOT 1, SECTION 14-117-2q (FID ~1~-117-2~ 0003), ANTHONY VANDERSTEEG The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. QUOTATION FOR GRADING OF DITCH NEAR MILL pOND ADDITION The City Manager reported that the City now has the deed for the Anderson property and the City Attorney is in the process of recording it at Hennepin County. Since the City would like to get the drainage problem taken care this Fall, it will be necessary for the Council to approve the low quotation for the work so that it can be done soon. Two quotations were received and are as follows: 1. Widmer Bros., Inc. 2. Illies& Sons $3,390.00 $1,800..00 The Staff is recommending approval of the Illies& Sons quotation. Polston moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the quotation of Illies &,Sons in the amount of $1,800.00 for the work necesary to resolve the drainage problem at Mill Pond. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. pUBLIC HEARING; CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLE The City Manager explained that the proposed assessments have all been sent to the businesses in the CBD District. Randy Bickmann. has submitted a letter to the City objecting to this assessment against his property. The Council noted the objection. Mr. Jon Scherven was present and asked how the assessment was figured. The City Manager explained 'the CBD Parking Maintenance formula and how it worked. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments for or against any of the proposed assessments. JON.SCHERVEN, asked what would happen to the land that the railroad owns if it were abandoned. The City Manager stated that it would be up to the railroad, but it could be sold to abutting businesses. 198 September 25, 1984 The Mayor closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-151 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,600.64 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTT AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER I TEAR AT 85 - LEVY 9420 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC H~ARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS FOR SEPTEMBER The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who would like to comment on the delinquent utility bills as presented. There was no comments. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-152 RESOLUTION TO APPROYE THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,713.10 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUT-OFF WATER SER¥ICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC FIREWO~KS._P_F..,]kM.~T. The City Manager explained that American Fireworks Display Co. has applied for a Public Fireworks Permit to shoot fireworks on October 7, 1984, at dusk from a barge out in Cooks Bay. They have provided the proper insurance coverage. Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the issuance of a Public Fireworks Permit to American Fireworks Display Co. for October 7, 1984, at dusk, to be launched from a barge in Cooks Bay. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount 199 September 25, 1984 of $66,859.40, when funds are available. unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The vote was INFORMATION/M,~$CELLANEOU$ Ae Report from the Metropolitan Council Chair regarding the regional meetings. Be Letter from Optimum/Ideal (City insurance company) regarding the loss control visit - August 22, 1984. C. Minutes of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District from September 6, August 16, August 30, 198q,. and Agenda for September 20, 1984. D. Planning Assistance Newsletter - Summer 1984. E. Newsletter from MWCC - The Outfall. F. Report on the 1984 Summer Recreation Program. Report from the Police Chief regarding the intersection of Tuxedo Blvd. and County Road 125. H. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1984. The Mayor asked.the City Manager for an update on the Town.Square Pro j-eot. The City · Manager stated that there, will be an orientation next week with" some of the owners of property in the project to let them know ,what the procedures will 'be. There are titles to be examined. The developers are now looking at Spring as the soonest they could start. The HRA is in the process of acquiring the property's preliminary appraisals. The Manager stated that he will keep the Council informed on the progress. Polston moved and Peterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk Air Corem 164.00 American Flagpole 300.00 Acro-MN 256.55 Holly Bostrom 150.O0 Blue Cross 137.01 Burlington Northern 533.33 Butch's Bar Supply 317.90 Bradley Exterminating 19.00 Bill Clark Oil 225.97 Continental Telephone 993.45 Davies Water Equip 122.97 Dray Publications 338.75 Dyna Med 83.55 First Bank Mpls 4.00 Henn County Treas 38,190.OO Henn County Sheriff 459.75 J J Printing 105.00 Long Lake Ford 80.25 The Laker 165.69 MN Dept of Public Safety 40.00 Mpls Oxygen Co. 21.OO Mtka Portable Dredging 2,173.50 NW Bell Telephone 270.05 N.S.P. 4,317.17 Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00 Parkdale Enterprises 172.00 RCIdentfications 197.75 Don Streicher Guns 315.34 Tri State Pump 953.54 Westonka Community. Serv. 118.27 VanDoren Hazard Stal'lings 1,251.25 Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton 2,272.58 Waconia Ridgeview Hosp ' ~90.00 Water Products Co. 1,O69.34 R L Youngdahl & Assoc 3,511.OO Robert Cheney 1,430.00 Election Judges 1,901.55 Griggs, Cooper 686.51 Johnson Paper Co. 219.54 Johnson Bros. Liquor 988.69 Mound Postmaster 208.48 Minnegasco .50.90 Ed Phillips & Sons 556.25 Quality Wine 661.72 Suburban Utilities Supt's 20.00 TRW Communications 231.80 United Business Machine 458.00 TOTAL BILLS 66,859.40 $200. Fee' Paid 4-11-84 Receipt ~ 19574 (Case 84-323- application withdrawn) e Case No. ~/-j_~-~, CITY OF MOUND Fee Paid Date Filed 8-10-84 APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the {ollowlng informatlon) roperty 7_~'~C~ rI~_~lq~~ ,f Property: Lot 15 & 18 also Part of 33 Block 7_~1)-~ Z~W Addition Aud. Subd. 167 PID No. 23-117-24 ll Owner.'s Name ~"~! ~x"J'~C~~~kJ~-"~ ., ...~, ay Phone No. Address Applicant (if other than owner):. Name ~T~ ~'~ ~ ~ 062-//[}~4 ! ~-/~ I~ifl~ Day Phone No. Address ~... y ~L/~ ~ O~ /'~ ~_0~_~ ~1__~1~ , Type of Request: ( ) Variance ~ Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other *If other, specify: PResent Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, 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) 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 ,cant ~(~,~ ~ N .('~/~/'L..J'~ Date(~/t O/~,(-.~ ~V ~'~ Recommendations. ' Planning Commission RecOmmendation: ~al~w~e'Staff Date 9-10-84 Council Action: 9-18-84 City Council set P.H. date for Oct. 9th. Resolution No. fl/~2 Date 10-9-84 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRINTING SHOP AT 2434 COMMERCE BOULEVARD PID# 23-117-24 11 O001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, October 9, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Printing Shop at 2434 Commerce Boulevard, legal description as follows:. Lots 15 and 18, also that part-of Lot 33 described as commencing at most Southerly corner of Lot 18 thence Southeasterly on the extension'of the Southwesterly line of Lot 18 to the East line Lot 33 thence No?th'on;.~ast l[de of Lot'33 to Northeast corner thereof thence Northwesterly to the most Northerly corner of Lot 33 thence Southwesterly to beginning, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167 PID # 23-117124 ]1 O001 All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk ,,Tgi 8 c: .Prqc~dure for Conditional Use Permit (2) Case D. 'Locatlon of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. £. Indicate North compass direction. F. Any addltlonal in~ormat~on as may reasonably be required by the ~Jty ~ta~ and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance, III Request for a Conditional Use A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Conditional Use (Specify): Y~.)I~'-II~. ~ ,, ~.~//~/,~'~£~z--~,. 2~ Current Zoning and DesignatIon in the future Land Use Plan for Mound Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ .e.g~ensity (for reside~tia! developments only): 1. Number of structures: 2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: .. a. Number of type:. / · Efficiency 1 'Bedroom 2 Bedroom ----- 3 Bedroom 3. Lot area per dwelling unit: 4. Total lot area: IV. Effects of the Proposed Use me List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken' to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. .fer/.~, / ., : . ,. . . · .....,~/ ~ ~'. / , ~.~ ', . , .. :-. ~::: ..~-.: · .-. , . - .... ~"-/~ 4 . ~ h ,'.'N.~:-..- .... " : , ' ~*,~ / - ' ~x ~ ~"(~:.. ~:'.~:.~,' · ~ ' ". .- '~ . ' ~l~ ~-~- ~ . ~ .~'-~-'d,",~' -.:-. '. · . 'I~ ' · -"? ~..: ~ · / N . . ...... '-'-',' ....-,'.': · .' · ' '' --. '-' ',.' '.' - '., ' ~" ~,."',.~- .... ~L'::.'::,." · z ~.~ ,~t~t~ ~t .~. ~. · ~ ,~ ~o~t -_ .... -,~: . ..: :..: ...... ,... ,, '"<~?'~ "-," ~;tr~n~ ~ ~. ~c~or 24, ,~ tn ?o~[~de~c~3~~? t~, .. ~ . ~~~: .... .~ ,.,, - . -, , . , . ~ . .~?: .~. :~: ~.,?.~'~ ',' '" '- ~ve~ut ~ 1; th~ee So~t~ ~ ~ ~ 'd2st,ccc ~ ~0 f~: ~ a ~ . ~ ' '.-..:', ...-.. '..'- ')-' ". '. ' of',~B.~ fe~t~ ~ er 1..~, ~ said g~ 1t:.o; Lr~~o~a/d .~ ~ ~ . --~. '[ ,. :' t..';,:.: ~-' of ~n~, ~h~ch ~int $~ ~r~d ~ a J~tcibl ~r~rk; t~encc l:orU= ~o k;eut ~ 0~10 Fact, :era or ~lO~ ~ ~a aC:~*~ ~:t,~ Or '.~::L~.i/.~, ~T~:e ~lrJa~ 1,.nc~r~ rc~:,:r,'e~ :~ ~: t:.e u~e ¢~$1....r.,.u tY.e.-v;L. :1. c:oaa r~ ~-.'or: to ~h,:~ cLhar :.'l~'ove,'.'-r,t.3 .c: .,...'.: ?:': 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning fbn~ission and Staff FRGM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 5, 1984 SUBJ: fbr~itional Use Permit an~ Site Plan Review APPLICANT: Jim Jagodzinksi ~SIVEPLAN: (bn~ercial EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-I) o PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a cDnditional use permit fDr a printing busine§s ar~ a site plan review fg..r a new-c~mmercial building at 2434 Gommerce Boulevard. Since the printing business will occupy space in the new building, both requests will be oonsidered simultaneously. Mr. Jagodzinski is proposing to cDmplete the construction of the frame of a building ard fiD connect it fid an existing house which will be remDdeled. The oonnection will oonsist of a second floor bridge which will contain leasable space. Upon completion, the structure will contain 4,000 square feet of leasable space which will acco~.'L'odate the printing business a~d uses such as professional offices and possibly a limited amount of retail sales. Access to the new building will be from one driveway off Gommerce Boulevard. The driveway meanders infiD the site and passes under the bridge connection terminating in a 10-car parking lot in the rear of the structure. Two parking spaces are located in the front of the building providing a total of 12 spaces. The site plan ir~icates that the drive and the t~ front parking stalls will be bituminous surface~ with the paving extending up to the front of the building. The rear portion of the driveway an~ the parking lot area will be surfaced with compacted ..gravel. The total lot area consists of approximately 15,000 square feet, all of which lies within the B-1 ~ne. Planning Ommmission ard Staff Page T%D September 5, 1984 ~: Printing facilities are listed as cDnditional uses in the B-1 zone. J. J. Printing, which will occupy the new building, presently is located in the CBD. They protDse tD occupy space in the existing hDuse and will relocate within the new 'portion of the structure upon c~mpletion. In oonducting a site plan review fDr the Jagodzinski building, the fDllowing items have been considered: ZONING REQUIREMENTS: The proposal exceeds the minimum lot area requirements prescribed in the zDning ozdinance ard since it does not abut a residential zone, no setbacks are required. The proposed structure does not exceed the 45-~oot maximum height identified in the ordinance. PARKING: The zoning ordinance identifies parking requirements in accordance with propose~ uses. Since the tenant mix of the proposed building is unknown at this time, s~me speculation' will be required. If the building contains 100 percent office uses, one space per 400 square feet is required totaling 10 parking stalls. If the building were to contain all retail uses, one space per 150 square feet will be required totaling 27 parking spaces. In reviewing parking requirements, the building's location within the central business district should be considered. Parking lots and on-street parking may diminish the need fDr on-site, off-street parking. In cases where the parking requirements of specific uses are not clearly identified in the zoning ordinance, the Planning Oonm~ission and City ODuncil are required tD detemine the appropriate number of spaces. The applicant's site plan depicts a parking scheme which maximizes use of the property while preserving a significant amount of green area. It may be possible to add t%D parking stalls to the rear lot, however, such construction would require the installation of a 4 to 6-fDot retaining wall. Prior to making a final decision on parking, the Planning Ommission may want to have the applicant further address anticipated uses during their presentation on Monday night. LANDSCAPING: The landscaping plan calls fDr the preservation of three large trees in the front of the property and the installation of additional plant material. The trees, ornamental trees, shrubs and foundation plantings specified in the plans shmuld enhance the architectural style of the building. Planning ODn~nission ard Staff Paoe Three September 5, 1984 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff re~Dn~e~ds approval of the c0rditional use permit fDr J. J. Printir~ amd approval of the site plan for the Jagodzinski building subject tm the fmllowin~: The parking stalls and driveway in front of the building shall be bituminous surfaced with the rear ~ortion oonsisting of compacted gravel. The rear parking lot shall be maintained in a dust free o~ndition. A total of 9 square feet of signage f~r the building will be permitted without a signa~e variance. Proposed signage exceeding 9 square feet will require additional review by the Planning Cbmmission and the City Council. 0 Grading, drainage and utility plans should be subject to the recon~nendations of the City Engineer. Be The proposed plans shall be submitted to the Watershed District fmr review ard appropriate permits. N~ grading or disturbance shall occur below the 933.5 oontDur line. '/- McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Reply 'to: 12800 Industrial Park BoulevArd Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 {612) 559-3700 September 13, 1984 Ms. 3an Bertrand Rlanning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound 3agodzinski Building Commerce Boulevard File #2113, General Dear Oan: We have reviewed the site plan .for the building on Lots 15, 18, and part of Lot 33 Auditors Subdivision No. 167. Everything appears to be acceptable as far as our office is concerned except for two items. One, we have not seen a survey prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor. Secondly, some sort of measures should be taken to purify the runoff from the parking lot. We would be satis- fied with what ever the Watershed District requires before discharge to the swamp. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Very truly'yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3C:sj printed on recycled paper INNEHAHA C EK*o;R WATERSHED Di '"" P.O. Box 387, Wa~, Minnesota 55391 . ~-~ .:... --~..- ..:.. M~d · ~noll · ~mille D. ~m · ~m~ B. ~ * Jam~ · S~sley - ~ Permit Application No: 84-154 Date: September 21,. 1984 Applicant: North Central Instruments c/o Jim Jagodzinski 15301 Highway 55 Plymouth, MN 55447 Location: City of Mound, Sec. 23AAA, 2434 Commerce Blvd., Lost Lake Wetland Purpose: Grading and drainage for a commercial building and parking area At the regularly scheduled September 20, 1984 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibits: e Permit application received September 7, 1984. Stormwater runoff drainage calculations prepared by Mark S. Gronberg, P.E. dated September 7, 1984. ~ite Grading ~nd Drainage Plan prepared by Gordon R. Coffin Co. undated and received SePtember' 7, t984.-' " " The Board approved the permit apPlication as submitted. This document is your permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. is valid for one (1) year. 'If construction is not complete within one (1) year, an extension is required. It Please contact the District at 473-4224 when this project is about to commence so an inspector may view the work in progress. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the listri Michael A. Panzer, cc. Board G~tyc°mber of Mound Gordon R. Coffin Co. September 20~ 1984 Date of Issue Planning Commission Hinutes ! September lO, BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 8h-356 Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit for a Printing Shop and Site Plan Review fo~ 2434 Commerce Boulevard Lots 15, 18 and Part of 33, Auditor's Subdivision 167 James H. Jagodzinski was present. Planner, Hark Koegler, explained, that Hr. Jagodzlnski was reall'y before you for two actions - for.a conditional use-permit for a printing business - the businessi. is in existence right'now.in the rear of medlcal building west of the House of ~oy. They.will relocate to the new building'which is the second.part of tonight's agenda on:this item which is the site plan rev~'~w for a ne~ commercial building a't 243~.Commerce~' ~hat the eppli.cant is proposing .to do i.s complete construction of'that frame structure, 'upgrade the house and connect the.two ~i[h a second story bridge ~hich a'driveway would .pass underneath. The total structure ~ould be ap- proximatel..y 4,000 square feet.of.leasable area.' Accordi. n.g to the site plan, at [he,rear of the property would be..a lO car parking Iota-there .are 2 spaces in the front, pOrtion'for a total of'¥2 ca~s. Also the site plan indi.cates tha~ surfacing would be bituminous up to the.bui'i'dlng and the rear portion of the lot ~ould be basically:a'crushed grav~l or'stone.'. The total lot area i's .approximately 15,000 square 'feet which exceeds the minimum lot area of 7500 square feet and pr'oposal does meat'.all.the setbacks. In.his report, he mentioned.that it does not abut on R~l; however, the wetlands are R-1 ' The perking requirements are not k~own as uses of the buildin§ right now are somewhat speculative. The parking is keyed to the use of [he building; if all offices, the parking is one to400 square feet which is lO stalls; if same space iS 100~ retail,.you would be looking at 27 stalls. · Parking is one'thing that you may want to clarify. Landscaping pi.an is very adequate. Planner mentioned that the Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for J.J. Printing and approval of the slte'plan for the building sub~ect to the 5 c~itions'i'n his report. The Chairman ~sked for a motion:to accept or deny before getting'into the dis~ cussion on the conditional'use permi't for a print]n9 shop and site plan review. Reese moved and Byrnes seconded the approval sub~ect to the Staff recommenda- tions. The Chairman asked if~anY~ne Present had any Comments or questions. No one responded. 'He .then asked about the lighting of the parking areas.and ho~'do you maintain a dust free parking lot if you use crushed stone. Hr. Jagodzinski explained that ~hat he.had in mind was a free standing lamp- .post in front at southwest corner of the house.and a flood .light .OUt back of building to light parking lot; both on photocell'to come.on automatically. Discussed that floodlights.might be.a problem to abutting'property ~o~ner~. The Building OffiCial stated OrdinanCe'speclfies'lightin9 under'certain.ltypes 'of business be a shaded ll. ght,'i.e, no direct source of ~ight-vislble.frOm the public right-of-way or from.adjacent properties. App~icant..stated that the light could be mounted on.the bridge and wobld ~ot be se~n.by the struc- tures on the north.or south. Hr Jagodzinski has talked to'~atershed about the: parking lots; they want him to build a depression (pond) ~ith a couple of traps so whatever comes off'the parking lot goes..into pond.and surface runs off through the traps and is skimmed off and held there, balance below the surface runs off into. the swamp. Coffin Surveyors are preparing plan and should have .h~d i.t over to the ~ate~shed~D'istr|ct already. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Ho[ion carried. The City Council wi]l set.the public hearing.at their September lSth meeting; (~ proposed date for the public hearing is October 9,' 1984. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-356 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR J.J. PRINTING, 2434 COMMERCE BOULEVARD - PID 23-117-24 11 OO01 WHEREAS, Jim Jagodzi'nskl, doi'ng business as J.J. Printing, has requested a conditi'onal use pe[mit to operate his business in a new commercial bui.Id~ng to be constructed at 2434 Commerce Boulevard; and WHEREAS, Section 23.625'.3 requires conditional use permits for printing shops, : and WHEREAS, the Planni.ng Commission. has reviewed and approved the conditional use permit application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I:T RESOLVED BY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNE- SOTA; That the City.:Councll does hereby, approve the conditional use permit for J.J. Printing'at 2434 Commerce Boulevard, PID # 23-1~7-24 11 O001' wi'th the stipulation that the permlt, i's non-transferable to a new owner or anew locatlon.and the following conditions: 1, The parki'ng stalls and driveway in front of the building shall be bi;tuminous surfaced with the rear pOrtion consisting of c~mpacted · 'gravel. The rear p~rking lot shall be maintained in a dust free condit'iOn. ,., 2. A tbtal Of 9. square'feet of slgnage for the building will be per- mitred w.ithoUt a sign.age variance. Proposed Signage exceeding 9 square feet wi'll .requi're.additional review by the Planning Com- mi'ssion and the City Council,' 3. G-rad.i'ng', drainage and utility'plans should be subject to the recom- mendations of the City Engineer. 4. The proposed plans shall be submitted to the Watershed District for revi'ew and appropriate permits. 5. No.grading or disturbance shall occur below the 933.5 contour line. I I' I I I :' ~ .... I~ 05 ~C $.~?0)" % \ % % % : $ & ti. NO, A. THoHAs WURST, P.A, CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. JOSEPH E. HAI~ILTON, P.A. JANES D. LARSON, THOMAS ~ UNDERWOOD, ~OGE~ ~. ~ELLOW~ LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S540:~ October 4, 1984 TELEPHONE (612) 338-4.200 Jan Bertrand, Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Wetland's Ordinance Dear Jan: Pursuant to your memo I have prepared and Ordinance Amendment for Sections 23.1110 and 23.1130. The Wetland's Ordinance carzies the same section number as the zoning code, but of course was not included as a part of the original zoning ordinance revisions. The reason I raise this point is that if the Wetland's Ordinance is considered a part of the zoning code it then must go through a public hearing process and must have a two-thirds-vote from the City Council. To be on the safe side it may be advisable that you go through that process so that if the Wetland's Ordinance ever becomes a controversial document the City can show that it has complied with all of those requirements. I do not recall when we adopted the original Wetland's Ordinance whether we treated it as part of the zoning ordinance and went through the hearing process or not, you may want to check your records to that event. Very truly yours, Attorney at Law CAP:rad Enclosure 0RD I NANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 23.1110 AND 23.1130 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO WETLANDS The City of Mound does ordain: Section 23.1110 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 23.1110. ~9~ ~. The wetlands as hereinafter defined shall apply to wetland areas which are specifically delineated on the Official Wetlands Map of the City of Mound which is attached hereto and adopted as a part of this ordinance. For the purposes of determining the application of this wetlands ordinance to any particular parcel of land or water, the above referenced map and accompanying table ~ the ~ High Water mark and wate~ elevation shall be on file in the office of the City Manager and shall be available for inspection and copying. Section 23.1130, Subsection D is amended to read as follows: Section 23.1130 D. Building constraints. 1. The lowest floor level or basement elevation shall be at least three feet above the seas~Ra~-~i§~-wa~e~-~eve~ ~ high water mark of the wetland. Development which will result in unusual road maintenance costs or utility line breakages due to said limitations, inCluding high frost action shall not be permitted. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published in Official Newspaper CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE WETLANDS MAP AND PROVISIONS OF'THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE SECTIONS 23.11OO THROUGH 23.1150 . NOTICE IS'HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, OCtober 9, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minne- sota, the City Council will hold a Public hearing to consider amending the Wetlands Map and Provisions of the Wetlands Ordinance,' Sections 23.11OO through 23.1150~ All persons appearing at' said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 MEHO~UM TO: City Council and Staff .,~,~ F~0M: Hark Koe81er, City Planner DATE: September 28,1984 SUBJECT: Wetland Ordinance Amendment At the suggestion of Hr. Joel Settles.of the Hennepin Soil and Water Conse~vation District, staff has p~epared proposed minor modifications to the Wetland Ordinance (Section 23.1100). These modifications do not change the subatance of the ordinance. They are intended to clarify references to the map andappropriate definitions. EXISTING ORDINANCE Section 23.110. V~tlands Bounder. les. The wetlands a~ hereinaft'er defined shall apply to wetland areas white are specifically deliheated on the official Wetiands Hap of the ti:fy of Hound which is attac~d hereto.' and adopted as a part of this orSinance. ,. For the purposes of determining the application of this wetlands ordinance ta any partlcular parcel of land or water the above referenced map~shall be on file in the office of the City Kanager and shal~ be available for inspection and copying. PROPOSED CHANGE For the purposes of determining the application of ~his wetlands ordinance to any particular parcel of land or water, the above referenced map and accompanying table lis:ins :he Ordinary ~igh ~ater mark and water elevation shall be o~.file in the office of'=he City Manager and shall be available for inspection and copying. 2066 Shorewood Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 October 2, 1984 Ms Francene C. Clark City Clerk City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Proposed Assessment Property Identification ~18-117-23-31-0005 Ms Francene C. Clark, This is my written objection to the proposed assessment of $288.94 on Property Identification ~18-117-23-31-0005 per Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 and your notice of hearing on proposed assessment. ~ s~ncerel~, · . ? CITY OF.MOUND Bound, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER BILLS f~ WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: ! · EOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,.that the City. Council of the City of Mound will meet,at~theCity Hall,'5341~Maywood R6ad, Mound,· Minnesota, at 7:30 P.M. on 0~'tober'9, 1984,' to hear, consider and pass on.all written and oral objections, if any, to the proposed assessment.on the fgllowi, ng parcels of land for: Unpaid:Water ~Sewer Bills: 4~roperty .I dent i f i cat'i on 11067 2066 51. 22259 5954 91 22259 6639 51 22301 2910..41 -22313 6216 71 -22404 4867 61 33415 4808 31 33484 5013 51 ~ ~3506 3135 81 33539 4852 81 33545 4855 81 33572 4827 11 33572.4912 11 33587 3068 12 33563 3213 41 33590 5111 11 33484 3213 31 .#18-i17-23~'31-OOO5 Jullus Webster #23-117-24-13~O032 Mark Rosenbaunl. '#22-1!7~24-43~O007 Richard MacDonald · #23-117-24-31'OO24 Larry Connelly. #23-117-24-32~0020 Richard Malnory #13-117-24-44-0020 Anthony Barrett #24-117-24~11-0012. John Hoogesteger #24-117-24-43-OO34 Melvin Zuchman . #19-117-23-34-0102 Richard Baanruud #24-117-24-44~0081 Michael Gray #24-117-24,44-0050 Charles Shaw #24-117-24-41-O017. Mark Semeja #24-117-24-41-O097 Ralph Braegelmann #24-117-24-44-O171' Richard Ash #25-117-24-11-OO15/0016 Robert Kraft #25~117_24_12_d123· Lee Schwartz #25-1!7-24-21-OO32' Loretta Wa~ille ~mount' 2~8'.'94 137,50 1',612.50 127.67 148.58 80.O8 87.00 162.50. 191.59 ~ 07.50 176.88 105.30 104.75 199.0G 280.26 100.56 567.33 2066.-Shorewood Lane 5954 Bartlett Blvd 6639 Bartlett Blvd 2910 Hazelwood Lane 6216 Bayridge. Road 4867 Shoreline Blvd 4808 Longford Road 5013 Tuxedo Bl'vd 3135 Ayr Lane 4852 Glasgow Road 4855 Lanark Road 4827 Monmouth Road 4912 Monmouth Road 3068 Brighton Blvd. 3213..Devon Lane 5111 Windsor Road 3213 Tuxedo Blvd An owner may appeal an assessment to district coUrt pursuant to M.innesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days afte~ the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the" Mayor' or City Clerk.~ No such appeal as.to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of' land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed, written objection to that assessment with.the City Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objections to the presiding officer at the hearing. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk ~ublish in T~e Laker September.24, 1984 CASE NO. 84-363 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota lannlng Commission Agenda of September 24, 1984: Board of Appeals Case No. 84-363 Location: 5846 Idlewood Road Legal Desc.: Lot 2, Block l, The Highlands Request: Lot Size Variance Zoning Dist.: R-1 ApPlicant: G.M.G. Enterprises, Inc. 510 Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN. 55391 Phone: 475-0702 The applicant is requesting to remodel/renovate the existing structure and to add a 7.8 foot by 21.67 foot-addition to.the north of the structure. The ZoningCode for the R-1 District requ)res a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a floor area.of 840 square'feet with s.ides, front and rear yards of 6 feet and l0 feet (lots of record), 30 feet and 15 feet, respectively. Comments: The structure has a fl~or area of 683 square feet+; a lot area of 7,500 square feet'. The side yards, front and rear yard~ are conforming for lots of record. The accessory building on the survey at the east side of the lot has been removed. The metal shed on the west side be)ongs to the neighbor which should Be. relocated with a 4 foot side yard set- back. The present assessed value of the structure is $25,300 with the estimated repairs and addi'tions to be $25,000.~. )mmend: Staff would recommend approval 9f the variance as requested to do struc- tural alterations 'and add an addition to the structure to bring the floor area up to.the 852. square feet plus recognizing the existing under- sized 7500 square ~oot lo~ to.afford t.he.owner.reasonQble use of .the property. Please keep ih mind, if"the Planning Commission wishes to . deny the request, that,the'use of. the property has been discontinued for 12 months, see Zoning Code Sections 23.404(2) and (5} as per attached. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Jan Bertrand JB/ms Planning Commission'Mi~utes September 24, 1~8~ - Page e Case No. 8h-363 Lot .Size.Variance'for 58h6.'ldlewood Road ..Lot 2, Block 1, The Highlands.- The~appl~cant, G.H.G. £nterprises,..Inc., was not present.. The City planner reviewed ~he applicant's request'to remOdel and renovate the existing structOre and to,add a 7.8 foot by 21.67 foot addition to the north of' this structure. He further explained that the the structure has- a floor area of' 683..sqdare feet and the 'addition woul'd b?ing the square fp°tage of the..structure to 852.'.square'feet..'The Zoning Oi'strict of the property is .R-1 and 'the minimum lot requ. irement is lO,OO0 square feet. The lot ~ize is'.pPesentl~ not. quite.7$O0 square feet or.3/q of the .required min.l.mum lot. In reviewi.ng th~ prop~sa),"th~ Building 'Officia'l has recommended that it be approved.to' add an additlon'~o,tRe structure to bring it..pp to the mlni~um f.)oor area plus recogniz, ing.the .exi.sting 'undersized ?SOO'square foot lot to -afford the.ow, ne-r.'reasonab)e'use Of'thepr~perty. However, the property has not been activ&l¥ util|tized'in the .~ast 12 mont'hs. ~eyer s'tated'he would.ilke'to talk to the p~ople who want to renovate the -structure[. do~n Th~reson, a n~ighb'or; was',present and.stated he ha~ no problem with the request, but had question'on the rear setback. He.recommended that the Commission give conSiderati'on as' property needs renovation. Meyer'moved ~o. table'.' The'.motion.was seconded by Jansen. The vote was unanlmously in favor.' This will be on the October 8th agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT SIZE AND STRUCTURE SIZE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS PID#23-1t7-24 42 0012 WHEREAS, G.M.G. Enterprises, Inc., owner of the property described as Lot 2, Block, 1, The Highlands, PID#23-117-24 42 0012 has applied for a variance to allow the structural remodeling and expansion to the dwelling with conforming setbacks t~ the property lines; and WHEREAS, the existing structure has a nonconforming minimum square footage of 683 sq. ft and will be expanded to 852 square feet in size to meet the minimum square footage of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a lot size of 10,000 square feet in the R-1 residential zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval with conditions to afford the owner reasonable use of the property and to bring the structure up to the minimum square footage required in the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the variance as requested and shown on the survey "Exhibit A". to construct a 7.8 by 21.67 foot addition and to do structure modifications to the existing building upon the condition that the completion of the project will be January 1, 1985 for Lot 2, Block 1, The Highlands, PID#23-117-24 42 0012 (5846 Idlewood Road). October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 8~- 17~ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,651,349 AND SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,120,916 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following 1985 General Fund Budget appropriations. GENERAL FUND Council City Manager/City Clerk Election & Registration Assessing Finance Legal Police Planning & Inspections Civil Defense Street Shop & Store Parks City Property & Building Contingency Transfers 33,976 87,175 2,000 42,650 137,293 70,400 532,975 95,861 2,555 328,058 43,678 118,392 76,690 6,0007 72,646 1,651,349 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following taxes for collection in 1985: SPECIAL LEVIES Minnesota Laws 1983, 1984 Tort Judgements & Liability Ins. Matching Funds Bonded Indebtedness Certificates of Indebtedness Tax Abatements Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds 7,676 7,975 13,325 70,711 37,384 5,301 20,624 Total Special Levies 162,996 TOTAL LEVY LIMITATION 1984/85 957,920 GRAND TOTAL TO BE LEVIED 1,120,916 Peterson The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember Je$$en. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson & Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RE~OLUTION NO. 8q-175 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1985 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the overall budget for 1985 as follows: GENERAL FUND As per resolution #84-174 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Revenue Sharing Area Fire Service Fund Cemetery Fund Pension Fund Improvement & Equipment Capital Outlay Fire Capital Outlay Fund SELF-SUPPORTING FUNDS Water Fund Sewer Fund Liquor Fund 1,651,349 53,000 134,650 4,655 --0-- 30,000 6,000 324,787 618,831 184,629 GRAND TOTAL 3,007,901 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson g Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ''~ ~m~ !~'"'' (Please type the following information) I.' Street Address of Property 5066 Idlewood Road} Mound, MN Fee Paid Date Filed Legal Description of Property: Lot 2 Block Addition The Highlands PID No. 23-117-24 42 0012 Owner's Name GMG Emterprtses, 510 Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, MN 55391 Address Day Phone No. 475-0702 Applicant (if other than owner): Name Mackl[n & Mackli~ Day Phone No. 475-0702 Address 510 Wayzata Blvd.} Wayzata~ MN Type of Request: (X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit (X)*Other *if other, specify: Permit for addition on sub standard lot. · esent Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property, Single family dwelling Has' an'application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this propertY? No If so, list date(s) of llst date(s) of application, action taken and 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 requiredFi~y law· 'Planning Commission Recommendation: Date C( .il Action: Resolution No. Request for Zoning Variance Procedure 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 Zonin~ 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 all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ~ No If "no"~ specify each non-conforml~ use: C. Do the existing structures ~omply with ali area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( ~ ) If "no"~ specify each non-conformin9 useF D. 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 ~escribed 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 ora road? Yes (X) No~.~_) If yes, explain: 7~-~ G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Ye~ ( ) \No If no, how many other properties ere similarly 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 plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional · I. ~iii granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the s~me zone, or to the enforcement of' this ordinance? September 10, 1984 City of Mound Planning Commission and City council Mound, MN Attn: Planning Commission and City council Members I am requesting consideration for the vaPiance needed to acquire a permit fop the Penovation and addition'for the pPoperty at 5846 Idlewood Road. It might be of interest to the city the scope of work to be done on the property to make it habitable again and to bring it up to current code. This means that not only structurally will it be upgraded to prevailing codes, but, mechanically as well. The proposed addition will still observe all existing set back requirements (side and frontage) and will also increase the square footage ~o bring the dwelling in to minimum requirements for habitation (876 vs. The house was acquired in' ~uly,! 1984, a's a H.U.D. repossession and has been unoccupied for over three years. As you can imagine, we ape quite anxious to begin work oh it. If I can he of any assistance please feel free to call. On behalf of G.M.G. Enterprises, Inc., I thank you for your time and consideration. S~, e~ely,._.~ /~-'~'-~.. President G.M.G. Enterprises, Inc. MM/gh o. p --$0.00-- .... 50.00-- WOOD October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 8~- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOYAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $185.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO T~E COUNT~ AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY ~9~21 WREREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for tree removal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for tree removal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: PID 13-117-24 12 0176 Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the tree removal in the amount of the assessment levied against it. IMPROYEMENT AMOUNT YEARS LE~ Tree Removal 185.00 3 9421 Such instaliments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be ~payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on ali unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,150.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNT~ AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEV~ ~9618 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for tree removal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for tree removal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: PID Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the tree removal in the amount of the assessment levied against it. IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS LE¥~ ~ 13-117-24 14 0019 13-117-24 32 0143 25-117-24 21 0035 Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal- 650.00 8 9618 750.00 8 9618 750.00 8 9618 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $350.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNT~ AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEV~ ~9619 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for tree removal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for tree removal· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: pID Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the tree removal in the amount of the assessment levied against it. IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT ~EARS LE~P~ ~ 23-117-24 32 0037 Tree Removal 350.00 5 9421 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shalI be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $385.00 TO RE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY ~9~19 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for garbage removal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for garbage removal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the garbage removal in the amount of the assessment levied against it. AMOUNT LEVY PID 13-117-24 12 0019 13-117-24 12 0103 24-117-24 43 0050 130.00 9419 60.00 9419 195.00 9419 385.00 The garbage removal assessment shall be payable in one annual installment, to be payable on the first Monday of January in 1985. To the installment shall be added interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this resolution until December 31, 1985. The owner of any property as assessed may, at any time within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, and no interest shall be charged; and may until November 15 following the date of this resolution pay the whole of the assessment with interest to December 31 of the year following the date of assessment. After November 15 following the date of the assessment, to the annual installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December B1 of the year in which the annual installment is payable. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Counciimembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID WEED & GRASS CUTTING ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $190.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY ~9~22 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for weed and grass cutting; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for weed and grass cutting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such proposed assessments as Iisted below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the weed and grass cutting in the amount of the assessment levied against it. PID AMOUNT LEVY 13-117-24 14 0019 13-117-24 24 0003 23-117-24 42 0076 25-117-24 11 0015/0016 50.00 9422 35.00 9422 25.00 9422 80.00 9422 190.00 The weed and grass cutting assessment shall be payable in one annual installment, to be payable on the first Monday of January in 1985. To the installment shall be added interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this resolution until December 31, 1985. The owner of any property as assessed may, at any time within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, and no interest shall be charged; and may until November 15 following the date of this resolution pay the whole of the assessment with interest to December 31 of the year following the date of assessment. After November 15 following the date of the assessment, to the annual installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31 of the year in which the annual installment is payable. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 198~ RESOLUTION NO. 8~- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID SIDEWALK REPAIRS ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,988.30 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNT~ AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 5 YEARS AT 8~ INTEREST LEVY ~9430 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for sidewalk repair; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for sidewalk repair. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: ..PID Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the sidewalk repair in the amount of the assessment levied against it. AMOUNT YRS LEV~ ~ 13-117-24 33 0011 13-117-24 33 0015 13-117-24 33 0016/0017 2,660.00 5 9430 1,422.85 5 9430 905.45 5 9430 4,988.30 The sidewalk repair assessment shall be payable in one annual installment, to be payable on the first Monday of January in 1985. To the installment shall be added interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this resolution until December 31, 1985. The owner of any property as assessed may, at any time within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, and no interest shall be charged; and may until November 15 following the date of this resolution pay the whole of the assessment with interest to December 31 of the year following the date of assessment. After November 15 following the'date of the assessment, to the annual installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31 of the year in which the annual installment is payable. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2066 Shorewood Lane Morned, H.illnosota 55364 April 30, 1984 Mr. Greg Skim~ou Superintendent Water and Sewer Department City of Hound 5341 Maywood Hound, Mirmesota 55364 Ne: Water and e ~.~ _ oc,~er Account #1t 067-2066-51 Dear Mr. Skinner, Recently I received a corrected bill for utility service for the above account. I request a breakdown of how this amount was calculated. Additionally, please send me a complete history of my account showing the meter readings per quarter, usage per quarter and th,'~ cha~_-qe per quarter. This record should begin at the tim~, the meter and outside reader were installed. I also requost a copy of the rates and '-' ~' d~elr effective dates that ~,~..~,~--o applied throuqhout the tJlue i have had the service. Lastly, pl. ense inform me what the,,,qter reading and outside read~}r were set at when installed. Thank you for your cooperation, cc: Mr. John I~ll. am City Manaqer Julius E. Webster, Jr. May 22, 1984 Julius E. ~ebster, Jr. 2066 Shorewood Lane Mound, M~t. 55364 Dear Sir: Much time has been spent on your account. We have gone back and figured what your sewer for each year shoul~ have been if your first quarter , which is the one that determines the sewer for the whole year, had been billed based on a correct meter reading we find you would owe the city another $225.60. It was to your advantage to have a slow outside reader. The breakdown for the correct bill is: Consumption; 129.000 .80¢ per thousand plus $3.00 service charge = $160.20 Sewer is $21.00 for first 10. O00 gallons plus $1.20 per thousand for additional $185.22 Total: $291.42 ~.le can use the June usage for sewer charges for rest of 1984. A contract can be made for payment if you'd like. We also hold the penalty. Sincerely, Lois Sandquist Water Department LS/sjwl ~ HETER READING USAGE WATER SEWER TAX TOTAL 3-5-79 842 24 11.60 6--5-79 873 31 14.35 9-6-79 908 35 15.75 12-1o-79 925 17 8.80 3-3-80 9,35 10 6.00 6-5-80 940 5 6.00 9-1o-8o 978 38 24.80 12-1-80 997 19 13.80 3-.3-8] ]008 ll 9.00 6-3-81 lo37 29 19.8o 9-1-81 1073 36 24.00 !2-2-81 11o2 29 19.80 3-3-82 ]126 24 16.8o 6-7-82 1149 23 16.20 $-3-$2 1172 23 16.20 12-1-82 1192i 20 14.40 2-25-82 1211 19 18.20 5-25-83 1224 13 13.40 8-23-83 1246 22 20.60 '11-22-83 12.63 17 16.60 2-22-84 127i 8 9.40 *We deleted this and rebilled to new meter reading* 3-26-84 1392 129 106.20 4-11-84 1401 Mike installed meter on December 29, 1970 5-8-84 1407 Mike 5-'8-84 Greg says leave as is; it was used. 19.8o 24.70 ]9.80 14.90 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.90 13.90 13.90 13.90 34.80 34.80 34.80 34.80 28.8o 21.60 28.8o 26.40 21.00 ]85.22 46 (358cr.) 28.28 39.62 35.55 23.70 19.00 37.80 26.80 22.9O 33.70 37.90 33.70 51.6O 51.00 51.00 49.20 47.00 35.OO 49.40 43.00 30.40 291.42 2066 Shorewood Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 June 10, 1984 Mr. Greg Skinner Ms Lois Sandquist Water and Sewer Department City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Your letter of May 22, 1984 Dear Sir and Madam: Thank you for the "much time" spent on my account (~11- 067-2066-51). I fail to comprehend the advantage of a slow outside reader. Had the outside reader been functioning properly, there would have been less waste of your time and mine. A~ain, I request a breakdown of how the utility service bill was calculated. Your mathmatics I don't understand, Je.: Water: .80 per thousand x 129,000.00 + 3.00 160.20 ??? Sewer: 21.00 for 10,000 gallons (1.20 per thousand add'l.) 144.80 (1.20 x 119,000) 185.22 ??? Total: 291.42 ??? In this breakdown I would also appreciate an explanation of how .80 per thousand and 1.20 per thousand were chosen as the rates to be applied for billing purposes. Previously I requested a complete history of my account showing meter readings per quarter, usage per quarter and the charge per quarter. While I thank you for sending me this information from the last five years, you did not include this information from the seven years previous to those. Is this information available or not? If so, I again request a com- plete history begining at the time the meter and outside reader were installed. Once more I ask that you inform me what the meter reading and outside reader were set at when installed° If this infor- mation is not available please let me know. page two - June 10, 1984 In your letter you mention a contract for payment, penalty, that we can use the June usage for sewer charges for the rest of 1984 (Great, this spring I graded and seeded half our yard!). Ail these resulting from a malfunction of a piece of property I don't own or have any control over -- spo't checked by 9ne post card in twelve years ?! Awaiting some answers, i _ CC' Mr. John Elam, Mound City Manager Mr. Jack Deveny, Briggs and Morgan Ms Lois Sandquist, Mound Water Department June 18, 1984 Julius Webster 2066 Shorewood Ln. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sir: A complete history of your account is enclosed. We have an old meter reading card that dates back to 1975 which will show you readings and consumption. Previous information is not available. The meter and outside reader were installed 12-29-70 at o. Water is 80¢ per thousand and sewer is $21.00 for the first 10,000 gallons and $1.38 per thousand for anything over. These rates were "chosen" by the Mound City Council by resolution. The rates are determined by needed revenue and budget. A typing error was made on the breakdown we sent to you. It should have been $106.20 and not $160.20. The rate is $1.38 per thousand for sewer after the $1.20 per thousand for the first 10,000 gallons. If there are any further questions please direct them to Greg Skinner at 472-1251. S i ncerely, Lois Sandquist Water and Sewer billing LS:bam enc. DP~_~' METER READING USAGE WATER SEWER 3-5-79 842 24 11,60 19,80 6-5-79 873 31 14.35 24.70 9-6-79 908 35 15.75 19.80 12-10-79 925 17 8.80 14.30 3-3-80 935 10 6.00 13.OO 6-5-80 940 5 6.00 13.OO 9-10-80 978 38 24.80 13.00 12-1-80 997 19 13.80 13.00 3-3-81 1OO8 11 9.00 13.90 6-3-81 1037 29 19.80 13.90 9-1-81 1073 36 24.00 13.90 12-2-81 1102 29 19.80 13.90 3-3-82 1126 24 16.80 34.80 6-7-82 1149 29 16.20 34.80 8-3-82 1172 23 16.20 34.80 12-1-82 1192 20 14.40 34.80 2-25-83 1211 19 18.20 28.80 5-25-83 1224 13 13.40 21.60 8-23-83 1246 22 20.60 28.80 11-22-83 1263 17 16.60 26.40 2-22-84 1271 8 9.40 21.00 *We deleted this and rebilled to new meter reading* 3-26-84 1392 129 106.20 185.22 4-11-84 1401Mike 5-7-84 Replaced outside reading that read 1275 with reading of 1107. 5-29-84 1411 TAX 46 (3.58cr.) ~7 TOTAL 28.28 39.63 35.5g 23.7O 19.OO 37.8O 26.8O 22.90 33.70 37.9O 33.70 51.60 51.00 51.oo 49.20 47.OO 35.OO 49.4O 43.00 30.40 291.42 new outside reading to match meter Meter was installed on December 20, 1970 outside reading most likely installed at same time. October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY ASSESSMENT ROLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,589.2~ TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNT~ AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8~ LEVY 9423 WHEREAS, the following sewer and water service charges are unpaid and past due: ,pROPERTY IDENTIFICATION 18-117-23 31 0005 / 19-117-23 34 0102 22-117-24 43 0007 23-117-24 32 0020 24-117-24 11 0012 24-117-24 41 0017 24-117-24 43 0034 24-117-24 44 0050 24-117-24 44 0081 25-117-24 11 001 5/0016 25-117-24 12 0123 25-117-24 21 0032 AMOUNT LE~ 224.24 9423 91.59 9423 1,612.50 9423 73.58 9423 87.00 9423 105.30 9423 162.50 9423 176.88 9423 107.50 9423 280.26 9423 100.56 9423 567.33 9423 3,589 24 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 permits unpaid service charges to be certified to the County Auditor for payment with taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: That the foregoing charges be herewith certified to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection with the 1985 taxes. Charges shalI bear interest at the rate of 8% p-er annum from the date of adoption of the resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: City Clerk Mayor October 9, 198~ RESOLUTION NO. 8~- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY 9~2~ - $1,170.90 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: PID 19-117-23 24 0054 LEVY NO, IMPROVEMENT 9424 Supp. 78 Sts. 7514 YEARS AMOUNT 10 1,170.90 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December B1 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended .on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October g, lg8~ RESOLUTION NO. 8~-- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY 9425 - $4,606.39 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: PID 19-117-23 34 0125 24-117-24 41 01 80 24-117-24 44 0212 LEVY NO, IMPROVEMENT YEARS AMOUNT 9425 Supp. 79 Sts. 7928 11 1,768.45 9425 Supp. 79 Sts. 7928 11 1,768.45 9425 Supp. 79 Sts. 7928 11 1,069.49 Such installments shall be payable as foliows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged if the entire sssessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY 9~26 - $3,656.30 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: LEVY NO~ IMPROVEMENT YEARS AMOUNT 19-117-23 34 0125 25-117-24 11 0062 9426 Supp. 80 Sts. 8297 12 1,828.15 9426 Supp. 80 Sts. 8297 12 1,828.15 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY 9~27 - $292.00 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: PID Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: LEYY NO, IMPROYEMENT YEARS AMOUNT 19-117-23 24 0054 9427 Supp. Sewer 3180 I 292.00 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December B1 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 198~ RESOLUTION NO. 8~- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY 9Q28 - $556.26 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: PID 13-117-24 11 0122 19-117-23 24 0054 25-117-24 21 0075 LEVY NO, IMPROVEMENT YEARS AMOUNT 9428 Supp. Sewer 3388 6 194.66 9428 Supp. Sewer 3388 6 180.80 9428 Supp. Sewer 3388 6 180.80 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made· The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a oertified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The foliowing Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 8~- . RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY 9Q29 - $19Q.80 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of. formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: PID LE%~f NO, IMPROVEMENT YEARS AMOUNI 19-117-23 24 0054 25-117-24 21 0075 9429 Supp. Water 3397 6 97.40 9428 Supp. Water 3397 6 97.40 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1985. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith tran.smit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in' the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember · The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The foilowing Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk iron monurn~n ~ found z~onurn~n~ sef' hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of e boundaries of: . Lot 2, Block l, THE HIGHLANDS~ Henne~in County, Minnesota. -:,' tit.-, locations of ali buildings, thereon, and all' visible encroachments, "r.,.~ or on said land.. As surveyed by me, or under my direct :-' ~-a, this 13th day. of August, Paul A. 3ohnson~/ Land Surveyor, ~inn. Reg. No. 10958 ENF£ eP IS£S, INC. ar- ~Z 0 Ltl U' H H LI, I ~. RD '~.,~ I ! I' tist Sum~n I i~. RD ,ssembly" RD CITY OF HOUND Case No. Fee Paid ,j~'Iz-- 3 ~ ~ Date Fi led 9/12/85 APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property 2521 Wi]~shi~ Blvd. 8o. Mo~u~d IEN ~64 Lot Tract B 2521 ~l~hire Blvd. So. Mound MN 553~ Block PID No. 2~-!!7-24 210004 Day Phone No. 866-~02~ ,. Legal Description of Property: Addition' I~g, I~q~d 3. Owner's Name KeXrl-n Nozq4ood Address Applicant (if other than owner): Name S~r~ as abo~ Address S_~,r~ as above Day Phone No. Same as above Type of Request: ( *If other, specify: ( ) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation $ Review ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. (X) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Sin~ f~ly Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~o If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and 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. ! 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, pr of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applicant ~x.-~ ~- /~rt~_,.~-~ Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Date 9-24-84 Council Action: Resolution No. Date Procedure for Zoning Amendments (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 III.An Amendment to the'Zoning Ordinance (Answer either. A or B below) A. It is requested that Section 23.60~o3 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Zoning amendment to permit'accessory a~art~ent as co~tional uses in the R-1 zone, Reason for Amendment: Allow me to legally rent a lower 3 bedroom apartment. Amendment to Map: it is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from to . Address of Property: Legal description of property (lot-, block, subdivision or metes and bounds) Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Present Use of Property:. Reason for Amendment: Note: No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the ordi- nance or the .zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commission within one year period following a denial of such request. 2521 WZLSHIRE BLVD SOUTH HOUND ~4INNESOTA 55364 To whom it may concern: l.ly %;ire and I purchased the property at 2521 Wilshire Blvd. South January 28, 1982. When we purchased the home the lower level was a 3 bedroom apartment with a seperate entrance. Shortly after moving in we began improving the property little by little as the funds were available. Following is a list of improvements made to the property since purchase. 1. Textured the ceilings downstairs. 2. Completely recarpeted the downstairs. 3. Wallpapered and painted the dowstairs, upstairs and the entire exte£ior. 4. Replaced most of the overhang on the entire home. 5. Replaced the roof on the house and garage. $. Replaced the exterior doors downstairs, upstairs, and on the garage. 7. Put new sidewalk in front of and around to the backside of uile home. 8. Insulated the floor joists and the attic. 9. installed additional'vents on the roof. 10. Landscapped tile front and side yard. lge$.~s 5o De done: 1. Replace Olacl;~op drive. l.ly wife and i are very concerned, realizing that we are not capaole of affording the payments and upkeep on this home should we De fo£ced to vacate the downstairs. We would never nave purchased this home had it not been for the income from downstairs to help subsidise the payments. Before purchasing the nome ue asked the former owner if there had ever been any problems with the city or any of the neighbors as it relates to the downstairs being rented, and were assured there had Seen no~e. Thank you for your consideration as it means the difference between a happy home and near financial disaster. / / 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koe§ler, City Planner DATE: September 18, 1984 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment CASE NO.: 84-364 APPLICANT: Kevin Norwood LOCATION: 2521 Wilshire Boulevard South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Single Family R-1 (10,000 Square Feet) PROPOSAL: Mr. Norwood is' requesting that the City of Mound con- sider modifying the zoning ordinance to permit accessory apartments. The applicant presently has an accessory apartment in the basement of his home and is facing prosecution by the city for violation of the existing ordinance. Prior to either his removal of the acces- sory unit or the retention of a defense attorney, Mr. Norwood has approached the city attempting to modify the zoning ordinance to legalize his present use. COMMENTS: Accessory apartments were first considered by the city in May of 1983. At that time, material was presented to the Planning Commission for discussion purposes. '{Enclosed) I have recently re- viewed the issue with Metropolitan Council staff, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency staff and planners in the cities of Edina, Maplewood, Cottage Grove and Richfield to get an overview of local experiences. Although Mr. Norwood's application has again raised the accessory apartment issue, it should be reviewed in a community context rather than on an individual case basis. In order for accessory apartments to be appropriate at any location within the City of Mound, they should c. onform to the city's overall housing goals and policies. This requires an assessment and discussion of current city policy by the Planning Commission and City Council in order to determine if acces- sory apartments should be allowed. Planning Commission and Staff September 18, 1984 page 2 Numerous accessory apartments exist within the city at the present time. It is impossible to identify an exact or even an approximate number since the city becomes aware of such uses only on a complaint basis. In Mr. Norwood's case, the building inspector was conducting an unrelated inspection when she noticed the existence of two living units. Most cities seem to have an unwritten policy that they tol- erate illegal accessory apartment units unless a citizen complaint is received. In order to aid the Planning Commission in a discussion of this issue, I obtained the following information from metro area communities. Cottage Grove - Cottage Grove is the only community that I could find which adopted an ordinance permitting accessory apartments. Their planner indicated that the issue was volitile despite the fact that their zoning ordinance has always permitted multi-family dwellings as conditional uses in single family areas. The Cottage Grove ordinance allows staff to issue an accessory use permit providing that: 2. 3. 4. The principal residential use is owner occupied. The unit must maintain a single family appearance. Two parking stalls are required per unit. Accessory apartments are limited to 10% of the structures within a given block. - Neighbors are notified of a 30 day comment period. According to their staff, the adoption of the ordinance in Cottage Grove has not "opened the fl,ood gate" of accessory apartment uses. To date, very few permits have been issued. Maplewood - Maplewood considered the accessory apartment issue approximately two years ago. At that time, they prepared a draft ordinance which required: Approval of such' uses was limited to the issuance of a special acceptance permit by the City Council. The primary residential dwelling had to be owner occupied. Accessory apartments were limited to a maximum floor area of 600 feet. Sufficient off-street parking had to be provided. Units were limited to one front entrance. Accessory apartments required the addition of a deed restriction on the property. Occupants of both dwellings were considered as one family in assessing the total number of allowable residences. The Maplewood Planning Commission and HRA approved the ordinance, however, the City Council denied it due to the concern of extensive expansion of such uses. Planning Commission and Staff September 18, 1984 page 3 Edina - Edina recently considered the accessory apartment issue. h~-~-{r review was focused on a zoning amendment that: 1. Limited the accessory apartments to locations identified on the comprehensive plan as two family residenti'al lots. Such lots are found only along collector and arterial streets. 2. Owner occupancy was required. 3. The structure was required to maintain a single family appear- ance. 4. Parking and two garage stalls per unit were required. After considerable discussion and a number of joint meetings between the Planning Commission and City Council, the city decided not to im- plement a zoning amendment permitting accessory apartment units. A major reason cited by city staff for this action, was a fear expan- sion of accessory apartments from two family areas into single family neighborhoods. Richfield - Richfield has taken an approach similar to the one at- tempted by Edina with one notable exception. Richfield allows acces- sory apartments along arterial streets designated for two family re- sidences. They are using the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency loan program to convert single family structures to double units in these areas. In doing this, they are establishing full double units ratheb than a primary single family unit and an accessory apartment. Acces- sory apartments are not permitted in. single family neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATIONS: The acceptance of accessory apartments in single family neighborhoods is a policy issue which needs to be thoroughly reviewed by the Planning COmmission and City Council. If it is de- cided that accessory apartments are acceptable in Mound, conditions similar to those used in Cottage Grove, Edina, Maple Grove and West- chester County, New York should be drafted into an ordinance for full review and comment by the community. Case No. 84-364 Zoning Ordinance A~endment for 2521Wilshlre Boulevard Tract B, Registered Land Survey# 453 - PID # 24-117-24 21 0004 Kevin Norwood was present,. · The' City planner, Mark Koegler., reviewed .his report on the proposal, Mr. Norwood i~ requesting'that the City'consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to ailow accessory.apartments'wi'thin.the single family zone, This was prompted by'the.fact'that.he presently has such a unit in the lower portion of his house and is facing-prosecution'by the Ci.ty Attorney, He found it reasonab]'e to try. to' recitify the situatlon.'"ln'May of 1983, the Planning Commission-reviewed the accessory apartment issue, but there were no con- clusions reached' This issue is much bigger than just this one case. There are numerous accessory 'apartments wlthi, n the City at the present time, Koegler stated that in talking to other Cities about.this,, they have indicated they take a hands off attltude un]ess they receive a complaint from the citizens. Cottage-Grove i.s the.on]y community that has an ordinance permitting accessory uses in R-] with a conditional use providing they meet the' guidelines. There is no staff recommendation on this, but Jf Commission is interested, they Should request a draft of an ~dinance. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1984 - Page 6 Kevin NOrwood presented a.letter written· by his wife and himself outlining what they have done 'to house since purchasing it early in 1982; they purchased home with the .intent of renting the downstairs to help subsidize the payments as.prevlouS ownerBad renters. Duane Norberg. Subm|tted a pe.t?i~On of·homeowners in the Dutch Lake area who are against mult[-famil~ dwelli'ngs; they moved into R-1 District for peace and quiet and·want to go on. record as against two family residences. Pat Rose was p.reSent..stat'l.ng she..ha~ two single girls living with her daughter and herself. She commented that accessory apartments are very·prevalent in Mound. Steve Chase. did not have a complaint·about' Pat Rose stating she·is a super .neighbor, but that a house'behind Norberg is a party house and often very.noisy. . Earl~Norw0od, Kevin~s .Dad,.stated that prior to the purchase', they talked with the prev~ous..owner'of the house who'said ~hey didn't have any problems with rental of the'downstairs. .Thinks there should, be some criteria for allow, lng rentals in some places--on high traffic streets'or whatever. After lengthy d!scussion,.Reese, moved a motion that we 'recommend to the City Council that we not consi.der a'change in the Zoning Code to allow 'accessory apartments, in .the R-1.District at'this time. Motion was seconded by Wetland. The vote was.Reese and Weiland in favor of the motion; Jansen, Meyer and Michael against. Motion failed. Connie·Meyer who.had come for.'..the first item .on .agenda, stated she couldn't bel~eye this is all happening, .Thought~that if it doesn't bother anyone, can't see why this is not allowed. Meyer moved that we send ~his proposal, to the City Council for further dis- cuss~on and for them to give the C~mmisslon further direction, if'necessary. The vote was. Reese and Weiland opposed; Jansen, Meyer and Michael in favor. Mot[on carried. The C~ty Planner stated the City Council would do one of two things: Discuss the ~ssue and, ~f they decided it. had some'merit, they would send it. back to the Com- mission (that does address the. policy issues from the Council's standpoint and prov(de you.with some over-a]l direction); the other way is to ask the Staff to come up..w(th a draft ordinance that we can further discuss with the Planning Com- mission before it goes.to the Council. The danger is that the City Council may baye no ~nterest in this at all. It was discussed that this. was a. publlc hearing. The Chairman asked that it be noted the not'ice'was not published, The Chairman stated he wanted one thing carried ~n the notes: "When a public hearing is to.be had, from now on., he thinks that we should publ'ish the notice", Michael and Jensen both stated they concurred with this, TEe other Commissioners stated they, too, were in favor of the notices being published. The Chairman commented that this affects the whole E-l'Distri'ct' and that this was not handled very ~ell at all, ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:20 P.M. 'Frank Weiland, Chairman CITY of MOUND May 13, 1~83' MEMO 53~1 MAYWOOO ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472'1155 TO: FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION JON ELAM This month I am wondering if the Commission could discuss the wisdom of. developing an accessory apartment component to our Single Family Zohing Ordinance. I suggest this because there are probably 50-100 accessor~ units now in existence in the City and that this practice is growi n~j without any control except when Jan accidentally comes across one. Enclosed is a very light copy of the recently released A~I~M (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities) report on the subject, plus a supplemental report from Westchester Coun. ty (adj'acent to ~ew York City) on the subject. This should prove an interesting problem.to tackle. JE:fc Housing al'terr(al~ives h.av.e been and' Wiil Con'tinue to be ah issu~ for .~unicipal offi'ci'als due to recent demographic...and.e.con.°~nic-tre.n, ds.'. The accessory : ::.:. :... -.'. '"~ "' S 'al{ernative which has l~en addr. esse~ some_ :.... :-. :.'-:'.-. a rtment:, epre ent~ a" housing . : . . ., - ,. . . .. · , ~.: # · ;. co,~nunities ~nd Which seems.' destined to'be considered by many others. An · .....,,-. accesso.ry apartment i~' a separate dwell'.ing.uhit wit!~ cooEing and ~le~p~ng ... - f~acilities,' create~ by the conversion of space within an:ex.isting s~le fm ii ' .... ~ dwellin, g u~it ~.hich i's'~sually"located i~.an establishe.~is'ingle famil~ .' ;'' ities p~J{-ticular,l.y..those citie~ 'wh.ich. U~ not.ha'ye.ordinance provisions, but ".' w.hich, are consider..ih'g the alloi~a~ce'for and'-regul ation 'of acce~sor~v ~partmen'ts. .. l'nis k~IM Report ;a'nd attached m.a. terials, ha~,e Been"develop-:d' with.a municipal'· ~erspective, and designed to be re{ponsi.ve 'to Conce'rns and-'question, s;that are likely to b6 expre.ssed at the local level.. T~is ~bpor% dc~es not present a -, reco:~mendat{on as..to whether cities-should or should n~t cons~dei' adopting · r~sidenti area, .... ....... · · .: · .. The Al,;4 has identified the n~ed'for :reference inforlm,_tion-for me'mbe'r municipal- Provisions 'for ac'cess.ory apartments,. It .is the reco:,~mendati'on of this AY~q P,'eport that officials should become fully informed..about the ~ubject and related issues as they consider'.l~he merits of this alternative housing'mode. Con~.ider..ation of the subject is warranted not only.as a mat'ter of policy by implelnenting local plans to provide for hous~ing opportunities, but also' as a matter of addressing the fact that a number of accessory apartments have already bee~ converted .,,nd .are being..used. -.. Consi' .i '.. - - . ' derat'~6n of the subj. ec~: is also w'arranged from the per~pectives'.of' health, safety, and welfare, espe~ia, lly. in the context of existing accessory uhits .. - .which. ha'ye been converted: S_uch. cOnversions very likely'have not been made in confor l~ith'. . . . applicable.buildin[l. . and life.saf, ety code~ unles's c6~'nunities -':~-"..' have provided for them'and have issued, permits. .-' ': ... "--.-.. -:- - ~: · The deci~'ion '?.s to whether any or more.regulatic~ns "should'be established sh'ould .. . '. -' ~.. .... : .- .... ,'.. .:.'.~'.."". · ...._.-:' :. ........ :-.,. .. .- 'be ba..s.ed., upon kno;/ledge of loc~l.pol.icies,, ne~'ds, and c~ndit~'ons'. This report'"" ... provides an o~tline ~f stand'ards.~2~ich' can be co~sid~6d'in e~tab'li~')~'in'g' 'i.: ':' regu!.~t!ons.'as v/ell as various means' of. regulation. 'There are merits.as well as poteh{ial dr'awbacks"which need :to' be fully considered.from both a policy' ' and .'- a legal perspective. SECTION III Potential advantages and potential disadvantages identified in available information sources can be sum~narized as' ollows: ~ . .A,dv_aJtages' .- {.lore efficien~ use of housing stock; additional income source for ho,'neowners who are faced v~ith rising taxes and fuel, utility, and maintenance costs; more affordable housing aimed at the smaller household needs; and, convenient housing for extended family members or domostic em.~loyees. Accessory apartments can increase the supply of rental units in a co.~:munity. DisadvaGta~qes~- Owners..could expect additional expenses due to initial construction and conversion costs, financing,.higher heat and utility .'. billi~'gs,-and proper, ty and income taxes, ll'~ere also r,,ay be consideration of the ~o.'ter(tial loss of privacy and the additional' landlord responsiblity. .. o ...... '- -o' - ° · t ' .... "' ': Municipal concerns would include increased costs f6r'providing nede. ssary .:. . .. " ;.. .. ~ . .' · services as w~ll 'is'the pote~ti~-I :-i~p~ct upon th6"cJpa~ity"of the exist'lng" ~tiliti~s and res'ources ll~'ere.wouid b~ increased costs for ~ti)e -' -_ +~a't'ion'''' ,~er.~~nd enf.'(~r_'ce~l~mnt aCt.t~ties; these a6di'ti.onal:~ .; : ad~ninis.~.P ~. ..... . .' . :. , . .. ..... .= -,. cost. s. co~ld'b'e; covered through fees as well ~as 'the eye,ritual-realization of .' higher property .tax revenues. '- '. "' .... ' ' "" ~' : ' . .. · ' ~ ~' . .Z' .. '.. '.. - · ' . · .' ' t " ' '*' " ' ' il '' bari'rig "' '" ' ' P 'aCcess6ry m°Jnt~' ei~h reside'nts may. vo~ce 6p oSition to prop~'~d" 'apart .. .. :... · ...::.... ,'.. .. '.- . " 'due to' p~rcep, ti~ns .of 'potential 'negative'impact': These per'ceiveO.impact-s":".- ':-'..-~.': ~nciuJe a~,i. nq and traffic-co~'~estio~qF exte~'ior appearance,, school . popuiation, a p~operty values~ .--' "- '.'.' '-' .. " It is not likely that an acces'sory apartment would create traffic '" .. Congestion-i.n a..single family neighborhood. Provisi6ns .f. or..ad~'qu~te ',:'- -.. parking should be a.ddres_s_~d in local regulations especially where'.on-'Street. ~ -' . ..:~... . :.. -.: .. ..... :'.* . parking is limited or prohibited. Occupants of an accessory 'apartment .-: '" should :not create any greater demand for parking on the si'te tha~.would equivalent drivers who might otherwise reside in the.single ,a. ~.ly. dwelling,' Aesthetics can be addres, sed through local regulations and the review of permit, aPplicatiJns. Co.~=~.unities have been able to provide for accessory ap,~rt~ngnts and also assure that the essential ch~,racter nf a single family nei ghbarhood is mai ntai ned. SECTION IV 'Rec ulation Sta'ndards to 'Consider .... I, lunicipai 'Objectives Municipalities should consider es'tablis'hing accessory apartment regul'~tions. · based off co~uhity-l.and 'use 'objecti. ves and.planning poJicies.. Cl~arly'~tat~ _. municipal-.!nte~t ~n.'.either. th~ ~o~prehensive :plan..pr:,in the-accessory ~pantment" ' '- ""'" regulations'..' Stating municipal Objectives'for acc~ssorY'apartment in.both' .. '- .- .... document's wduld be'the"ideal situation..'.' An example stat'em~nt Of municipal 'intent/object'ives follows: ."~ccessory apartment cohve~i6n§ pro~i.de the ' ' .. ~pportu~i~y to ~eveqo~i gmall' rental bhits to meet spec.ial housing neefls.of ".." family relatives ofresident'owpers. ~his ordinanc~ also intends to'make m6re'' ~ : . - .. ....... -. . . . ~ ~.. e~fic~e~t, use of'.existin~ stock, preserve and protec~ property values, and ' '' provide ~conomic support for present resident families of limited ~ncome." · E'stablis~in9 Standards ' -- Before setting standards, municipalities should examine locJl population and' housing characteristics and trends. Some important factors to 'examine inclodei ~. Any. pattern of requested use variance which may show areas where accessory apartment conversion has started. Age and style of existing single-family housing. Older housing may nead maintenance and some house styles are easier to convert - i.e., split level homes. 14unici. palities may wi'sh .to consider the following standards in adopting ~- regulations: .. " '- .-. o .o ~ccess_or__y Uoit 'Siz~ - To '~uarkntee that the accessory is subordinate tO'the.-" principal t~elling unit, municipalities Should set a ~aximUm accessory unit' ~ size {i.e., maximum of 700 square feet'but' n~t 'to exceed AO pe[Fent of Municipalities could also choose to leave this up to -. total floor area). the reviewing'body. oO ~ Lot Size' ,~ost i6cal ordinanc'es.ri~qt~ire' that..the housin: old n§..an...]: accessory unit s'it on a lot ·that mee'l/s minimum.~onin~ .di~trict.-~;tan~l~rd$..";.} ..... i-._.-~ · · '. ·.. ' ' ' -' '." . :" "' '" ' "' '"' '""::'~:' '! ":' :" ':""'":' :'"' e'Den~it~... -'-To '~rotect the' basic single family character of a neighborhood,. :. .municipal.itie~ .may .wish. to .'adopt an .ac.c.essory' apar t. ment', de.n'.s ity. '~tandard.'-., ... '"' ' i' · Fo.r.'ex. amPlq, an 'acc.esgOry..'ap.ar.tment.' .ord..inance could' re'quife"thal~ ·.only .. 'percent of.. single-family detached homes-can Cjnvert tom acEessofy .-: ...... .apartments. Given that· this approach is rather ne~.t, a city Co, nsidering :i't .' '~' should check'all legal ramifications. :: .... ."' ..:- :'. .: '' , Structure Aqe.- Municipalities' should'c~nsid'er .restrict-i'ng accessory:.' . -. - apartments to units existing .when the ordinance passes. Otherwise, new ' : homes may be developed, with conv. ersion':in mind.- · Exterior Alterations -Restrictions on exterior changes helps' pr.e'serve a neighborhood' s single family character. .: . O~ner~Occ]z~pancy - An owne. r-occupancy standard fits with municipal intent to h,.~lp resident familie~ of limited incomes However, this st--~-''~ h~s not bgen tested in court and ~aay pose constitutional questions. SEC'~.I ON V )~¥p~s of Regul'ations"., .~ Several methods exist ~or regulating accessory apartments... ~ile some methoU~ "are basi[ally better, the be.s[.'approach for a-given co~nuBitym~y, depend on. particuyr l~cal conditions like size; staff time an~ housing types. These " methods :i ncl ude: .. · -. -, ... A. 'Permitted Use' )y 'Right -,.Under permitted 'use"by ri ght; QccAssory iu~its, are" '. ! -.. . ..- ..'...:' ~' .. alldwed without speci'al approval. ~Use. . by .r~gh%..could' apRly:t° any.qr::all }........~. ' ~. " residential diEtr~cts. Thi~ dogs m~gn the.municipa]i~z 9)ye$.up mg~t : .... ..-.- control' over the .loc~tion and type of conversions. Some ~.nScipalSties'gO ! · . ............. ~. -. hold,some control.by requ~ring.a site plafi reg~ew.an~.appr~val.before . :'- .. . · :.' . .'~... '~ ..~. . .'. .... . . "._ .~. . · B. Special Use Permit ~ Thi~ method 'all6ws ~n ac~.essory use':ii~..the a~l. icdnt- meets certain established local, s~ahdards', lhes~..permi~ ~uld.be ~ssued for a specified· time periOd.with renewal reqoired. "~-'-... . -..- ' . '' C. LicenSing - Similar' t6 a renewablle special p~rmit, licensing~would'reqU{re Specific approval of an accessory uni~ by a municipal' agency. A licensing procedure gives the municipality the ability to revoke permission for.the accessory unit if policy changes or if the licensing provisions ar~ not followed. However, licensing requires'often complex administration and is not preferred for this reason. ' Selected Bibliography A number of articles and reports have focused on the accessory apartments issue. The,following bibliography lists a selection of those articles and reports. Three report~ provide the.most-comprehensive review of.the accessory- apartments issue. Those reports are: The Citizen League Stud.y., .~.iakin_9_~etter Use of Existin,~ Housingl Patrick Hat. e, Accessory Apartments: Usi. r,--~,]rplus Space in Single-Family Houses~'and ~estchester County, .A Guide to Accessory · '~-~p~tment Reoull ati oas. ' Tlle"A~soci ati on of i~,et'ropol i tan' )4uni cip'al t~i es and the ': ' 14eltrO~-~oun6il :.iill provide any of these articles or ~-eports on. request.... Citizens League, Makin~ Better Use of'Existing 'Housing: .A Ren'tal Housin,q · m Strategy for the'l-gSOs~ . l.i~n.neapoli.~... MaY; ;)[~82,..' . '... "Single-Fami?.y Co~ver. sions: '~ Connoly, Edward, . Strategy .for Increasing. t~e ' Housing Supply." Journal of. Housing). March/~pril 1982. pp. 40-42..' . : . ... Cottage Grove Accessory Apartment Ordinance, Number 391, Zoning ~endment. -- '.Adopted February 9, 1983 by the Cottage Grove Citf Council.' .- m + Hare, Patrick H.,. ""~" Granny' Flats Are 'A Good Idea" Planninq, :-l~azine. February 1982. pp. 15-16.. : ,.. .. Hare,. Patr. ick H., "Rethinking Singie-Family Zoning. Growing Old in ~- ~ ' ~eighborhoods." t.lew..E_n.q_land Journal. of-Human Services..Su,~'er.; !~8!~..' p~,.32-'~ Hare, Patrick H.-, "Ca. rving Up The American Dream." P'lannin,q Magazine. 'July 1981 pp. 14_17 · - ....... : .. .' .... - · Hare, Patric~,'H. (with Susan Conner and Dwight 14er~:iam), Accessory Apa_.rtments:' Usin~ Surplus Space in Sinq~le-Famil~ Houses. P!anning Ad'visory S=.rvice Report, · -Numb'er 3-6-5-. 2----~ pa--~=e:=~. - " : "' "' ' ~ ' ' .." Inskip, Leonard, "Put '~partments in Private Homes?"- ;4inneapolis Star/Tribune. ' April 29, 1982..' 'Maplewood iqe,q, oran~u.,q, "Zoning Code ~mendment." October 13, '1981':;.' ': FlinneapOl~s Tribune, "Tapping a .Source of'R=Jntal )io. using." Octo~e'r )]5j 19'81. Pierc6, Neal R., "Alternate Hou~ing'~ffers Elderly A New Secur'ity." 'a 1982. . i.linneapolis Tribune. I., y 30,. St. Paul Planning, Lar..qe House Conversions/Accessory Units Re,oort. September 30, 1981. Ti.'F,~ I.l;t~)azine, "Downsizin9 An American Dream." October 5, 1981, T, ime ;..'.agazine, "Squeeze Play At Home." November 30, 1921. ~.y..-. tchest'6r County Plannin,~ Co':ndssion, A Guide to Accessory__,'~part~.'.:.r:t .. '"' · 'F,f~EET~NG' S~ALLER..' APRIL 1981 MEETINC SM. ALLF.,R I.,]01JSE. fidI,.'D 'REEDS A GUIDE'TO ACCESSOR~ A?ARTMENT REGULATIONS: III, TABLE OF CONTENTS ' · . .. ..:. ;, . ~ ~ · -' -: 1:. Ihtroduct ion ' ' .... ' : '. . .. · , ..... :: .... ./ .'o · :.-:-~. · : ... :..... . Defini~[on of Ac'cessory Apartments .. ...... · .... ' ':' ' ' ' ' - : '-' ' f '. .l'-" ~' j.-.... . " '"' ' '" io'n and ~umbers ........... Their Loca~ · '- · · . .;.. '.:,' .~ . . ... .' ... . '. · · . . ': .. ....- .... . .,... .:...-. .. . .Pros' and. Cons o[ Access ry Apartmen~ Regular{ohs ." . · · ' ' . · ' -" '.' ~: '.L ' ~....· .' · ..~ · . . .. : , ., .,,.,.. ','..'::;: .- . ~ :~ --.- · .~" :..'.' ~: ' . P nti I ldv g ': ' ' ·" · '..".' ........... ' ,' .' : o~e a . ant:a es .......,. · · · * · .... .. en s~:s-or sa aEes . · · · · · - - - · 0': . ,.. ...... .".....- .... . :.. · .;'. .... .... : . : -..~..' ~ .. ..":." "-' '"Vi'.'. "Standards ~o be~Oonsidered [o-~ Regulation ;'. :' :'" Types cE Re§ula~ions' · ...... Trea~e~ ~y Wes~chester...Commun~'~ies ' .. e:..'~' . .. ....... ' '- "" '~' ..... ' ";: .... '- -'"' ' 1~ ..... .. ..... : ~III Conclusion ............ .Appendix .. Compendium Char~s oE Hun['d[~al Re~ul~ions' (Adopt'e8 and Propo~ed)~ · . · ~ · 22' .. - '28 Potential ~[nanc[al Incentives · · · ~ · .. * ................ " To~ of N[~ Cas[l~ Zonins Ordinance .ProvisiOns Glossary ............. " ' ' ' ' ..........' ' '" ' ' Selected Biblio~raohv.. _ · .......................... I . INTRODUCTION . . This ~repor~ was i::'epa, r. ed in recognition of ~he incr~ed in:eres~ 6n'~he' part: of 'a number of communities ~n accessory apartments. ~[s .interest. . ~as i' . the number of accesso~' apargm~h~s ~iI1 '. ~. . It,, is no~ the .contention of.. ~his report tha~ accesso~ apartment, are appr~ . ..'- '-priaee fo='~ll singl~-f~mily n~ighborhoods or are,. ~n f~ts needed or de~ir~"~y' . all communities. However, many ~f ghe problem~ Crowding, ~d adverse .visual impdct) can be .addressed t~gh the establishment . of' sound.loca~i6nal criteria ~nd .proper [eg~lation. .. p~t=i'ng =hl, typ~ of unit, and the ~lanni~ and zon~ criteria whi~ 'shoutd' .: - 'provld~ the b~'~s for regulating~accessory apartments, :7' --We note ~hat .experlenee with legalizing acee~o~ a~ztment~ i, 'not very widespread or i~' a relatively' rec~ht phenomenon both wi~[n ahd mtsld~ of" '.-" .-- We',tche,ter County. A~ a re~ult, our re~arch effo=t~ ~ revealed tha~ the ......... a~oune o~. acce~,~ble,..~tat[~tlcallT~ ,[g~[fieant. data .w[~e~pect...to..h0u,ehold.... · ... .characteristic~. traffic generation, property valuess et~., ~s.~everely limited. ~erever appropriate, howeve:, we have imcluded 'data c~[led by o:he: -. ...... governmental or placnlng bodies, as well'as informatloa obtained through staff . · . · · -~ · .~" ''' . .... ' · .... ".." · · review of mun~c~pal'bui'lding d~par~ment-files and ~Ce~iwe discussions with- '~' municipal ~ assessors, bu~ld~ng inspectors, and plan~ personnel within and .outside of W~stches~r County. -. '"' II. DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS Fundamental to understanding the role of accessory' apartments in the housing Marke~, and in establishing standards for their regulation, is the d~stinct~on' ~.. .. ! ne~;hb~'rhoods. ~;~th n ~nr~;e percentage' of elderly h0useholds l~v'~n~ on f~x~ ~ncomes nn~/o~ h~v~n~ ~n. excess o[ l~n~ ~re~ ~e~n~ underutilized, ~e pros~c~ o~ ~d~on~ ~nco~e ~nd '~ reduction ~n hou~e~o~ c~e~n~n~ ~o~e~ ~cs ~ccesso~y. ~p~men~s ~n ,~c~ve and pr~c~ica~ .~l~erna~ve ~o~ =~ny ~ousehol~s in ~hi~ ' occu~ ~n ~he c~se. o~ '~empty nesters"- couples o~ ~ ~nco~ ~oups couples o~ s~n~e ~'sons h~ve opte~ to ~e'~nto an accessory S~nce ~e =e~sons ~or ~e grov~h'o~ nccessor~ ~s' ~re no~ s~up~y re~e~ ' .. ~s demonstrated by ~he [n~eres~.sho~ b~ ~eve~a~ ~es~c~es~e~ c~mun{C[es ch~ac~er[Zed by [arse lot .zon[ns and[~ mzny'[~Se~ older ~omes. Ses[des economic cons{de~a~[ons~ oChe= ffac[ors'con['~[bu~{n~ ~o '[~e ~[nte:'est ~pa~Cmen~s are be~'~e~ space uC[[[~c[on~ [oca[ hobs{nS needs or t~e desire [o p~eserve structures o~ ~[sco=[c o~ arch'[[ec~ura[ s{sn[f[cance. '.Tu'st as ~t ~s d{f£~cult to characterize z part{cular type of ne~l~borhoo8 accessory apartments are ~i~el), to ex{s~s there.{s ~so d~E~cu~7 ~n' ob~n~n~nE darn on the'p~esent numbers of accessory units. ~n~le-p~ec~se f~u~es on ~he numbe~ o~ these un'ts are un~va~la~Te~ conversat{ons ~th severa~ mun~c~pa! t~x assessors and build'nE ~ns?ec~o~s sheds sor~ l~§ht on the ex~ent to ~n¢!ude: & more efficient, use of r. he housing stock throug~ bet. ret spac~ · u~a~on; a source o~ nd~on~ ~ncome.for' ~s~ng ~omeo~ers ~o ~y young ma~:~eds~.~de~y and s~ng~e persons~ and; ~he provision o~ hous~ fo~' ex:ende~ family ~embtrs or ~omes:~c employees, i:' ~s particularly noCewor:hy :~a: ~n the face o~ :~e collapse of ~ew cons:ruction :en~al housing, accessor7 apartments can plar an ~portant role ~n ~d[ng rental ~n[ts. (According to ' ' bu~ld[n~ ~e~[t, data publ~she& by the Ney ~ork Stare ~v~s~on of Rousing and ~o~n~:~ ~neval, less than 2,~00 units ~re..construcCed in ~es:ches:er ~ '. ~:~c:u:es con:a[n[n~ 3' or more um~:s over che 5 year ~r[od I~76 through ~980. " ~s p~oduc:~n race compa:es'v~:h Che ~estcheS:er County ~ous[ng Implementation .- nee&e& housing, both rental an& o~et-occup~ed, ~e: the n~: Cen years). · . .. - : ..~,~L~.. · L ' . ..... --. ' ~t the sa~ :~m~, the establishment o~ accessory apartment :egu~at~o~ 'also be an .asset :o the ~n~c~pal[:y', assuming :hat s:'an~a~ds an~ p:'oce~u:es',..~.'-' yell as enforcement p~ac:~ces, are es:abl~she~ ~ such a ~nner :bar encourages to:al o: subs:an:~'al c~un~:7 c~pl~ance, F~:s:, ~: g~ves :he ~n[c~pal[ty some · mea~s o~ control over ~a: a~e nov un:eeo:de& dvell~ngs. I: e~ables the co--unity to ~n~tor' the aumber o~ accessory apartment conversions as ~11 as - their Ioca:~on. The occu:ence o~ conce~::a:e~ areas of conversion may be ~mpor:an: ~"an'~n&[ca:o~ of neighborhood :~ends and/or, municipal ~e~[ce requirements." Control :hrou~ :egula:[on can. ~nsure compliance v~:h f~re, ana ~eal:~ co~e~; t~at :hey are p:~pe~.ly ~n:a[ne~, an& ~o nor'al:er essential cha~acce~ o~ the neighborhood. 'Accessory apartments al~ encourage bet:er ~pdl'a:[on m~x an~ diversity u[:h~n c~mun~:~es by attracting o:':e:a[n~ng- ~oung professionals and "young ma:r[e~s uho m~gh: oChe:v~se no: ~ able :o affordable hous lng. Another municipal benefit of major importance is increased tax revenue prop.ere[es containing accessory un[ts. T~ese revenues can only' be real[ze~ ~nen suc~ units are recorded and are ~eflec:ed ~n t~e ~c:ease~ value o~ proper:y, I: ~ true :ha: an expecte~ ~ncrease {n property taxe~ could d~scou~age some homeo~e~s' f~om c~ea:~ng an a&d~:{onal un{:, an& couI~ place a bb~en on those ~'or..t~e mun[c~pal'~t.v~' there ~.s .the po. tential p~ev~o~s'ty mentioned o~ '' 'increased'municipal expenditures-for :he.p~ov~s~on of q~essa~ serv~ces~"as ~11 - ' as a concern that the capacity O[ the' ~ist~ng ~nfrastr,cture will not be t~.. and for the ~pans~on o~ inspection and' enforcement act[~:~es mst'be accountet .'- -increased property t~. assess~n:s and/or fees for' ~he ~ng of applications.'- " - ' "'. '~e'.poss{b[[iey of..r~s~en~'.opp~si:{~a {s .anothe~.~p6it~.n~. co~siSeratioa.... , .The ~rce~ved ~pac~ o~ acce'sso:y' ~par~ments ~ppear~ to v~ry considerably ~ong . Comun~es.. S¢~ ot ~he ~l:egea prq~l~ ate'as '~: fe'a~-co~un~ty'ces~de~:s".. "(1)': ?:opert7 Values'~ Nomeo~ers. ~n s~ngl~f~m{I~ ~'~ghborhoods my feel ' '. ' '"that permlt~{ng accesso~ apartments. ~ould a~Vers~ly .effect. ~e value.;':":'. · . ".:' of .their ~ome- by' altering..[he, nelg~borhood's. ~racCer'.' .. ~ 'providing a ', . '-' -" '" .sdurce ~f inco~f'to'~' purc~'aser,' however/ 'an ~cesso~.'apartment. c~hld -' ' ~ '--:.actually increase a s~ruc~u%e.*s'-~arkeC"va~ue-~en'~he"ac~ract~enes~-~'.'-": '*of ~,.re~tal incpme. ~ource Co.potentlal buyers.' Becau'se municipal [egur .. ,:' -latlons ~rm~ttlng accessory m~ts'are ge~er~l~ a-new :~henomena,'.reli~' ...-.'¢'.. a~'le da~ as. to .' the.- effe~ o~ neighbo~hood.~pro~:t~ values~'as [nd~ate~ .-. at .this ci~e...Even if s~ch sales data ~:e' ~ailable~. the ~ighc accessor7 ~its in det'ermlni~[ sale[ price' m~' be inslgniflcan~ '~F.": " pared vlth~ocher market 'factors (locaclon, 's~s, access to crans~:-- · .. ...' .- ..~: ;.'~'-t' ...~ -. '(2) Parking.and .Traffid Congesgion - Accessory a~C~n~s'are no: l~ke~y., ~o generate sufficient C[affic to .slgn~fic~ncl~ .~pact'a.single-family ." ' neiihbprhood. In ~ev Cast.l} ea~ oi e~e hou~holds occupying one '~J' ".. ..- '' · .. ~he accessory apartmenLs created ~[thin ~he ~st year s[n~ the prov{-. ' sions vere adopted posessed only one car. ~eve:; parking could beCome a problem, parClcularly in ne[ghbor~s '~arac~eri~ed by small lot sizes and/or hei~ on-str&et .parking u.se, unless adequa'te proyi- slons'are incorporated in proposed regulatio.-~. · 7 units; however~ the additional unit may or'ma;' not; be an accessory apartment pearance ~tc. In a~i ' ' 'the comun[t[es of Yorkto~, .So~rs, }[oufit ~ ~ ~o~ ~ - ' - '' Pleasant,,'Bedf°rd~ No=th Salem'an~ ~[Ce Plains have 'alrea~y"~tu~ied the quesC~o~ · · . o[.access~ ~art&encs and prepared recommended procedures and standards fOr ''"': their regulation, ~ile others are likely to follow, soon. ': .. '" "- .. .' ..',.', . _ . . ~ ~ . -. .... .. Info.aC[one.as, 'also o~ta[nea-on -.....' ...several. co~nities~ . '.' outside of Westchester, including: . Westport, Connecticut; " communities- are 'sum~r~zed {fi' the ~ar~' .-. - ~iLled Appendix I. ,'.- . · 7 -.'.': ;.: 7 : - ..... - ..... :. .. ~. .~. '/.7. .. . :: . . ~. . .. ; '=.. ...... :.:~.... - .:-:' ... .' . . .. · .. .-"- '... . . The'establis~ment of-accesSOry ap~rt.m~nt regblat~o~ shoUld ,' .of course, be ' .' policies could take the fo~m of a m~n~ipaI o~j..e[tive set for-th in ~th~ cmmu- ' '"='" .-. .. ~ ~ ....... . ~. . . . . . .~ . ,,- ~2 .... - . .. ..-[2 ...' . · _ity'~.. refuter plan or a ~tatement of municipal intent included'in acce,~ory.'. :-"'.~ . apartmen~ regulations. A good~ex~mple 0f such a statement of {nteffe ~s provided ":' in the Tom of New Ca~ie'~ provisions' a~.-fgllow,:, . '. ' '.. ' . .... ~ '- .. - ' -. i ' ;.'. '.2' - It is the specific purpose and iotenc of.allowing' accessory apartments on ~ ' '" onemfa~i!y ~:opertie, in all one-family residence district, to provide ehe ' opportun~t~ an~ encouragement for .~he develop=ent of ,ma[l~ rental housing " units designed, in par.t{cu'l~r~ ~0 meet the special housing needs of single per,on~ and 'couple~ of low and mderate 'income, both 7oung and relaClves of,families presently living ~n New Castle. Furthermore, it is -"'. the purpose and inteht' of th~'provi,~ow to'allow' the rare efficient' u,e of the Town's ex~st~ng stock of dwell~ng~ and accessory buildings, to provide " economic ~upport for present re~iden~ familie~ ~rotect and pr~erv~ propere7 value,.' .. (A copy of the Tom of New Castle's Zoning Ordinance prov{slons regulating · apartment, i, in the Appendix). ~iun[cipallties must also be mindful in designing regulations that the provisions are both workable and realistic. If provisions limit conversions to a' very. sma.il, percentage of homeo~rners, or are too. stringent. , people may igno:e' th~m (s) AZe o~ Structure - A commun£ty may wish ~o re'~trict accessor~ .... apartments to'ho~es tha~;' are'tn existence a~opte~ If not) ~un[c[pal[t[eS may fin& constructin~ ne~ s[~le-~am[ly hom~s' for ~he' purpose of conversion' ~o acco~moda[e' a secoo4 ~welling anti.' Yf one of the...,. ' .- m~icipali~),~s.object[ves {~ to.~nc'oura~e, this type of tragiC'tonal ..' ':" ..... .- two-'family style housing it' w6uld be .~re ~ppropriately limite~ to a' . ~ .... . ~radf=ional =wo-family zoning' disf=~ict rather' than a single-famil~ 2'[ "- :" '-: ' - fon,.' · .rs ..... %' ' ' :.- -' . -' .. .... · . . ,- .. ~ %.~,:.%~::f .-~. '-~...- .. .~. .': · -~ · .,;,~. ~:~.~;'. .... ; ...... · .,. · , .. .%j ...~ .f~....;~., ~ .,.~ .... · . · ..... : .. u~its but also a'deslre to 'preserve its'~lder"~nd larger housing stock. ":" '-"."-" In this case, a munlcipalit~, may. require that-the existing house"have "' .. been.built prior to. some 1.oglcall~ .determln'ed year ~:aich taflects:'local . .".. housing char. acteris[ics, 'e.g., :sin~[e-fami'ly houses bu.i. lt prior' 'to' -.- : .~.. · '1940.' We em~haslze,"however, 'that .sdch a restrictive [provision' ~ the :' = '~'.'---'~.:-" -.age.of a structure would be rare' an.d based only' on ~ery' s~ecific . . '' "';' "~ ' · mun.~cipal objective?. (Please note .tha.~ th'is report does.'no~.. necessarily .a~&ress *the conversion g~ large, °lder'-homes into '. . multi-fami, ly residences si. rice, .although some- qf thy prgvisions' in:t~is' "'..~" repo~t'may be applicable, "this ~ype-~f conversion'may require a . ":~'.''': : "' distinctive see of planning and 'zoning cr{teria based'on a potential[~ · . .. .. . .-: . .. . . · . .:. '...::.~ ~., -:... single-family neighborhood is preser~e~[, restrictions on the extent · and/or type of. ~xterlor al~efat[ohs is usual'ly a?propriate. Oma is a pro$iSion simPlY.stating th.a~ exterior changes must co,form.to the -' · single-family clnaracter of the nelgh~orhood.. An additional provision could restrlc: exterior alteratloms only to those necessary to comply'. 'with applicable health, ~uildlng and fire codes. [~ile so~e communi- ties may require a common entrance, others may permit outside [f located in the'rear of a building ez. cept on corner lots %-~ere the~ .. are usuall~ more visible.' As a rule, howa. ver,.no more than one front' .. entrance {s desirable. - 11 o the provision of. off-street parkin§ an~ aethetic's (e.g., the removal of one or several trees). If a generalized provision for "ad~quate" off- ~ - '.~reet parking is-adopted,, the availabil{t7 a~d proximity of p~btlc .. transportation and neighb6rhood'~ppearan~¢ or development, characggz- -' istics shpuld be. consideredin reviewing a specific conversion request.' " On/the other hand'a failure to provide sufficient off-s'treet pa~l~im~ .~ .. could result.in congesffion.of neighborhood streets,.trafflc '~nd safety hazards, forlvehicles and ped~strian~, create snow-removal'difficulties~ add adversely impact nilghboyhood' appearance.- {o pro}ec~neighSorho;d: : a~pearanpe,' pa~king sh6ui~ be"pr0v~ded in a fashibn ~ha~ is consistent · ! ........ . . '. · f . - ..._ . .' .~ ,.- . wlth"ghe.character .of .a.,~ingleTfamily'res~dence..- ..t' '""";'~--- ' .....'":...' '- o . , .... · .... > ~"L~.' ';.;' Z ".' '.. . .. ' ,7 . .'... .' "' t ' Water and Sewer Adequacy -'In '~he'case of properties-serve~-bY public ...' ~ater supply and sewage disposal/f~¢%liti~s, the municipality shOUld -'" 'dsc'er:sin ~he".abillty. .... of ~xi~ting systems.to acco~odate increased. '-' '_ . ". ' ...:.-~:- .. ~ - . ._ demand..Where ~rivate wells are used, thei~b~lity of. the ground ~ater'.' ".. ~"... 'table to support the 'addlti~nal draw idown s~ould be d~termined.'.'.. :. ~." '; "~',. Prlva~e s~ptic systems and prevalent sell types, must also Be"able to ' .'. handle .the expected zncrease in wa~te'materlals. The age of a private~ '' septic system and the possi}le n~ed of room'.fOr expansio~ of the.system · ".' are importan~ considerations. Depending upon. soil characteristlc~, the.. ." :.'. impact of 'effluent from undersized Or worn septic .systems on th~ ~roun~' '' .. water table can becom~ critical on lots of 1 acre ok 'less where the lot ' .' also relies on a well for its ~at~r supply. . · ~" .- ~ ' ~ -." It is our understanding that permit approval'is ~equire~ from the County ~ealth Department when an increase in the number-o~ Bedrooms is " proposed for'a residential use serviced' by'a privati Septic system.' This requirement is most applicable ~en an accessory u~ait is created , o by an addition to a single-family residence or conversion of an acres-' sory structure. In the case of a conversion within a o~e-famil~ structure, the total number of bedrooms or occupants ma~ be no g~eater than wha~ the existing septic system was designed to accon=~odate. For conversions, therefore, a municipality may wish to consu!t'with the Codnty Health Department wheh a potential problem is indicated. I? 13 - established ?acterns of relevant use 'variance requests Cevidencc o£ ne~h~orhoo~ cr~n~s or har~shlp)~ - style and. age of existing single-f~mily housing stock (ease of " con:erslon; need for increased maintenance o£ olde: .housing stock); - age"and household-size characteristics of slngIe~fami~ ~e~idence property o~mers (concentrations of underutilized housing space); - si~nlfican: difference between coat, on.lot sizes and ~rontages from izoning district area requlrement~; . -'adequacy of ~ater facilities; - availability of on-street parkinE a~ public transportation ~here' .~:develop~en:' characteristics preclude.additional off-street parking; ~.'..'~;pre~ale~ce'of adaP:iSle accessory structures such 'as garages or ~arns ':in area~ of large-lot zoning. : - · The extent of the nee~ for da~a ~a~herlng and analysis will vary ~y munici- pality depending on :he homogenity vs. he:erogenitX of the population and housing stock; the number ang nature of residen:ial zoning.districts, etc. Nonetheless, the importance of formulating ,unlcipal ojbectives and regulations on the ~asls of local housing characteristics and needs cannoC ~e overemphasized. " VI. TYPES OF REGULATIONS Several procedural methods are available co regulate accessory apartments. ~;hile some methods are generally superior.co others, the appropriate type for a given municipality may depend on community characteristics (e.g. size, housing types), rather then number of or ~rends in sln§le-~aaily conversions, or ocher unique charac~erlstlcs. 'These m~thods include: Permitted Use By Right. - This approach, 'which per=its an accessory 17 Use ~ari~nce -A.ccordlng to the recent su~ey of the' Trl-Stat~ .. Retional Planning Commission) some cc,~i,unities handle ~ccessory " apartments as use variance ~eques~s revle~ by ~he zoni~ bol~'ol ' :' appeals on a case-by-case basis~ ~is ~thod can ~ crltlci~et ~ ~he ... Srounds 'that the' typical ~oni~ o~dlnlnc~ ~oes not ha~e. ~i~i~' provisions relevan~ Co Con~r0ltln~' conv~rrlons. In ~ lo~k i~ ~lt .. also appear :o ~ diifi'~ul: for an appltcan~ to prove ~he'~ec~sa~ "' . property, failure' ~o '~eallze a reasonable economic re~u~ by ~'" p~i~ted use and' ,~,~,~iii~ vi:h ~ei[hborhood' '~aracter;~'"t ~e ...... A use variance ~an:ed for an accessory apart~nm~ ~uld llkely~ .... '" -- hovever~ ~e based on a personal hardship raC~er Chart clc~msCanc~-or , ' characCerlsClcs 'rela~d to ~h'~ property i~self. ~erefoce~ tlven ACs ' ve~ li~iied applicaCiou, it should no: ~ conslae:ed an ~ccep~a~le method' :o regulate uses ~ich ate ~p:opria:e in i p~r:icula~ a~ea or'~'''''' to accomplish social obi~c:i~is establishM by municipal ~llc. y.' ' ''" No ~CCer. ~ic~ Procedural '~tnlsa' is ~s~a~llshet, ~hi ~o~n:C of : macerlal required for submi~'si~n by ~he applican~ ~hould ~ llmic~ Co thaC n~cces'sary fo~ the reviewing agent to ~ke a proper (e.~., site .a~d floor plans~.p~oper~ su~ey, etc.) In the c,~ proposed structural alteration or buil'dln& ~dltions, building p}rmiC procedures must also be adher~ Co. "' :._ .. " ... · ' :.-r ' .. .. ~ ' · .' ' ' · '-'.. . i . ~ .. T~A~NT BY ~STCHESTER CO'UNIT{ES IN. ~E ·ABSENCE OF PROVISIONS ACCESSORY APARTMENTS - The approach taken b.v man~ co~munltles vith r~spec~ to unreco, rded. acctssor~ units can be divided into too =aior catcgorle's, i.e., elcher to overlook their existence or to vigorously pursue the elimination of illegal ~nits. In the c~se of '%enlgn neElec~", the ~unicipalit~ usually responds to"a neighbor's c~plaln~ or some other incldenK. In ~ny cases~ this approach stems from the ~llcf this' ky~ of-uniC meets the' need of local ho~ouners or is an incvltable response · 19 -.APPENDIX · ..: - . '_ .o . : ', O0 .; -I O0 fl, ...- available to lower '~he cost of ~riva~e financing for these improvements. Owner occupants of buildings containing one-to-four Low 'income owhers .~' be eligible for.non-repay~bl~ .under .the We~tchester cOdperatlve weatherizatlon Program,' :the federal' .goyernmen~' provides for funds ~or low-to-moderate inco~ property' owners for m~erials and for labor {C~T~) for ~atherlzation ~ .- ;improvements to one-to-fo~r family units'locat~ in W~stches:er'..~- -.. ~ . r · ' · ' ' '. ..... ~: ' " .... ' . Contact: ~e~tche~ter Co-Op ~atheri~&t~on Prog[am. . ..' .... .... 17 Wyomin~ Acenue'.. -.- ..::.:' ~ite Plains~.New York 10601 · . ..... '- (oL4) ' - · : 948-3960" '~ ':' Munlclpa~[tles may develgp their o~ incentive programs ~hroug~ :he ' ';'" use 9f one or mo~e fe~rall7 ~ugd. ed'~programs ava~labie at the ~ime. ' In Plainfield, New J~rse used' a c~binatlon 0f Sectidn~ , .. .. - . . .. Section 312 and demonstration' grant f~nding for the conversion o~ 3. -. .' oneT[~il7 ho~,e,. ~ mnie~palit7 ~ade th~ r~pa~rs.~nd granted the.. homeowner an interest free loan to re¢~ exchange~ the'homeowners agreed ~o acqepr a qu~lifled needy tenan~ from the li~t of pro~e~tive tenan[~ maintained by the'To~. The To~ ' o~ BabTlon~ Long I~Iand; [nrend~ owners willing to legalize existing conversions to aid in th~ costs of upgrading a structure ~o the To~'s standards. Fundlng'is to'be .. ' provided through the use ~f the Town's Co~unity Develp~n: ~loCk Grant funds. Under ~os~ mnicipal loan programs, collected r~nies are placed in a revolving fund co finance additional conversions. 29 60-417 .~. · '. A~PBNDIX %II ACCESSORY AP;[RTMENT ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS . · TOWN OF NEW CASTLE- ' · ' in.one-f~m'ily res£dance distr~cts It : Ac. cessoz-f ap.~ rtments . . ' is the .specific purpose mhd intent of.allowing' ~ccesso~'~par~,ents on one-family properties in all one-f~mily 'residence .districts to '. provide the opportunity and encouragement for the deve!opmen~ of ".'.: ..small, rental housing units designed, in pa~uicular, to meet the . ". . special housing 'n~eds' of iin~ie persons aqd couples' of. loe. ~na' " ' "' ~odermte income, bot~ young mhd aid, and of relatives of · ' -. fa~lias presently livi~ .in .New. Castle. Furthermore, it '~s. the ~,... -. purpose and intent of this provision to allow .the more efficient... .- use. of the Town'~ existing st°6k of.dw~llin~s..'mnd 'ac~.es~ory .bui!~&' ings, to provide .~conomic .support for present resident ,families...; ' of limited income, and to ·protect and preserve property'V~lues-.'~ ..To help uchieve, these goals and to promote the-other o~jectives ['..' ..... of_this. Chapter ~nd of the Tow~ Plan, the fol!owing.s~ecific.. '. . · .. · . '.. ' . ~'f' '.' standards .~e s~t forth fOr'such ~ccesso~ ~par~ent'.uses.: .: .... . ........ · .-. _ .'% . ... . . '~.: '.. ...-.. .... . '- :~ -.'% · . ~': ~ '.'" -'. . ... B0--A17iS1..Owner occupant-re~tlre . T~{e o%.;ner(~) 6f the one-- family lo~ upon.which-the'mccesso~'~P~rtmen% is'located sh~l: ~'" occupy" ut least ol%e '(1) Df 'the dwelling units en'kh~ pre~s'~s. .- .. *- . · .. · .. .. .. - . .' . .... f-.-. :~: -... 60-4~ .52'. Locution. on ~hu .lot~- An' accesso~ .upur.tment may lochS'ed either.' in the p~incipal dwelling ~ui!ding~ oF:in an'A:~'~'- mc6~sso~ building, . provided Such' accesso~ ~uilding. e:.:ist~d .. ' '.'~ior-'to july 1~ 1979' ~nd conforms. with .the"-other re~%ire~ .- -. ments of this. chmpter'~ unless,a variance ~%:erefor shall 60-417.53. .Apartment size. The minimum floor area for an :- ac~:esso~. ~p~rtment wikhi~. ~ pri~qipa.1, dwe~!ing bRilding_.shg.!l be three-hundred (300) square feet, but in no case sh~ll 'es:cecal twentY-five percen~ (25~,) of the area of the ""'~ building in which it i% locoteO, unless, in the. opinion, of " hha plnnning Bo=rd, ~·greater or lesser amount of floor area is warranted by the specific circumstznces o~ 'the particu!:r building. For accesso~f mportm=nts !cc~ted in existing uccusso~ buildings, the minim, mt flgor ;~r,=;~ d]~;~!l nl:so be three-hunared (300) =qu=re fee= per ~pmrtmen= and there be no more than two..(2) bedrooms per ~ 60-.417.54. Humber ,~{' :~c¢:cssory nportments per !ok. There bc no moro t,...j% ~,.: (%) ,necessary nUartmcn~ one-f,nmily buil,.~[n,.! 1o~, cxccp~ in the cnsc of'.u lo% which 31 " GLOSSARY · ACCESSORY APARTMENT - ~ ~wel~ing unit which ~s subordinate to a perm{tte~ pr[nc{p91 oneTfam[ly res.{dence use ~n t~rms of s~ze, locat{on, and appearance land located,on the same lot. therewith. (Note: ~[s definition may be .base''on ~n[c[pal oBject'yes, Co allow only conversions ~[~h[a convers'[ons of 'accessory' bu[ld[nss) .... · .... .... --....... ~- . . AC~SSORY BUILDING - A building.subordinate {n area, extent, or pd=pose ~o the pr[nc{pal bu[ld[n[ on the sama lot and used for purposes cus~o~r~ly BUILDING"-A strucEure,' of ~re or less ~rmanent construc~{on,'hav[n=.a roof- and [ntende4 to b6.us&d for 'shel.~er[9~ peo~le,'.animal% or property...'.~..': .D~LLING -k bu~l~[ns' con=a[nin~ ~ne or ~re ~well[n[ un,ts. ~.j:'.~:' .o · : -DWELLING UNIT 'A building or portion thereof 'providing complete-hsu'&ekeep'ing'.. ' ...:: · .\. , facillti~s' for ona .family, .inc. ludlng ~ndepeddent cooking,: sanitary..and, sleeping · : .':,.~ facilities and physically separate and/or providing separate; access 'fr~ any... " other dwelling unit ~ether or hot 'in the same building.- ' .": '~-- ~ .": '-". .. .' ~.: --' .."... · PRINCIPAL BU!LDNG - A' b~ildln~ in which is C6nduc~ed the prlncip~l.dse'of th~' lo~ on ~%ich such building is situated.. - 33 Me'~ropoli'mn Council ' 300 Metro Square Building $~venl:h and Robert S~.ree'~s ' St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 1983 TO: k!l Interested Persons FROM:' James Uttley, Local ?1arming Assistance $.~C7: MeetLnE to Discuss' Accessory Apartments The ,~a¥ 17 PLANNERS' FORUM, spon.sored by the Metropolitan Council, will focus on plz.-n~ing and zoning issues associated with accessory apartments and the F~nne$ota Housing Finance Agency's accessory apartment demonstration program. The forum will b~ held at the Metropolitan Council, at 300 Metro Square Building, Seventh and Robert Streets, in downto~ St..Paul, and. Will-begin'at 9:00 a.m. . ...... · The purpose'of'the PLANNERs', FORUM is .to provide'area planners,' zoning administrators,"~A'staff, and other interested per~ons 'with the. oppOrtunity to comment'.on ~uch things as eligibi~ity re~u~rements.fo~ .the.M~FA relationship to' local zoning and housing codes, role of the local, program .administrabors, possible relationships with other 'not-for-profit'prgznizations and neiDhborhood groups, aud possible marketing strategies to specific' population groups such as the elderly, single-parent homeowners or first-time buyers. .. The forum ~ill feature: Chuck Ballentine, Metropolitan Council housing pr0gr~m staff person; Ma?y Tinge~tha!, directo~ of the MHFk'$ home improvement - divislou; ~nd Mary.Louise Poquette,'~'A consultant. Ballentine-.~ll present :he flndLu~ :nd conclusions of the A~4 Housing Technical Advisory Committee Report, 193~ on Accessory Housing that he helped ~rite. Tinaecthal Poquette will discuss-an ~5-page M~FA report, ,An A n~!ysi~ of the Market and Economic Fea~ibility of Accessory Apartmgnts in Minnesota," and the proposed demoustration.'program- RSVP to Irene Massman at 291i6415. jPU:in PROPOSAL FOR.RECYCLING PROGRAM TYPE OF PROGRAM: Curbside with monthly pick-up by a hired hauler, to collect newspaper, aluminum and other cans and glass, to start April 20, 1985, with pick-up on the 3rd Wednesday of successive months. MANAGEMENT: Coordination is to be handled by an Advisory Board answerable to the City Manager. Advisory Board will be madeup of interested local citizens, appointed by the City Manager, with a City Council liason and representation from the Task Force on Recycling. The president of the Advisory Board is Chief Executive Officer. FUNDING: Initial Starting Costs = $1,5OO.OO Promotion General Mailing 300.00 Logo Contest 100.OO Posters & Printing for Gen. Mailing 300.00 Educational Materials for school involvement 200.00 TOTAL PROMOTION Legal Fees (City Attorney for contract with hauler) 200.00 Drawing Up Bids ~ 1OO.OO Fee for Notice to Solicit Bids & Miscellaneous 1OO.OO Kick Off Program 200.00 GRAND TOTAL $go0.o0 $1,5OO.O0 Reoccurring Costs, per month Hauler (Each quote if for one a month pick-up) Non-profit Firm Profit Firm $300.00 $500.00 67.00 67.00 17.OO 17.00 $384.00 $584.00 SOURCES: Grant from Hennepin County if necessary, add surcharge to water/sewer bill. Mailing, twice year ($400.@) Yearly school update ($200.) DUTIES OF ADVISORY BOARD: To meet as necessary for the development and implementation of the program, and at least every six months. To research and develop funding for years beyond the grant availability. To develop other waste management components, such as plastics, batteries, metal objects, composting of yard wastes, etc. · 'CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION FOR BING6' PERMIT · (~If an organization, gave .organization n,,'... 3~ B~ngo Manager (Name) 'O~_. ~' ' . ' .. -. .-... ~'; AddreSs of where Bingo will be played "? ": "'-.. '";'.. · ' '" ' ' "... .'. 5~, Dates and HOU=S Bing'o will be pla~ed ~)~'~' :/. '- . : .. .. .:.::~.'~a ~...... .~...'. .... . .....- ..:.. . ,. :..: , :.,., .... .-.:. (Attach..se.garate sheet' if mor~ ~oom necessary).. - · - :-. · ~ .~ . ~. .. .':~ .. i;i '"'': ..... i .. :. ; .,-, ' ..... 6....Is. Licen%e Fse' attached?. Yes, , N~. Am6Unt': ' ... .... '" ~ -..t ": ..'i.''..-:j. . · ' - '-- ' 7. F~deli~y Bond:' ~ " 'i""" '''~: -. '' ['. "'' . .~ . ! ~.':~ . : . : . ~ ~. ' ' ' ' ~" - ' ":', ' . ' ' ". ,' , I ~ ~ ' . :"'"" ' ;. ..~ ' "'~b}.' ~am~ of Bon~n~ eom~ny ... .: ~ ,'.-: ~..:'':6rganizat'ion's may reques.t the Bond t~ be waived. .. ; - ' : Please, indicate below if you are making .such a request'-'- Si of person making appl~cati FROM:. ' SUBJECT: INTEROFFICE MEMO · DAT~E Jon Elam, City Manager Len Harrell, Chief of Police Intersection at County Road 125 and Tuxedo Blvd. September 20,19 On September 19, 1984, I met with Gary Rielander of the Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation to discuss some modifications for improving the intersection of County Road 125 at Tuxedo Blvd. We discUssed .putting in a concrete median where t~e present posts are anchored in the road.. The median would keep vehicles from cutting across eastbound Cty. Rd. 125 when making a 'left .turn from northbound'Tuxedo Blvd. Mr.-Reilander advised that a new cement median would be too costly, but stated that he would recommend that a "right of median" sign be 'installed for northbound Tuxedo Blvdo We then discussed adding a stop sign and informational sign at the curve of southwest Cty. Rd. 125 at Tuxedo.Blvd. Mr. Rielander's first reaction was that the sign was not needed, but. he sta~ed he would pull the traffic statistics for the intersection before making a final decision. We then discussed what the City could do-on Tuxedo Blvd. at Cty. Rd. 125 to slow ~raffic northbound through the intersection. It was agreed that adding a stop sign and am informational s'ign would help. Mr. Rielander also suggested adding a double yellow line to the center of Tuxedo Blvd. to enforce vehicles driving around the median to the right. Also suggested was a solid white "STOP" line even with the stop sign at Tuxedo Blvd. and Cry. Rd. 125. Mr. Rielander stated that he would inform me of the county's decision on additional signing after'some further study. SUE says: '~PONSOR A PAYMENT BOX liT LEADING RETAIL AREAS, 'our Name Is Here 'our Go Here four Key Joes Here BECA USE WE LIKE PA YING liT .4 CONVENIENT PLACE ~ND SA VING MONEY, TOO.' STARTER MODELS Payment Centers are: Engineered, Manufactured, Located, Rented, Serviced by: American Payment Centers, Inc. Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A. Telephone AC 612 Paterlts Applied for © American Payment Centers 1980 PAYMENT® CENTERS SUE advises, "RESPOND TO THIS CONSUMER NEED, AND YOU'LL IMPROVE YOUR... GOODWILL, CASHFLOW, and EFFICIENCY." (no postage cost) Serving: UTILITY FIRMS Electric Companies Natural Gas Dist. Water Utilities Telephone Companies Cable TV Firms RETAILERS Department Stores Ladies Apparel Stores Men's Clothing Stores Furniture Stores (free and easy access) (no clerking) MEDICAL FIRMS Medical Doctor Clinics Dental Groups & Clinics Hospitals Radiologists Chiropractor Clinics FINANCE ORGANIZATIONS Banks & I. Dan Co's. Saving & Loan Firms Insurance Companies Credit Unions SERVICE COMPANIES Fuel Oil Distributors ~ YOU can Softwater Suppliers ~ be sure it's Property Management a. tow cost, .Companies Newspapers b. Post Office Garbage Disposal Co's. approved, United Way Funds C. practical, d. professional. SPECIFICATIONS cap body QUALITY CABINETS 1. Over 500 envelope holding capacity. 2. Fourteen gauge steel for security. 3. Trash catching entry guard. 4. Piano hinged door for tightness. 5. Flame retardant surfaces (Imron). 6. Shielded maze to stop wrongful entry. 7. Self-closing for oxygen/tire limits. 8. Wire lined to prevent liquid damage. IAttractive and distinctive design of the all steel cabinet that is welded securely without screws IEasy access for: Men, Women, Handicapped, EXTERIOR [] INTERIOR [] ALWAYS SECURELY AFFIXED TO EXISTING REAL ESTATE. IOptional Super-large Payment Boxes are included. Customer Cit~ of Mound AMERICAN PAYMENT CENTERS Telephone ~12 - 2s3.3044 Saint Cloud, Minnesota STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY CHARGES FOR PAYMENT CENTER DROP-BOXES Sponsor Rent $25.00 per month per location Rental Agreements shall include the following: 1. Identified steel cabinet and Drop-Box, 2, Consistent maintenance and renovation, 3. Mishap Liability Protection for the public, 4. Indemnity Policy for Cash Losses. Rents are payable quarterly, in advance, 10th/month following invoice. Termination of Payment Center Drop-Box may be made by Sponsor giving ninety-day notice to APC, after the first six months of service. Rents may be adjusted from the above schedule due to site expense. OPTIONAL GOODS AND SERVICES Registered Lock ................. $18.00 each Lock or Name Change ........... $16.00 each Framed Description .............. $ 6.50 each Collection Bags: Additional Keys .................. $ 7.50 pair 7x10 Duck, w/lock .......... $19.70 each Envelope Stuffers ................ $.~ M 9xll Nylon, w/zipper ....... $ 4.85 each Message Plate, 31/4x51/2'' . .......... 41 Itr. Payment Forwarding Service ....................................... Telephone office for quotation RENTAL AGREEMENT Date Please provide '~ Paymentbox located in the below listed Payment Centers. We agree to accept keys, pay key deposit and commence rent payments beginning with the date service is initiated. We further agree to advise our patrons of the availability of our Box at the-Payment Center. If for any reason service does not become available at a specific Payment Center, all monies shall be refunded in the same manner they were collected. If for any reason lessee does not desire to commence with the lease of Paymentbox after placing an order, three months rent shall be forfeited. Signed Title ' IDENTIFICATION Please identihj our Payment Center Drop-Box as follows: I I I Idzl~ IolH I]~old~l I I I I I I I IIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIII III 'LOCATION Please locate our Drop-Box at the following Payment Center: when advi ned 2320 Commerce Boulevard, Mound *APC reserves the right to change Pm't. Ctr. locations as traffic, usage, and sponsors desire. QUOTATION: [] To be billed quarterly Optional Goods and Services Date 9/I 1/8~ Rent for 1 Payment Center Drop-Box ........................... $ 1 6.67/month Refundable Key Deposit for Pm't. Ctr. Drop-Box..~ ...... $ /_~)~0.00//~each box APC 102.82 (~) American Payment Centers, Inc. 1978 ! l-- '-- FOLD Want to save postage? Use our complimentary Payment Ctr. Drop-Box, Located at: 6th Avenue and The Mall Germain, downtown Saint Cloud. AMERICAN PAYMENT CENTERS POST OFFICE BOX NO. 353 ST. CLOUD, MN 56302-0353 FOLD AND STAPLE INDEMNITY POLICY FOR CASH LOSSES American Payment Centers shall indemnify all losses of cash resulting from the breaking and entry of a Payment Center Drop-Box placed an.,d oXw~l~by this Company, subject to the following conditions: 1. The liability of American Payment Centers shall be limited to the sum of $1,500. for each breaking and entry incident, and $150.00 for each debtor suffering a cash loss. 2. This Indemnity Policy for Cash Losses shall remain in force while the Sponsor is in good standing. We reserve the right to verify the validity of all breaking and entry incidents, and the claims resulting therefrom. 3. No losses shall be honored after initial discovery of the breaking and entry. Upon being notified, American Payment centers shall restore the "service" with new components and reinstate the Indemnity Policy for Cash Losses protection. CITY OF MOUND . Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING AND.MARINA AT 2670 COMHERCE BOULEVARD - PID 23~117-24 14'000~ NOTICE IS HEREBY' GIVEN that on Tuesday, November 13, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall,. 5341Maywood Road,.Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hold a hearing on the'application for a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Dwelling and Marina at 2670 Commerce Boulevard (Property presently known as the Surfside Restaurant) and 'legally described as follows: Unplatted 23 117.24 - Commencing at a point in the east line of Lake Avenue in the plat of Mound. Bay Park distant 200 feet south along same from south line of Chapman Place than east 13~'feet parallel with said Chapman Place than south parallel with.east line of Lake Avenue to lake shore than west along lake shore to east line of Lake avenue than northerly to beginning.. PID 23-117-24 14 0009 Ali persons appearing at said-hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk ,!~. ..... ?~ [ MOUND H AUG - 719~t! !/ -- : ~,UG 3 0 ,~,.~ ~' ~ ,~ ~ ........................... ~- ~ ' ~-~D ~,~t~se~t~p'e'the'-,fO'llowing information) 1. Street Address of Property 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition Case Fee Pal d Date Filed 3t' Owner's Name -~1~.~ 'Address ~r~ ~o~rTlr~ ~-J~"'( ~'/''~'~ ' \~'~ (~ ~t~ ~0 \ 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name or'~J'~C~,~~/~ ~C~t~L~I~ Day Phone No. ~'~"' ~ '~%q~ ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit (~)*Other ( ) Variance ~x~) Conditional Use Permit (~) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. Address 4~C~ Type of Request: 6.. 7. 8. *If other, specify: . Present Zoning District ~2~ -- \ Existing Use(s) of Proper~y 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 and provide Resolution No.(s) ~-~'z.--~ ~u, ~ "~%-~q-~ Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that ali 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 I~y law._~_~~ ~-~~ignature of Applicant Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date Tha~ part of Subdivision 2 of Lot.1,.'Pl.at"~of·' '" Subdivisions~ Two (2) , Three (3)..and'Four .(4) ' '" · of Lot 1, Section 23, Township 117 Northl, Range 24 West described as follows:' · Commencing'~t point .in the Easterly line of Lake Avenue as shown in the plat of Mound Bay Park, at,a . point'206 feet Southerly alo.ng.said line.':fr~'"'~· °. its intersection with the Southerly line of '' Chapman Avenue, also 'known a.s Chapman 'Place'; 'thence Easterly paral~.el .with .the ' Southerly : line of Chapman Avenue a distance of 135~i£eet; .. thence. Southerly' parallel with'~he..Eas.terly ' line of. Like Avenue to the Lake Shore; {'~Hence ..'.'::. Westerly. along said 'Lake ·Shore..l'ine to :its' ·. .. 'intersection with the. Easterly. !ine:o.f .Lake .... beginnipg; Avenue ·.'extended"; t. hence Northerly 'along. the line of Lake ~venue extended"to the~.poi..n,.%'~of .... ':[" FrOcedure for Conditional Use Permit (2) Case # ,TY,,- $,_cJ-' 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 Conditional Use A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Conditional Use (Specify): ~¥x~-i'l~ ~Xr~I-J-~,.~ ~C 2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound C. Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule 'shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ D. Density (for residential developments only): 1. Number of structures: 2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. Number of type: Efficiency. 2 Bedroom Lot area per dwelling unit: 1 Bedroom 3 Bedroom I'Z_G ! IV. Effects of the Proposed Use A. List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taI~en to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case if , ~/y -3.'- ~ Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate North compass direction Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill. Request for a Zonin9 Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part !1, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. Does the present use of the property conform to all use re-gUlations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No (X) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: < 'r tu c1 tt£ -Fo Do the existing structures comply with all area hei~ and bulk for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ) No ( If "no", specify each non-conforming use: ~eg~ations Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? IX 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 (x~) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a varibnce peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes .~ No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affecte 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 plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.~:~ .;, I. Will grantihg of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of' this ordinance? BUILDING AREAS CHAPMAN PLACE COOKS BAY - LAKE MINNETONKA MOUND, MINNESOTA UNIT TYPE AREA (APPROX.) lllE 2 Bedroom 1,271 S.F. l12A 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. ll3A 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. ll4A 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. ll5G 2 Bedroom 1,127 S.F. 116 Commons - ll7C 2 Bedroom + Den 1,288 S.F. ll8A 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. ll9A 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 20A 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 12lA .1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 122F 3 Bedroom 1,390 S.F. 211E 212A 213A 214A 21 5A 21 6C 217C 21 8A 21 9A 220A' 221A 222F 2 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom + Den 2 Bedroom + Den 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 311E 312B 31 3B 314B 315B 316D 317D 31 8B 31 9B 320B 321B 322F Bedroom Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz BR/Den/Mezz BR/Den/Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom TOTAL NET AREA: Ground Level (Parking) Fi rst Level Second Level Third Level Mezzanines TOTAL GROSS AREA: 1,271 S.F. 911 S.F. 911 S.F. 911 S.F. 911 S.F. 1,288 S.F. 1,288 S.F. 911 S.F. 911 S.F, 911 S.F. 911 S.F. '. 1,390 S.F. 1,27t S.F. 1,191 S.F. 1,1 91 S.F. 1,191 S.F. 1,1 91 S.F. 1 ,56O S.F. 1 ,560 S.F. 1 ,1 91 S.F. 1 ,1 gl S.F. 1,1 91 S.F. 1 ,1 91 S.F. 1,390 S.F. 39,287 S.F. 23,490 S.F. 15,919 S.F. 15,919 S.F. 15,919 S.F. 2,794 S.F. 74,041 S.F. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of August 30, 1982: Ca. se No. 82-141 Board of Appeals Case No. 82-141 Location: 4913 Island View Drive Legal Desc.: Lot 14, Block'14, Devon' Request: Variance for non-conforming lot & structure to place an attached garage 18 ft. to 20.3 ft.' from the street. Zoning District: R-2 Applicant: Kevin James Hetchler 4913 Island View Drive Phone: 472-4770 The applicant is requesting to Place an attached garage 18 feet to 20~3 feet from Island View Drive. The house size is 704'iquaYe'feet~.required is 840 square fee~. The lot size is 4,062± square feet; required is 6,000 square feet. The structure is 5.5 'feet from the southwest property line.and li.l feet on the northeast; required is 6, and 6 foot and )0 foot. The maximum size of.an accessory build.ing is 10~ of the lot area or 406 square feet. RECOMMEND: I would recommend granting the variance due to a hardship of lot size and the shape of the lo~. The garage addition will be offset to conform to the 6 foot sldeyard minimum setback. The lots to either side are built on at the present time. Enclosed and off street parking are desirable as Island View is a 15 foot right-of- way with designated no parking. Possibly the proper sizing of the structure to the lot size should be considered. This will be.going to the Council' September 14, 1982. Jan Bertrand Building Official CASE NO. 83-243 SePtember 2], 1~8~ Councilmember Ulrick moved the following resolution. .RESOLUTION NO. 82-250 'RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GRANT A VARIANCE TO PLACE AN ATTACHED GARAGE 18 FEET TO 20.3 FEET FROM ISLAND VIEW DRIVE - LOT .14, BLOCK 14, DEVON - PID #25-117-24 11 0043 WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 14, Block 14,.Devon, PID #25-117-24 11 0043, has appl!ed for a variance to erect an attached garage 18 feet to 20.3 feet from 'the street, and WHEREAS, t'he'alternative tO gran'ting this variance is to have a. detached ga.rage that is only. required to be setback 8 feet'from the street wi.th a side entrance, and WHEREAS, because of'topography the detached garage would be more ~f~a 'hazard, and .. ' WHEREAS, · the Planning Commission. has approved the variance'as reque%ted.'" .NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCI[ OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA.: That.the Council does hereby, concur with the planning Commission recommendation and approves the 18 fett to 20.3 feet va'rlance from the street to enable the 6wner of Lot 14;,' Block 14, Devon, to build an attached garage. A motion'for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Swenson and'upon'vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon~, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; the following vOted against the same: nooe; with. Councilmember Polston being absent; whereupon :said resolution was declared passed and adopted,.signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the 'City Clerk, Mayo~ / Attest: City Clerk Septembe'r 27, 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 83-162 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMIT OF RESOLUTION ~82-250 AND AMENDMENT RESOLUTION $83-139 TO SEPTEMBER 21, 1984 W~REAS, on September 21, 1982, the City Council did adopt Resolution #82-250 which granted a variance to place an attached garage 18 feet to 20.3 feet ~rom Island View Drive on Lot 14, Block 14, Devon (PID # 25-117-24 11 0043); and WHERF33, on August 9, 1983, the City Council m~ended the above resolution by adopting Resolution #83-139, and WHEREAS, according the the City Code Section 23.506.2,(5), states that variance 'permits shall expire if they have not bben used or erected, as the case may be, within, one year after the date of issuance, and WHEREAS, the owner of this property has now requested an .extension of the variance request 'in Resolution #82-150 for one year in order to construct his garage in the Spring of 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant an extension of one year (until September 21, 1984, of Resolution #82-250 and ~mendin~ Resolution ~83-139 as requested. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember ?aulsen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in ~he affirmative: Charon, Jessen, ?aulsen, ?eterson and Polston. The foliowing Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk CERTIFICATE. OF SURVEY ~OR: /'¢'~vm y ~.ya¢ Z~/,'~ .' 4¢/3 ~~ ~ ~r,'~e) ~o~d, ~ CASE NO. 83-243 vot~ T,HonsenL~ nor,p, & Pellinen, Inc. Consulting Engineers - Land Surveyors -- Site Planners ?406 Mitchell R~,~Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 .13907 Spring Lake Rd.. Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 938-5678 I hereby certify that this survey, prepared by me or under my direct super- vision, is a true and correct representation of the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any,. from or on said land and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under State of Minnesota Statutes Section 326.0:2 to 326.16. , ~,/o/' Date: 3 ~P/ Registration No ~ Z ?4 ~ ~'(~ JobNo. ~/-/~0 Book- Page P-6~. Scale /"-- NOA3Q ~ CASE NO. 83-243 ! I I° RESOLUTION NO. 84 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-229 RESOLUT'ION'.TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF LOST LAKE'ADDITION WHEREAS,. ~he final ~'plat of Lost-.Lake Addition has been submitted in the manner required for platt.i:dg~6fi,land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 22.00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings hove been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, said Plat is in all respects consistent with the City .plan and the regulations and requirements of'the laws of the State of Minnesota.and Ordinances of the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has suggested that some changes to be incorporated into this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: A. Plat approval requested for Lost Lake Addition is apprpved upon compliance with the following requirements: 1.. As per final plat '.'Exhibit-A". Per requirements~set'i:forth in-Resolution 83-124, or as subsequently amended by motion, appro¥ing the preliminary plat of Lost Lake Sub- division. ' Escrow fund is to be established in the amount"of $3,600. Pursuant to:the City of Mound.Resolution No. 72-433, the Park dedi- ccation and open space requirements for the subdivision are satisfied. Se Furnish the City with a performance, bond in the amount.of $130,344. to cover 125~ of. the estimated cost for grading, watermain, streets, sanitary sewer, etc.; all in conformance wlth'the Ci.ty plans and specifications before t.he.final plat is signed by the City at the sole expense of the subdivider and in conformance with Chapter 22. of the City Code; .or if, in lieu of the developer making improve- ments, the City Proceeds to.install any o~"all, of. said improvements, under the provi.sions o£ Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State statutes, the above mentioned corporate surety bond shall guarantee payment In full by the develope~ of the costs of said improvements upon. completion and assessment of the improvement. Driveway 'access to Lots 1 through 19 will be provided from the newly platted Lost Lake Road. Current validation of any State, County:or local permit?approval such as Minnehaha Creen Watershed, State Health Department, Hennepin County Department of Transportation, etc. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-229 RESOLUTION NO. 84 RESOLUTION'TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF LOST LAKE ADDITION WHEREAS,· the final plat of Lost ·Lake Addi. tion has been submitted in the manner required for platting of!land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 22.00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on ~uly 19, 1983 with due and proper notice with an extension to file said plat granted on May 3, 1983, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all.respects, conslstent with the City.plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota.and Ordinances of the City of Mound, and into NOW, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has suggested that some changes to be incorporated this resolution. //~ ~ . A. Plat approval requested for Lo~l~Lake Addition is approved upon compliance With the following requirements~x~ ' ' · · 1-. As per final plat '.'Exhib~ A'I.~ / ' 2. Per requiremen~s.'set.'for~-Re~ion 83-124, or as subsequently amended by matin, a~rov..in~th~liminary plat of Lost Lake Sub- 3 Escr~ fund ist~,b~¥at b tablish~d in the amount' Of $3,600 4. Pursuant· to the C~ty~Mound .Resolution No. 72-433, the Park dedi- .-cation and open sP~Ce ~uirements for the subdivision are satisfied. 5. Furnish t~City wi~~ a performance· bond in the amount.of $130,344. ' to cover 1~% of the~estimated cost for grading, watermain, streets, sanitary sew~, e~c~all in ConfOrmance with the Ci~y plans and specification~re ~he.final plat is signed by the City at the sole expense of~sub~ivlder and in conformance with Chapter 22. of the City Cod~__~, in lieu of the developer making improve- ments, the City proceeds to install any or a11. of said improvements, under the provisions of. Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State Statutes, the above mentioned corporate surety bond shall guarantee payment in full by the developer of the costs of said improve~nts upon completion and assessment of the improvement. 6. Driveway access to Lots 1 through 19 will be provided from the newly platted Lost Lake Road. e Current validation of any State, County=or local permit approval such as Minnehaha Creen Watershed, State Health Department, Hennepin County Department of Transportation, etc. 8. Signing of the Developer's Contract establishing performance and requiring' that the date of completion of utilities .and streets be' set at a date not later than the first anti. cipated date of issuance of first cert. ificate of.occupancy. If such certificate is antici- pated, to be issued during the.winter months, construction must be completed by November. 3Oth. 'Said Development Contract shall.be Exhib.it "B" and in no event shall Development Contract exceed one year. 9. City AttorneY's title opinion approval. 10. All construction"plans:, Exhibit "C", shall meet the requirements of the City Engineer and his recommendation letter of September 11, 1984. Be That the City'Clerk ls'~hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to-the above named. Owners and Subdividers after completion of the requirements for their use as required by M.S.A. 462.358. That the Mayor and City Manager'.are hereby aut'horized to execute the certificate of.approval on behalf of the City Council' upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. De This final plat shal. 1 be filed and recorded within 60 days of the signing .of the hard shells'by the.Mayor and City.Manager in accordance with Sec- tion 22.00 of.the City Code and shall be recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution with one copy .being 'filed with the City of Mound. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that such execution.of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager'shall be. conclusive.showing of pFoper compliance therewith by the Subdivider and City. Officials and shall'entitle such plat to be.placed on record forthw~th without-further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the Ordinances of the City. MOUND APPLI'C-ATI'ON FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER '~t~ /,-. (.,, 1 C.,- 0 CASE NO. 83-229 PLAT FEE $ PARCEL Northerly part of .pID'24-117-24 22 0018 Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: To be divided as follows: THAT PART OF THE N 637.5 FT OF LOT B NLY EXT OF THE S LINE OF LOT OF THE N 637.5 FT OF LOT 34 AUD SUBD S LINE OF LOT 13 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D SUBD NO 170 DES AS FOLLO~S BEG AT THE SAID AUD SUED NO 170 HITH THE WLY EXT HILLS UNIT O TH ON AN ASSUHEO BEARINS 20 · DIS OF 51 FT TH S 46 DE6 N 88 FT 129 FT TH S 17 DEG E 89 FT TH S S ~1 BEG N 58 FT TH S 63 DEG 30 HIN N THE NELY EXT OF THE NLY LINE OF LOT SAID EX TO THE N LINE OF LOT 20 AUD TO THE SN C0R OF LOT 20 TH NELY E LINE OF LOT Z0 TH N ALONG SAID E 29~ 30 AND ~1 OF THE BARTLETT PLACE QF LOT 31 OF THE BARTLETT PLACE UPPER FRO. THE NU COR OF S~ZD LOT 3~ TO A Reasbn: SHIRLEY HZLLS UNIT D LYIN$ S OF THE SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D ALSO THAT PART NO 170 LYIHG S OF THE ~LY EXT OF THE ALSO THAT.PART OF LOTS 19 A~D 20 AUD INTERSECTION OF THE E LINE OF LOT Z0 OF THE S LINE OF LOT ~3 OF SHIRLEY OF ~ PAR ~ITH THE N LINE OF SAID LOT TH S ~0 BEG N 12~ FT TH S 32 DEG N 8 BEG E 20I FT TH S [9 OEG N 67 FT TH 59 FT TH S S BEG 30 HIN N 1~0 FT TO 18 SAID AUO SU~ NO ~70 TH NELY ALONG SUBO NO 170 TH SLY ALOHG SAID N LINE ALON$ THE SLY LINE OF LOT 20 TO THE LIHE TO THE POINT OF BEG ALSO LOT Z$~ UPPER LAKE H~NNETONKA ALSO THAT PART LAKE MIt~ETONKA LYING E OF A LINE RUN POINT ON TH/ SLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3~ TEL. NO. Applicant's interest in the property: This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. PLANNINGCOMMI~IONRECOMMENDATION: Motion by Reese secobded by Fillbrandt to recommend approval with stipulations.and recommendations of staff DATE June 13,1983 COUNCIL ACTION Extension & Preliminary Plat ApprovalDATE July 19,1983 May 3, 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 83-79 RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION NO, 82-84 (APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOST LAKE ADDITION) FOR ONE YEAR, UNTIL APRIL 6, 1984 WHEREAS, Resolution 82-84 was approved on April 6, 1982, and WHEREAS,' this resolution approved the preliminary plat of the Lost Lake Addition (PID #24-117-24 44 0OI8), and WHEREAS, Beachside Developers'(Earl Nelson and LaVern Veit) have requested an extensio~ of this resolution for one year because of current economic conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby grant an extension of one year for Resolution #82-84- (Approving the Preliminary Plat of Lost Lake Addition) until April 6, 1984. The foregoing resolution was moved ~by Councilmember Charon and seconded by Councilmember Paterson. The follOwing Councilmembers. vote~ in the affirmative: Charon, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembe'rs voted in the negatiye: None. Councilmember Swanson was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk July 19, 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 8)-1Z4 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOST LAKE ADDITION- PID #24-117-24 22 0018 WHEREAS, the plat of Lost Lake Addition has been submitted in the manner required for platting under Section 22 of the City Code of the City of Mound and under Section 462 of the Minnesota Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Planning'Commission of the City of Mound has reviewed said plat and found it to be consistent with the City plan and ordinances of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the preliminary plat approval request application as described in Exhibit "A", Case No. 83-22~, contingent upon compliance with the fo))owing requirements: The filing of a revised plat indicating surface water drainage patterns and p~oposed st'reet grades.' Also before final plat approval by the City Council, the-.petitioner shall submit to the City Engineer'for approval, constructions plans which will include grading, drainage, streets and utilities. Development' Contract to be e~ecuted and approved by the City Engineer. Submission to the City Building Official-of a letter from the Hennepin County Highway Department documenting the approval of the proposed road access on County Road 125. Submission to.the City Building Official of results of soil boring tests conducted on the site. e Submission to the City Building Official of evidence of approval by the Mlnnehaha Creek Watershed District for .the proposed surface water drainage plan and systems· 5. Furnishing a duly completed and executed performance bond, certified by the City Attorney as valid and enforceable, 125% of estimated cost, $75,375.00, to cover:~ * '(al installation of grading, gravel and base for streets; (bi paving of streets; (c) installation, of concrete Curb and gutters; (d) installation of water systems; (el installation of.sanitary sewer systems; (fi installation of storm sewer systems; all in conformance with City approved plans and specifications at the sole expense of the subdivider inconformance with Chapter 22.00 of the City Code. The provision of a ten (lO) foot utility and drainage easement along the front, sides or corner lots, rear of all lots, and ten (10) feet equally divided between each lot on interior side lot lines. E July 1~, 1~83 Before buildihg permits for any homes to be constructed in said subdivision are issued, a certificate signed by a registered engineer must be provided. This certificate will state that all final lot and building grades are in conformance to the drainage development plan and minimum floor elevation plans approved by the.City Engineer as per development contract. 8. Pursuant to City of. Hound Resolution #72-433, the park dedication and open space requirements for the subdivision are satisfied. 9. Approval of Title by the City Attorney. lO. II. 13. I4. Failure on the part of the petitioner to submit a final plat within one (1) year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary approval to be null and void (SectiOn 22.13). Submisslon to the Building Official of evidence of. approval by Pollution Contr°l Agency and Hinnesota Department of Health for sanitary sewer and watermain. ~ Submit street name fo'r proposed plat, as well as signage and street lighting. An escrow fund of $2,700.O0-(minus filing fees, approximately $298.00) be 'established to. cover City engineering, legal and administrative expenses. Divide 0utlot A between adjoining'properties with necessary drainage and utility easements, where required. 15. Removal of all dead and diseased trees on the property. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Pau)sent Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None. Attest: City Clerk ... ADDITION 'F_~, H:I.B [l ' ~'A'? ..j- .J .. 1 ::* .~ .,- .~?. · . . ."..'.'*-~- ·'" "' % · ..-' ~ _.,~..:.' y.;~.:~ -. . '-..-..~.:.~.'.rl:.:? ... ~ .-~o:.:-~- · '. '-~ ; .':.',:-:;'.b · '.'; A-:'.-: .- ', ;' 2... - ....~$ ..'k' · ' :.. .. -..'.':, ,.-.- · . '.....:..... ....:.. · ~...-, ....-: ~, '..' -. ... : .r ~ .~" ,~.; · . -'' · -. - ~ . ' , ~ -,'.? ·. :. ~':]~"' . :,..... ~..,-: ·., · . .~. ~':,~. -I. .-. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, M~NESOTA ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS SNOW REMOVAL FROM PARKING LOTS IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT The City of Mound will receive bids at 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota until 10:00 A.M. Monday, October 22, 1984 for snow removal from the Central Business District parking lots and other areas as designated. Bid Bond is required. Performance Bond will be required of success- ful bidder. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CONTRACTED SNOW R~XOVAL SPECIFICATIONS 19 84 - 85 2. Remove snow from designated parking lots and other specified area as soon as possible after snow fall. Deposit snow as directed by Public Works. Any plowi~ to be done after March 1 call Public Works Street Superintendent at 472-1251. Central Business District street and sidewalks as follows: a. West side of Co. Rd f-~ll0, from Telephone Co. office driveway north to Lynwood Blvd. b.' East.side of'Co. Rd. #110, from southside of V & S Jewelry north to old school parking lot. Co Northside of Co. Rd. #15, from Co. Rd. #110 east to' Belmont Lane. d. Southside of Co. Rd. #15, from Co. Rd. #110 to'eastside of Post Office 3. Parking Lots and alleys a. Mound City Office, lot and driveways. b. Telephone Co. building south and rear lots. c. Colonial Shoe Store(old Nelson Shoes) rear of store. d. Rustique Decorating, iear lot. e. Netka Furniture Store, rear lot. f. Eberhardt Realty, rear and north lots. g. Parking lot south of railroad tracks, north of Co. Rdo #15, from Minnesota Federal east to Belmont Lane. h. South side of Dr. Borgs office. i. Auditors Road, all. J. Both lots, east and west of Post Office. k. Parking lot behind Dr.' Laurs and Longpres. 1. 24 hour lot south of Auditors Road. m. Super Valu lot, all. n. South side of Tom Thumb Store. o. Parking lot north of Medical Clinic, all. p. Mound Sta~e Bank lot, all. q. Road and parking area west of Telephone Co. north to railroad tracks. r. Masonic driveway /x~_.~x~ .... tlma sca ikon) A Bid Bond or Certified Check Bid. The successful bidder will be required to post a Performance Bond or Certified Check in the amount of $500.00. The successfu~,~r must furnish liability of not less than $ or each individual, $~ for each occurrence, and against liability for property damage of not less than $50,000 for each occurrence. The City reserves the right to reject any and all Bids, and waive any informalities. The successful bidder will send the bill for above service to the City on a monthly basis. These bids are to be.firm for the 19 84 & 19 85 winter snow removal season. EQUIPMENT & OPERATOR (Hourly Rate) A. Front End Loaders: (2 or 2~ yd. bucket) Per Hour B. Trucks: Single Axle, 5 Yd' box. Tandem Axle, 10 yd. box C. List all other equipment to be used for parking lot snow removal, hourly rate with operator. 1. .5. Contractor Address CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536~, (612) 472-1155 DATE: TO: FROM: RE.' October 5, 1984 City Manager Park Director Quotes for tree moving Attached is a written quote from Swenson Nursery for tree moving. I have received a verbal quote from Western Tree Service(S55.00 per tree) but they seem unwilling or unable to put it in writing. At this point I recommend we con- tract with Swenson Nursery for a total price of $4500,00. · Su'enson urser Hwy. 7 & Co. Rd. 155, Waconia, M N 55387 Phone612-446-1255 September 28th, 1984 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Bid for Fall 1984, for City of Mound Minnesota ,to be planted within Mound City Limits from site west of Mound on County~Road 110; 100 trees to be moved at $45 per tree. Sincerely, s ,wmsoN ~sm~,o ~..w~..z.~.__~ Curtis R. Swenson CS:sah Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. 2381 Wilshire Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-6394 October 1, 1984 City of Mound 5341MaywoodRoad Mound, Minnesota 55364 ATIN: Jon Elam RE: Addition Of Spectrum Sports to the Mound Cable System's channel lineup Dear Mr. Elam: This is to inform you that Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. will be adding Spectrun Sports to the Mound channel lineup within approximately thirty days. The Spectrum Sports package will be offered by Dow-Sat as an additional pay service which will include the North Stars and Twins regular season home games. In addition to the regular season games, Dow-Sat will cablecast all Stanley Cup playoff games played on home ice next spring as part. of the Spectrun Sports package. (Channel 29 has the exclusive rights to the away play-off games.) For promoitional purposes, Dow-Sat will be offering a '~review" or free cable- cast to all system subscribers to acquaint them with its new service. Installation charge for Spectrun will be the normal $10.00 rate as charged for Dow-Sat's other pay services; however, this charge may be waived during the promotional period. The monthly rate will be considerably less than what Spectrum {~ormally charges. ~ Dow-Sat is looking forward to serving the Mound c~,~unity with another premium service which offers more variety in choice. Sincerely, Regional Manager MAS :cj CC: Kent Sharp Stuart Gibson Jim Beletti Catherine Anderson BILLS ...... OCTOBER 9, 1984 ~1 lstar Electric 'Earl F. Andersen Acro-MN .Badger Meter' Holly. Bostrom Bury & Carlson Bradley Exterm Bowman Distrib City Club Distrib · Copy Duplicating Coca Cola Bottling Davies .Water Dependable Services Duane's 66 Display Sales Don's Sod Serv Day Distrib East Side Beverage Glenwood Ingl.ewood Griggs Beer Eugene.Nickok & Assoc Johnson Welding Kool Kube Ice Kennedy Brush Kendall Plastics Glen Litfin Trucking Lowell's MacQueen Equip Marina Auto Supply Mound Super Valu Meyer's Mound Serv Metro Forte Communications Martins Navarre66 Maple Plain Diesel Navarre Hdwe Michael Polley Popham Haik Precision Striping Pepsi Cola/7 Up Pogreba Distrib . Bob Ryan Ford Rustique Decorating Real One Acquisition Royal Crown Beverage Scanner World, USA Snap on Tools--Chase Don 5treicher Guns :. SOS Printing Sutphen Corp Twin City Home Juice Thrifty Snyder Thurk Bros. Chev 888.50 95.83 86.66 420.14 254.OO 318.O0 19.00. 174.64 2,981.95 15.00 148.03 37.87 33.00 84.00 5,145.OO 118.80 3,386.90' 2,651.42 43.50 105.45 132.00 735.00 124.80 414.42 .251.28 225.00 148.57 305.63 475.80 66.28 110.OO 23.60 20.00 1,912.49 193.19 9.92" 1,271.40 1,552.80 285.45 3,919.70 11.06 7O.47 708.05 31.10 196.00 34.95 104.20 419.80 10.74 36.36 1,187.64 Title Insurance Tri State Drilling Thorpe Distrib Village Chev Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton Widmer Bros. Ziegler, Inc. Zack's Inc Vernon Anderson Gayle Burns Commiss of Revenue Robert Cheney Sheryl Cicchese Bill Clark Oil Bill Clark.Oil First Line-Tours Griggs, Cooper Robert Johnson Johnson Bros. Liq Peter Johnson Wm Koenig Dr. Lauer Metro Waste COntrol City of Mound Natl League of Cities Merry Peterson Ed Phil.lips Quality Wine Del Rudolph Del Rudolph. Mrs. Schmidt John Tarfa R.L. Youngdahl Bryan Rock Products Ben Franklin Louisville Landfill Minnegasco Wm Mueller & Sons Northern States Power 380.00 978.18~. 3,730.52 8.89 1,450.O0 1,O74.16 45.76 38.80 850.00 40.83 6,039.06 1,430.00 5O.OO 210.57 878.23 54O.OO 2,191.09 64O.00 2,'789.46 455.11 486.10 1.16 29,986.80 ~3.63 20.00 25.00 1,639.55 2,772.68 296.25 24.86 4O.OO 4OO.OO 3:, 261 . O0 74.39 80.50 21.00 183.71 1,081.02 3,497.91 Housin~ and Redevelopment Authority of Mound 2020 COMMERCE BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA $$364 October 8~ 1984 k~m4O~UM To~ Mayor Polston and Mound City Council From~ Housing and Redevelopment Authority of..Mound Subject.- Cormnissioner Eldo L. Schmidt Eldo L, Schmidt's term as a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound expired August 29# 1984. Mr, Schmidt would like to be appointed for another term, ' E, Be Richter Executive Director REVENUE SHARING GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE RESOLUTION #84-173 EXHIBIT , ij~l i The following Grievance Procedure is established to meet the requirements of the Revenue Sharing Act as amended. The Grievance Procedure should be used by any individual who wishes to file a com- plaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicapped in employment practices and policies or the provision of programs, services and benefits by the City of Mound. The grievance should be in written form and contain as much information as possible about the alleged discrimination. Other arrangements for submission of a grievance such as a personal interview or tape recording will be made available for the visually impaired or those with motor impairments. It should be submitted within 30 calendar days of the alleged violation to Jon Elam, City Manager, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364. Phone number 472-1155. Office hours - 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Monday thru Friday, except Tuesday - 8:00 A.M. to 7:30'P.M. Within 15 working days of receipt of the complaint, the City Manager will respond in writing (or a method understood by the complainant) to the complainant. The response will offer a resolution or explain the position of the City of Mound with respect to the complaint. If the response by the City Manager is not sufficient or does not satisfactorily resolve the issue, the complainant may request a hearing, within 15 working days of the response, before the Mound City Council, City Hall, 5341,Maywood Road, Moundf MN. 55364. Phone number 472-1155. Office hours - 8:OO.A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Monday thru Friday, except.Tuesday - 8:OO.A.M. to 7:30 P.M. for resolution. Within 30 calendar days of the hearing, the complainant will receive the final resolution in writing as proposed by the City Council. All complaints received by the City Manager and responses from the City Council will be kept by the City of Mound for a period of three years. These documents may be requested by the Officer of Revenue Sharing should an investigation into alledged discrimination on the basis of handicapped status be initiated. October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION.NO. 8~-17~ RESOLUTION APPRO¥INC TN£ 1985 GE#ERAL FU#D SETTING THE LE~ ~T $1,120,916 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following 1985 General Fund Budget appropriations. FUND Council City Manager/City Clerk Election & Registration Assessing Finance Legal Police Planning & Inspections Civil Defense Street Shop & Store Parks City Property & B~ilding Contingency Transfers 33,976 87,175 2,000 42,650 137,293 70,400 532,975 95,861 2,555 328,058 43,678 118,392 ?6,690 6,0007 72,646 I ,651,3.~9 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following taxes for collection in 1985: SPECIAL LEVIES Minnesota Laws 1983, 1984 Tort Judgements & Liability Ins. Matching Funds Bonded Indebtedness Certificates of Indebtedness Tax Abatements Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds 7,676 7,975 13,325 70,711 37,384 5,301 20,624 Total Special Levies 162,996 TOTAL LEVY LIMITATION 1984/85 957,920 GRAND TOTAL TO BE LEVIED 1,120,916 Pe~erson The foregoing' resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Counciimember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson & Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. ss/Robert D. Polston Mayor -Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 8~--175 RESOLUTION A?PRO¥ING THE OYERALL BUDGET FOR 1985 BE IT RESOLYED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the overall budget for 1985 as follows: QENERAL FUND As per resolution ~84-174 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Revenue Sharing Area Fire Service Fund Cemetery Fund Pension Fund Improvement & Equipment Capital Outlay Fire Capital Outlay Fund SELF-SUPPORTING FUNDS Water Fund Sewer Fund Liquor Fund 1,651,349 53,000 134,650 4,655 --0-- 30,000 6,000 324,787 618,831 184,629 GRAND TOTAL 3,007,901 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Oessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson & Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. ss/Robert D. Polston Mayor Attest: City' Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION APPRO¥ING THE 198~GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $~AND SETTING THE LE~ AT $1,120,916 BE IT RESOLYED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following 1985 General Fund Budget appropriations. ,GENER~ ~UND Council City Manager/City Clerk Election & Registration Assessing Finance Legal Police Planning & Inspections Civil Defense Street Shop & Store Parks City Property & Building Contingency Transfers 33,976 87,175 2,000 42,650 137,293 70,400 532,975 95,861 2,555 328,058 43,678 1'18,392 76,690 6,0007 72,646 1,651,349 BE IT FURTHER RESOLYED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following taxes for collection in 1985: SPECIAL LEVIES Minnesota Laws 1983, 1984 Tort Judgements & Liability Ins. Matching Funds Bonded Indebtedness Certificates of Indebtedness Tax Abatements Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds Total Special Levies 7,676 7,975 13,325 70,711 37,384 5,301 20,624 162,996 TOTAL LEVY LIMITATION 1984/85 957,920 GRAND TOTAL TO BE LEVIED 1,120,916 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1985 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City COuncil of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the overall budget for 1985 as follows: QENERAL ,FUND As per resolution #84- SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Area Fire Service Fund Cemetery Fund Pension Fund Improvement & Equipment Capital Outlay Fire Capital Outlay Fund SELF-SUPPORTING FUNDS Water Fund Sewer Fund Liquor Fund I ,651,349 134,650 ;4,655 --0-- 30,000 6,000 32;4,787 618,831 184,629 GRAND TOTAL 2,954,901 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II · II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II il II II II II II II II II II II II II II REVISED 10-8-84 GENERAL FUND REVENUE GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES CURRENT AD VALOREM TAXES DELINQ AD VALOREM TAXES PENALTIES & INTEREST FORFEIT TAX SALE APPORT RENTS ON TAX EXEMPT LAND MISC. TAXES INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE FEDERAL GRANTS CIVIL DEFENSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID HOMESTEAD CREDIT STATE AID FOR STREETS POLICE PENSION AID GRANTS FROM OTHER GOVT UNIT PAYMENTS FR OTHER GOVT UNIT INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE LICENSES LIQUOR LICENSES BEER LICENSES GARBAGE LICENSES ENTERTAINMENT LICENSES MICS BUSINESS LICENSES MISC BUSINESS PERMITS CIGARETTE LICENSES LICENSES NON-BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS DOG LICENSES & POUND FEE BUILDING PERMITS PLUMBING PERMITS EXCAVATION PERMITS HEATING PERMITS DOCK PERMITS MISC NON BUS LIC MOVING PERMITS MISC. DEPOSITS NON-BUS LIC & PERMITS 1982 1983 ACTUAL ACTUAL 1984 1984 1985 APPROVED PROJECTED PROPOSED 600278 660051 769317 738900 790967 16327 23162 0 27240 0 12744 18404 0 30325 0 7244 5861 0 10214 0 494 298 0 366 0 0 0 0 37 0 637087 707776 769317 807082 790967 27128 3127 1200 1000 1000 7764 3442 3500 6437 5000 273541 315607 320387 337956 358234 152895 208139 220800 219460 225000 11950 14350 16600 16750 19550 25873 25899 25800 25900 25900 9956 5627 2500 3000 0 2097 0 0 8472 8000 5'11204 576191 590787 618975 642684 3200 7308 5000 5233 9000 1318 1665 1005 970 970 400 400 400 500 500 1465 875 430 590 590 95 320 105, 110 110 665 835 585 654 650 408 334 324 260 260 7551 11737 7849 8317 12080 5770 7112 7000 9750 6000 26639 41600 30000 39000 35000 2060 6834 2000 5700 5000 530 2460 1000 1000 800 339 750 400 800 600 27867 27360 27500 28360 28000 650 15 225 315 300 200 250 0 0 0 5388 0 0 0 0 69443 86381 68125 84925 75700 -21- REVISED 10-8-84 REVENUE GENERAL OOVT FRANCHISE FEE-CABLE T.V. PLANNING COMM APPL ZONING CHGS SALE OF MAPS ETC WEED CUTTING CHGS ASSESS SEARCHES WOOD CHIPPING MISC SERV CHGS SHOP & STORES CHARGES BUS. DEV. LOAN FEE ENG. & CLERICAL FEES GEN GOVT CHARGES OTHER REVENUE ACCIDENT REPORTS CHARGES FOR SERVICES SURCHARGES COURT FINES INTEREST RENT NEW ASSESSMENTS INTEREST ON ASSESSMENTS TAX FORFEIT SPECIAL ASSESS COMP FOR PROP LOSS SALE OF PROP & EQUIPMENT DONATIONS & CONTRIBUTIONS OTHER REVENUE REFUNDS-REIMBURSEMENTS OTHER REVENUE TRANSFER FROM LIQUOR STORE 1982 1983 ACTUAL ACTUAL 1984 1984 1985 APPROVED PROJECTED PROPOSED 0 0 2000 2000 2000 2179 4324 5000 5000 5000 44 181 150 150 150 399 206 100 150 150 90 20 0 0 0 2756 5736 6400 4800 4800 610 210 120 120 120 12 5 0 0 0 20606 18174 18050 20845 20375 0 250 0 1045 1000 375 0 0 0 0 27071 29106 31820 34110 33595 230 268 200 300 300 5126 626 150 150 150 66 113 70 70 70 66488 86266. 95000 73950 85000 238 10 0 830 465 1092 1668 1000 1000 1000 21207 21029 0 0 0 1063 2006 2000 2180 1000 0 304 300 70 0 1940 775 0 0 0 6745' 15804 5000 15850 15000 3819 6781 0 1160 0 1080 685 2000 500 1000 2146 27526 0 70 0 111240 163861 105720 96130 103985 50000 50000 50000 50000 25000 TOTAL REVENUE 1413596 BREAKDOWN BY PERCENTAGE GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE LICENSES NON-BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS GENERAL GOVERNMENT CHARGES OTHER REVENUE TRANSFERS 1625052 1623618 1699539 1684011 45.07 43.55 47.38 47.49 46.97 36.16 35.46 36.39 36.42 38.16 .53 .72 .48 .49 .72 4.91 5.32 4.20 5.00 4.50 1.92 1.79 1.96 2.01 1.99 7.87 10.08 6.51 5.66 6.17 3.54 3.08 .3.08 2.94 1.48 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 -22- REVISED 10-8-84 GENERAL FUND SU~L~RY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REVENUE GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE LICENSES NON-BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS GENERAL GOVT. CHARGES OTHER REVENUE TRANSFERS TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER/CLERK ELECTIONS & REGISTRATION ASSESSING FINANCE LEGAL POLICE PLANNING & INSPECTION CIVIL DEFENSE STREET SHOP & STORE CITY PROPERTY & BLDGS. PARKS CONTINGENCIES TRANSFERS OTHER TOTAL EXPENDITURES INCREASE (DECREASE) 1982 ACTUAL 1983 1984 1984 1985 ACTUAL APPROVED PROJECTED PROPOSED 637087 707776 769317 807082 790967 511204 576191 590787 618975 642684 7551 11737 7849 8317 12080 69443 86381 68125 84925 75700 27071 29106 31820 34110 33595 111240 163861 105720 96130 103985 50000 50000 50000 50000 25000 1413596 1625052 1623618 1699539 1684011 26732 32440 32338 31626 33976 88329 85037 89909 89979 87175 6034 938 8500 8500 2000 34092 33401 41540 43789 42650 110851 112765 119252 124623 137293 69673 58827 64000 75660 70400 4249~5 446200 495445 486229 532975 68213 79019 81879 86989 95861 3051 2910 2600 2498 2555 298616 281872 317998 308222 328058 49095 43234 42948 43200 43678 66349 80526 76861 81315 77690 108579 107420 117140 114653 118392 0 0 137 07 0 6000 51423 68378 72449 72449 72646 26439 11105 0 0 0 1432421 1444072 1576566 1569732 1651349 -18825 180980 47052 129807 32662 -23- REVISED 10-8-84 BREAKDOWN OF CITY COSTS FOR 1985 CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK ELECTIONS ASSESSING FINANCE LEGAL POLICE PLANNING & INSPECTIONS CIVIL DEFENSE STREETS CITY GARAGE PARKS CITY PROPERTY CONTINGENCY FIRE TOTAL 33976 87175 2000 ;42650 137293 70400 532975 95861 2555 328058 436?8 118392 7769O 6000 72646 1651349 2.06 5.28 .12 2.58 8.31 4.26 32.28 5.81 .15 19.8? 2.64 7.17 4.70 .36 4.40 100.00 -24- REVISED 10-8-84 MINUTES OF.THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SePtember.24, 1984 ichael and..Thomas-Reese; City Manager Jori Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler and Secre- tary 'Marjorie $t'utsman. Absent and excused were: Councll Representative Pinky Charon and Commissioner Robert Byrnes. Also absent was Commissioner Michael Vargo. Also-present were the followiqg interested persons:. Amy.Reese, Duane Norberg, Steven Hesse, Butch Essig, Tom.Pro~asky,.Mr. & Mrs,..H, S. smith, Mr, & Mrs~ Robert McClellan, Bi'11-Simonet, Jr.,.Terry Slncheff, John ThOreson~ Mr. & Mrs. Kevin'Norwood, Pat Rose, C! Steve Chase, Ear) Norwood.and Connie Meyer.. · The Chairman opened..the, meeti.ng and welcomed those in attendance. MINUTES' The minutes of the Plann'i~g Comm~sslon meeting of..September 10, 198'4 were presented for-consideration. Reese moved and Jansen seconded the motion to approve.the minutes of the September 1'0, 1984 Plannlng-Commission meeting as"presen'ted. The vote was un- animously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS - l. Case No. 84-355 Conditi.onal .Use Permit for.Multiple Dwelling'and Marina at 2670 Commerce Boulevard - Metes and Bounds.'DescPiption, PID #23-117-24.-14.0009 Thomas W. Prokasky of Omni-Shel:ter, Inc. and Butch Essig of Surfside, Inc. were present. '- ~ . The Planner, Mark Koegler, explained .that the Commissron had conducted a sketch plan'review on the 13th of August. .Es.s-entially the proposal i.s. back with the same site plan and Prokasky has added.,some.additional informatiOn.. Plans call for the removal' of the Surfside restaurant'and construction of'a.35 unit Condo- 'minium on .the.grounds; They.would have..basically a'ground level parking garage and surface parking lot located on'the-north side of the building, In addition to the residential portion, .they would'have'an 17 X.17 foot appendage on the south si. de of the building which is to.be used to-house a marina'operation. You wi.ll recall we discussed the dockage issue, back' on.the 13th of August and it was -stated the inten~ is to provide docksavai, lable on a lease basis to'condominium -owners based on priority; there ~ould be a'portlon of the docks available to these owners at a discounted .rate..and the balance, would be available for lease to the general public.'. Mr, Essig will.actually operate the docks which would be a separate entity, from ~he residential structure itself; also he would continue to operate the gasoline pump as.he does.right now. Essentially we catagorize this as being two separate uses;:comme'rcial marina and residential structure under th!s.proposal. The Surfside land area is about 44,1t5 square feet which is just a little .over an acre; it is surrounded on two sides by R-1 zones - on the p~rking lot or park'~-~-~j:~ side and residential property abuts the other.side of the p~operty; Lake Minne- tonka is on one side and the B-1 Zone on the other - the. tile business and Bob's Bait Store. Multiple dwelling in B-1 Zone falls Under that provision; the marina portion is not specifically committed to the use,.however in this case, it will be considered as a grandfathered commercial use because it was an established use at the time of the ordinance adoption. It will be subject to any'modification the L.M.C.D. might suggest. The Planner then reviewed the following topics and the variances required: Build- ing height and setbacks, density, lot usage, parking and driveways, dockage, grading, Planning Commission Minutes September 24~ 1984 - Page 3 parking. A cadillac Seville is only 17 feet 6 inches 10ng---the size of cars has been reduced, so dramatically. He stated we.can work out technical things;.. the only Point s~gn|flcant to the proposal is the interior garage. Code says stalls must-be ]2 feet by 22 feet. Thinks this size is for single family garages; · .has never run-into spacing like that. Prokasky asked that the Commission con- sult-with a traffic engineer and reconsider that particular point; feels that 'a variance is appropriate. As far. as density for number of dwelling units, he'd like'to make the point that this is'a sma]] commercial Site with a $40,000+ assessment; feels when YOU 'add up the numbers, have to get a certain number of units on'site and would like to have Commission consider uniqueness of situation. Density really goes with this site. Downtown, they 'have 200.units per acre and it works/is appropriate. 'He .feels that .the docks and-boats out here.are a major recreational-facility;, there is the park open to.the south. The ratio-of children in townhouses and condo- miniums tends to'be about'zero~=tend to have younger.empty-nester couples. They feel:'that'.this density in dwelling units is appropriate to this site. The only other point is the question on mixed use. Stated perhaps he misrepresented how docks were'to be operated. The~ have 27 slipsthat are right now available for overnight parking and 24 more transient. We have 35 units. We.really are not even covering our people with a slip a-unit. The long and short of it is that we are. not in the marina business. The present L.M.C.D. permit happens to be a marina type permi.t and there of course Js .t~.e__.gas pump out there. ~he L.M.C.D. feels quite strongly that there be publ-ic facilities for the general boating public on the lake. .0nly gas pump on the upper take. Need someone tQ watch, do maintenance.on the docks, sell public cotter pin or a life jacket. Rea])y have no docks to rent out; Condominium Association will own.whole thing. Intend to leave marina in place/grandfathered in. A comment was."if a slip is left, wGy not Kent. lt out?".' Don't see conflict of use; not running any kind of busi- ness, but.doing a little public service. The Chairman opened up 'the meeting for.questions. Robert McClellan asked what is.considered front'and real street frontage? how hlgh does grade have to be raised up?..Bill Smith had question about-recreational value. Robert McCle]ian announced.hewas revoking an agreement made in 1974 to allow. docks in front of the McClellan residence. Also stated he objeCts to the vari- ances requested in the' proposal before' the Commission tonight. Ouane.Norberg. questioned garage'size and H. A. Smith.asked how new roof compared with height of present..roof. Sur~side has a very high roof; may be higher than 35 feet. Meyer asked Where McClellan,s house lsin.rel'atlon to the units. McClel'.lan!s hOuse is.about ]2 feet off of property line.. Meyer's concern is that he'll be looking at 9 patios on 3 levels. The City Manager stated'.that.two variances will be most. difficult; the ones re- lating ]otlarea to.dwelling unit and the principal.structure percentage of lot's usage. Prokasky stated he needs thismuch density to make the project economi- cally fl.y; Economics not a permitted reason. In granting variances, they try to ke~p them within 10~ or reasonable levels thereof. Here weare talking about 45% of requirement. There have been some precedents set.that should be taken into consideration. The Seahorse is about 2600 square feet per unit; Lakewinds is about 1600 square feet per unit and the recently approved Senior Housing has 42 units with 1056 square feet per unit. In trying to figure out what he needed 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101 General Office Telephone (61'2) 291-6359 :~R. J0N ELAN A Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Community LeadsC[TY OF H~UNO . ~o~mo~eJ~forma~o~.~s~n~.~l~n,~I.53~ l MAYNOOD ~LVO ~0UND ~N 5536q ~el~ usi~ee ~e~ ~u~ou, ~e~ ~1 H~ea~ P~ Fo~da~on, Ma:~, H~uo~ ~iet7 ~el, ~ ~ea~. of ~da~ so~4 ~te ~df~ de~lo~:. ~ ~W ~d app--, ~e ~c~ does ~e ~aible ac~i~on of e~ble ~d~er ~d au~riz~ apparel of ~ P~7 ~ --l~e Hetz'~polltaA C~mc~.l's ~he 198~-1986 ~ Pla~ on ~-~ and Counc/..l's proArea on agiag. Toe ~ be held ·C 9 a.m., friday, Sep.~..' ia ~he Council C~ambers. Po~ more inforua~iou, ~all Judy Arends' a~ A~P~CA~T~ ~R'f FOR OPE~3~ The 3eot,et, arT. of -~A:e's off%ce is now ae~p~ app~:l~ f~ ~u~ ?~ple ~O ~ ~ bo~ disC~cC 5, ~ ~u~ ~ ~a~ ~ of ~~, ~ e~ble ~ apply. : 198~ le~nl=C~, d~pa COUNCZL A~TIONS (Au&. 2T-~ept. ~o~ze4 p~o~ f~ a ~ep~r ae~r se~oe ~ ~e ~tar face.es at the big ~ f~e~ ~ds ~ ~y v~cles for R~ati~ ~ for ~evelo~t ~o~. Work ~ ~clude ~ ~e ~c~ app~ f~ ~ ~ $150,000 ~ fede~l f~da ~ ~iat ~e d~i~ ~c~a~on ~ ~ong the ~~ a fe~ib~ty stu~. p: ~ ~ds ~ ff~ce the ~elo~ent of a ~-~it a~enC ~'1m.~2 p1 ,,,~, ~ ea.-'~'~s m~ey for ~i: a~c~ t~ouC the ~ ~p~t~ ~ due ~ ~C. 2 ~d ~ a~41-ble f~ ~ ~t~, 291-6~90t ~l ~c~ ~ hold a pubic mee~ ~ ~der ~i~a~ for apogean:. ~e ~c~ ~ e~ ~ ~e ~e n~ diat~ct 5 ~p~oen~ve Oc~. 25. COUNCIL T~ AME~ Ai~ OUA~Z~A'K' PART O~ T~A~SPORTAT~OM PLA~ Th~ Metropo~L~an Council will r~vie~ of p~ a~es ~ ~duce ~ ~no~de ~ ~p~ble leve~ at the ~tl~ of ~el~ ~ g~l:7 Ava. ~ ~. Paul. ~eso~ Po~u:ion ~m:~l A~ncr for the ~:, or ~e s~ule ~d ~e~ p~. Nov. 8 ~c~ ~cep~ ~n~ for pUbiC he~. ~. ~ Be~ ~ c~oaes. ~p~v~ ~n~enC. · Public Utilities Commissioners~ American Center Bldg. '160 E. Kellogg Blv~',- COmmiss loners, Terry Hoffman Leo Adams Roger Banson . Cynthia Kltlinski Harry Crump Eound, Mime., s ep~ember, 29,19 Thi'~ letter is in reference to Contel,and in regard to the refund .of monies collected under interim rates which were promised Contel eutomers. I find this refund of $?.06 totally unacceptable. I have not given .you the'privilege~ to disperse my money to any one and you have no legal right to take my money and sub- · ~.dize anyone. I am appalled that you would allow this to be done. Ny legal eights have been.violated. This matter deserves a more Serious consideration: ~t~ ~'~ .~ ~6:~ ~ ~o~~ tn ~.1 ~ pm~de ~e money, n~e~· .~ bu~ ~d ~ M~. Jim ~ ~e bud~t adop~ .fo~/1984 1~788 ~ ~ y~ ~'.J4.4?1-~1~ ]~. At ae 1985 Ute; ae omar 8 home ~a n X~4 ~ket ~ue c~m i~ aa ~ y~r. T~ on 8 11~ on 8 $]33,8~'hoa,'a~ ~e ']985 budge* ~U ~ve~--'8 6.4 ~ent ~ ~ n~buta Uon' ad $410,0H 1n 8ddiUona ~i~ru ~ py for 4.5 new ~[. --, ~ four dump ~cB, n ~t ~o> ~ b~dlng ud o~er qulp~enL ... ~ ~ ~ t°al $4.~ :m~lOn lo I~5. Oa{r ravenna ae~"d~ c~ lo'.~Yecelve ,Include about 9,~ ~m:b~aq. ad ~Oaer plmlt fern ~13~,500 'In :Service ~'$307,~ ~mm'fln~'nd' for* zem~ nd $386,~ In rote eld..:?' ' · ~Ua aid. d~'.'mt~r'ht~ '~ll~'bb l~d M yur ae end e~ ae ye~ ~np~a 19ff water de~ent .... qet of n~y $1.3 · thc= h~ n~t ~n.~ SmallProperty · ', :~ - -../ - ._... . " -, taX ncrease !ap ?b Ved for'. 6bbnn . dale ~ffW~ter ,,'.---;.*- .- '. -. - :.'..- Robbid~e ~aye~ ~I ~ only n small iqcr~ in ~e ~'s share prope~ ~ ne~ y~, but hi~er- ~bag~O?~flon bilk. :y -~-' ' ~-~'"' ,~..~ ...~.:..~ ¢ :.., ~e .-d~' council' udmo~ly ap ,proved.'a 1985 'bud~t inc~e · 1~ than-onden~ of t ~rcent[ , ~day ni~t :It approved a to~i- gene~! ~nd budget of $2.086 :all; lion, an incr~ of jd over $18,000. The ~uacl] ~ed ~e budget by' a~ut. $74,~0 .~ a~ut ode ~!1 -- ~lore appro~g 1~ d~r~iag ~e clys sb~e ol ae~ )'ear's prope~y ~ rote by ],02 mil~, [t ~ e~ted- to ~ 25.86 mil&-~ - f " · he budset amou~ to ~ iacr~ of a~ut ~5. for ~e o~eT of a borne valued at ~63,0~ t~984. That -i~dud~ l~cr~'Ja ~e ci~s ~r- ~on .of ~e p~ ~ add 1~ ~e Aome's ~lue, w~icb would ~ $65,000 ia ~985..,..- .: ..... ~;- -. ~. Robbi~le's mill. rote b bi~, ~d RobeA Wic~uad, admia~oa communit~ ~ce director, p~mar-, lly became the ci~ ~ one ol ~e that pa~ ~ir~ o~ Be , r~ideatial garage collectio~ - '~e ¢ouacil app~bved a $5b,000 -cre~e in ~e gar~g~oH~on coun~ .w~ch-~ to~ $329,~.:The~ 'coundI. a~ ~'r~den~'~col-. lec~on bill';by $1~, to'.$6.50 qu~; : v:. - ~::~. :~..c.:~-~e-;~: · _,.~.. .-.. ~.~: i~ were blam~ ~or ~e ~cr~:~:~ ~ °m~r :~i~: t~' me -budget ~735,000 fund'Ior ~n~-~~t: ' improvemenm)M~ of ~e money - ficket~ fol.-rog p~jec~ ~ ~280,00~2 ~ for ~ffic si~ at H~.' 81 and Ay.. N., and ~220,~0 for up~di~ ~ In addition[' the city approve~' $50,000 to ~n wbrk on' ~mmuni~ ~r~ The ci~ ~d ~te 'Will sp~t ~e .~ of ~e projeCh ~mate~ at $218,~0. ;' MINN OTA A newsletter of the Division of Economic Development, Min- nesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, deslgued to publicize ]~inneso- ta's Wide range of resources and eeunomie op~vtunities and to aid in promoting economic ex- pansion. Published ten times per year, with combined issues in June/July and December/ January. : . Vol. 1 No. 1, September 1984 Editors are welCOme to excerpt for news articles or reprint en- tire 'articles. No permission is required, but we would appre- ciate credit for the article and a - copy of the publication. · Bulk l~stage rates paid at St. Paul, Minnesota. irepared by the staff o! the Di- sion of Economic Develop- ment Marketing Office, 612/ 297-1500. . '' Sc P~u~ Mim~z~:~ 55101 We ·Want Everyone to Read MN Magazine We would like to expand our mailing list for Minnesota Magazine to include every person in business and govern- ment interested in Minnesota's ecG- nordic development: If you would like to receive a copy of Minnesota Magazine 10 months each ye_~, or know someone you feel would be ~sted in being placed on our mail- i]l~/ist, send the name and address to: Minnesota Magazine, Economic Devel- opment M~rketlng Office, Minnesota Department o! Energy and Economic Development, 900 American Center Building, 150 E. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55101. 4bout Our New Minnesota Magazine Minnesota Magazine is a publication designed to be a communication be- tween the Minnesota Division of Eco- nomic Development and its clientele -- every business in the state, every local government agency, every for-profit and not-for-profit firm doing business in the State of Minnesota. The Department of Energy and Eco- nomic Development (DEED) is a state agency with an urgent mission. To para- phrase Economic Development Deputy Commissioner Kathleen Callahan, we must maximize private long-term in- vestment in Minnesota and promote further investment.., so that jobs are retained and new positions are created. It's a circular, progression that inevita- bly improves a state's economy and the quality of life of every Minnesotan. · Minnesota Magazine is a communi- cations arm of DEED, outlining who we are, what we do, and how we can help. Our comprehensive package of business Services, financing programs, materials and field representatives is valuable only as it is employed to improve Minne- sota's business climate. This newsletter is aimed at publicizin~ the state's eco- nomic development programs so that everyone who can use them to better our economy is aware of what'saYailable and how to join the public-private part- nership we are building. Division Continued fa-om P. 1 The specialists' names, telephone numbers (where messages can be left}, and territories, are: REGION ONE -- Del Redetzke, 612/762-2131: Kittson, Roseau, Mar- shall, Polk, Pennington, Red Lake and Norman counties. REGION TWO -- John Herrera, 612/297-1164: Lake of the Woods, Bel- trami, Mahnomen, Clearwater, and Hubbard counties. REGION THREE -- Martin Eh. glish, 612/297-1162:.. Cook, Lake, St. Louis, Carlton, Koochichlng, Itasca and Ai~in counties. REGION FOUR -- Del Redetzke, 612/762-2131: Clay, Wilkin, Traverse, Becker,.Otter Tail, Grant, Douglas, Stevens and Pope counties. - REGION FIVE --John Herrera, 612/297-1164: Cass, Wadena, Crow Wing, Todd and Morrison counties. REGION SIX W -- Dave Peterson, 612/297-1166: Big Stone, Swift, Chip- There have been other state economle development newsletters in the recent past. In the December 1978 issue of Minnesota .Industrial DeveloPment News -- published by the Minaesota Department of Economic Develop- ment, when I was acting commlssloner -- I stated the goals 0f the publication: "To highlight Minnesota's resources and opportunities, discuss the ideas that affect economic development and pro- vide information and ideas that promote economic growth in Minnesota; to com- municate the activities, services and ac- complishments of the Minnesota De- partment of Economic Development." The times have changed; the needs are greater. But greater, too, is our de- termination to make Minnesota the best state in which to live, work and do busi- r~ess. The State Legislature has given us the tools, and we have rolled up our sleeves and gone to work. We hope youql read every MinneSota Magazine as it hits your desk. As a vehi- cle to keep you informed of the state's · program for improving the business cli- mate, it's something you should never miss reading: And share it with your col- leagues.- Remember, we're all working together, and, together, "We're Chang- ing the Climate." ~ -- Mark B. Dayton Commissioner pewa, Lac Qui Parle and Yellow Medi- cine counties. REGION SIX E -- Dave Peterson, 612/297-1166: Kandiyohl, Meeker, McLeod and Renville counties. REGION SEVEN E -- Al Kelly, 612/297-1165: Mille Lacs, Kanabec, Pine, Isanti and Chisago counties. REGION SEVEN W -- Terrell Tow- ers, 612/297-1163: Benton, Sherburne, Stearns and Wright counties. REGION EIGHT-- Craig Waldron, 612/297-1169: Lincoln, Lyon, Red- wood, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood, Rock, Nobles and Jackson counties. REGION NINE -- Craig Waldron, 612/297-1169: Sibley, Nicollet, Le- Sueur, Brown, Watonwan, Blue Earth, Waseca, Martin and Faribau]t counties. REGION TEN -- John Campo. basso, 612/297-1168: Dakota, Rice, Goodhue, Wabasha, Steele, Dodge, Olmsted, Winona, Freeborn, Mower, Fillmore and Houston counties. WEST METRO -- Terrell Towers, 612/297-1163: Carver, Heunepin and Scott counties. DIVISION Turn to P. 3 Locate' BUildings Clients H you are looking for a build- ing for your business, or have ' an available building'you want to rent or sell to a business, the Community Assistance Office of the Division of Economic Development wants to hear from you. : The telephone number is 612/296-5010. Or write Com- munity Assistance, Division o! Economic Development, De- partment of Energy and Eco- nomic Development, 900 American Center Building, 150 E. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55101. Marketing Continued from P. 1 terprise" business stories to radio stations throughout the state; earOmotional material, brochures, ct sheets, etc., telling the Minne- sota story; * Audio-visual presentation of our swry; and * Special events, a series of public events focusing on Economic De- ' velopment. The complete program will be fled to- gether with the theme line "We're Changing the Climate." 4,160Jobs Continued from P. 1 The sudf responded to over 12,000 business inquiries, made 1,800 person-to- person business contacts and opened 388 new business Fries, including 28 outside the state. This activity represents a 56 per- cent increase over the previous year. Programs are designed to encourage new business start-ups and expansions, to make grants to cities to benefit low- and moderate-income persons, to pre- vent or eliminate slum or blight, and to assist in urgent threats to the health and welfare of a community, to provide. grants to non-profit agencies and orga- nizations in rural areas for economic de- velopment projects, and to provide funding for loans to school districts for investing in cost-effective energy conser- ration projects. Commissioner Mark Dayton, who presented the report, gave several exam- pies of the type of programs that add up to the impressive economic perform- ance. They highlight the fact that the state's strong growth comes from a great many small businesses all over the state. A $225,000 grant to the City of Onamia enabled them to put together a package that helped M. Liman Company, manu- facturer of women's ~]othing, to take over a defunct clothing manufacturing plant. The 35 employees of the old plant had been laid off. ]VI. Liman rehired them and hired 11 additional people -- a big boost to this small town. In Owatonna, the expansion of Vira- con, a manufacturer of specialty glass, added 75 new jobs. This was made pos- sible through financing secured with in- dustrial revenue bonds. Latest Editions Are Here The 1984 Minnesota Legislature sub- ~antially amended the procurement set- aside program for small businesses and anaL] businesses owned and operated by socially or economically disadvantaged persons. -To reflect those changes as well as oth- ers in state procurement procedures, a second edition of Selling Your Product to the State of Minnesota has been pre- pared and is now available from the- Small Business Assistance Office of the Division of Economic Development. "Selling" remains the single, basic primer on Minnesota's procurement policies and procedures. It provides clear direction to the business interested in selling its goods or services to any state agency. Also updated and available is the bro- chure Minnesota's Set-aside Program, which speaks to the intent and operation 'of the set-aside for small and socially or economically disadvantaged businesses. The 1984 Legislatur.e also amended the definitions of "small business" used in a number of state programs. Availa- b]e now is a reprint of a staff-written ar- ticle in the current issue of Policy Proc- ess: "New State Definitions of Small Business: A 1984 Pracucal Grade. Copies of all these publications are available by calling 612/296-3871. ~D_epartme~tTAof Energy ~ F~onomic Development 900 American Center 150 East Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Bulk Rate PAID Psrmtt No. 171 St. Paul, Mlq CITY ADMINISTRAI CR MAYORS OFFICE MOUND HN 5535~ METROPOLITAn WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Twin CJ1~s Area 350 METRO/OUARE BLD(~, 7TH & ROBERTSTREETS sAInT PAUL mn 5SiOl 612 2T2-84~3 September 26, 1984 The Honorable Robert Polston Mayor of Mound 5780 LynwoodBoulevard Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Polston: On June 6, 1984, I sent you a letter regarding the progress to date on the steps taken toward conducting a management study of the Metropolitan Waste Control Ccmmission. ~is letter is to provide you with a further _update. On June 5, 1984, the Ccmmission authorized the Request for Proposals for tke Independent Management Study. In response to that Request, the Cc~a~ission received t~;elve (12) proposals for Phase I of the Study.. CD.. S~ptember '5, 1984, the Task Force mat, reviewed the twelve proposals and selected four (4) firms for interviews: Arthur Young; Peat, ~%ck,. ..ut~tchell & Co.; Ernst & 9b/nney; Touche Ross & Co. I~terv~ews of the four firms were condt~ted on September 12 and 13, 1984. The Task Force u,~nimously recommendc-d the firm of Touche Ross & Co. The Ccmmission approved execution of a contract with the selected fi~m at the Cc~ssion meeting of September 18, 1984.. Contract documents are in the process of be/rig execu~-~=d and the Study_ should begin during the first week of October. The consultant anticipates SUhT~tting their final report by December 31, 1984. The scope of Please 1%ri l! be a management audit of our c,~rrent organization to identify opportunities to strengthen management, identification of possible legislative dsanges, and to p~de reccmmend~tions that can be i~plemented on a short-term basis. Areas of investigat/~n %.-111 include plar~-~ng ~.nd budge.ting, public r~_sponsiveness, cost reduction and revenue ~aximiza.tion, orga~-.~za- tional staffing levels, and salary and benefit levels. The progress made to date certainly w~uld not have been possible without the significant contribution of ti~c ~nd talent by the Task Force members. OCTOBER 1984 Secretary: Dan Regan DIRECTORS Past. Pres. Paul Pond John Burger Helen Daum Jim Dickinson Roger Finnes Audrey Schultz George Stevens Diane Thais Treasurer: Donna Quigtey ? i.::~,:' :.* ..: :'., . A mind is'like a parachute! -- It cannot function unless it is open! With that in mind, wa'are having a joint evening meeting with the Westonka League of Women Voters for our Oct. 17 General Membership f~eeting. The program will be the League's 1984 Can- didate's Forum. This will give our members' minds the opportunity to compare the candidates in a thoughtful, controlled setting: The Westonka Seniors have graciously agreed to host dinner for us in their Center at the Community Services Building from 5:00 to 7:15. The program will start at 7:30 in the School Board conference room. You must have reservations for the dinner by Tuesday the 16th! Dinner by reservation only. 472-1600, ext. 247, 248; 472.1600. President's Letter: '- The Hominating Committee has made its recommendations, and it is time to start contemplating a changing of the guard. We owe a great debt and a very special thank you to the three directors, Jim Dickinson, Paul Pond and Audrey Schultz, who will be leaving the Board at the end o[ ]g84. While serving on the Board, Jim has opened his first law office in Navarre/gotten married and had his first child, and yet he has still found time to serve a year as Secretary to the Board and always responds .favorably to Chic's calls for assistance. Paul, of course, was our lg83 President - a term during which we doubled our membership and cemented many of our current programs. Audrey has gained the affectionate title of "the Chamber Pot Lady". It's been her dedication to the beautifica- tion of the area that has allowed .this program to existl These accomplishments are but highlights that emphasize the dedication and concern wh. ich aU,three of these people have brought to their Chamber involvement. They are all genuinely concerned with the development and well-being of Westonka. The Chamber and the community owe them a very special thahk you for their service! To those who attended the first joint meeting of.the R~tail Councils, I am sorry that another commit- ment did not allow me to join you. I understand that Chic Remien and President-Elect Steve Wood handled the program well and that those of us who missed Pizza On The Lake's buffet really missed someth~r~g speciaH The Chamber should work on building a strong Retail CoUncil network'. I urge you to become involved in your Retail Councils. They can become the backbone of our business community. Currently, a handful of dedicated people carry the responsibility of developing these Councils. Our other retailers should not expect this small group to'shoulder the task alone while they sit back and reap the benefits. The Board of Directors has made a strong commitment to the establishment of a system of Retail Councils within our organization; however, continuation of this commitment is based on a positive, active participation by area merchants. I urge you to attend your Retail Council meetings this month, your business needs it! Ted Koenecke, President The following nominations have been submitted to the membership for .terms (1985-1987) on the Board of Directors: Pat/Vteisel - Theta Industrial Products/Meisel Hardware .. Carol Pitsch - West Tonka Interiors Donna Quigley. State Bank of Mound Dave Simonson - Town D Country Foods The membership has the right to nominate by petition. If no additional nominations are made, then the candidates listed above will be accepted by the Board of Directors at their regular October Board meeting. Please call the Chamber office with any questions. Chic'n Scratches: Congratulations to Pastor Bob Iverson (Good Shepherd Lutheran) and his familyt It's a girll Isn't that a great new sign at Shoreline Bait ~, Tackle? Herb (Herb's Typewriter Service) -- Hope your broken leg heals fast. For the Record: Planning Commissioners Speak Out FOr the second year in a row, Planning held roundtable discussions at the APA national planning conference. Last year, the subject was planning education; this time there were two--planning commissions, on which this article is based, and small con- sulting firms, which will appear in a later issue. Eight current or recently retired planning commissioners took part in the taped conver- sations: their jurisdictions range [rom a northern suburb to a western county to a big eastern city. Asked to describe the pressures of their assignments, the commissioners lamented the time-consuming nature of rezon- ink hearings and their frustration at being bypassed by' city officials. An important topic that was not discussed, in part because of the constraints of time, was municipal liability. It is the topic of this month's Washington Report. and Viewpoint and will be covered in future issues as well. ('i~k Toward the end of the two.hour discussion, ~he Commissioners turned to an increasingly hot issue: the appropriate role of planning commissions in capital improvements pro- gramming and budgeting. That topic was con- tinued later at the conference session de- scribed on page 8. The Commissioners Estelle Berman. Chair of the Cincinnati planning commission. Richard Brown. Former vice-chair of the Tacoma, Washington, planning commis- sion and an architeci. William Forster. Chairman of the Golden Valley, Minnesota, planning commission, and a retired executive with General Mills. Martin Gallent. Vice-chair of the New York City planning commission and a lawyer. Kerr), Kirschner. Vice-chair of the Sarasota, Florida, planning commission and owner of a fruit shipping company. Derek Shearer. Vice-chair of the Santa Monica planning commission and director of urban studies at Occidental College. Kirby Trumbo. Vice-chair of the Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas area}, planning commission and a mortgage banker. Fred Witzig. Former member of the Duluth planning commission and a pro- fessor of geography and urban studies at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. The roundtable was organized by Piannin$ managing editor Ruth Knack and associate editor .}ames Peters: Joe McElroy assisted. Planning. Planning commissions have a long history, dating back to the 1920s. But at a time of increasing professionalism, the role of a volunteer commission is not always clear. What is a planning commis- sion supposed to be? Derek ,Shearer, I worry that many of us are getting bogged down in technical details. Presumably, a planning commis- sion represents some vision of .what peo- ple want their communities to be like. But we spend a lot of time in Santa Monica making small, nickel-and-dime decisions. Kerry Kirschner. I have been concerned about the nickel and diming, too. Last week, for example, our planning commis- sion meeting started at 7 p.m. and lasted till 1:30 in the morning. And this is typical. Our meetings are so tied up with zoning and site plans that there's little time to look at the total picture. We've asked the planning staff to look into establishing a 'zoning season,' which means that we'd look at all petitions for rezoning during a certain time every six months or even every 12 months. Richard Brown. I get the idea from talk- ing with other commissioners that almost everybody is in the trenches on rezonings. tween the city council and the planning commission. Our city commission gets a report of the latest planning commission session at every meeting. And if the city commissioners have a question as to why the planning commission made a decision, they'll invite the chairman or the vice- chairman to a public meeting to explain why the planning board voted as it did. Berma,. We actually lobby council me'mbers on big issues. Ga/lent. We do, too. We are down at every Board of Estimate meeting. If it is a very heavy issue, the chairman himself is there. Otherwise designated stMf people e there, who will tell the members of the of Estimate, in advance, what the issues are and why the commission voted the way it did. Witzi£. You make the presentation because you don't want the council to make a political decision? Gallom. Just the opposite. The role of the city planning commission is a purely bureaucratic one. We put what we think is a rational consensus together. We've talked about all the issues, and we recom- mend what we believe is best for the city. Now, what is best for the cit.,,, in our view may not be what is best for the city in a political view, and it's my personal opinion that if it can't pass political muster in the Board of Estimate, it shouldn't succeed. We are not elected, after all. We are doing what we think is correct, but if the elected representatives of seven million people say no, that should be it. Berrnan. That's a pretty simplistic at- titude. I'm not sure I agree. Kirschner. Yet Martin has a point. In Sarasota, for example, zoning questions are handled by an appointed board of ad- justment. The only appeal from there is to the courts. These appeals by law cannot be done by the elected city commission. which 1 think is grossly unfair because you can't do anything to get rid of the members of the board of adjustment. Berma,. A hearing examiner has the same kind of autonomy. Brown. But he's subject to political pressure. Gallent. We've partially resolved that problem. We have a Board of Standards and Appeals, which does the same thing as your board of adjustment. The only appeal from it is also right to the courts. But in the last charter revision, a provision was in- serted to allow the Board of Estimate to look at the basis on which the decision of the Board of Standards and Appeals was made. If the Board of Estimate finds that the basis was inadequate, it has the authority to overturn the decision. Berman. We have three zoning overlay districts--hillsides, neighborhood busi- ness districts, and areas of high public investment--that are handled by hearing examiners. The city council is the appeal in those cases. Kirby Trumbo. I don't know if we're for- tunate or unfortunate, but in Clark Coun- ty, the end of the road is the county com- mission, which has jurisdiction over all the unincorporated areas--about 70 percent of the cou. n. ty. The only appeal is to the courts, and 99 percent of the courts will not touch the decisions of the commission. l.carning from ......... Sbc~m','. There's something l'm really curious about. We spend most of our time as planning commissioners modifying and channeling decisions that have already been made by somebody else--mostly someone from the private sector. What I'm wondering is where the new ideas come £rom. Gallent. We have found that some of the most creative ideas come from our com- munity groups. Berman. Or from going some place that you've heard about that's doing something interesting. Sk, earer. I'd like to do more of that. I'm always telling developers, when they ask ~What do you want?'~ to go look at the market in Portland, or something. And of course they fly right up there, but I can't fly my colleagues up there. I wish there were more good visual materials. There are almost no good planning movies, for example. Serma~L We all feel the need to share creative ideas. We tend to get bogged down, and our staff does too. common-sense approach to this thing, so much political as pragmatic. What's possible? What can be done? $1~earer. Anyone who sits on a commis. siil~,couple of years gets to understand th~,'s internal politics, including kno'..,,- ing when the staff is responding to what the city manager or the mayor wants. My biggest problem with many staff members is not that they're political, but that they're so uncreative, l'm bothered by how few options they ever give the plan- ning commision. We all know that a project will get done if the developer has clout and pushes it. But except for that, it is'very rare that anything gets done unless you have a really extraordinary planning director--either that or you have one per- son on the council who ran on that' par- ticulaf issue and then pushes it. In general, find that the staff does a good job with ad- ministering what has to be done but doesn't produce new ideas about what ought to be done. Forster. l agree with what you s~y about the creativity of the staff. There seems to be a lot of rollover among planners, Our community is too small to keep a really good professional planner: we've had three in seven years. So, in our case,the creativ- ity has to come from our regional agency, the Metrol~.litan Planning Commission, or some aggressive city council member. Shearer. 1 find that even the well- educated young planners tend to go along with whatever the city framework is. They and that can hamper participation instead of aiding it.' 'It's pretty obvious,' noted Baltimore planning director Larry Reich, 'that in our culture money and power are synonymous, and where there's an opportunity for a planning department or commission to play a role in expending funds, it will be in a far superior position to the usual one of just giving general advice.' Reich saw the capital program as a way of making the planning function useful to the city administration, and armed with a charter provision mandating planning involvement, he began to develop a six- year capital budget· His department also tracks projects after they are funded· ~/'his is a way,' he added. rnte'grating the planning function directly with the actual operation of city mont." A star of the panel was David McDonell, a St. Paul'planning commissioner who also chairs the city's capital improvements budget committee. McDonell described St. Paul's sophisticated unified, single-document budgeting process, which involves the planning commission more than any of the other cities represented on the panel. The planning commission's role, he explained, is to develop a five-year capital improvements program and then to track it to make sure it conforms both to the city's comprehensive plan and its capital allocation policy. Martin Gallent, vice-chair of the New York City planning commission, noted that, until 1976, his planning commission originated the city's entire capital budget..'~e held the public hearings, set out the issues, and compared the budget to a five-year program. When we finished our work, the document went to the Board of' Estimate and then to the mayor and city council, and they would cut it up as they wished. But at least the first start reflected what we thought was important for our capital needs." Nine years ago, the state legislature revised the commission's charter, taking it out of the capital budgeting process. "Now," said Gallent, 'we can comment but not originate.' And that, be added, leaves the big question: "How do you get the ear of the political establishment to get it to deal with our enormous infrastructure problems? Let's say a planning commission gets the capital budgeting responsibility it has sought. How can it tell if it's doing any good? An easy test, said Baltimore's deputy planning direc- tor, Sheldon Lynn, is to go back to the capital budgets of the last five or six years. 'If the spending priorities are new every year, you know th'at the.people reviewing your recommendations are just going through the motions." The real question, Lynn added, 'is not whether planning commissioners should be involved in capital programming but how to convince the city's decision makers that rshould be.' And the only way to do that is to prove that you have something to --that you can help with analysis, that you can simplify the process, or even that you can take the heat off them by having someone else validate money-allocation decisions.' Lynn concluded, "I wish planners would spend more of their time thinking about how they can be relevant to decision makers than being sorry because they're being ignored.' Ruth Knack don't come to us very often and say, 'It's done differently in this city and that city, and here are some examples to consider as options.' Usually what happens is that I or someone else who knows about these things has to tell them to go and find out. They don't educate the planning commis- sion except on very narrow, technical, legal things. My experience, having lectured in a lot of planning schools, is that most planning education is narrow and technical and not very creative. The level of knowledge' about what's happening in different cities is pretty low among professionals. Everyone knows what's happening in York or San Francisco. But not middle.level cities, like Cincinnati. fc stance. If there hasn't been a profile of Cin- cinnati in the New York'Times or some na- tional journal, you just don't hear about iL 11 admit, though, 1 got more out of some of these meetings here at the conference than out of those materials. l~ilkwe're different from some of the la{~city comm½s's½ons represented here. Our commlss~onerS are just citizens who live on the block. There's a low level of in- terest in what the planning commission does. In fact, I don't think anybody knows who's on it. Most of the people, unless they've got an ax to grind, don't care. I think we have an indifference problem that is quite serious, particularly when we get into long-range projects. For instance, only five or six people show up when we're voting on the comprehensive plan. Maybe part of the reason for the apathy is that we're so apolitical. We don't have any voting blocs on the commission. There are no developers, for instance. Conflict of interest Kirschner. We have the opposite situa- tion. One member of our planning com- mission is one of the largest landholders in the city of Sara$ota, and a lot of people feel that he has a conflict of interest. Brov.,n. In Tacoma, the big issue has been apparent conflict of interest, an issue that sooner or later is going to affect everybody ~. i_~ table. The position I held on the ng commission--the architect's position--still isn't filled because nobody wants it. It means that you can't do any work for the city for two years after you leave the commission, and you can be s,,ed if somebody can find a conflict of interest· Berretta. Ifs that way in Cincinnati, too. Shearer. California law is real tough on obvious conflict of interest--if you have a monetary interest in the property in ques- tion for instance, you can't vote on it. Com- missioners in California have to file the same conflict-of-interest statements that elected officials file. But the law is silent on the issue that seems to me where the real conflict of interest comes in. And that is that no city.council member in any city is barred from voting on a project of a · developer from whom they've received a campaign contribution. So you often have cases where the council overrules the plan- ning commission and the deciding vote is cast by someone with that sort of conflict of interest. Studies show that something like 80 percent of all campaign contribu- tions to city council races come from pea- who have an interest in the sale, )osal, or development of land. Gallent. In New York, we've operated on the thesis that any planning commissioner who has even a suggestion of conflict, something that might not look proper. must disqualify himself before a vote. An extreme exam'ple was when we were voting on an issue that directly affected New York University. Another commis- sioner and I happen to be graduates of the NYL~ law school and the question came up of whether we should disqualify ourselves even though we weren't involved in this particular issue. It became a cause celebre. We decided that we would not disqualify ourselves because, if we did that, then we didn't know how far that sort of thing would reach. If you do have a conflict, though, the way to handle it is to simply tell the commis- sion's counsel that you will not vote on the issue. You should avoid even suggesting publicly that you might have a conflict. It is essential that commissioners be as free of conflict as possible because if your constituents--the local communities-- think you're putting something over on them, you won't have any constituency. Trumbo. What I've observed in the short time that l've been on my commission is that a good chairman makes all the dif- ference. He's vitally instrumental in mak- ing sure that certain conditions are in the motions and in bringing up points that the staff is short on. GallenL In New York City, the planning commission chairman is a direct appointee and serves at the mayol"s pleasure--and he is the director of the department--and that raises some rather interesting issues. We see the chairman as, in a sense, the mayor's representative on the commission, and that can, of course, present problems. But, on the whole, the system has worked extremely well in New York. In the 15 years I've been on the commission we've been fortunate in getting dynamic, and above all, honest, people as chairmen. Numbers Planning. As a whole, are your commis- sions representative of your communities? Witzig. Ours is now, although it didn't use to be. I did a study of our planning commissioners, from the first ones in 1922 on, and I found that only four or five women served until the early sixties. But in the early 1970s seven of our 15 members {our commission is unusually large} were women. An even more dramatic change in planning commission membership is the fact that the represen- tation is broader. The early commissions were dominated by the business community--bankers, lawyers, people who had a real financial stake in the com- munity. That's not true anymore. You also see a lot more retired people on planning commissions, and the}, bring another perspective entirely, particularly in mat- ters relating to housing and similar issues. Planning. Do any of your ~:ommissions have a quota for certain types of representation? Brown. Ours isn't written, but there are slots for a 'housewife,' an educator, a labor representative {because Tacoma is an in- dustrial town}, a realtor, and an architect. Forster. We don't have quotas, but we always seem to wind. up with the ex- president of the League of Women Voters. Kirschner. As I mentioned earlier, we have a large landowner on our commis- sion. In his defense, I should say that he does represent one element of the com- munity. In addition, we have an attox a black businessman, and a printer. Trumbo. We also try to get a cross- section. The chairman of our commission is a woman, and she's also the president of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS FIRST NATIONAL-SOO LINE CONCOURSE 507 MAR(~UETTE AVE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339-8291(AREA CODE 619) FILE: Financial Specialists: [hlers and Associates, Inc. Please distribute to governing body members October l, 1984 The bond market showed some promise early in August, but by the end of the month the Bond Buyer's Index of tax exempt yields retreated going from 9.8% to 10.17%. While lower than the 11.07% in early June, interest rates are still grossly high, taxable or tax exempt. It's promise time with this or that office seeker claiming to be liberal. But with all of the world's debt sloshing around, especially our federal debt, being too liberal can create a serious problem . Mortgage interest rates at over 14% aren't liberal, and even 10~, tax free, is not liberal (except to investors). Both presidential candidates recognize the seriousness of the problem. The difference is that one would increase government spending (except for defense) and raise taxes, while the other would keep lower tax rates, reduce government spending (except for defense) and hope that an expanding economy would provide more total tax dollars. One problem with being too liberal (too compassionate?) is that the remedy may be impotent and hurt the patient, the worker. For example, if we are so liberal that we force producers' costs up to a point where they go out of business or move, the loss of jobs and the economy makes the worker even sicker. We must recognize that taxes at each stage of production, including taxes on wages, salaries, interest rates, earnings and dividends, finally end up in the cost and price of every product or service we sell (if we can sell it). If our costs are higher than those of others, our enterprises will move or fail. The trade deficit will widen, the tax base will be reduced, entitlement claims will increase, and our deficits and debt will grow. If we raise income taxes and raise the cost of productiofl, we risk even less revenue, greater expenditures and harm to the very people we seek to help. The Treasury Department has had hearings on what the U.S. tax structure should be: higher income taxes, simplified income taxes with lower rates, value-added taxes and, barely mentioned, consumption (sales) taxes. Each has its merits, but only one does not raise production costs. Think what it would mean if our production costs could be reduced by, say, 25~ and if the same or more tax dollars could be recovered from a 15-20% tax on all domestic sales. "Illiberal? .... Regressive?" Probably not. Think what it would do for U.S. industries, jobs, reduced entitlement costs, tax revenues, positive trade balances, balanced budgets, and interest rates if our prices could be made more competitive by 25%. Ehlers and Associates have introduced some important financing tools, temporary tax increment bonds and airport grant anticipation financing, which greatly benefit those communities which have tax increment or airport projects. We are also aggressively helping clients increase their cash positions dramatically with new, but safe, use of reverse repos. If your advisor is not aggressively assisting in the competitive investment of borrowed proceeds, you are paying your advisor too much. We are a very good financial consulting firm. If you need financing, you need us. Sincerely, TO McCOMBS - KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 12800 Industrial Pk. Blvd. PLYMOUTH. MN 5544] Phone 559-3700 DATE I JOB NO. WE ARE SENDING YOU ~' Attached [] Under separate cover via [] Shop drawings [] Prints I-1 Plans [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] [] Samples the following items: [] Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval For your use As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS '~/~/~/ [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: ~ubert-H~ .social science ..... . .... '-'- :' . ' ..... '- ' .... - 267 19th ~ve. Contact Person: Betty adcli e Public Education Office - luna, Oct'2 ' - 2:00-~00 p.a." Tufts lraveling Seminar. 'ltid~estern Perspective on #orld A~fairs.' Don Fraser~ ¥iIlis :'%'*':.~:~' ~;?,.'-;'.*~ ' ~ V' *.. :.~. *f...4 :~ .C: ..................... -- :..:;..~ ...... :.-. :.-- .'--,..: Eaken, ~ob ~hite and Harlan Cleveland ~ill meet ~ith 24 visitin~ diplomats. 2&lO '.~'.,'."a~;}?~?? .~. ~ :..:-;.~':<~:i:=~;a~..:~ Living ~oos.- ~y'invitation only. gontact: Patti La~ler~ Public Education Of(ice, I76- " ' Fri;~'"O~t 5" 12:00-1:00 'p;ii'..' ~i~[ !e~X ~.~! ~n_!~i_! S3_!~ ~[~. Pro,ran to be nnnounced.' 2610 / . i ~i ':.. RODS. Contact: Avis aulien~ ~76-2221. ..- Sun~ Dot 7 I2:00 noon Oct 8 ~:00=5:00 Tues~ Oct 9 B:O0 .... 12:00 p.s. .,~.,. 12:15 p.m. Thuis~ Oct 11 12:15 p.m._ .... #eekend~.-iditor: Ted Kolderie. LTCA-TV. Repeated Sundays, 12:30 , ,.: ?; C:~',; .~. ...-: . . ..... .. .~. ,~ .. ~i_q~L~[~"~!~ershi_l! Retreat. Robert Terry, Director, Reflective Leadership . Program~'Husphrey Inst~e N~f~-~;~note and present closing remarks at this University of Hin~esota student retreat held at Camp St. Croix. Registration intormation is '-: '. available trom Retreat Chair~-~ulie Bates~ ~40 Co~tman ~eaorial Union. ~lO~:~gi! l!!g~§. Host: Ar'thur Naftalin. UCA-T¥. 'The Race ~or Congress in the District' Guests: U.$. Representative Rrlan Stangeland (I-RI, grate Senator Collin Peterson~ Detroit Lakes ~OFL nomineel. Repeated ~ednesdays, 7:00 p.m.~ KICI-TV. ~!!!l} ~!£! }g!i~![. Guest: Sir Douglas Black~ visiting professor from United gingdom~ expert on international health care systems~ professor of ~edicine at ' Nanchester University, England. Respondents: ~ohn Brandl~ Humphrey lnstitute~ Laverne ~oberg~ President~ #abater Intitute~ ~alter HcClure~ President, Center for Policy Studies and Ogees Kenney~ Executive Director, Ninnesota Coalition on Health Care Costs~ Campus Club Library. Reservations required. Contact: Patti La~ler~ ~7~-9784. ~llb ~![! ~[i~!!!i O_i!!g!!ig~. Guest: 5ir'Oouglas ~lack. 8y invitation. Contact: Patti La~ler~ $75-978t. .~I~£SOTR ~EETI~. 'The Federal Budget Oeficit: Ho~ Big a Problem?' Guest: Former Governor gohn Connally. Reservations Required. Contact: Patti La~ler~ Public Education Office~ ~76-~784. ~a_r_L~ ~L~a_r_ ~e_r_LK~. 'The Green Party: Does it Have a U.S. Counterpart?' Panelists: Harry Boyd, authorl Luther Gerlach, Pro?essor~ Anthropology Oepartmentl ~ohn Harris! . Ph.D. candidate~ Political Science Oepartment~ and Karma Lehman, Cooperative Community. Oevelop~nt Program, Humphrey Institute of Public ~ffairs. Free and Open to the Public~ ~7 Co{team ~esorial Union. Contact: Betty Radclitte~ Public Education Of{ice~ ~76-9B01. ~CL!~ ~e~i.~i~ !!Ei~. "German Economic Policy: Lessons for the U.S.?" Panelists:-.- Robert Kudrle, Professor, Humphrey Institute of Public Atfairs, Theodore Furber, Attorney and ~ec.-lreas.~ German-A~erican ~usiness Roundtable~ and an agricultural _ economist. Theatre~ St. Paul Student Center. Free and Open to the Public. Contact: Betty Radcliffe~ Public Education Office~ ~76-9801. 5:30-8:00 p.m. ~[~ ~CL~![L~9 i~C ~!!~C~ ~C~g[~!~ ![~{!~l~. Presentations by each of the Institute programs housed at 2610~ buffet supper~ sboNing o{ the fils 'Oairy gueens' by Karma Lehman~ et. al.~ and informal department visits. 'NaN Humphrey Institute students are invited. Contact: Sharon indersonj ~76-9855. Oct'12-1l _C_oDILer_a_ti_ve _C_o!!.uDitl~ _~_e_veig~!_e.n.t P_r_oir_a! _C_o_n!_e_r_eDLe. 'Nomen I~orking with the Land' Speaker: Karma Lehman. At Nilder Forest sponsored by l~ilder Foundation. By invitation only,. Contact: karma Lehian, ~76-g798. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Waters Volume 2, Issue 3 August 1984 Precipitation Trends -- Past, Present and ? Js Minnesota likely to experience continuing increases of above normal prei:ipitation in the near future? , · It is impossible to make a definitive prediction. However, a recently completed analysis of past precipitation patterns pre- pared by the State Climatology Office -- DNR Division of Waters provides an indication of possible short-term condi- tions based on historic trends. The analysis was made of nine-year average annual pre- cipitation at Minneapolis-St. Paul for the 146-year period from 1837 to 1983. This is the longest known record of cli- matic conditions west of the Mississippi River and is an indica- tion of possible short-term conditions based on historic trends (see accompanying graph). The record shows that many lakes and streams do not re- spo. nd drastically to relatively short (one-to-five-year) occur- rences of above average precipitation. The nine-year average pitation pattern, however, shows a strong relationship een prolonged excessive precipitation and high lake lev- els and streamflows. It is well known that lake levels and streamflows dropped substantially in response to the drought that began in the mid- 1920's and intensified during the 1930's. It is less well known that there have been significant periods of excessive preciPi- tation as well. During the last century and one-half, there have been four extended periods of excessive annual precipi- tation. The record shows that the last five years and the last 10 years were wetter than the 146-year average. The record or near-record monthly rainfall during June I984 over much of Minnesota resulted in record or near;record June stream- flows in many areas. This would seem to indicate Minnesota is within the fifth extended period of above-normal annual precipitation. As noted by Larry Seymour, DNR Director of the Division of Waters, "It is not possible to determine if the extended per- iod will peak during 1984, if historic trends hold true, we could continue to have an extended period of high annual precipitation before the amounts begin to diminish. It is not inconceivable that we could be entering an extended wet per- iod which approaches or even exceeds the magnitude and duration of the extended very wet periods of the 1870's and 1900's. s show that each of the previous four extended peri- ods o{ excessive annual precipitation were followed by peri- ods of deficient precipitation and extended drought condi- tions. If historic climatic trends hold true. Minnesota can anticipate an accompanying extended period of drier than normal precipitation when the present extended wet period ends. During the prolonged periods of excessive annual precipi- tation in the mid to late-1880's and the early 1900's, the ex- tended wet periods created flooding problems for the devel- oping areas of the state. The magnffude of the problems was relatively small compared to problems occurring now. The climate's impact on the greatly increased population and de- veloped residential, recreational and agricultural lands along streams and lakes creates greater social and economic prob- lems today. Over the past 20 years, Minnesota has developed consid- erable legislation to regulate man's activities involving the use of our surface waters. Included in the legislation were the Shoreland and Flood Plain Management Acts and the water permit systems governing changes in the course, current and cross-section of protected waters and the appropriation and use of waters of the state. These laws promote the wise use, development, protection and preservation of water re- sources. Larry Seymour further stated 'despite these fundamentally sound laws, and the present technological advances, disas- trous floods will occur causing great damage and cost to Min- nesotans during excessive wet periods. Conversely, we still experience the disasb'ous effects of excessive dry periods. During these periods, low streamflow and lake levels cause water shortages affecting many people in all walks of life.' The public needs to know and understand the complexity of Minnesota's hydrologic cycle. No one has been, and prob- able never will be, able to control the climate. "In regard to flooding, we need strengthened programs which emphasize keeping people away from flood-prone ar- eas and which provide for contingency plans for those who already live in flood-prone areas. We need similar strong pro- grams to recognize the need for improved water conservation and the development of workable drought contingency plans; concluded Seymour. Minneapolis - St Paul precipitation' ol (cont'd from page 2...) The Prior Lake Watershed District is sponsoring a two-part flood control project. The first phase consists of an outlet s~cture constructed in 1982 with a runout e]evati0n 1.5 feet below the NOHW, and downstream (outlet) channel im- wments. The second phase wi]] consist of upstream ater impoundments, Prior Lake experienced high water levels when the outlet was being constructed. The receiving channel had not yet been stabi~ed and was incapable of conveying the design flow without serious downstream erosion. The watershed dis~ct, because of the potential damage to iow lying resi- dences and utilities, decided to commence limited discharge through the outlet system even though the downstream channel was not seeded, and stabilized. Above normal snow- fall and spring rainfall in 1983 resulted in Prior Lake rising to ' an 'elevation of approximately 905.5, threatening approxi- mately 40 homes. Property owners were frustrated in that the out]et could not be operated at full capacity as the water levels continued to rise and threatened their homes. This high water remained throughout much of 3.983, hampering efforts to ini- tiate the downstream channel improvements. Subsequent 'calculations by the watershed engineer indicate that even with the outlet operating at reduced capacity, it did prevent Prior Lake from rising an additional three feet. Permanent, I00-year flood protection was not feasible in this particular case. It was determined to be politically and ec- onomically infeasible to improve the outlet channel (i.e., in- creased water conveyance capacity, erosion protection, etc.) to the degree necessary to accept the amount of water re- led to Prior Lake at the NOHW for all ex- keep or near runoff events. Upon final completion of the first phase project, the 3.00-year flood event will be lowered from 909.2 to 907.5. The flood control project should provide protection for smaller, more frequent flooding e~,ents. Lake Pulaski The total watershed area of Lake Pulaski is approximately 3500 acres of which the lake surface currently covers 850 acres. These values yield a con~buting watershed area to lake area ratio'of 3: ! which is generally considered by hydrol- ogists to be insufficient to maintain water levels for a lake in Minnesota. Therefore, it is reasoned that La~e Pulaski water levels are to a large degree affected by groundwater flow. Recorded water level measurements are scarce. The Iow- est recorded elevation of 952 occurred in 1942. The highest known ia~e level was estimated to be 970 in 1858. As of June 20, 3.984, the lake was at an elevation of approximately 965. The NOHW was established for Lake Pulaski at an eleva- ~' tion of 968.8 on June :11, 3.982. Approximately 65 perma- nent and seasonal homes are located below this elevation; an additional 15 homes are located at an elevation between the ' NOHW and the highest known water level. With the reality of rising lake levels, an agreement was :hed among the City of Buffalo, Buffalo Township, Wright ~nty and the DNR on the management of development a~-ound Lake Pulaski. The major points of this management plan include: 1) Existing struct'ures located on the lakebed (below the NOHW) may remain in their present location and be used to their present level of use until water levels make them a threat to public health, safety and we]-, 2) Existing structures on the lakebed may be repaired or maintained provided the degree of permanence and the outside dimensions of the structure are not in- creased. 3) On-site sewage systems are prohibited on the lakebed. 4) Fill for lots that are totally surrounded by lakebed are prohibited. 5) New or additional structures are prohibited from being located on the lakebed. The reuse or reoccupation of the lakebed lands are limited to open space type uses. The DNR and local government have been strongly eh-. couraging all potentially affected residents to purchase flood insurance. Approximately 50 policies are cui'rently in effect in the Lake Pulaski area. As of May ;15, 1984, a total of $143,000 has been paid on claims for damages for 9 policies. These values will increase as damages continue and claims are paid. Considerable effort was expended to try and con- vince the NFIP to pay for the relocation of threatened struc- tures in lieu of paying more costly claims, but to no avail. The City of Buffalo and Wright County jointly applied for a $756,000 grant under the Minnesota Small Cities Develop- ment Program. The grant application requested funds for the voluntary relocation of homes from the bed of Lake Pulaski and for road reconstruction to facilitate the relocation. This joint application was not selected for funding as this grant pro- gram is extremely competitive. At the request of local government, the U.S. Army Crops of Engineers (COE) completed an initial appraisal report on flood control for Lake Pulaski on April 20, ;1984. The COE flood control alternatives included construction of an outlet at elevation 967.3 and the relocation of structures below the NOHW. The St. Paul District has requested additional fund-' lng from its. Washington office to complete the reconnais- sance/design phase of the study. Any flood control project proposed for Lake Pulaski will compete with similar projects nationwide for limited construc- tion funding. It appears that the most competitive projects are those with a high benefit to cost ratio anti a strong local spon- soring agency willing to exceed the minimum cost-sharing re- quirements. There has been much discussion over who should take the lead role in implementing a solution to the Lake Pulaski flooding problem. Many possibilities exist. It has recently been suggested that a Lake Improvement District be orga- nized by the lakeshore residents to address the issues. Summary As with most severe problems, much time and energy is initially spent requesting state or federal assistance in resolv- ing local concerns. However, real solutions to controversial water resource problems are more likely realized when there exists strong local interests working together to resolve their own problems. It must be realized from the start, that any so- lution must work within the confines of the legal rights of up- stream, adjacent and downstream property owners as well as within state laws intended to preserve and protect the state's natural resources. State and federal agencies normally have the capacity to coordinate their efforts, provide technical as- sistance when requested and, eventually, help implement the recommended solution with available resources. Lakes -- The tory Approach Lake flooding can be viewed as a people problem. High lake levels catch the public eye as lakesh0re homes are inun- dated, evacuated and, in many cases, eventually destroyed. itionally, for every flooded lakeshore home there are )ably several lakeshore residences without structural damage experiencing problems with flooded septic systems, contaminated wells or lack of access of their property. We hear very little about high water levels and development problems on lakes that are mostly undeveloped or properly managed. As discussed earlier, much of the development now subject to lake flooding occurred prior to the adoption of local shore- land and flood plain land use regulations. During the 1970'S, the legislature promulgated respective statewide standards for shoreland and flood plain development. These standards address the safe and wise use of land adjacent to protected waters and wetlands. These programs do overlap somewhat, especially in the area of flood damage prevention, but they do have distinctive areas of jurisdiction, goals and manage- ment objectives. The State Flood Plain Management Act (Minnesota Stat- ute, Chapter 104) requires local government to regulate the 100-year flood plain to reduce future flood damages and to protect the public health and safety. In its simplest sense, local flood plain regulations must require new development adja- cent to lakes to be elevated or otherwise be protected to the 100-year flood level and limit encroachment into the water- body proper so as not to damage others. flke flooding is very different from riverine flooding in that ood water is normally ponding in storage above the NOHW and is not flowing. Therefore,when a development is reviewed in a lake flood plain area, the traditional floodway/ flood fringe distinction need not normally be made. In the traditional sense, the area above the OHW and be- low the 100-year flood level on a lake can be equated to the flood drainage and the area below the OHW as floodway. De- velopment may occur abovethe OHW provided local permit officials require, at a minimum, the lowest floor of all struc- tures (including basement areas and accessory land uses) are protected to the flood protection elevation. A problem facing local zoning/building officials is that many flood insurance studies, which serve as the basis for the flood plain zoning dis- trict map, provide approximate ].00-year flood delineations' with no accompanying 100-year flood level. This will be fur- ther discussed later in this article. FJood loss reduction is only one aspect of the proper man- agement of a waterbody. The goal of the state's shoreland management program is to establish a management scheme (classification) for a waterbody to insure future development is consistent with the waterbody's capability to assimilate it. The goal is not only to prevent flood damages, but to protect the entire social, economic and physical environment. Therefore, shoreland regulations must control such activities lot size (density), lowest floor elevation, sewage system well design and setback, vegetation removal, erosion control, building height limitations, etc. Counties and many municipalities are mandated by state law (Minnesota Statute, Chapter 105) to adopt sh0reland management standards consistent with state standards. The jurisdiction of these regulations for lakes extends 1000' back from the OHW, or to a topographic divide if closer than 1000'. The jurisdiction for a river or stream extends 300' from the OHW or to the landward extent of a flood plain desig- nated by ordinance on such river or stream, whichever is the greater of the two distances. Local shoreland controls, standing alone, will often prop- erly regulate lake flood plain development, especially in ap- proximate flood plain areas where no 100-year flood level has been Provided. Often, the structure setback from the lake by itself, which may vary from 50' -- 200' horizontally, will put the structure at such an elevation 'that there is no potential for flooding. In the absence of 100-year flood elevation data, state shoreland standards require that the lowest floor (in- cluding basement) be placed 3' above the highest known wa- ter level or, in the absence of recorded high water elevations, 3' above the NOHW. Local building officials and advisory commissions under state flood plain standards can exercise reasonable discretion in determining what is the appropriate flood protection level for a lake. Where long-term historical records or accounts and physical evidence indicate very little fluctuation in water levels, local officials may prudently accept the above-noted 3' criterion as an acceptable flood protection standard, Accept- ance of this 3' criterion would suffice then in place of a de- tailed hydrologic/hydraulic analysis for the waterbody. Using the 3' criterion becomes more questionable for lakes that have experienced significant water level fluctuations, land- locked lakes, or lakes which have a very large contributing watershed area. A community may also have to rely exclu- sively on its flood plain controls where the flood plain extends beyond the jurisdiction of its shoreland controls. For ques- tionable areas, or areas not regulated by shoreland controls, a detailed hydrologic study may be required to determine the appropriate 100-year flood elevation. Admittedly, the three DHR administered programs de- scribed in this newsletter, Protected Waters Permits, Shore- land Management and Floodplain Management programs, can be confusing and difficult to administer at the local level. However, the overall goals and objectives of these pr.ograms are similar, to provide for the wise development near our lakes and streams in a manner which not only preserves and protects the state's valuable water resources, but also serves to protect the development itself. While individuals will inevi- tably complain about excessive governmental regulation, these programs will hopefully prevent future iakeshore devel- opment problems similar to those being experienced today. The work that provides the ba.~ Jor thb publication was ~pported by.funding under a coopemtlve agreement with the Federal Emen2enc7 Management Agency. The substance and findings of that work are dedicated to the public The author and publisher are ~olely responsible for the accuracy of the statemen~ and interpreta//ons contained In this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Government". Iorthwest Publications Iron Range Reeources & Rehabilitation Board _..$23,750,000 - Higher Education ~ .:-...:,~7 :. ......... . - ..... ~- Coordinating Board .. - $,.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.~3,000,000 Department of Energy : :.:. ' *" I~ Economic'Developmerit ~'3'750'000 ' " Alex Leery ./Staff Artist · .. ' . . , '~ ,:,; . Minnesota is dividing its induS~'iai rev~enue bond allocation among .state agencies, cities that hav_e used b~.o_nds in the 'past and.a poo_..!~...a.~ail.a.b.le-~-atl~iU~ts-''-';~-*: ~- '-'~-'~'~; ' ..... faCing( Formula:.-Crees"" ' "' . ContinUed frown Page 5 ' "~:- ';" couraging " 'b' kits Uocaa° toth;'P0ol' :TOp 10 Minnesota h es=d b~tne~idesinagndmJ~;;trY. ting euergy, and. environmental~ and doesn't apply for 'more, might lower the basis for future al.' ' fEB l°catibns. But a city could lose' more than part of its allocation .ii it retains its bonding authority but doesn't issue the bonds. · ..L-The state law requires cities'tO:. deposit 1 percent of the unused al. · location in order to hold it. As 'bgnds are issued, the' deposit' is.i;e~,- turned. If the city has bonding au-'. flibrit~, left over at the end of Octo- illOcatiOns. St. Paul. ~ '2 .... 'i:. $87,919,849 Minneal~olis ~ .... i.;_ d.. $48,91.7,62 SilverBay. "' · $26,130,97! Backer ......... $22,91'1,636 Minnetonka ....... $13,098,933 Burnsville... ,.. ~:'r ~ $11,582,919 . Duluth'; ' $10,894,525 Bloomington .- .... . i'.$10,751,327 Eagan ' . $9,901,339 _her, it must return the allocation to · Eden Prairie ' .$9,239,314 the pool or risk losing its dePOSit if '- the bonds are not used'byAhe end -- . - of the year.:.2_..____ ____~ ...... ~ ...... snare~ot the state's bonding author' '~rhey seem to be forming afu- can trade its allocation to another tures market in IRBsr'-' said Ctwtis city. That pro,/ision was included Johnson,, director of the Citizens to give entitlement cities the League. A task force of the league chance to enlarge their bonding ca-, pacify, since they cannot apply to has spent more than a year study- the pool for add, itional fUnds until lng the issue of development fi- Sept 1. -- -,i-~ ..... , ~ -nancing, but its report was recent- ly rejected by the league's board. This year, Backer and Silver Bay The board has chartered a new had huge allocations becanse of ex-' . task force to study the role of cities traordinary high use in the past as' real estate developers and few years for industrial pollution control projects. They cities traded jaway most of their' allocations, with Minneapolis drawing the lion's share -- $26.1 million from Silver Bay and $13[Tii~llion 'from ' :"In returhi. Minneapolis. reim- bursed the two cities for adminis- trative expenses incurred, and promised them first rights to any unused allocations Minneapolis has in 'the future.. Both Silver Bay'. and Backer will be able to e0unt the traded alloca- tions in' determining their future · "Fishing in the pool." The state law Sets 19 economic and social' criteria for use of the pool alioca- fi0n.. Each'bond application is awarded one l~int for each crite- ria it meets. 'An applicati,on must have-a minimum of four demand exceeds the pool's supply, the projects are ranked in Order of the number of points they 'are' .awarded. Th~'C~t~izia'ca~'b~ ~liVided into' [ these broad'CategOfie~f increasing employment opport~itiities, enhanc- Jag the local property tax base; eh- goals. · "AnY ~ttempt in the direction Of 'judging projects on the basis of so-: cial' and economic needs is a step in the right direction," said Micha- el Dean, .a spokesman for'the Min,: neapolis Commmunity Develop- ment Agency. Minneapolis adopted, standards ' Several years' ago' %'i which development projects seek-~ lng government subsidies were: judged, he said. More than $100 million of the! pool already has I/can disbursed. Most of that bonding authority has gone to Hennepin County to build a . new waste management plant. ' ' The comp e .ew game is b ing I played at a frantic pace. Until the[ federal law became effective'in[ mid-JulY, most cities were' unablei 'to issue IRBs because the pending] legislation PUt ~eir tax status in~ - jeopardy'. As-of last week, only two~ bond issues had been completed us,',. lng the allocated funds. , "The law effectively forces months of work into the last six '! months of the year," said Stev~n ! Yanisch, finance project manager-~, for the Minneapolis ,C,o, mmtmityl Development Agency.- That ore.' ' ~.se.nts a lot of !ogistica'l Problem[. Itj .m~es just so much time' to r~d~ documents and process 'applica.';i But 'one public official also'i Citize.ns..: L eague-- shifts.` StUdy focus" The partnerShip betWeen '¢itie/. issue: "The Role of Cities as and real estate developers has a Real Estate Developers' and particular fascination for the. Investors." ;' Citizens League. . · . The new task force, headed"by In August, the board ;f direc- Thomas swain of St. Paul Fire & :tors of the league, a Twin Cities -Marine Co., will examine the role public, policy 'group, decided to of cities in'development and at- reject a task force report criti-: 'tempt to devise. ~li~'l for ha~- cai of the present system of pub- riling this new relauons p. '_ -~ lie subsidies in development "CitiEs have always been in- · finance, vol,;ed With real estate develop-. z~,. The report' was' the regult of 'months' of effort on 'the part of. the task force. The rejection, an. unusual move for the league, came only alter many hours of debate at board-meetings span- ning nearly five months. The board was dissatisfied · . with the recommendations of the report, which were sharply critical of. the current system of develoPment subsidies. A key target of the report was indus- trial revenue bonds (IRBs), which it originglly recommend- ed should be eliminated. After several unsuccessful attempts to revise the recommendations, the board considered issuing l the findings 'of the report without making recommendations., But that, too, was rejected..' -'' .... '. "The board decided that by re- moving the recommendations, it reallY wasn't a league report, which typically say what should be. done about the .issue," ,said Curtis Johnson, exe?. Utive direc- tor of the league. ers, mostly through planning and zoning, and. Provisions for' basic infrastructure," reads the task' force's charter. ~'In .recent years, cities have· .calletl on new tools to guide de- velopment. These tools, primar- 'fly iinai~cial, have-ushered .in a new working relat4onship be- tween government officials' and private developers." The task force was instructed t°: · Examine .the rationale be- hind the city's involvement in · not only regulating develop- ment, but also guiding, and fi- ~ nancing it. · Identify existing or potential hazards, such as conflicts of in- terest, between .. the rSgulatory · and developmentroles. ' · Develop a way to manage the city's role in real estate de- velopment,' addressing such questions as criteria for .distrib- uting financial assistance,, the types' of financial assistance' that should be available and whether · But thatdoesn'.tmean the Citi- governmental structures and Zen's League is done'with.the is-- roles should be made more. ac-, sue.. It has chartered another countable. -- Jim McCartne. v task force to look afa related ,