The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-06-22C~FY OF MOUND ~SS~ON STATEMENT.. The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citi~ safe, attractive and fl0~ri~h[~q ~Q~%~ , ~%~%~ CITY OF MOUND ovNo, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 8 1993, REGULAR MEETING. , RESOLUTION SETTING THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER & SEWER REVENUE BONDS - SERIES 1993B. (SUGGESTED SALE DATE: JULY 27, 1993). 4. RESOLUTION SETTING SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING REFUNDING BONDs - SERIES 1993C. (SUGGESTED SALE DATE: JULY 27, 1993). 5. ~ JERRY WEILAND FOR TIM KENEALY, 6319 BAY RIDGE ROAD, LOT 9, BLOCK 1, HALSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDITION, PID ~23-117-24 33 0020. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. 6. ~ DAVID THOMPSON, FOR VALERI KAVRos 4822 GLASGOW ROAD, RLS 1571 TRACT A, PID #24-117- 24 44 0214. , ' REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. 7. ~ KEITH PUTT, 5562 SHERWOOD DRIVE, RLS 1222, TRACT C, PID #13-117-24 23 0030. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. ~ W. WAYNE & LIN TERWILLIGER, 2945 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 34 WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 42 0008., REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR COVERED DECK. PG. 2052 - 2058 PG. 2059 - 2065 PG. 2066 - 2090 PG. 2091 - 2100 PG. 2101 - 2124 PG. 2124 - 2139 PG. 2140 - 2152 2048 10. 14. C~ASE ~93-022: KEN ROELOFS CONST., INC., FOR KENNETH DAHL~REN, 4347 WILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 75 & 76 AND LOT B IN THE FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK, FIRST DIVISION, PID #19-117- 23 13 0008. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. EASE ~93-0245 GLORIA SISTEK, 5342 PIPER ROAD, LOT 39, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID #25-117-24 21 0110. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. 11. C__ASE ~93-025: DAVID SCHRUPP FOR LINDA KUNDE, 4916 HANOVER ~OAD, LOTS 16 & 17 BLOCK 18 DEVON, PID #25-117-24 11 0082. ' , REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. 12. CASE #93-026: KA/REN & LEEANNE PEDERSON, 2050 WATERSIDE LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK CROCKER,S, PID 313-117-24 33 0022. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. 13. CASE ~93-027~ GREG & VICKIE PEDERSON, 6087 ASPEN ROAD, LOT 18, BROOKTON, PID #14-117-24 31 0019. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR POOL. REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL RE: MILFOIL TREATMENT - DUTCH LAKE, NANCY NORDSTROM, 5856 GRANDVIEW BLVD. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. PG. 2153 - 2165 PG. 2166 - 2182 PG. 2183 - 2193 PG. 2194 - 2210 PG. 2211 - 2224 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION: ROBERT & MARILYN BYRNES, 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 38, WYCHWOOD, DOCK SITE #51735, CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND TO REPLACE EXISTING STAIRWAY. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. APPROVAL OF FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY ORDINANCE AND THE SUMMARY ORDINANCE. PG. 2238 - 2249 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN - OUR LADY OF THE PG. 2250 - 2251 LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL. PG. 2252 - 2253 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 2225 - 2227 PG. 2228 - 2237 PG. 2254 - 2274 2049 21. Je ~NFORMATION/MISCELLANEOU~ A. Financial Report for May 1993, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. PG. 2275 - 2276 B. Letter dated May 25, 1993, written from the League of Minnesota Cities to Michael Durell, Minneapolis re: the removal of Mayor Johnson from office. PG. 2277 - 2286 C. Letter dated June 8, 1993, from Mo Mueller, of the Parks & Open Space Commission re: her lack of attendance at recent meetings. POSC did not take any position on this letter. PG. 2287 D. Letter dated June 14, 1993, from Brian Asleson of the Parks & Open Space Commission resigning from the POSC. PG. 2288 E. Notice from the Governor,s Office re: vacancies on Metropolitan Council due to redistricting of the Metro Council districts. PG. 2289 - 2290 F. Letter dated June 9, 1993, from Governor Arne Carlson re: FY 1994-95 budget of the State of Minnesota. PG. 2291 - 2292 G. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of June 10, 1993. PG. 2293 - 2299 H. Planning Commission Minutes - June 14, 1993. PG. 2300 - 2210 I. The schedule for the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board for the remainder of the year: ~eetinq Dat~ M~avor/City Council July 6 No August Meeting Skip Sept. 7 Oct. 5 Liz Nov. 2 Andrea Dec. 7 Phyllis Ken Packets will be sent to us prior to these meetings. I will send them out as I get them. Notice from State of Minnesota, Public Utilities Commission re: Minnesota Independent Equal Access Corporation ("MIEAC,,) filing for a general rate increase. PG. 2311 2050 ne Me Oe Letter dated June 12, 1993, from Hennepin County Old Tyme County Fair inviting you to attend this year's events. PG. 2312 - 2313 REMINDER: Lake Area Mayor,s Meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, June 30, 1993, 5:30 P.M., Shorewood City Hall. Agenda will focus on service delivery analysis to be performed with technical assistance to be provided by the Metropolitan Council. REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 18-20, 1993. REMINDER: City of Orono Open House at new City Hall, Sunday, June 20, 1993, 1-4 P.M. REMINDER: Bruce Miller Day, Thursday, July 1, 1993. 2051 Ii t, I ! ' Mound City Council June 8, 1993 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 8, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June S, 1993, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said city. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, city Attorney Curt Pearson, city Planner Bruce Chamberlain, and the following interested citizens: Tom Casey, John Edewaard, Brad Biermann, Heidi Lindberg, Neil Weber and Eric Lindberg. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES The Council asked that a correction be made on page one of the Board of Review as follows: "It was stated that the property owner could appeal the ...... = u city's decision at the Hennepin County Board of Review on June 15, 1993." MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve the Minutes of the May 25, 1993 Board of Review and Regular Meeting, as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 CASE ~93-012: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR GARY & KATHLEEN SPAULDING, 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRI¥~, LOT 4, BLOCK 5m REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID %13- 117-24 21 0069 The City Manager read a letter from the applicant asking that this item be referred by to the Planning Commission so that they may submit a modified proposal. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to refer Case %93-012 to the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. The Council also asked that the Planning Commission be given a copy of the resolution for denial for their information. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 DISCUSSION: TEAL POINTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Planner, Bruce Chamberlain explained that the EAW for Teal Pointe has now been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Park & Open Space Commission and their comments have been included in the Mound City Council June 8, 1993 EAW. He further explained that the EAW needs to be approved tonight for distribution to the EQB and other interested parties. The schedule for the EAW is as follows: June 8, 1993 City Council approval of the EAW for distribution. June 10, 1993 City of Mound sends EAW to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and distribution list. June 14, 1993 June 15, 1993 EAW received by EQB (assumed). City of Mound submits required press release to 'The Laker' for publication on June 21, 1993. June 28, 1993 July 28, 1993 August 10, 1993 August 12, 1993 August 23, 1993 Publication of EAW in 'EQB Monitor' - start of 30 day comment period. End of comment period. Mound City Council Meeting - EAW decision on need for EIS. City of Mound distributes notice of EAW decision. Notice of decision published in 'EQB Monitor'. Mr. Chamberlain also submitted approvals with conditions from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Historical Society that were received today. He further explained that tonights action is just to approve the information in the EAW document so that it can be distributed for comments. The comment period will be between June 28, 1993 and July 28, 1993. Tom Casey was present and stated that he feels there are some corrections that need to be made in the EAW. 1. The plat shown on page 1943 should not show half of Cobden Road as vacated. Bruce Chamberlain stated he would see that it is changed. Mr. Casey disagreed with the certain answers in the EAW: 1. Question llb. "Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special-concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the siteTM The answer was No. ' Mr. Casey asked that an on-site investigation be done on this question. 2 Mound City Council Jun~ 8, 1993 Question 12. "Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, steam diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch? The answer was No. Question 15. "Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?" The answer was No. After Council discussion of the above items, they asked that Mr. Casey submit his comments in writing during the comment period. MOTION made by Smith seconded by Johnson approving the EAW for distribution to all the appropriate agencies and authorizing a press release to The Laker for publication on June 21, 1993. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 COMMgNTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Eric Lindberg, 5561 Sherwood Drive, stated he would like to see additional items be included in the proposed facility upgrades that will be bonded for in 1993. He presented a 3 page background on the water quality in Mound. Included in this was the current condition of water in Mound; the effects of unfiltered water; Federal Regulations relating to the Safe Water Drinking Act; and four solutions that he sees as options the City has. The four possible solutions are as follows: Update the facilities without filtering the water. Add a Iron/Manganese filtration system and leave the water softening to the homeowners. Add a Iron/Manganese filtration system as well as a Ion Exchange softening system. This would be the same as homeowners replacing hardness with some sodium as current water softeners accomplish. It would remove the need for home water softeners. Add a Iron/Manganese filtration system as well as a Lime/Ash softening system. This would also soften water but without placing residual sodium in the system. Also included was a cost estimate for Mound water filtration to homeowners on each option. The Council asked that the report that was done in 1990 by McCombs Frank Roos Associates for water treatment be updated so they can be reviewed for possible combination with the proposed bond issue or a separate bond issue. They also asked that the staff check into the Safe Water Drinking Act. No further action was taken at this time. Mound City Council June 8, 1993 ]..4 RESOLUTION REAFFIR~'rN~ AUTHORI~.IN~ CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-73 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO STUDY THE POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 35 MPH TO 30 MPH ON COUNTY ROAD 15 FROM COUNTY ROAD 110 EAST TO BELMONT LAN~ The City Manager explained that this resolution has been drafted making a formal request for a reduced speed limit in the downtown area of County Road 15. After discussion, the Council asked for certain changes in the proposed resolution. The 7th Whereas to read as follows: "Whereas, the City Council has requested Hennepin County to request the Minnesota Department of Transportation to~v~ewreduce the speed limit in this specific area." Add another Whereas to read as follows: "Whereas, to be consistent with County Road 110 which is 30 M.P.H. in downtown Mound; and County Road 15 lying west of County Road 110 which is 30 M.P.H. for about 1 mile, the City is requesting 30 M.P.H. on County Road 15 from County Road 110 east to Belmont Lane." Change the Now, Therefore as follows: "Now, Therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, request that Hennepin County request that the Minnesota Department of Transportation reduce the speed limit on County Road 15 from County Road 110 east to Belmont Lane from 35 M.P.H. to 30 M.P.H. in this specific area." Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution as amended: RESOLUTION #93-74 RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO STUDY THE POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 35 MILES PER HOUR TO 30 MILES PER HOUR ON COUNTY ROAD 15 FROM COUNTY ROAD 4 Mound Civ7 Council June 8, 1993 110 EAST TO BELMONT LANE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council then discussed the signal light in Spring Park that is backing up traffic to Navarre during rush hours. They asked that the City Manager speak to the Mayor of Spring Park to see if they would request that the County modify how this light reacts to the traffic turning onto County Road 151 from County Road 15 and traffic entering 15 from 151. 1.6 DISCUSSION: LMCD LAKE ACCESS PARKING AGREEMENT The City Manager stated he has no new information on this item. No action was taken on this item. 1.7 REVIEW OF LMCD 1994 PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET The Council reviewed this and had no comments. 1.8 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. AND BALBOA MINNESOTA CO., INC., INVOLVING LAND NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to set a public hearing to consider a major subdivision request by Dakota Rail, Inc. and Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. involving land north of the Balboa Building at $300 Shoreline Drive for Tuesday, July 13, 1993. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 LICENSE RENEWALS The following licenses were presented for approval (Expire 6-30-93. New License Period 7-1-93 to 6-30-94): On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Headliners Bar & Grill Club License American Legion Post #398 VFW Post #5113 Sunday On-Sale Liquor Headliners Bar & Grill VFW Post #5113 Mound City Council June g, 1993 Qff-$ale Beer A1 & Alma's Supper Club Brickley's Market PDQ Store #0292 SuperAmerica #4194 0n-Sale Beer A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy Mound Lanes On-Sale Wine A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy Set-Up Permie A1 & Alma's Supper Club MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to authorize issuance of the above licenses contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being provided; all taxes and water for the property being paid; approval of the Police Chief; and where necessary the appropriate department. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 PAYMENT OF BILL~ MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $70,869.80, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1993. B. LMCD Representative's Report for May 1993. C. L.M.C.D. mailings. De Lake Area Mayor's Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 15, 1993, 7:30 A.M., Copper Stein, Tonka Bay. This meeting is to discuss a proposed agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the Lake Minnetonka Cities as it relates to a Service Delivery Analysis to be performed, with technical assistance, by Staff of the Metro Council. This study relates to the 6 I I 1, i · it ~ ' Mound City Council Eo Fe 0 June 8, 1993 project we have been reviewing dealing with Lake Area cities Cooperation and Collaboration on municipal service delivery. Letter from a Spring Park resident thanking officer Huggett for his assistance in helping her take care of a flat tire. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 1993. Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 20, 1993. REMINDER: Around Mound Run/Walk, Saturday, June 12, 1993, Mound Bay Park. Spaghetti Feed Friday, June 11, 1993, Mound Bay Park, 5 P.M. - 8 P.M. REMINDER: "Celebrate Summer" Series - Music in the Park, Friday, June 11, 1993, 5 P.M. - 9 P.M. R~MI~DER: Annual Community Education and Services Certificate of Compliance Meeting, June 14, 1993, 7:00 P.M. - 7:30 P.M., School Board Meeting Room. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, June 15, 1993, 7:30 P.M. City Hall. REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 18-20, 1993. REMINDER: City of Orono Open House at new City Hall, Sunday, June 20, 1993, 1-4 P.M. REMINDER: Bruce Miller Day, Thursday, July 1, 1993. Letter from Hennepin County Assessor regarding statistical data on the January 2, 1993 assessment. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., city Manager Attest: City Clerk A. THO~IAS WURST. PA. CURTIS A. PEARSON. P.A. ,JAMES D. LARSON. P.A. TNONAS Ir. UNOE:RWOOO. P.A. C~AIG M. HERTZ ~OGE~ ~. ~ELLOWS LAW OFF'ICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & IV~ERTZ ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA, SUITE I100 17'0 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S540~.-1803 June 16, 1993 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: $1,350,000 G.O. Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B $ 540,000 G.O. Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C City of Mound Dear Ed: At the request of Nancy Langness, we have prepared resolutions calling for the issuance and sale of the above bonds for the Council': consideration at their meeting on June 22, 1993. We are sending the original resolutions to you and a copy of each resolution to Nancy Langness. If either of you have any questions or comments concerning these resolutions, please call. CAP:ih Enclosures cc: Ms. Nancy Langness City Attorney ! ! 1, ! ! I~ I I EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in the City of Mound on Tuesday, the 22nd day of June, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR TBE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,350,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATERANDSEWERREVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1993B, FOR IMPROVEMENTS TOTBE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS OF THE CITY W~EREAS, the City of Mound owns and operates a municipal water system and a municipal sanitary sewer system, and WHEREAS, said water and sewer systems are in need of improvements which will allow the systems to adequately serve the residents of the City, and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is necessary to make said improvements, and to borrow funds to provide for the construction of said improvements by the sale of general obligation water and sewer revenue bonds, and WHEREAS, the City is authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 444 and 475 to construct, reconstruct, and improve said systems and to provide funds for such purpose by the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds, NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The project, consisting of the construction of improvements to~~ater and sewer systems of the City by .i.s hereby approved for completion in accordance with authority aranted to ~ne City by Chapters 444 and 475 of Minnesota Statutes. ~ 7- 2. The City shall issue and sell its General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B, in the aggregate principal amount of $1,331,100 for the above stated purposes. It is further determined that additional bonds in the amount of $18,900 shall be issued to represent the additional cost of marketing bonds, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.56, which amount does not exceed 2% of the amount otherwise authorized. All amounts received for the sale of said bonds in excess of $1,331,100 shall be credited to the sinking fund for the payment of interest on these obligations. 3. Springsted Incorporated is hereby directed to negotiate for the sale of the Bonds in accordance with the attached Terms of Proposal (Exhibit A), as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subd. 2, paragraph (9). Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, until 10:30 a.m., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 p.m., Central Time, on the same day. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Attest: Mayor City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF MOUND I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on June 22, 1993, with the original on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom. WITNESS My hand officially as such Clerk this , 1993. day of City Clerk EXHIBIT A THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WiLL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,350,000 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBUGATION WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1993B Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 1993, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1994. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1996 $70,000 1997 $70,000 1998 $75,00O 1999 $80,000 2000 $80,000 2001 $85,000 2002 $90,000 2003 $ 95,000 · 2004 $100,000 2005 $100,000 2006 $110,000 2007 $115,000 2008 $120,000 2009 $125,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2001, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2002. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge net revenues of the City's Water and Sewer Utilities. The proceeds will be used to finance the construction of various improvements to the City Water and Sewer Utilities. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $1,331,100 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in -i- ~ · 1, i ! Ii, J the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amounl of $13,500, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed,' or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii)reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the -ii- Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 50 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any undenNriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 22, 1993 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Francene Clark-Leisinger Clerk ~1~1~ -iii- EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 22nd day of June, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. The following members of the Council were present: and the following were absent: Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $540,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1993C WHEREAS, in 1988, the City issued $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988, dated May 1, 1988, and WHEREAS, Springsted Incorporated, the City's financial advisors, have investigated the feasibility of advance refunding the 1996 through 2003 maturities of the City's $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988, dated May 1, 1988, and WHEREAS, Springsted Incorporated advises that a refunding will generate a cash flow to pay the bonds of said issue callable on February 1, 1995, and the City will achieve substantial savings after the payment of all expenses in refunding the issue, and WHEREAS, it is therefore deemed advisable and in the public interest to refund the bonds of said issue maturing in the years 1996 through 2003, and to provide funding to refund prior to maturity said bonds, and that authority for said refunding is found in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. The advance refunding of the 1996 through 2003 maturiti~ of the City's $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988 is hereb~ determined to be necessary and desirable for the reduction of debt service costs to the City. 2. The City shall issue and sell its General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C, in the aggregate principal amount of $535,140 for the above stated purposes. It is further determined that additional bonds in the amount of $4,860 shall be issued to represent the additional cost of marketing bonds, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.56, which amount does not exceed 2% of the amount otherwise authorized. All amounts received for the sale of said bonds in excess of $535,140 shall be credited to the sinking fund for the payment of interest on these obligations. 3. Springsted Incorporated is hereby directed to negotiate for the sale of the Bonds in accordance with the attached Terms of Proposal (Exhibit A), as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subd. 2, paragraph (9). Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, until 10:30 a.m., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 p.m., Central Time, of the same day. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and , upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Attest: Mayor City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF MOUND I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on June 22, 1993, with the original on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom. WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1993. City Clerk EXHIBIT A THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $540,000* CiTY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBUGATION BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1993C Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 1993, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1994. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1996 $60,000 1997 $60,000 1998 $60,000 1999 $65,000 2000 $70,O00 2001 $70,000 2002 $75,000 2003 $80,000 The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $25,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2001, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2002. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to refund the 1996 through 2003 maturities of the City's $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988, dated May 1, 1988. -i- tm · &, i · I,t I & TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $535,140 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $5,400, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS ff the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 25 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 22, 1993 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Francene Clark-Leisinger Clerk a · ~, i · It I Jt Recommendations For City of Mound, Minnesota $1,350,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B $540,000 General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C Study No. M1340D1 E1 Mound.ci SPRINGSTED Incorporated June 16, 1993 SPRINGSTED PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS Home Office 85 East Seventh Place Suite 100 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2143 (612) 223-3000 Fax: (612) 223-3002 120 South Sixth Street Suite 2507 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1800 (612) 333-9177 Fax: (612) 349-5230 16655 West Bluemound Road Suite 290 Brookfield, WI 53005-5935 (414) 782-8222 Fax: (414) 782-2904 6800 College Boulevard Suite 600 Overland Park, KS 66211-1533 (9! 3) 345-8062 Fax: (913) 345-1770 June16,1993 1800K Street NW Suite 831 Washington, DC 20006-2200 (202) 466-3344 Fax: (202) 223-]362 Mayor Ferner "Skip" Johnson Members, City Council Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr., City Manager Mr. Gino Businaro, Finance Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of: $1,350,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B $540,000 General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the above-mentioned issues and the attached Terms of Proposal. The Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds Proceeds of the Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds will be used to finance the cost of improvements to the City's Water and Sewer Utility. The composition of the issue is as follows: Project Costs Issuance Costs Allowance for Discount Bidding $1,300,000 31,100 18,900 Total Bond Issue $1,350,000 These Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444, and will be payable from net revenues of the City's Water and Sewer Utility. This Statute requires the City to operate the utilities as self-supporting funds and to adjust rates if necessary to pay all operation, maintenance and debt service costs. A tax levy is to be used only as a back-up pledge and not as a source of income to the debt service fund~,~ ) It is our understanding the City will increase rates by five percent each year in ~1995, in 1996 and in 1997, thereby providing sufficient revenue to meet debt service payments on the Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds as well as the debt service on the City's $155,000 outstanding General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds of 1984. ! ! l, I ! Ii, I ~ City of Mound, Minnesota June 16, 1993 In its awarding resolution, the City will covenant that it will charge rates sufficient to pay not only operating costs but also debt service costs. To the extent such revenues are not available, as may be the case in 1995 and 1996, the City may make up the differential from available water and sewer funds on hand. The City will not certify a tax levy for this issue. Attached as Appendix I is the recommended maturity schedule for the Water and Sewer Bonds. The Water and Sewer Bonds will be dated August 1, 1993 and will mature February 1, 1995 through 2009. The issue has been structured to provide level annual outlays from the Water and Sewer Utility. The comparative income summary from the City's Water and Sewer Funds for the years ending December 31 are as follows: 1992 1991 1990 Revenues: Water $ 353,530 $ 311,525 $ 340,913 Sewer 661,339 657,836 677,538 Total Revenues $1,014,869 $ 969,361 $1,018,451 Expenses:(a) Water $ 309,053 $ 306,364 $ 307,117 Sewer 717,315 716,197 568,441 Total Expenses $1,026,368 $1,022,561 $ 875,558 Net Revenues $ (11,499) $ (53,200) $ 142,893 (a) Excludes following depreciation expenses $ 41,562 $ 43,435 $ 106,704 (b) MWCCCharges $ 410,581 $ 389,100 $ 330,903 The first interest payment, due August 1, 1994 in the estimated amount of $64,525, and the interest and principal payment due February 1, 1995 in the estimated amount of $67,260, in addition to the requirements of the 1984 Bonds, will be payable from net revenues of the sewer utility generated in 1993 and to the extent necessary from available funds on hand in the Water and Sewer Utility Funds. The interest payment due August 1, 1995 and the principal and interest payment due February 1, 1996 for this issue and the 1984 Bonds will be payable from net revenues generated in 1994 and from available funds on hand. Thereafter, the August 1 and subsequent February 1 payments will be made from net revenues of the Water and Sewer Utility. Since the anticipated rate increases will then be in effect, funds on hand are not expected to be necessary by this time. This cycle will continue throughout the life of the issues. Included in the principal amount is a provision for discount bidding in the amount of $18,900, or $14.00 per $1,000 bond. The discount is a means of providing the underwriters with all or part of their profit and/or working capital for purchasing the issue and permits them to reoffer the bonds at or close to the reoffering scale. The City has used this financing tool in the past, and we recommend its continued use. We recommend that the bonds maturing on and after February 1, 2002 be subject to prepayment in advance of their stated maturity on February 1,2001 and any day thereafter at a price of par. This call feature, representing approximately 50% of the issue, will permit the City Page 2 City of Mound, Minnesota June 16, 1993 to prepay a portion of the issue should funds become available to do so or if market conditions in the future warrant a refinancing. With the inclusion of an allowance for discount bidding in the issue, the call feature should not affect the marketability of the bonds. The Building Refunding Bonds On April 26, 1988 the City sold $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988 (the "1988 Bonds") for the purpose of financing construction costs of a public works facility. The callable maturities, 1996 through 2003, totaling $510,000 of principal, are outstanding at a net interest rate of 6.822%. Based on current market conditions it is estimated that these bonds could be refinanced at a net interest rate of 4.591% providing a net savings to the City, net of all costs of issuance, of approximately $25,462 with a present value of $20,480, or 14.8% of the interest cost. Based on current market conditions, it is our recommendation that the City proceed with the sale of a "crossover" refunding bond issue that would advance refund the 1996 through 2003 maturities of the 1988 Bonds. A crossover refunding is a mechanism whereby only the callable bonds of an issue are refinanced at lower interest rates. The City will continue to pay principal and interest on the non-callable bonds until the call date of February 1, 1995. At the call date the escrow account, which is funded primarily from bond proceeds, matures and pays off the callable bonds. Subsequently, the City will then start to pay principal and interest on the new bonds. We note that during the period of time the new bonds are outstanding until the call date, the escrow account will pay the interest on those new obligations. Attached as Appendix II is a complete analytical summary of the refunding. Schedule A shows the debt service of the 1988 Bonds, as it exists now. On the call date of February 1, 1995, all of the 1988 Bonds maturing in 1996 through 2003, totaling $510,000, will be called in for redemption. Schedule B shows this amount of refunded principal. Schedule C shows the nonrefunded principal and interest. The City will continue to pay debt service on these amounts through February 1, 1995. Schedule D shows the estimated debt service for the 1993C Building Refunding Bonds. The City will begin to pay debt service on the Building Refunding Bonds beginning on August 1, 1995. Up until that date, the debt service on the Building Refunding Bonds will be paid by investment earnings of the escrow account. Schedule E is the total estimated debt service for this issue, the outstanding debt for the 1988 Bonds, and the estimated annual savings due to the refunding is shown in Column 6. Schedule D of Appendix II is the amortization schedule for the 1993C Building Refunding Bonds. The Building Refunding Bonds will be dated August 1, 1993 and mature February 1, 1996 through 2003. Interest due February 1, 1994 through February 1, 1995, will be payable from an escrow account established upon the successful sale of the Building Refunding Bonds. Thereafter, principal and interest payments will be made from tax levies, which are currently being used to pay debt service on the 1988 Bonds. Included in the principal amount is a provision for discount bidding. The discount, representing $9 per $1,000, or $4,860, provides the underwriters with all or part of their compensation and/or working capital for purchasing the issue and permits them to reoffer the issue at or close to the reoffering scale. We recommend that bonds maturing in 2002 and 2003 be callable at the option of the City on February 1,2001 at a price of par. c~O~ "~ Page 3 City of Mound, Minnesota June 16, 1993 The refunding issue, as now structured, includes all costs of issuance including bond discount but excluding rating fees. All savings estimates are net of these costs. To account for the actual underwriter's discount on the 1993C Building Refunding Bonds and actual costs of issuance, which may differ from the assumptions made, a provision has been included in the offering to permit the City to increase or decrease the principal in any of the maturities in a total amount not to exceed $25,000 to offset any fluctuation. As interest rates fluctuate, the amount of money needed in the escrow account also fluctuates. Common to Both Issues Credit Ratings In order to maintain the City's current "A" ratings from both Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's Corporation (S & P) it is necessary that an application be made to both Moody's and S & P for ratings on these issues. We will make the application on your behalf and provide the rating agencies with the necessary data upon which they will make their rating analysis. Federal Arbitrage - Rebate The Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds and the Building Refunding Bonds are subject to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and the 1989 amendments. The 1986 Act and 1989 amendments modified rebating arbitrage requirements to the Treasury. Generally speaking, all arbitrage profits (the yield difference between the earnings on the investment and the yield on the bonds) must be rebated to the Treasury. With regard to this advance refunding issue, an advance refunding issue qualifies for exemption from arbitrage reporting and rebate requirements if: (i) the advance refunding issue does not exceed $5,000,000, (ii) the refunded issue was itself exempted from rebate when issued, or if issued prior to 1986 it was issued in a year when the issuer did not issue more than $5,000,000 of governmental obligations, (iii) the average maturity date of the refunding issue is not later than the average maturity date of the bonds to be refunded, and (iv) no refunding bond has a maturity date later than 30 years after the date the original bond was issued. The Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds qualify for exemption under the $5 million ("small issuer") exemption and the Building Refunding Bonds meet requirements (i) through (iv) above, in addition to already meeting the small issuer requirement. Therefore, the City should be exempt from any arbitrage reporting and rebate requirements on these issues. Reimbursement Regulations The Treasury has approved regulations which will significantly alter the ability of issuers to utilize tax-exempt obligations to reimburse themselves for expenditures made prior to receipt of the proceeds. All tax-exempt issues settled after March 2, 1992 are subject to the new reimbursement regulations. Although these issues are not affected, we have included a discussion of the regulations for your future reference. There are three major areas of the regulations which set forth the following restrictive provisions. They prohibit obligations issued after March 2, 1992 from being used to reimburse expenditures made before March 2, 1989 or to reimburse expenditures paid on projects which have been in service for more than one year prior to the date of issuance. ~ o'"/,r,,¢,, Page 4 City of Mound, Minnesota June 16, 1993 They restrict the conditions under which obligations issued after March 2, 1992 may be used to reimburse expenditures made after September 8, 1989 and before March 2, 1992. There must be "objective evidence" that at the time the expenditures were made the issuer intended to reimburse itself from the proceeds of a borrowing and that the expectation was reasonable based on historical finance practices. The reimbursement must occur within one year of the expenditure or within one year from the time a property or project was placed in service, if later. They prohibit reimbursement from proceeds of expenditures made after March 2, 1992 unless: a) the issuer declares in the public record official intent to reimburse expenditures with proceeds and describes the nature of the borrowing, the project or fund from which the expenditures would be made, and states the maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued; b) a reimbursement is made before the later of one year after the date the expenditure was made or one year after the date on which the project was placed in service; c)the expenditure was a capital expenditure under general federal income tax principals, generally including costs incurred to acquire, construct, or improve land, buildings, or equipment. Preliminary expenditures for professional fees and studies are exempt from the official intent requirement if the amount of preliminary expenses does not exceed 20% of the issue price of the reimbursement borrowing for the project. Preliminary expenditures are not exempt from the one-year reimbursement period requirement. Bank Qualification Prior to the adoption of the Tax Reform Act, financial institutions were generally permitted to deduct 80% of their interest expense allocable to tax-exempt obligations. Under the Act, however, financial institutions are generally not entitled to such a deduction for tax-exempt obligations purchased after August 7, 1986. There is an exemption to this for issuers of less than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt bonds or notes during the calendar year. These bonds meet that test. Therefore, the City does qualify for the $10,000,000 exemption. The effect of this is that the bonds are more attractive to financial institutions which creates greater competition and may. lower the interest rates. Typically, these "bank-qualified" bonds receive rates lower than bonds which are not bank-qualified. We have taken this into consideration in the interest rate estimates. Sale Process We recommend these obligations be offered for sale on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, with proposals received at the offices of Springsted Incorporated at 10:30 A.M. During the remainder of the day, proposals will be verified, checked for accuracy, and the necessary computer calculations will be made in order to determine the benefits of the refunding. We will then present the bids and our recommendations to the Council at 7:30 P.M. that evening. Respectfully submitted, PR1NGSTED Incorporated -- mmc Page 5 ! ! 1, I ! 11, I ~ SPRINGSTED Public Finance Advisors MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council City Manager Finance Director City of Mound, Minnesota Daniel W. Hartman, Vice President June 22, 1993 Pros and Cons of One Issue at This Time and One Issue Later vs. One Larger Issue Later One Issue Now And One Issue Later Pros 20-year Iow in interest rates with reference to the municipal bond market. bo No time pressure relating to the water treatment facility decision making process. The small refunding can be done at this time taking advantage of Iow interest rates and issuance costs by "piggy backing" on the larger new money issue. (As a stand-alone refunding the City would lose 1/2 savings, approximately $10,000). Cons a. Higher cost (approximately $7,500) I1. One Larger Issue Later Pros a. Cost savings Cons a. Interest rate risk (no idea where the market will be in fall or later). Could lose refunding advantage with a fall or later bond sale. J J 1, i · Il, I I APPENDIX I CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA G.O. WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1993A Prepared June 16, 1993 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Dated: 8- 1-1993 Mature: 2- 1 F£rst Interest: 8- 1-1994 Year of Year of Revenue Mat. Princ£pai (1) (2) (3) 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 35 000 70 000 70 000 75 000 80 000 80 000 4 85000 4 90.000 4 95.000 5 100.000 5 100.000 5 110.000 5 115.000 5 120~000 5 125.000 5 Rates (4) 3.204 3.454 3.704 3 954 4 204 404 604 804 004 104 204 304 354 404 454 Interest (5) 96 786 63 404 60 989 58 399 55 436 52 O76 48 556 44 646 40 326 35 576 30476 25 276 19446 13,293 6 813 TOTALS: 1,350,000 651,498 Total Pr£ncipai & Interest (6) 131 786 133.404 130.989 133 399 135 436 132 O76 133 556 134 646 135 326 135 576 130 476 135 276 134 446 133 293 131 813 2,001,498 G.O. Water Total Rev Bonds Debt Of 1984 Service (7) (8) 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130,000 161 786 161 404 156,989 157~399 157,436 132,076 133 556 134 646 135 326 135 576 130,476 135 276 134 446 133 293 131 813 2,131,498 Bond Years: 12,880.00 Avg. Maturity: 9.54 Avg. Annual Rate: 5.0584 T.I.C. Rate: 5.2064 Annual Interest: Pius Discount: Net Interest: N.I.C. Rate: 651,498 18,900 670,398 5.2054 TotaI Debt Service (Average of Revenue Years: 1994-2008) CoIumn 6: $ 133,433 Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant aIterations of th~s scheduie. The actuai unde~riter's discount bid may aIso vary. Page 6 APPENDIX II City of Mound, Minnesota G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1993 Full Crossover Advance Refunding of IG.O. Building Bonds of 1988 IEven Annual Debt Service Structure Ilssuer Funds Required: $0.00 Date of Bonds: 08/01/93 ~ 08/01/93 I Refunded Call Date: 02/01/95 I1 st Callable Date: 02/01/96 Comparison: Refunded Refunding Principal: 510,000 540,000 Bond Years: 3,240.00 3,365.00 Avg. Maturity: 6.353 6.231 NIC: 6.822% 4.591% ITotal Net Savings: Present Value Savings: As % of P.V. Ref. Int.: 20,480.21 ! 14.80%~ Prepared: 05/20/93 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Page 7 Date Principal Rate Schedule A Interest By SPRiNGSTED lnczrmcrazeJ Semi-Annual An n u a i 22/Ol/94 22/01/95 o8/Ol/95 o2/Ol/96 08/01/96 02/01/97 08/01/97 02/01/98 o8/oi/98 02/01/99 08/01/99 02/01/2000 08/01/2000 02/01/2001 08/01/2001 02/01/2002 08/01/2002 oo/01/2003 45 000 00 45 000 00 50 000 00 55 000 00 55 000 00 60 000 00 65 000 00 70 000 00 75 000 00 80 000 00 5 800% 6 000% 6 200% 6 400% 6 5OO% 6 700% 6 8OO% 6 900% 7 000% 7 000% 19 812 50 18 507 50 18 507 50 17 157 50 17 157 50 15 607 50 15 607 50 13 847 50 13 847 50 12 060 00 12 060 00 10 050 00 10 050 00 7 840 00 7 840 00 5 425 00 5 425 00 2 800 00 2 800 00 64 812 50 18 507 50 63 507 50 17 157 50 67 157 50 15 607 50 70 607 50 13 847 50 68 847 50 12 060 00 72 060 00 10 050 00 75 050 00 7 840 00 77 840 00 5 425 00 80 425 00 2 800 00 82 800 00 64 Bi2 53 82 015 00 84 315 00 86 215 0O 82 695 00 84 120 00 85 100 00 85 680 30 85 850 00 85 600 00 Totals Bond Years: sat..: 600,000.00 3,330.00 5.550 6.799% 226,402.50 Ail lower calculations are made from the date of the refunding bonds 826,402.50 826,402.50 Refunded Bonds Only Avg. Mat..: 6.353 NIC ....... : 6.822 Page 8 Refunded Principal and any ,Call Premium Schedule B Pr_n~ _pal Premium Semi-Annual Annual o2/Ol/95 510,000.00 510,000.00 510,000.00 Totals 510,000.00 Call Date ............. : First Date Called ..... : Call Premium .......... : 02/01/95 02/01/96 510,000.00 510,000.00 This portion will be paid by the escrow. The escrow will also pay the interest -n the refunding bonds thru the call dat Page 9 3.0. Building Bonds of 1988 Dh-Refunded Principal and Non-Refunded Interest Schedule C Date Principal Interest By SPRIN~STED ..... Semi-Annual Annua~ 02/01//94 08/01/94 02/01/95 45,000.00 45,000.00 19,812.50 18,507.50 18,507.50 64,812.50 18,507.50 63,507.50 64,812.50 82,015.00 Totals 90,000.00 Call Date ............. : First Date Called ..... : 11 Premium .......... : 02/01/95 02/01/96 56,827.50 146,827.50 146,827.50 This portion will be paid by the issuer. The issuer will also pay debt service on the refunding bonds after the call date. Page 10 S.O Refu~d~-[ Bonds Se'~=s ~ ~93 Refunding Deb Service Date Principal Rate o2/ol/94 o8/ol/94 o2/ol/95 o8/ol/95 o2/ol/96 08/01/96 02/01/97 08/01/97 02/01/98 o8/ol/98 02/01/99 08/01/99 02/01/2000 o8/ol/2OOO 02/01/2001 08/01/2001 02/01/2002 08/01/2002 02/01/2003 60,000.00 60,000 00 60 000 00 65 000 00 7O 000 00 70 000 00 75 000 00 80,000 00 3.350% 3.650% 3 900% 4 150% 4 350% 4 550% 4 750% 4 950% Schedule D Interest 11,495.00 11,495.00 11,495.00 11,495 00 11,495 00 10,490 00 10,490 00 9,395 00 9 395 00 8 225 00 8 225 00 6 876 25 6 876 25 5 353 75 5 353 75 3 761 25 3 761 25 1 980 00 1 980 00 Prepared: ~5 £- By SPRiNGSTE · D Zncorpcra~ L~ Semi-Annual Annual 5 75 3 78 1 81 11,495 00 * 11,495 00 * 11,495 00 * 11,495 00 71,495 00 10,490 00 70,490 00 9,395 00 69,395 00 8,225 00 73,225 00 6,876 25 76 876 25 353 75 353 75 761 25 761 25 980 00 980 00 11,495.00 22,990.00 82,990.00 80 980 00 78 790 00 81 450 00 83 752 50 80 707 50 82 522 50 83 960 Totals Bond Years: Avg. Mat..: NIC ....... : 540,000.00 3,365.00 6.231 4.591% 149,637.50 * Paid by escrow. Ail bther payments made by the issuer. 689,637.50 Bond Date.: Delivery..: Bond Yield: 689,637.50 08/01/93 o8/o1/, 4.427~ Page 11 Il 1, I I 1~ i ~ ~.S. Refunding Bonds, Series 2993 nual Savings Analysis Schedule E By SPRiNGSTED incc_~~a_e4~ Non-Refunded Refunding Total New Existing DaYe Debt Service Debt Service Debt Service Debt Service ~") <2! 3) (4) (5) 02/oI/~4 08/o1/~4 o2/ol/95 o8/ol/95 o2/ol/96 o8/oi/96 02/01/97 08/01/97 02/01/98 o8/ol/98 02/01/99 08/01/99 02/01/2000 os/ol/2OOO 02/01/2001 o8/ol/2OOi 02/01/2002 08/01/2002 02/01/2003 64,812.50 82,015.00 82 990 00 80 980 00 78 790 00 81 450 00 83 752 50 80 707 50 82 522 50 83 960 00 64 812 50 82 015 00 82 990 00 80 980 00 78 790 00 81 450 00 83 752 50 80 707 50 82 522 50 83 960 00 64 812 50 82 015 O0 84 315 O0 86 215 O0 82 695 O0 84 120 O0 85 100 O0 85 680 O0 85 850 O0 85 600 O0 Savings or (Loss) 6) t 325 O0 5 235 O0 3 905 O0 2 67~ O0 1 347 50 4 972 50 3 327 50 1 640 O0 Totals 146,827.50 Present Value Rate...: P~esent Value Savings: % of P.V. Ref. Int: 655,152.50 4.42707% 20,480.21 14.80% 801,980.00 826,402.50 Excess Proceeds ...... : Funds to Sinking Fund: Total Net Savings .... : 24,422.50 1,039.74 25,462.24 Page12 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,350,000 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1993B Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, until-10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 1993, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August I of each year, commencing August 1, 1994. Interest will be computed.on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1995 $35,000 1996 $70,000 1997 $70,000 1998 $75,000 1999 $8O,000 20OO $80,000 2001 $85,000 2002 $9O,000 2OO3 $ 95,000 2004 $100,000 2005 $100,000 2006 $110,000 2OO7 $115,000 2008 $120,000 2009 $125,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2001, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2002. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. Ail prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge net revenues of the City's Water and Sewer Utilities. The proceeds will be used to finance the construction of various improvements to the City Water and Sewer Utilities. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $1,331,100 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in Page13 the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $13,500, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preappl:oved bythe City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION ff the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser tO accept delivery of the Page14 Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the Purchaser. ' SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 50 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above.' The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 22, 1993 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Francene Clark-Leisinger Clerk Page 15 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF pROpoSAL $540,000* CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1993C Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 1993, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1994. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1996 $60,000 1997 $60,OOO 1998 $60,0OO 1999 $65,000 2000 $70,000 2001 $7O,O0O 2OO2 $75,OOO 20O3 $8O,000 The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $25,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2001, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2002. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY ANDPURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to refund the 1996 through 2003 maturities of the City's $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988, dated May 1, 1988. Page 16 TYPE OF I~ROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $535,140 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $5,400, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) rejebt all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be' the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. Page 17 ! ! 1, ! ! i CUSIP NUMBERS ff the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such number, s on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 25 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 22, 1993 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Francene Clark-Leisinger Clerk Page 18 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTZON TO APPROVE A STREET FRONTAGE V~IJ~CE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORNING SUN PORCH &T 6319 BAY RIDGE ROAD, LOT 9, BLOCK ~, H~LSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDITION, PID #23-1~7-24 33 0020 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-018 WHEREAS, the owner of 6319 Bay Ridge Road, Tim Kenealy, has applied for a 15 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming 12' x 12' sun porch, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires street frontage of 60 feet, a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 15 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming 12' x 12' sun porch addition at 6319 Bay Ridge Road. The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 12' x 12' sun porch. This variance is granted for the following legally property: described Lot 9, Block 1, Halstead Acres 2nd Addition. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-018 e The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case//934318: ,lerry Weiland for Tim~~ql9 Bay Ridge Road, Lot 9, Block 1 H Istead Acre 2nd Addition PID 3-117-24 33 002 . VARIANCE FOR Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming 12' x 12' sun porch. Staff recommended approval of the request to recognize the existing nonconforming street frontage of 15 feet in order to allow construction of a fully conforming addition onto the dwelling. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to r appr?val of the 15 foot street f-^~ ...... ,' ~commend construction of & conforming lZ' x 12' sun porch. Motxon carrie~ unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 53,z,i MAvWOO£ =OAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 553,q4 !687 !6',2 c-2.261~ FAX {6t2}472 5:-20 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Building Official Jon Sutherland, Variance Request Jerry Weiland for Tim Kenealy 93-018 6319 Bay Ridge Road, Lot 9, Block 1, Halstead Acres 2nd Addition, PID #23-117-24 33 0020 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a building permit to construct a fully conforming 12' x 12' sun porch onto the existing dwelling. According to our current ordinance, this property is nonconforming due to inadequate street frontage of 45 feet to the required 60 feet in the R-1 zone. RECOMMENDATION The proposed sun porch is fully conforming to the provisions in the City Code. Staff recommends approval of the request to recognize the existing nonconforming street frontage of 15 feet in order to allow construction of a fully conforming addition onto the dwelling. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993 JS:pj This case printed on recycled paper 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 MAY. 2 0 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.q~'~l S Zoning Sheet Completed:. Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City .~i3~eer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~-~/~ ~F Phone Owner's Name ~~ ~.~ ~ ~ay Owner' s Address ~ ~/5 /~ ~ r.?o~e~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address q//. /-r~-_ _. / )/ ~/,~e~.~... . ~y Phone .YYZ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~ Block Zoning District ~--( Use of Property: ~]C~~' Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (si~e, number of stories, type of use, etc.): .~ .~/,,.~ ~ /~ x/~.~ 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: (~E W ) Rear Yard: ( E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ..~ ft. ~ ft. ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (>~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ~/7~ ~~ ~~~ /~ ~-/ /~dZ~,//d~..~? Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ()~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~k~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. SURVEY FOR: i i 1, I · It i ~ ,,"'/,~$T .,,'7'.,~:'EZT' ~.,~/'$/",4~'~,~'/~,,f/' //Pc". ~ 6/~'~/-,~J~ Prepared By: SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. DESCRIPTION; Lot g, Block 1, HALSTESD ACRES 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat. / / / This drmwin~ has been checked and revle~ this /8-/'h day o~ HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA LENGTH 53." GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: SQ FF X 30% = I / ~J~ L~,00 SQ Fr X 15% = WIDTH x~.~. ~ = X = TOTAL HOUSE ........... SQ FT ,-29 x X TOTAL ~mU~GE .......... ~ c/ E x = ~__0~ ? X = ~_,9 x ."l '"< = 9~< ? X = TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ OTHER: C o/1 ¢ Z' e f'e_ x = f $/ X = TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. I ? Ot~,.ff) MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? .......... YES NO GENERAL ZONING INFOR~L~TION SIIEEr e , ~x~ ~ txzs~l~ Re~lred ~t ~dth:~ (frontage on an ~prov~ ~bltc .tr~t) txi.ting ~t Hldth~, Depth ~ / ~ ~ ACCESSORY BUILDZNq FRONT s FRONTS SlOBs SO' /measured from O.H~W,j FRONT SIDEs SIDEs SO* /~e&lured ~rom O.H.W. I FRONT FRONT SIDLE: SIDEs IS TH~TY COffFOP~4IMG? YES (~) (}7) $ 4 (14) PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 4822 GLASGOW ROAD, RLS 1571, TRACT A, PID #24-117-24 44 0214 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-019 WHEREAS, the owner, Valeri Kavrov, has applied for a 79.74 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a new dwelling, and; WHEREAS, this property was approved to be subdivision in 1984 by Resolution #84-28, and; WHEREAS, this property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other proposed setbacks, conforming, and; and lot coverage are WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 79.74 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a new dwelling at 4822 Glasgow Road, subject to the following: ae Be Ail improvements on the property be constructed in accordance with the City Code with respect to setbacks and hardcover. A hard surface driveway be installed within one year of occupancy as approved by the Building Official. Utility locations must be shown on the survey. If the water service box adjacent to Dale Road on Tract A serves the existing house on Tract B the water service must either be relocated or a private utility easement be granted over an area of a minimum of a 10' x 10' section to allow for possible repairs or maintenance in the future. Deficiencies be paid in full at building permit issuance in the amount of $1,178.45. E. There be no increased drainage to the adjacent properties. The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-019 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a new single family dwelling with conforming setbacks. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Tract A, RLS 1571. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the city Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case ~)3-019: David Thompson for Valcri Kavrov. 4822 Glasgow Road. RL~ ~~l~i~~~ 44 0214. VARIANCE F~ CONSTRUCTION~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a 79.74 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a new dwelling. This property was approved for subdivision in 1984 by Resolution ~84-28. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance of 79.74 square feet to the required 6,000 square feet of lot area in the R-IA zone with the following conditions: 1. All improvements on the property be constructed in accordance with the City Code with respect to setbacks and hardcover. 2. A hard surface driveway be installed within one year of occupancy as approved by the Building Official. 3. Utility locations must be shown on the survey. If the water service box adjacent to Dale Road on Tract A serves the existing house on Tract B the water service must either be relocated or a r' p irate utility easement be granted over an area of a minimum of a 10' x 10' section to allow for possible repairs or maintenance in the future. Mueller questioned if there were any street deficiencies. check on this. Staff will Mueller also expressed a concern about drainage. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss to re approval of the variance as rec ............. c~mm~nd the condition that ~ ..... ~m~.~uueu Dy s~az£, includxng . --~ me no increased draina e adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously, g to the This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534; MAvWOQD ROAD ND LalNNESCTA55364 '587 612 4-72 9600 FAX,6~2 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official h{ Variance Request APPLICANT: David Thompson for Valeri Kavrov CASE NO. 93-019 LOCATION: 4822 Glasgow Road, RLS 1571, Tract A, PID #24-117-24 44 0214 ZONING: R-iA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance of 79.74 square feet of lot area to the required 6,000 square feet required in the R-lA zone in order to construct a new home. This property was approved for subdivision in 1984 by Resolution ~84-28. It was determined at that time that the division constituted a desirable and stable community development and was in harmony with adjacent properties. The proposed footprint for the new house is conforming to the applicable City Code regulations. Staff has reviewed this case with the Public Works Superintendent and City Engineer who requested item ~3 be included in the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance of 79.74 square feet to the required 6,000 square feet of lot area in the R-lA zone with the following conditions: 2e Ail improvements on the property be constructed in accordance wit~.the City Code with respect to setbacks and hardcover. A hard surface driveway be installed within one year of occupancy as approved by the Building Official. Utility locations must be shown on the survey. If the water service box adjacent to Dale Road on Tract A serves the existing house on Tract B the water service must either be relocated or a private utility easement be granted over an area of a minimum of a 10' x 10' section to allow for possible repairs or maintenance in the future. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. JS:pj printed on recycled paper 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, ~ ~364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: ~t Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~'~[~ Copy to City ~gioe~r- Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~~'~ ~//~/~(/~ ~~.~ Owner' s Name Owner' s Address Day Phone / Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address ~'/p~'~~~ ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Additi°nR L5 IS-~I Block PZD No. .~ 'z~ l-~g4 '~ OZlq Zoning District ~--} ~ Use of Property: Has .a.n application ever been made for zoning, variance, co~dit~onalvUse permi=, or other zoning procedure for this Dr . . . . = o=___=. ~ · ~, -~. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detaile.d descripton of proposed constru, ction or a~tera~ion,.(size ?,f stories, type o~f use, etc. ) :. ~ !//)~, ~ 7¥'~F../. ~'./..~ ~///:3..//i'/~,,~ ' . , ,. , ~_..?,_ ~.~ ~ 7~r:. number ~/~ Yar£ance Appl£cat£on Page 2 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback r~egzmlations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming u~e .(desc~ribe re. gso5 for vari~nc~ request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)/i~.// ~, _ ' ~ , - ~I/ .~ ~ ~'. ' ' ' ~ ~ . (or Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. f~/~ sq ft .~5~/~,0 sq ft _~-, ~ sq ft ' sq ft ' - sq ft / ' sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specifyeachnon-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ). too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify · . -/ ~/,,~/~ / ,3/: ,-, ,/,,g.,~ .,.......,~ / /_, ~ .~ ,,'] ./, Please describe. _~//~z .~,, ~.~?//'./_/ :,.:,/~. / uj~.? /t~/,/i~/~ (,)~../t~. (Lg,/~,~/L..'~, :,A /; ~' '~ '0 " ' -~ ' ; ' ~' §. ~as the hardship described above 'created by the action of anyone"having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (~82)? Yes (), No (). l~ ye~, explain ,4'/::r 4/93 Var£ance Appl£¢ation Page 3 Case No. q 5...OlCl So Was the hardship created by any ~.er man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No If yes, explain /- such as the e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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. Z. lo'1 VARIANCE APPLICATION CI?¥ OP HOUND 5341 Ha~ood Road, Nouna, Nlq 55364 Phone: 472-0600v Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Application Fee: Case No. $50.00 Copy .t? City ~gi.ne~r: · . . · · . . . · ~).'~.~ ~ . . . . . . , · Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property .... ~C~--~_ Owner's Name J ~,~;Y7 ~' Owner' s Address ;~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address ~/~~~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Day Phone / PID No. Block - / - oz - Zoning District ~x--J 1~ Use of Property. /~:..~<//~r'/~. / Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional~use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of propos.ed construction or a%tera~io~n/,.(size, number of stories, type of use, etc.). ~ / . .. / / ~' -'->~. ; -.;- ,' . . /,~ (./r.~/ ,f.~/- C~' ' 'L/' /.~ /'~,' " , ' ' ' 4/93 Variance Applicat£on Page 2 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk,, and setback r.eg~ulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (><}. If no, specify each non-conforming use (de~sc~rib. e ,r,e_gson for vari~nc~ request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) - ,.".. · ,- ilI ", .'_ .. - . ,...~. ' '" ' ' ! ' i '' ~f~ ' " ' (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ' sq ft - - sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all.regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, . specifyeach non-conforminguse: ,, Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (~98~)? ~es (), ~o (), 4/93 Var£ance Appl£¢at£on Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any:er man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No If yes, explain such as the Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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. 59.92__ i" ,o,~.~ I Certificate 'of Survey ?~//?. ,~ '4 ' ~ ~.. _~ .,~ ,.," ~ /' ~- . I 1% 20' PO Box Z~ Buffalo, Mmnesofo S~13 682-47E7 ~ ~. ARDEN .~ -- Heanepin County, Minnesolo 83~87 TTO SSOCIA TES ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, INC. RECEIVED MAY 2 § ]993 May 24, 1993 Mr. David Thompson 6108 Bartlett Blvd. Mound/ MN 55364 RE: Job No. 93271 - ASPEN ACRES Dear Mr. Thompson: As per your request, the square footage of Parcel A of our Job No. 83287 is 5920.26 square feet. Please let us know when we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, J. Ottor~R.L.S. OTTO ASSOCIATE~, INC. EJO/md Encls. 3 9 WEST DIVISION STREET - BUFFALO, MINN. 55313 ~ (612) 682-4727 I-IARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ADDRESS NAME EXIg3]]kTG LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: LENGTH X X X SQ FI' X 30% = I / '7'7(~ -7~/. ,Ct. I SQ FrX 15% = WIDTH TOTAL HOUSE ........... SQ FT ///<q - X X TOTAL GARAGE .......... × -- TOTAL DRIVEWAY ......... DECK: TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ OTHER: X = TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVF~R .............. MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? BY .......... YES NO d' RESOLUTION NO. 8q-28 February 28, 1984 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 5, 6, AND NEly. 20 FEET OF LOT 7, BLOCK 7, ARDEN (PID {2q-llT-2q q~ 0077, 0076, 0075) WHEREAS, an apPlication to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver ts necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The request of Vern O. and Dixie L. Groves for a waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as Lots 5, 6 and NEly. 20 feet of Lot 7, All in Block 7, Arden (PID ~2q-117-2~ ~4 0077, 0076 and 0075),: is hereby. granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner: PARCEL "A" - That part of Lot 6 and 7, Block 7, of ARDEN, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the south- westerly 20 feet as measured along the front and rear lines of said Lot 7 and also except that part of said Lot 6 and the remainder of Lot 7 Which lies northerly of a line drawn from a point on the- northeasterly line of said Lot 6 distant 100.00 feet northwesterly of the southeast corner of said Lot 6 to point on the easterly line of said south- westerly 20 feet as measured along the front and rear lines thereof of said Lot 7 distant 100.00 feet northwesterly of the southerly line of sa~d Lot 7 as measured along said easterly line of the westerly 20 feet of Lot 7. PARCEL "B" - Lot 5, Block 7, of ARDEN, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin Il 1, I ! Ii, ~ ~ February 28, .198h County, Minnesota, and that part of Lots 6 and 7 of said Block 7 which lies northerly of a line drawn from a point on the easterly line of said Lot 6 distant 100.O0.feet northwesterly of the southeast corner of said Lot 6 to a point on the easterly line of the southwesterly 20.00 of said Lot 7 as measured along the front and rear lines thereof distant 100.00 feet northwesterly of the south line of said Lot 7, as measured along said easterly line of the southwesterly 20 feet of Lot 7. That any and all deficiencies be paid in full or waivers signed on parcels in the amount of $1,785.60 due to subdivision for unit charge and an off-street parking area of 650 square feet will be provided for Lot 5; and recognize the nonconforming structure setback on Lot 5. It is determined that the foregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with ad3acent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember' Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, ?e.terson and ?olston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 0 0 ', ~ 0 0 Ill 1, I i ~ Il l, I ! It GENE3UXL ZONING INFORMATION $1[EI~TI' Survey on file? ye.~ no Date of .urveyll--~--~ · ~t of Record? ye. no~ ? ~0/~/- ,o.~t, ]00/~/- Existing ~ot Width PRINCIPAL BUILDING .iD,. ,~, , I0 / BIB TH RTT CONPO/~4ING? YES fRONT: # S · SIDI: N S · SIDEI N S · &CCISSOR¥ BUILDING ACCESSORY BUIUII~ NO~_d~. WILl, THE PRO[JOSED IILPJtOY~LHENT$ CONIPOPJ4? V·B '9 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA, SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION 5562 SHERWOOD DRIVE, RLS 1222, TRACT C, PID #13-117-24 23 0030 P&Z CASE NUHBER 93-020 WHEREAS, the owner, Keith Putt, has applied for a variance to allow construction of an addition, and; WHEREAS, the variances, as requested, include: - Lot area variance of 29 square feet. - Impervious surface coverage variance of 567 square feet. - Recognition of an existing nonconforming side yard setback resulting in a variance of 2.7 feet. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the request is conforming to setbacks, a reasonable use of the property, improves the conditions of hardcover, and in addition the triangle shaped lot creates a practical difficulty in placement of buildings on the site, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the following variances: A. Lot area variance of 29 square feet. ~]/~ B. Impervious surface coverage variance of ~5 square feet (37 percent hardcover). C. Recognition of an existing nonconforming side yard setback resulting in a variance of 2.7 feet. These variances are approved for the property at 5562 Sherwood Drive upon the following conditions: A. A deck be allowed to be constructed between the two patio doors and not to exceed 138 square feet. B. All other existing impervious surfaces in the rear yard, such as the pool and patio area, are to be removed and replaced with a permeable surface. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-020 The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a one story addition in the rear yard. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: RLS 1222, Tract C. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. N 1.3t · . wo° el O O.Tt ZlLE: ~." -- Wooel rail £enc~ 5E T IRON. iI I Iii 1, I ! ii, ~ ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case g93-020: Keith Putt, 5562 Sherwood Drive, RLS 1222, Tract C, PID #13- 117-24 23 0030, VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow the construction of a conforming family room. The existing swimming pool and patio will be removed. The request involves a variance to impervious surface requirements of 567 square feet and a 2.7' side yard setback variance to the existing dwelling. The proposal will actually reduce the amount of hardcover on the lot. The Building Official explained that he was unable to contact the applicant regarding the deck. The plans submitted indicate a deck, however, a deck is not shown on the survey. The Building Official recommended that some type of deck be allowed as there are existing patio doors that open to the existing patio that would benefit from a deck. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is conforming to setbacks, a reasonable use of the property, improves the conditions of hardcover, and in addition the triangle shaped lot creates a practical difficulty in placement of buildings on the site. The Planning Commission determined that a deck approximately 12' x 13' would reach both patio doors, and if the corner of the deck projecting towards the side yard was trimmed off it would meet all the required setbacks and would only increase the hardcover by approximately 138 square feet. Mueller commented that he does not feel this lot is conducive to this size of an addition at 26' x 22', it is not the minimum. The proposed addition is one third the size of the existing house and it seems excessive. Hanus commented that the proposal will improve hardcover which is better than what is there now. MOTION made by Ranus, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, with the inclusion of the following: A deck be allowed to be constructed between the two patio doors and not to exceed 138 square feet. All other existing impervious surfaces in the rear yard, such as the pool and patio area, are to be removed and replaced with a permeable surface. Recognize a 29 square foot lot area variance in addition to the 2.76 foot side yard setback variance and the ~r~ foot impervious cover variance. ~ MOTION carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were: Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Voss and Jensen. Mueller was opposed. Mueller commented that he opposed because he does not feel the proposed addition is the minimum amount that should be allowed after the pool is removed. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534! MAYWC~D ROAD MOUND ,%!iNNESCTA55364., i612 4]'2 1600 FAX 6~2 z-2 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official &~ 6 ' Variance Request Keith Putt 93-020 5562 Sherwood Drive, RLS 1222, TRACT C, PID 13-117-24 23 0030 R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a building permit in order to construct a family room over an area that is now a swimming pool and patio, resulting in a variance to impervious surface requirements of 567 square feet. The existing dwelling is also nonconforming by 2 7' to the north side. · This property is unique being a triangle shaped lot and one positive aspect of the request is that the proposal actually reduces the amount of hardcover on the lot by the elimination of the pool and patio. The proposed deck area is not shown on the current survey and needs to be defined by the applicant in order to accurately address the conditions of hardcover and setbacks. ~ECOMMENDATION Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is conforming to setbacks, a reasonable use of the property, improves the conditions of hardcover, and in addition the triangle shaped lot creates a practical difficulty in placement of buildings on the site. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council June 22, 1993. JS:pj This case printed on recycled paper 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: city Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~'t~__~'~0~(~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~~ ~~ &t'100~ Owner's Name ~//-/$ ~t'/-;- Day Phone Owner's Address ~-~.~-~?~ J~,(/~)L$~ ~ ~./~/c~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ~ddress Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~.ot '7~-'z- ~! ~,~,":?~-:'-' ,/~a ~-,~,:'],~'.~. ~za_z. ~lock Addition ~ i'Z_"Z..~?~.. PID No. zoning mstrict A°/ Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc. ): ,'~ zt/~/z~ ~d;~6/)~?/-- ~£.?-,. ~ ~- Variance Application Page 2 Case No. 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area. height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which f(or) 'vaNr°ian~e re~ufesn~] iS. Pee. C~feYtb~ac~h, ~%Cr%naf,°~cn.~ . . , - -- -~./f, , SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N~S E W ) Side Yard: ( S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. - /~ ft. _ '~..~- ft. ~i~, ~-~ ft. ft. ft. - ' -- ft. ft. ft. ft. ~//?[~, sq ft C/~'/~q ft - ~-/~ ~sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specifyeachnon-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted district? property prevent in that zoning ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow (J~-J shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ~. '~--~J/~' ~'~ '~-' ' -- ~? / ~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No,~. If yes, explain 4/93 Var£ance Appl£¢at£on Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ,~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~k~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. .Owner's Signa,ur. - Date applicant's Signature .0.~-~-'~-~, ~~~_____~ Date Z./ L N ! I I I I 'ALE: J." -- ~0' \ .-Wo'od G \ \ \ Wood tall £enc~ SE T IRON. I ! I > ~ o ~. ¢ HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FY X 30% -- [ SQ FY X 15% = LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: .,-~. ~/ ' x .-.q4: :~/ = · O~ ~O~B~ SQ FT ~?~ GARAGE: TOTAL GARAGE .......... DRIVEWAY: ! 3fx ~/ DECK: X TOTAL DRIFEWAY ......... 5"~'x 7~,"~ g,z ' x .. ,z..~ ~,~ TOTAL DECK ............ TOT~ DECK ~ 50% ........ OTHER: /DeC ~- ..'~7 x ./~ = /~,,r ~:~'~x 37¥v z :" x .~ P.'x f" = TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAL PR~:~ HARDCOVER .............. I MEETS LOT COyERAGE REQUIREMENTS? ...... ll ADDRESS NAME EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQFYX30% = I SQ FYX 15% = LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: TOTAL HOUSE ........... SQ FT GARAGE: x TOTAL GARAGE X DRIVEWAY: x :3/ TOTAL DRIVEWAY ......... DECK: ,~c.'F-' ,5- x G = (~) ~,~,r~ ~-~ s,~,,-~,-,t' ,5%-' x ~ TOTAL DECK ........... TOT~ DECK ~ 50% ........ OTHER: TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. I MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? ,'-a. ,_.< I .......... YES X' NO DATE /J"'~ 'P'~'" ~?-Y Ill J, I ! I~ ~ ' I GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SITF. ET ?::~:.-.- ....................... _._.____.~_____ _ ~ ..... , ~._~ , ls~. FT.I -Ii-I I I I Survey on file? yes X no / _ __ (frontage on an bipr. oved imblLc atreet) SETBACK8 RBQCTZRID~ -- LOT ! $ ('~5) 3 (50) PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE HARDCOVER AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A ROOF STRUCTURE AT 2945 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 34, WYCHWOOD PID #24-117-24 42 0008, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-021 WHEREAS, the owners, W. Wayne and Lin Terwilliger, have applied for the following variances to allow the expansion of a roof structure over an existing deck: Required Existing/ Proposed Variance HOUSE FRONT 20' 11.1' 8.9' NORTH SIDE 6' 3.2' 2.8' DETACHED GARAGE FRONT 20' 10.5' 9.5' SOUTH SIDE 6' .9' 5.10' HARDCOVER 2,550 2,822 264 OR 3.2% WHEREAS, the proposed roof is conforming with the exception of hardcover and the actual increase in hardcover is only at 47 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with the following Findings of Fact: 1. The proposed entry roof is conforming to setbacks, will improve the service, utilization and function of the existing dwelling, that a practical difficulty exists as the hardcover is existing on this site. 2. The actual increase in hardcover is slight due to the fact that it is being installed over a predominantly existing impervious surface. In addition, there is greater than 4,250 square feet of adjacent open space in the commons that reduces the impact on impervious surface for this property. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-021 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the following variances: HOUSE: Front yard setback variance HOUSE: Side yard setback variance = GARAGE: Front yard setback variance = GARAGE: Side yard setback variance = 8.9 feet 2.8 feet 9.5 feet 5.10 feet IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE: = 264 square feet to allow construction of an expanded roof structure over the existing deck for the property at 2945 Cambridge Lane. The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a roof structure over the existing deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 9 and 10, Block 34, Wychwood. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Il 1, I ! I J, I ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case g93-021: W, Wayne & Lin Terwilliger, 2945 Cambridge Lane, Lots 9 and 10, Block 34, Wychwood, PID Y24-117-24 42 0008. VARIANCE FOR COVERED DECK. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a roof structure over the existing deck/walkway. This is an after-the-fact permit. The proposed roof is conforming with the exception of hardcover. The actual increase in hardcover is only at 47 square feet which is negligible in this case. The total proposed hardcover of 2,822 square feet exceeds the allowable for this parcel of 2,550 square feet by 3.2 percent. The application results in the following variances and existing nonconforming conditions: Required Existing/ Proposed Variance HOUSE: FRONT 20' 11.1' 8.9' NORTH SIDE 6' 3.2' 2.8' DETACHED GARAGE: FRONT 20' 10.5' 9.5' SOUTH SIDE 6' .9' 5.10' Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling and detached garage in order to construct and entry roof over the existing deck/walkway as shown on the survey, the Planning Commission may consider the following Findings of Fact: The proposed entry roof is conforming to setbacks, will improve the service, utilization and function of the existing dwelling, that a practical difficulty exists as the hardcover is existing on this site. The actual increase in hardcover is slight due to the fact that it is being installed over a predominantly existing impervious surface. In addition, there is greater than 4,250 square feet of adjacent open space in the commons that reduces the impact on impervious surface for this property. Hanus questioned if the side yard setback to the garage should not be 4 feet. Staff will verify the required setback. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534! !,!AYWOOD ROAD MOb*,/'D. M '4NESOTA 55364- ! 687 6' 2~ 472-0600 FAX 612! 472 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~, Variance Request W. Wayne & Lin Terwilliger 93-021 2945 Cambridge Lane, Lots 9 and 10 Block 34, Wychwood, PID #24-117- 24 42 0008. ' R-lA Single Family Residential The applicant has applied for an after-the-fact permit to construct a roof structure over the existing deck/walkway. This roof also serves as a covered front entry for the dwelling. The proposed roof is conforming to the code with the exception of hardcover, the soffit will project an additional 1 foot over the existing structures, and it is being installed over a predominantly impervious surface as there is an old concrete sidewalk under the existing deck or walkway. The concrete is in poor condition, apparently due to settlement and may have contributed to the water infiltration problem the applicants have mentioned in their request. The application results in the following variances and existing nonconforming conditions: Existing/ Proposed Variance HOUSE: FRONT 20' 11.1' 8.9' SOUTH SIDE 6' 3.2' 2.8' DETACHED GARAGE: FRONT 20' 10.5, 9.5, SOUTH SIDE 6' .9' 5.10' Note City Code Section 350:440, Subd. 9: the yard fronting the fire lane is considered a side yard. ! i ~, I · &t I Jt Terwilliger June 14, 1993 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE The surveyor's hardcover calculations detail the property as conforming to the maximum 30 percent allowed by City Code, however, staff would compute the gravel driveway at 100% rather than 50% resulting in a 272 square foot variance for impervious surface being required. The total proposed hardcover of 2,822 square feet exceeds the allowable for this parcel of 2,550 square feet by 3.2 percent. For the Planning Commission's consideration, it is noted the flagstone sidewalks are installed with a sand bed and are calculated at 50% by the surveyor. The actual increase in hardcover is only at 47 square feet which is negligible in this case. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling and detached garage in order to construct and entry roof over the existing deck/walkway as shown on the survey, the Planning Commission may consider the following Findings of Fact: The proposed entry roof is conforming to setbacks, will improve the service, utilization and function of the existing dwelling, that a practical difficulty exists as the hardcover is existing on this site. The actual increase in hardcover is slight due to the fact that it is being installed over a predominantly existing impervious surface. In addition, there is greater than 4,250 square feet of adjacent open space in the commons that reduces the impact on impervious surface for this property. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. This case JS:pj 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma]u,~ood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 MAY Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No._ C~-~Ci'LI Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~gine~r: ~ ......... Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property.. Owner's Name_~.~/j,t~' -~k~thL%Se~ Owner' s Address ~%~ Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Day Phone Day Phone Lot s Addition Zoning District~-- lock Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (g) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): I ] 1, I i I,t I Jk 4/93 Variance Appl£cat£on Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No (~). If no, specify eachnon-conforminguse: ~~ ~k~ Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow too small too shallow (~) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~). If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 e Was the hardship created by any o~her man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (v). If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardsh~ ~ ...... ~ ~F ~ur WhiCh you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this Detition~ nO, list some other ~rone ' . ~. .. .. Yes (), No ~ . If = ~ rtles which are similarly affected? O~ ~ 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. RECEIVED il i'1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION8 RECEIVED ADDRESS _ Z~/S ("ff/a~,j,,e~,~E-6 z'/f,~/C ~ EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA '*°'$0° SQ ~ X 15% = LENGTH WIDTH Zs'so I SQ FT DECK: /~' OTHER: ~oov ~r6~s eoor~,oe .~ o~ej ~o, so~ ~ o =, x · o~ ~o~s~ ~co~..,.....,...,. MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? . . · . · · · · · · _ YES NO BY DATE 145 June 11, 1991 RESOLUTION ~91-80 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR LOTS 9 & 10~ BLOCK 34v WYCHWOOD~ PID #24-117-24 42 0008, 2945 CAMBRIDGE LANE v P&Z CASE NO. 91-018 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a 2 foot fence height variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence f~r ~s 9 & 10, Block 34, Wy~hwoo~, PID ~Z~--ll7--Z~ ~Z 0008, and; WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to erect the fence along their south property line which abuts a 15 foot wide public right of way and is considered a front yard, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 23.415(4)a. allows a maximum fence height of 48 inches in the front yard, and; WHEREAS, the subject city right-of-way is used mainly for pedestrian access to the commons area, it is wooded and resembles a nature trail, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Zoning District which requires a front yard setback of 20 feet, and; WHEREAS, the proposed kence is to be setback ap- proximately 32 feet back from Cambridge Lane, and; WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful, non- conforming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval to afford the applicants reasonable use and allow greater privacy of the property. NOW, THEREFORe, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby authorize a 2 foot fence height variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence in the front yard of the property located at Lots 9 & 10, Block 34, Wychwood, PID #24-117-24 42 0008. 146 June 11, 1991 The City Council authorizes the violation~ and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the fol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. a. Construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence along the south property line starting approximately 32 feet from Cambridge Lane. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 9 & 10, Block 34, Wychwood, PID #24-117-24 42 0008. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used· 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin. County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk° The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jesen and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jessen was Attest: City Clerk sent and ~u~ e~ ~ Oe/~uty ii GENERAL ZONLNG INFOrmaTION SII~'.ET Re~tred ~t Width:~ (frontage on an ~prov~ ~blic · xieting ~t Width , Depth I O0 / SO' {Malured frC~l EXXSTXNG AND~OR PROPOSBD BETBACK$: ACCESSORY BUILDING SUBJECT 0 0 0 C~ 0 ~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK, STREET FRONTAGE, AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 4347 NILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 75, 76 & LOT B IN THE FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK, FIRST DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 13 0008, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-022 WHEREAS, the owner, Kenneth Dahlgren, has applied for a variance to replace the existing deck and add two more feet resulting in a 44.8 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water, and; WHEREAS, the impervious surface coverage on this property is also nonconforming by 2,140 square feet, or 52 percent, including the proposed deck, and; WHEREAS, inadequate street frontage also exists of 20 feet to the required 40 feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record,,, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, this property is unique in size and shape and it could be expected that it may exceed the limit on hardcover due to the configuration and need for a long driveway, however, the extent of hardcover and request to further encroach on the lakeshore setback is inconsistent with the City Code and compensation must be made in some area in order to gain some more conformance with hardcover, and; WHEREAS, the owner would be satisfied with being allowed to replace the deck as is, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval to replace the deck as is. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the following variances to allow reconstruction of the existing 12' x 12' deck, as is, for the property at 4347 Wilshire Blvd.: ae A setback variance from the deck to the ordinary high water of 3.2 feet. B. A street frontage variance of 20 feet. Ce A variance to impervious lot coverage of 2,124 square feet (52 percent hardcover). Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-022 The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Re-construction of a 16.3' x 12' deck at the lake side of the dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lots 75, 76, and Lot B in "The First Re-arrangement of Phelps Island Park - 1st Div., and all of Lot 4 and that part of Lot 3 and the private street in "Phelps Island Park, First Division", all described as commencing at a point in the Southeasterly line of County Road No. 125 distant 60 feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly corner of Lot A in "The First Re- arrangement of Phelps Island Park - 1st Div; thence southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said road a distance of 360 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence South 26 degrees 26 feet East a distance of 75.7 feet; thence South 37 degrees 21 feet East to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southwesterly along said shore to the extension Southerly of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 4; thence Northwesterly along the extension of said Southwesterly line and along said Southwesterly line to the Southeasterly line of said Lot B; thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line to its intersection with the extension Southeasterly of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 76; thence Northwesterly along the extension of said Southwesterly line and along said Southwesterly line to the Southerly line of County Road No. 125; thence Northeasterly along said Southerly line to the point of beginning, EXCEPT that part thereof lying Northeasterly of the following described line and its Northwesterly extension: Commencing at the judicial landmark set pursuant to District Court Torrens Case No. 10398 at the angle point in the Northeasterly line of said above-described property, said point being the Proposed Resolution Page 3 Case #93-022 0 e point of beginning of a line hereinafter referred to as "Line A"; thence North 26 degrees 26 feet West a distance of 75.7 feet to the judicial landmark set pursuant to District Court Torrens Case No. 10398 marking the actual point of beginning of said above-described property, and said "Line A" there ending; thence South 76 degrees 15 feet West to a point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Southwesterly, measured at right angles, from said "Line A', said point of intersection being the point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 26 degrees 26 feet East a distance of 71.40 feet; thence South 30 degrees 34 feet West a distance of 43.5 feet; thence South 43 degrees 26 feet East to the Southeasterly line of said above-described property, and said line there ending, ALSO EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the point of ending of said "Line A"; thence South 76 degrees 15 feet West to a point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 40 feet Southwesterly, measured at right angles, from said "Line A", said point of intersection being the point of beginning of the exception being described; thence South 26 degrees 26 feet East a distance of 65.05 feet; thence Southwesterly to the intersection of the Southeasterly line of said Lot B with the Southerly extension of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 76; thence Northwesterly along said Southerly extension and said Southwesterly line to the Southerly right-of-way line of County Road No. 125; thence Northeasterly along said Southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with a line drawn North 26 degrees 26 feet West through the point of beginning of said exception; thence South 26 degrees 26 feet East to said point of beginning. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 14, 1993 Case #93-022: Ken Roel0f~; C0nst, Inc, for Kenneth Dahlgren, 4347 Wilshire Blvd., Part of Lots 75, 76 & Lot B in The First Re-arrangement of P.I.P., First Div._ PID//19-117-23 13 0008. VARIANCE FOR DECK, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to replace the existing deck and add two more feet which would result in a 44.8 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water. The impervious surface on this property is also nonconforming by 2,140 square feet, or 52 percent, including the proposed deck. Inadequate street frontage also exists of 20 feet to the required 40 feet. This property is unique in size and shape and it could be expected that it may exceed the limit on hardcover due to the configuration and need for a long driveway, however, the extent of hardcover and request to further encroach on the lakeshore setback is inconsistent with the City Code and compensation must be made in some area in order to gain some more conformance with hardcover. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend disapproval of this request due to the fact that any further expansion is inconsistent with provisions in the City Code. It was suggested the applicant work with City Staff to evaluate the hardcover and seek a proposal more consistent with the impervious surface provisions of the code. The Building Official further explained that he discussed with the applicant and contractor just prior to the meeting that if they cannot expand the deck 2 feet more, they would be satisfied with being allowed to replace the deck as is. Mueller suggested a compromise of allowing the extra 2 feet onto the deck if impervious surface is reduced elsewhere, such as the driveway. Jensen commented that she is not in favor of more hardcover, and does not see the need for more deck, however, it would be reasonable to allow the owner to replace the deck as is. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance to allow replacement of the existing deck, same size. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ,612,472 0600 FAX ,6!2:472 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGR~OUND Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official 4~0 , Variance Request Ken Roelofs Const., Inc. for Kenneth Dahlgren 93-022 4347 Wilshire Blvd., That part of Lots 75, 76 and Lot B in "The First Re-arrangement of Phelps Island Park, First Division," and all of Lot 4 and that part of Lot 3 in "Phelps Island Park, First Division," PID #19-117-23 13 0008. R-iA Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a building permit to replace an existing deck with one that is 2 feet larger, resulting in a setback variance of 5.2' to the required 50' setback to the Ordinary High Water. The impervious surface on this property is also nonconforming to the maximum 30 percent by 2,140 square feet, or 52 percent, including the proposed deck. A further aspect of its nonconformity is inadequate street frontage of 20 feet to the required 40 feet in the R-iA zone. This property is unique in size and shape and it could be expected that it may exceed the limit on hardcover due to the configuration and need for a long driveway, however, the extent of hardcover and request to further encroach on the lakeshore setback is inconsistent with the City Code and compensation must be made in some area in order gain some more conformance with hardcover. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend disapproval of this request due to the fact that any further expansion is inconsistent with provisions in the City Code. It is suggested the applicant work with City Staff to evaluate the hardcover and seek a proposal more consistent with the impervious surface provisions of the code. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. This case JS:pj 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 MAY 2 ? IgC3 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: ~-x?~ Site visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: &-l-qb Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property x~/3~//'~ _////,/-~'~'/,~- ~ ~/~Z ~7' ¢~//,_~ Phone //'~ Owner's Name/ ~-... ',~ _/~ Day ~/~- Applicant's Name (if other than owner)~..~,~' .~, _ ~,~r.. ~ - ~.~ -~ Address /J~O Day ~T/ ~ ~ '/,. O ~'/~,<t ~: ~ Phone - · , - _ .,., ]. ~,~. - gonin~ Districe ~ ~ ~se of Property: ~~s~ ~ / Has an application evor been mado for zoning, variance, conditip~'al use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, ~tc.): 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. q.6 - O Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason SETBACKS: for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) /// Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. _. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. .~7,~z~.. _ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~O_ ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulati.~o~ for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~-. · . (~), No (/). If no, specify eachnon-conforminguse: - ~c~Z ~~ ;',~c/>, ,.~d'~/.;,,~i Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( )/too narrow ( ) topography ( ~ too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: ( ) soil ( ) existing ( ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in t~he land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~w~. If yes, explain 4/93 Ya~£a~ce Pa~e 3 Was the hardship created by any ot~r man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~/). If yes, explain such as the Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~', No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Date '"'~'~-':-' ' '"~ ~ -~'~' ~ .-.-- Date .~plicant's Signature /' // ..... e of Survey is Construction Island Park, 3n" & "The First >f Phelp's Island )unty, Minnesota ~t ~~at ' feet to t~ ~e~ ~u~ ~.7 ~t~ %,// !1 Certificate of Survey for Ken Roelofs Construction in "Phelp's Island Park, First Division" & "The First Re-arrangement of Phelp's Island Park-lst-Div. Hennepin County, Minnesota ! A feet ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t BI ~ ~ai~r~ ~ I~ of ~ ~r~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~,a~r~ . ~. ~ at ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~r~ / _ b~ ~d~~ ~; ~ ~A.~ At ~e~ ~ ~ ~u~ 76°15' ~t b m ~t ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ feet ~o ~ at ~ ~;~ ~d ~ A', ~id ~lnt' of ln~eo~oa ~ ~e ~t ~r~ ~ et ~ ~a~r~ ~ of ~d ~t 76J ~e~ ~wa~r~ ~o~ H ARDCO VER__C ~ALC_ULA TI ON S ADDRESS NAME EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQ Fr x 30% = I SQ FT X 15% HOUSE: GARAGE: LENGTH WIDTH /~'- / x 2R./ = X ~ SQ FT TOTAL DRIVEWAY: X =:= TOTAL DRIVEWAY DECK: 16. ~ x /2. o , X TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER . . , , , , , . . . , , , , MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIRF24ENTS? . , . . ...... I So~o YES DATE ! i 1, I i it ~ ' .?o,,. ~' e GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION $1[EET PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE AT 5342 PIPER ROAD, LOT 39, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID #25-117-24 21 0110 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-024 WHEREAS, the owner, Gloria Sistek, has applied for a variance to impervious surface coverage of 1,050 square feet, and a setback variance of 26 feet from the deck to the Ordinary High Water, to allow construction of a conforming 22' x 22' detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing nonconforming carport and shed are proposed to be removed, and; WHEREAS, the following calculations indicate that the proposed alterations to the property will increase the nonconforming hardcover to approximately 44.4 percent EXISTING LOT AREA 7~310 SF X 30% = TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER NONCONFORMING BY 2,193 2,583 390 OR 35.3% PROPOSED TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER LESS REMOVALS PROPOSED GARAGE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 2,583 ( 904) 484 1,080 3,243 OR 44.4% TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER NONCONFORMING BY 1,050 WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-iA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the owner stressed the following issues: Lack of storage in the house as it is a slab house. Her original plan was for a 24' x 28' garage, which she has reduced to a 22' x 22'. Piper Road has no off-street parking. She would like parking space for her boat, and therefore, wants to retain all of the proposed driveway as proposed. Her plans include improving and managing the erosion on her property. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case $93-024 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve an impervious surface coverage variance of 862 square feet (41.8% coverage) and a setback variance of 26 feet from the existing deck to the ordinary high water elevation to allow construction of a 24' wide by 28' deep detached garage, subject to the following conditions: A. The detached garage conform to all setback requirements. B. The detached garage shall not be set back more than 20 feet from the front property line, as proposed. C. The 100% impervious surface driveway shall not exceed 20 feet in width. No more than a 50% impervious type surface shall be installed for the balance of the driveway which extends to the north side of detached garage. The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a all of the provisions and nonconforming use, subje~ to lawful, restrictions of Section 350.420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 24 foot wide by 28 foot deep detached garage to be placed 20 feet from the south front property line with conforming side yard setbacks. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 39, Whipple Shores. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has ~een filed with the City Clerk. !1 ILLUSTRATION OF PLAN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I L · -. GLORIA S iM'rEK ~ 'CASE 24 GARAGE 22' X 2~ DRIVEWAY @ II, PERVIOUS: PARKING AREA @ 50Z IMPERVIOUS: ~' SCALE = 1" = 10' .2 .~¢ /~c¢ HARDCOVER 7,310 X 30~ = 2,193 REMOVALS (904) GARAGE 24 X 28 616 DRIVE @ 1001 460 (20 X 23) PARKING @ 50~ 300 (4O X 15) EXISTING COVER 2,583 TOTAL PRO 3 , 0 5 5 VARIANCE KEQUEST 862 ~ 7o' °~ ,£ 40. oo PIPER ROAD MiNLrlT~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case/993-024: Gloria Sistek, 5342 Piper Road, Lot 39. Whipple Shores, PID/925 ,! 17-24 21 0110. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request to construct a new garage with conforming setbacks. A variance request to impervious surface coverage of 1,050 square feet, and a setback variance of 26 feet from the deck to the Ordinary High Water are required. The existing nonconforming carport and shed would be removed. The calculations below indicates the proposal increases the non- conforming hardcover to approximately 44.4 percent. .EXISTING LOT AREA 7,310 SF X 30% = · OTAL EXISTING BABDCOV~R TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER NONCONFORMING BY PROPOSED 2,193 2,583 390 OR 35.3% TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER LESS REMOVALS PROPOSED GARAGE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY /'OTAL PROPOSED It~RDCOVER TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER NONCONFORMING BY Staff recommended the Planning Commission request as proposed, but would support substantially reduced driveway. 2,583 OR 35.3% ( 904) 484 ..1,080 3,243 OR 44.4% 1,050 recommend denial of the a recommendation with a The Building Official proceeded to recognize a letter which was faxed to the him that day from Gloria Sistek. In the letter, Ms. Sistek asked that the following issues be considered when considering her proposal: 1. Lack of storage in the house as it is a slab house. 2. Her original plan was for a 24' x 28' garage, which she has reduced to a 22' x 22'. So Piper Road has no off-street parking. She would like parking space for her boat, and therefore, wants to retain all of the proposed driveway as proposed. Her plans include improving and managing the erosion on her property. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 Page 2 Gloria Sistek, Case 93-024 The applicant proceeded to distribute photographs which show the existing carport and erosion/drainage concerns. Clapsaddle suggested the applicant install a new material which consists of a cement block type of product which is used for parking areas, and it allows the grass to grow through, it is only 50% impervious. This material could be used on the west side of the garage for boat parking. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the impervious surface coverage variance and lakeside setback variance to allow construction of a 24' wide by 28' deep detached garage, subject to the following conditions: The detached garage conform to all setback requirements. The detached garage shall not be set back more than 20 feet from the front property line, as proposed. The 100% impervious surface driveway shall not exceed 20 feet in width. 0 No more than a 50% impervious type surface shall be installed for the balance of the driveway which extends to the north side of detached garage. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. 1~:17 RECEIVED JUN 1 1 1993 MOUI D PLANNING & INSP. P. 0 I Mackay Photopak' A D~vi$ion Of Ihe Mackay Envelope Co~porallon June 11, 1993, Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jon, Thank you for your patience. After much thought and consideration, I have decided not to propose any changes or variations on my remodeling project. Z ask that you consider the following when preparing your proposal for the council; My property has a hardship of no storage. The house is a slab house with very limited closet and attic space and of course no basement. The fact that no garage exists only magnifies'the problem. The lack of storage means this property has little value to future buyers with a family or normal posessions. Upon your initial recomendation, ! changed my plans from wanting a 24x28 garage to your suggestion of a 22X22. I feel this limits my objective to create storage space, but want to work with you. Piper road has ho off street parking so my request for driveway space I feel is valid. If you notice on Piper road all my neighbors have the type of driveway space I am asking for. I also need a place to park my boat. My proposed plans are improving and managing the errosion problem that plagues my property. I am hopeful that the hardcover varience will be approved because of the improvement of this problem. If I am unable to create the long term benefits to make this property more functional and less volitlle I may be wise in reconsidering any improvement and ~ look for a property that meets these basic needs. Thank you for your consideration. 21~ Elm Str~tSE, Minne~lis, MN55414 '1'800'~l.9311FAX612378.6287 II J l, I · I J, ~ ' CITY of MOUND 554~ MAYWOOD RQ,aD MOL~ND MINNESOTA 5536-' t6~2~472 0600 ~AX 512 472 (;620 STAFF REPORT DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Gloria Sistek CASE NO. 93-024 LOCATION: 5342 Piper Road, Lot 39, Whipple Shores, PID ~25-117-24 21 0110 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a building permit to construct a new garage with conforming setbacks, but results in a variance request to impervious surface coverage of 1,050 square feet. An existing nonconforming setback of 26 feet from the Ordinary High Water to the deck would also need to be recognized. As part of the proposal, the existing nonconforming carport and shed would be removed. Staff's calculations of hardcover indicates the proposal increases the nonconforming hardcover to approximately 44.4 percent as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The new garage results in a substantial improvement to the existing front yard encroachment, however, the driveway area appears excessive and does not represent the minimum variance necessary. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed, but would support a recommendation with a substantially reduced driveway area as shown on the attached Exhibit B. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993 JS:pj This case printed on recycled paper Exhibit A Impervious Surface Calculations 5342 Piper Road 6/9/93 EXISTING LOT AREA 7,310 SF X 30% = TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER NONCONFORMING BY PROPOSED TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER LESS REMOVALS PROPOSED GARAGE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER NONCONFORMING BY 2,193 2,583 390 2,583 ( 904) 484 1,080 3,243 1,050 OR 35.3% OR 35.3% OR 44.4% 4/93 .VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP MOUND 534~ Maywood Road, Mound, Mlq 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy t.o City Engineer: ............... Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 53~ ?1~ ~©ckd Owner,s Name ~o~1~ ~I~TE~ Day Phone Owner's Address ~SqL P I P~' i"/_ ~OC~d ~toq % ~ Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address __ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ,._~0~ Addition Day Phone PID No. Block Zoning District ~-- t ~ Use of Property: ~CSid=~%i~I Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. yes, list date(s) of application, action taken resolution number(s) provide copies of resolutions. ' use If and 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~ld ~ 22~2~ ~q~c~¢_ 0/% ?'/1.¢ q/I (.o+' ! I 1, I ! It I x 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. ~ ~~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes o ' No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. .~, ft. __~~/-- ft. ~2 ! ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ---~--~--=--- -~_~ sa ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (>~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: 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 C~ drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. qS--0_~_~ Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~4~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~~ ~~3~ - Date Applicant's Signature ~~ _~/~~_~ Date ! J 1, I J I J, ,J " LAKE MINNETONKA OERTIFICATE OF ,~UR~EY FOR GLORIA SISTEK OF LOT 3g. ~fflIPPLE SHORES HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA DR'AWN BY I~'VLSl ONDAT~ D~PT1ON DESIGNED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ADDRESS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA 77/o _, 73/0 SQ FTX ao% = SQ FT X 15% = HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: LENGTH WIDTH TOTAL DRIVEWAY TOTAL DECK TOTAL DECK 0 $0% SQ FT F ?~.?,_ / 72. OTHER: T~ITA !' MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIRF./4ENTS? BY - I: Z-555 14~. YES '~ NO ! ! Survey on file? yea~ no Required Lot .,dth: ~f) / ,xistinq Lot Width ~ O ~ · L'TBACK$ RB~UtRBD ! ~t R S B ~ 1S' ~$KU; SO' fMilurod rrm O.H.W.I ,~. ,,,. ~(~ '~/- (frontage on an improved p~,blLc otroet) ,o.~th 150 ' $IDSz R S · ACCESSORY BUZLDZIM SLOB; # · · W RF. Mq; # · · # ,ddt.,~jl LAKESNOI~! S0' Cmeilurod rrna FRONT: # S · W ACCESSORY BUILDII~ ~C 0 'N 0 ,-~ U~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 4916 HANOVER ROAD, LOTS 16 AND 17, BLOCK 18, DEVON, PID #25-117-24 11 0082, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-025 WHEREAS, the owner, Linda Kunde, has applied for a variance to impervious lot coverage of 344 square feet to allow construction of a conforming 12' x 12' deck, and; WHEREAS, the existing 9'9" x 6' deck will be removed, and; WHEREAS, the total proposed hardcover of 2,264 square feet exceeds the allowable hardcover of 1,920 square feet, resulting in a variance request of 344 square feet, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record .. and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; ' WHEREAS, all other setbacks, and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the request is minimal in nature, is conforming to setbacks, and allows the applicant a more functional deck and reasonable use of the property, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance to impervious surface coverage of 344 square feet to allow the construction of a 12' x 12' deck at 4916 Hanover Road. The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 12' x 12' conforming deck. il I 1, i ! ~ I ~ Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-025 Be This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 16 and 17, Block 18, Devon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the city Clerk. MINUTES OF A ME~G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case ~)3-025~ David Schru for Linda Kun e 4916 Han ver Road Lots 1 17 Block 18 Devon PID -117-24 11 82 VARIANCE FOR DECK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a impervious surface coverage variance to replace an existing unsafe deck with a new slightly larger deck and stairs. The request amounts to an increase in size of approximately 85 square feet, or 42.5 square feet, of additional hardcover. The total proposed hardcover of 2,264 square feet exceeds the allowable hardcover of 1,920 square feet, resulting in a variance request of 344 square feet. Staff has conducted a site inspection and it appears the house as been constructed as proposed on the original survey and is conforming to setbacks. Staff recommended approval of the request as the proposal is minimal in nature, is conforming to setbacks and allows the applicant functional deck and ' more reasonable use of the property, a NOTION made by Voss, seconded by Cla saddle approval of the v .... P , to recommend Clapsaddle, Ranus, Muelle- '~f~--~ za_vor were: Michael, -, --~ vo~s. oensen opposed. Jensen stated her reason for disapproval is that there is no hardship when it comes to a deck. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~' Variance Request David Schrupp (DRS Home Repair & Remodeling) for Linda Kunde CASE NO. LOCATION: 93-025 4916 Hanover Road, Lots 16 & 17, Block 18, Devon, PID #25-117-24 11 0082 ZONING: R-iA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking to replace an existing unsafe deck with a new slightly larger deck and stairs. The request amounts to an increase in size of approximately 85 square feet, or 42.5 square feet, of additional hardcover. The total proposed hardcover of 2,264 square feet exceeds the allowable hardcover of 1,920 square feet, resulting in a variance request of 344 square feet. Staff has conducted a site inspection and it appears the house as been constructed as proposed on the original survey and is conforming to setbacks. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the proposal is minimal in nature, is conforming to setbacks, and allows the applicant a more functional deck and reasonable use of the property. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council June 22, 1993. JS:pj ~ printodonrecyclodpopor VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road; Mound; MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600; Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: A- Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ Copy t~ City ~.g~ ~: n.6t. Please type or print the following information: Owner's Name ,~///~ .~>~ ~/~ Day Phone ~Z/-~~0 Owner's Address_.. ~g/~' /~/Z~ // Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) ~'~/~ ~~W~ Address ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Day Phone ~-/~.~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning District ~--] ~ Use of Property: .~~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. ' 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No.~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setbj~ek regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~2~ No (), I~ hQ, specify each non-¢0nforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N~E W ) Rear Yard: (~ S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E~) Side Yard: ( N S ~ W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ft. ft. ]~ ' ft. ~ ~ ft. ft. sq ft I,~ ~-0 sq ft _~O '~ ~ ft. (9~ ft. ft. ft. ,0'[~ ~ ft. ~ ft. ._~~ 6~ft · ft. - ft. ft. _~/k)~ sq ft ~ sq ft sq ft sq ft 3. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use: _/'~ ~ ~½~A ~o~ ~ ~_~$ Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: /~,/(~ 6/~/- soil existingZ&~ ~ 0~'~ other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zonin~ ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain ..~ ~~ 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~'-.If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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. Own e r's Si g n a t u r e, .~~//~j ' //~Wj~'~~__ CERTIFICATE OF va~ IR~SSltNl II~r~ZST~,I~ COK?ANY - · '~---' ~' , ~i ' . r~l~ , ~, SURVEY ,.. I 17../ ,. ; 8C&Z,~Z Ie" 2f~ ~$, '._.__ ._. ,i .- u... --..~.-.---~ ,1~ '- ........ 80.0 .... ''° ~ ~' DESCrIPTIOn: Lots 16 and 17, Block 18, D~'VON ~ We hereby certify thsl this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described end of the location of all building& If any, thereon, end all visible encroocl~nents, if any, from or on said lend. Doted thll 22nd day of July _, 1974 , E~H,~ELD HARDCOVER CALCULATION.~ EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQ ~r x 30% = I SQ Fr x 15% = LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: L'~ / ' . x X X TOTAL HOUSE ........... SQ FT GARAGE: X TOTAL (~ARA(~E .......... DRIVEWAY: DECK: TOTAL DRIVEWAY ......... TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ _ OTHER: 3~ x /J : TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. MEETS LOT COVERAGE ~'EQU~REMENTS~ .......... YES NO ! I ~lqZ. GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET / Depth SO' (M&lured frc~l O.H.#.} / C ~ ~ 0 ~ t 0 ~ 0 C I '0 · ~q C PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA AND SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 2050 WATERSIDE LANE, LOTS I AND 2, BLOCK LAKESIDE PARK: A.L. CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION~ PID #13-117-24 23 0022 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-026 WHEREAS, the owners, Karen and Leeanne Pederson, have applied for a lot area variance and setback variances to allow the replacement and expansion of the existing deck, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to Waterside Lane, a 20 foot side yard setback to Breezy Road, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, a lot area variance of 2,800 square feet is requested to be recognized, and; WHEREAS, the existing deck is setback 19 feet from the northeast front property line (Waterside Lane) requiring an 11 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the existing deck is in good condition and the expansion will not further encroach towards the front property line. Also, considering the placement of existing patio doors and the layout of the property, it is not unreasonable to allow the deck to be constructed as proposed, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval upon the following Findings of Fact: there is 8 additional feet of green space between the curb and the front property line and the new deck does not project closer to the front property line than the existing deck. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the following variances to allow construction of deck at 2050 Waterside Lane: 1. Lot area variance of 2,800 square feet. 2. Front yard setback variance of 11 feet from the deck to Waterside Lane. 3. Rear yard setback variance of 4.6 feet to the existing dwelling. The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subje~20to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350.4 . It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, "Lakeside Park: A.L. Crocker's 1st Division, Mound, Minnetonka" This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case #93-026;_ Karen and Leeanne Pederson, 2050 Waterside Lane, Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Lakeside Park Crocker's, PID #13-117-24 23 0022. VARIANCE FOR DECK~ - Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to replace and expand the existing deck. A lot area variance of 2,800 square fee needs to be recognized, impervious surface coverage will be conforming. The setbacks as noted in the staff report were done incorrectly as it was first assumed that the "front,, yard was Breezy Road, when in-fact Waterside Lane should be considered the front when figuring setbacks. Therefore, the required setbacks are as follows: Front Waterside Lane NE 30' Side Breezy Road NW 20' Side SE 10' Rear SW 15' Therefore, the deck, as proposed, will be conforming to the NW side yard (Breezy Road), however will require a front yard setback variance to Waterside Lane of I1 feet. There is approximately an 8 foot boulevard on Waterside Lane so the deck will be approximately 28 feet to the curb. The existing deck is in good condition and the expansion will not further encroach towards the front property line. Also, considering the placement of existing patio doors and the layout of the property, it is not unreasonable to allow the deck to be constructed as proposed. Staff recommended approval of the variance as requested. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clagsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance to allow construction of a deck as requested. Finding of Fact is that there is 8 additional feet of green space between the curb and the front property line and the new deck does not project closer to the front property line than the existing deck. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. 21q CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 55-:' MAYWOOD ROAD MOU%D UINNESOTA55364 ~6S7 6~2~ ~72-0600 FAX ~12~ A72 0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Karen Pederson for Leeanne Pederson CASE NO. 93-026 LOCATION: 2050 Waterside Lane, Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Lakeside Park Crocker's, PID #13-117-24 23 0022 ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a building permit to replace and expand the existing deck on the property. The required front yard setback in the R-1 zone for lots with 61 to 80 feet of depth is 24 feet (City Code Section 350:620, Subd. 2. C.). The proposed deck is nonconforming to the front yard setback, it scales out to 20 feet resulting in a 4 foot front yard variance. The lot area is also nonconforming by 2,800 square feet. All other setbacks and impervious surface are conforming to the City Code requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2,800 square foot lot area variance to allow the expansion of a deck with the condition that the proposed deck be conforming to all required setbacks and impervious surface requirements of the code. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council JS:pj This case ~l~ ~ ~ printed on recycled paper 4/93 .VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP HOUND 534X Ha~ood Road; Hound; HN 55364 Phone: 472-0600t Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: i4AY 2 8 1993 Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~5'O~ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: ~.~. Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property _~d Owner's Name~ Day Phone_~5 Owner's Address ~ d~ ~,(3~",~_~/~e Applicant's Name (if other than owner)~ ~ddress~o ~ ~/m~ W~ ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot I ~ Z_ Block Zoning District ~'~--} Use of Property, ~~" Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Rear Yard: S ) - ' ft. , ft. _. ft. , ft. ft. Lake Front: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. - ft. Side Yard: ( N S~EhW ) ft. ,~ ' ft. ~,.~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S W ) ft. I~ ''~/-- ft. /~ ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. - ft. Lot Size: ~'~,Z~L.'~t~.~ sq ft -_C~,Q?~,~ sq ft ~ Hardcover: ~sq ft sq ft I~,C,O O. sq ft ~-i ! ~ ~ sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ). If no, specifyeachnon-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (X) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage (~) existing ( ) 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 (1982)? Yes (), No ~Q. If yes, explain 4/~ Pa~e 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. /~~~/ / CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KAREN PEDERSON OF LOTS 1, AND 2, "LAKESIDE PARK: A.L. CROCKER'S 1st Division, Mound, MINNETONKA" HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA C,,,,, L~c.~l Doscr~otion of Parcel Surveyed Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, "LAKESIDE PARK: A.L. CROCKER'S 1st Division, Mound, MINNETONKA" This survey shows the location of an existing house, deck, driveway and visible "hardcover" in relation to the bound- aries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. o: Iron marker Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum. 110 ADDRESS NAME HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: 6'c5 ..3 SQFrX30%= I 2-~0 SQ FrX 15% = LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ........... GARAGE: TOTAL GARAGE DRIVEWAY: TOTAL DRIVEWAY DECK: /~ X 3~ = ~-~ 2'~ ' ?.' TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ y /,j' %'$ ? OTHER: x = TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAl, PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? .......... BY DATE NARD£OVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) m ~r, .~ ~, EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A, HOUSE 9'P, 3 LENGTH x WIDTH X X X X X B. GARAGE C, DRIVEWAY Z% ~ X /~, 5 D, SIDEWALK )~-Z X 2. ~ ~.,'~ f~w~ F,LANDSCAPE AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , PLASTIC SHEETING X x X G, OTHER .5' 12,/ TOTAC HARDCOVER IN 'ZBNE TOTAL PR0'P~RTY AREA IN ZONE 2/72 --'. ~] 72oo I t 4JU--JUU DUU-£UUU /2 pO S.F. = : 135 = = 207 S,F, S,F, S,F, S,F, S,F, S,F, S,F, S,F, S,F. 2/72 ?2oo x 100 = _~o. S,F, S.F, S.F, $,F. /7 KAREN'S DECK WORK PLAN: BEFORE WORK STARTS: A wood deck must be removed. B Check to see cost of removal. C. Check cost to have broken sidewalk removed. D. Wood deck must be removed from house and hauled away. E. Before any demolition work begins all windows an doors must be protected. DESIGN OF THE DECK: o Size of the deck. 12' X 36' PLUS 3' 6" X 9' ON SOLq'I-I SIDE, 6' X 6' ON NORTH SIDE. Material of the Sub structure: A. Deck Joist to be Perma Wood pressure-treated wood. B. Rim joist will be 2" X 10" pressure treated wood. C. Posts for beam will be 4 x 6 pressure treated wood. 6 foot on centers. D. Beam will be 2 x 12 x pressure treated wood, set 16" back from east rim joist. E. Bracing that can not be seen will be pressure treated woo& F. Hardware needed: joist hangers, 16 penny coated nails, 12 penny galvanized cassing nails, lag Screws, machine bolts. SUI~FACE LUM_BER: A. Decking 2 x 4 B. Railing to be 2 x 6 top rafting side ra'ding's to be 2 x 2 C Posts for railing's to be 4 x 4 Nails: Must be hot dipped galvanized where they are to be used and exposed to the weather. Screws: Screws may be used on the deck. If not use 12 penny casing nails hot dipped galvanized. .Machine bolts. 2 bolts in each post to hold beam in place. 3/8" X 7" Bolts. Lag Screws: Used to bolt Ledger joist to house. 3/8" x 6" install 24" on center. MATERIALS LIST. SUBSTRUCTURE: BEAMS: POSTS & BEAMS: 4" X 6" X Brown treated posts. Set at 2', 6', 12', lg', 24', 30', 34' from south. 2" X 12 "X 36' Brown treated [ 12', 8', 16' ] one side [ 8', 16', 12' ] other side posts. 3/8" X 7" bolts with washers and nuts, two per post. [ total of 14 ea ]. JOISTS: JOISTS, RIM JOIST, & LEDGER JOISTS: 2" X 10" X 12' treated joist. 30 needed. 2" X 10" X 36' treated Rim joist 3 of them 14' long are needed. 2" X 10" X 36' treated ledger joist. 3 of'them 12' long are needed. DECK: 2' X 4" X 16' main deck. 90 are needed. 10 - 2" X 4" X 12' south side deck. 12 - 2" X 4" X 12' north side deck. HAND RAILINGS: 2- 2"X6"X 4 - 2" X 6" X X 4- 2"X 5- 4"X 6- I"X 2"X 12' top railing. 14' top railing. 4" X 12' bottom railing. 4" X 14' bottom rafting. 4"X 8' posts. 3" X 14' railing. 2"X 8' railing. HARDW.MtE: 40 - Joist hangers. For 2" X 10" 10 lbs 16d Galvanized coated common nails. 25 lbs 12d Galvanized finished nails for deck. [screws ffused must be mst proof]. 24 - 3/8" X 4" lag screws 14 - 3\8 X 7" rust proof bolts with washers and nuts. k /- I I · " I I GENERAl, ZONq]NG LNI"ORMATION SIIEE'F v - , Depth 8 J~B&CKI~ itBQI~ZR~D I (~ ~J~" (~ ACC'SSOP'Y 'U YL' 'lla ritOliTt W IfRONT: N · · SXDB: N · · W LAXIsNoIq~I SO' {M&lured f~Om O,H~Wl j LAAI~SHOMt SO' /measured fro~ O.H.~, J I?XXB?XMG AIqD~OR PROPOBBD FRONT; Il 8 J W SZDg: # _ t / '0 $lDg: N S B I,,AJCJISHOI~B ~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIAIqCE FOR A POOL 6087 ASPEN ROAD, LOT 18, BROOKTON, PID #14-117-24 31 0019 P&Z CASE NUI, fl3ER 93-027 WHEREAS, the owners, Greg and Vickie Pederson, have applied for a variance to install a swimming pool approximately 3 feet from the side property line, the required setback is 10 feet, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is nonconforming to the required front yard setback of 30 feet to Clover Circle resulting in recognition of a 10.9 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the existing deck is low t° the ground and is proposed to be expanded around the pool which extends approximately 2 feet above ground, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing and existing conforming front yard setback of 19.1 feet to the dwelling, to allow construction of a swimming pool subject to the following: 1. The pool be placed at least 10 feet from the house. The pool be placed at least 10 feet from the side property line. A conforming deck be allowed to be constructed around the pool accordingly. The city Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case $93-027 Se Se It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a swimming pool surrounded by a deck conforming to setbacks. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 18, Brookton. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such ~~ing. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City ~TION OF PR,'I,,ISES SURVEYED tTON. ntends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the existing house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improve- .oachments,. other than an existing fence, partly off the propertY. marker set n are based upon an assumed datum. ! I ~ OF A ME~G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case g93-027: · · PID 14-117-24 1 1 V~ARIAN EF RAP OL. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s re uest for a variance to install a swimming pool approximately 3 feet fro~qthe side ~roperty line, the required setback is 10 feet. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the required front yard setback of 30 feet to Clover Circle resulting in recognition of a 10.9 foot variance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to install a pool upon the condition that it be located so that it conforms to the required setbacks. Optional locations for the pool were analyzed by the Commission. The Building Official confirmed that it would be okay to move the pool closer to the deck, as long as it stayed 10 feet from the house. The existing deck is low and the proposed pool will project approximately 2 feet above ground. The applicant,s intend to construct a deck around the pool anyway. Fencing requirements in relation to the existing retaining walls were discussed. Hanus confirmed that the pool will be screened from Clover Circle. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, approval of a variance to subject to seconded by Mueller, to recommend allow the ® the following: construction of a pool, The pool be placed at least lO feet from the house. The pool be placed at least 10 feet from the side property. line. A conforming deck be allowed to be constructed around the pool accordingly. Motion carried unanimously· This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Greg and Vickie Pederson 93-027 6087 Aspen Road, Lot 18, Brookton, PID #14-117-24 31 0019 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a variance to setbacks in order to install an above-ground pool. The proposed setbacks are 8 feet to the house resulting in a 2 foot variance, and 3 feet to the side yard resulting in a 7 foot variance. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the required front yard setback of 30 feet to Clover Circle resulting in recognition of a 10.9' variance. Hardship factors of unusual lot shape and topography are out-weighed by the public safety concerns for swimming pools adjoining other properties. The setback provisions of the code provides what is considered a reasonable setback to adjoining property. An alternative would be to modify topography in the rear yard to accommodate a pool in a conforming location. RECOMMENDATIOg Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request upon the condition that the pool be located so that it conforms to the required setbacks. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the city Council June 22, 1993. This case printed on recycled paper I I MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 350:645 8eGtion 350:645. Geaeral ~ecruiremeat~ ~mmlioa~le t~ Residential District~. X!~ Subd. X. Lot Coveraq,. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30_ percent of the lot area. 0 en ~atterged decks and stairwa.-s shal .... P . ~ · ce coun~ea as , impervious cover prOvldin- *~=~ ~__ . 50 percent permeable surface. Thcs~ _L~ uu~Y .are installed over a = ~uns=ructea over an impermeable surface ~r are impermeable themselves s percent Impervious cover, hall be counted as 100 Subd. 2. Permitted Accessory Use~. Within any Residential District, Accessory buildings shall be Permitted subject to the following restrictions: A. Buildings shall not exceed a total gross floor area of 3,000 square feet or 15% of the total lot area whichever is less. B. Each individual accessory building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. C. The total number of accessory buildings for lots measuring 10,000 square ~eet or less shall be two (2). On lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall be limited to a total of three (3). StUd. 3. Swimming Pools and Hot Tub:~. Within any Residential District, swimming pools and ho% tubs shall be Permitted subject to the following restrictions: A. Swimminq Pool~. Swimming pools having a water depth of two (2) feet or more which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their guests are Permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Swimming pools shall be subject to the following setbacks: Side yard . . . Corner lots f~o~ ~h~ ~i~e s~r~e~ 10 feet ' 15 feet Rear Yard . . ~ ......... 15 feet Lakeshore, fro O.H.W ..... 50 feet From any structure on same l~t · 10 feet From principal building on an adjoining lot ....... 20 feet 64 3/15/93 MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 350:645, SUBD. 3, A. 2. 2. Private swimming pools are prohibited in the front portion of residential parcels. The front portion includes the area extending across the entire width of the lot and situated between the front line of the building and the front lot lineo 3. The swimming pool shall be entirely enclosed by a protective fence or other permanent structure not less than five (5) feet nor more than six (6) feet in height. Such protective enclosures shall be maintained by locked gates or entrances when the pool is not tended by a qualified and responsible person. t~_q~. Outdoor hot tubs shall comply with items 1. and 2. above with the exception that the setback from any structure on the same lot shall not apply. Furthermore, all outdoor hot tubs shall be required to either contain surrounding decking with appropriate guardrails or shall be secured by a locked cover when not in use. 8sot~on 350:650. Central Business Subd. L. ~urDose (B-il.. This district is established to recognize the unique character of the Central Business District in terms of land use, height regulations, parking requirements and circulation. Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Require- Subd. 2. ~ents (B-l)- ae Bo Maximum building height is 35 feet. Maximum building height with conditional use permit is 45 feet. 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Side and rear setback if abutting residential district: same as B-2. 65 3/15/93 4/93 YARIANCE APPLICATIO ' CITY OP HOUND 5341 Ma~ooa Road, Mound, ~ 55364 Phone~ 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 3JN 91gg3 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~.g~.: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Propert~ ~OB~ AS ~._~_.~__~o~b Owner's Name ~,~ ~. ~D~~/ Day Phone Owner's Address ~O~7 /~/o~ /~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ,ddress LEGAL DESCRIPTION: /6' ~Z7-zzz 7 Day Phone Block Addition ~-OO/<7--O~/ PID Zoning District_ ~-- I Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. ' Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size number of stories, type of use, etc.): , 4/93 Va~£ance ~pp~£cat£on Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (~~) Rear Yard: ( ) Lake Front: ( N S E W~ {~ Side Yard: ( N S~W L Side Yard: ( N S E W Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: iq. i , lO,ct ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. ~ . ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No ( ). If no. specify eachnon-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (~') topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow (V9 shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 7-~/~ /..AA, Ds~_.,qp/~'~- ~.~ F'kl~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~W~. If yes, explain Variance I I Case No.~ e Was the hardship created by any ~.er man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No · If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. 0wner,s Signature~ .-pplicant,s Signature //½, ,~ , , j / / /~',_/ .... / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREt.IISES SURVEYED: Lot 18, BROOKTON. This survey intends to ShOw the boundartes of t))e above described properly, and Lhe location of an existing house tl~ereon. IL does not purport to show any other improve- ments or encroachments, other than an existing fence, partJy off the property. o : Iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ADDRESS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: /~', 4..0o LENGTH SQ FI' X 30% SQ FI' X 15% WIDTH x ~& = X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ........... SQ FT /5B4- GARAGE: TOTAL GARAGE DRIVEWAY: bS x 2o = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY ......... / 30o DECK: 14- x tzi- X TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ X TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAl, PROPOSED HARDCOVER MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? BY DATE .YESNO ('-~) GENERAl, ZONLNG LNFOR~'L~'FION $1LEET !/..,qo,-'7 ~~ ~ J i~''' i ~:,'- Re~r~ ~t HLd~h:~ (frontage on Iff ~prov~blLc street) BBTBACXB RBQUXRBD! =¢... ::::: --'- R~ARr N 8 E W IS' BXZETZNG FRONT FRONT: /U~AR: LAIC~SHORE: FRO14T SIDE: SIDEr [,AJ~SHOI~ I ACCESSORY SUII,DZ__~'~ SO' ImealVred from O,H.W. I 15 CONFO/~XNG? YES_ NO BY: FRONT: FRONT: SIOE: SIDEr LAABSHOP~I ACCESSORy BUILDI.,U~ 14ILl, TH~ PR~SED i~R~T~ OONFORE? YES., Z4 O' C'~C ~ O ~ O'~'~ I ~ c O ? (}o) ' TO _~ (~o) (14) ( O c C I 1993 Mound City Council; June 14, 1993 RE: Dutch Lake - Milfoil Dutch Lake is approximately 160 Acres of water bordering both Mound and Minnitrista to a depth of up to 35 feet; Sixty plus- or-minus homes mostly on the Mound side; Two public launches (owned by Mound); Grandview Middle School borders the east, Game Farm Road - north and Lynwood Blvd. borders the south. Enclosed is a letter given to the residents/users of the explaining what was done in 1992 in regards to milfoil. lake This year we have collected $500.00 from residents/users (we are still collecting), received $500.00 from the City of Minnitrista and have a cost share agreement with the Minnesota DNR. Last year we treated 25 acres with a total cost of $4900.00. Our highest estimate this year is to treat 25 acres. A treatment will take place late this month or early next month by a licensed applicator selected by the DNR per the cost share agreement. We appreciate the help you have given us in the past and hope you will be able to help us again this year. Thank you, Nancy Nordstrom 5856 Grandview Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 DUTCH LAKE NEEDS YOUR HELP!!! Date: 4/26/93 To: Lakeshore homeowners and lake users From: Citizens concerned for Dutch Lake (CCDL) Subject: Eurasion water milfoil It's finally here, warmer weather that is and with it once again we'll all be enjoying our recreational activities on Dutch Lake. We have had great success in our efforts to control milfoil for the past few years but we must not rest on our laurels. Last fall we treated 25 acres compared to only 3 acres during 1991. The majority of the milfoil infestation was located in the western portions of the lake. We do receive financial help from the Minnesota DNR in the form of 50% cost sharing, however last season we were unable to fund or treat until late in the season and attribute the increased acreage to the late treatment. The most effective time to treat milfoil is in late May or early June and we hope to be able to treat on schedule this season. We need HELP, ~OUR HELP!!!_. If you see Eurasion Water Milfoil in Dutch lake please either mark it with a yellow buoy and/or call any of the people listed below. Then please remain out of the infested area as any fragmentation of the weed, such as props cutting it, will spread and scatter it rapidly. Even more importantly we need your financial contributions, as in the past we are asking Lakeshore owners for $50 00 and La $20.00. Remember we are ......... ' ke users for ~£e~ervlng the recreatio homes and lake and would pay a muck u~_u ..... ~al value of our · , ~uur price ir our lake became unuseable. Please make checks payable to CCDL or Citizens concerned for Dutch Lake. Thank you for your help. Gary & Nancy Nordstrom: 472-7234 - 5856 Grandview Blvd. Roy & Fran Hagen: 472-4693 - 6224 Red Oak Rd. Steve & Vicky Wright: 472-6947 - 5972 Sunset Rd. Name: Address: DUTCH LAKE MILFOIL FUND RECEIPT Amount: Phone: PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CON8TRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND8 PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON BRIGHTON COMMON ABUTTING 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 38, WYCHWOOD FOR $ YEARS RENEWABLE DOCK BITE #51735 WHEREAS, the owners of 2851 Cambridge Lane, Robert and Marilyn Byrnes, have applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to replace the existing stairway located on Brighton Common abutting their property, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, and; the existing stairway was approved by Resolution ~78-209, WHEREAS, there are existing timber retaining walls on the adjacent 15 foot right-of-way, and permission was granted by the Parks Director on August 24, 1984 for this work, and; WHEREAS, the fence on Brighton Common belongs to the adjacent property at 2845 Cambridge Lane, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: me To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit for Robert and Marilyn Byrnes, owners of 2851 Cambridge Lane, Lot 10, Block 38, Wychwood, to replace an existing stairway on Brighton Common, upon the following conditions: ae The stairway be constructed to code as approved by the Building Official. Be The series of timber retaining walls on the 15 foot right-of- way be allowed to remain subject to the owners acknowledging that they The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. De If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant,s dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1993 pUBLIC LAND PERNIT APPLICATION~ Robert and Narilyn Byrnes, 285~ C~hridqe Lane, Lot 10, Block 38. W¥chwood, Dock Site ~51735. CONSTRUCTION ON pUBLIC LAND TO REPLACE EXISTING STaIRWaY, Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicants are seeking permit approval to replace their existing stairway on the commons. The existing stairway is in poor condition and needs replacement. There is another stairway on the adjacent fire lane which is utilized by a non-abutting dock site holder, Tom Casey. The possibility of combining the two stairways into one was discussed with the applicants. The applicant's prefer to build their own stairway, they profess that Mr. Casey may use it to access his dock site at anytime. Other issues recognized by staff include a fence, a series of retaining walls on the hill to the shoreline, and retaining walls on the adjacent fire lane. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The stairway be constructed to code as approved by the Building official 2. The fence be allowed to remain at this time and will be addressed at the time of permit application by the adjacent owner at 2845 Cambridge Lane. 3. The series of timber retaining walls on the 15 foot right of way be allowed to remain subject to the owners acknowledging that they constructed these walls and are responsible for their maintenance. 4. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicants dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Applicant, Marilyn Byrnes, informed the Commission that the fence is owned by the neighbors to the south of them (the Gould's), as shown on the survey in the packet. Staff agreed that this fence should not be considered an issue for the Byrnes'. Marilyn also presented a written note from Chris Bollis, previous Parks Director, which states, "24 Aug 84, Bob Byrnes, Please accept this letter as 'official' permission to do the erosion control work you and I discussed on the 23 of Aug. on the 15' walkway from Cambridge to Wychwood Commons. Good luck, chris Bollis, Park Director." The applicant confirmed that the metal shed as shown on the survey in the packet has been removed. NOTION made by 8chmidt, seconded by Anderson, to reco~nend approval ae recommended by staff. Notion carried 3 to ~. Those in favor were: Schmidt, Anderson and Asleson. Casey abstained. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. To From LL Dat-e OWXw~ovis. CITY of ,~ IOUND MOL'ND. MINNIV~S()T.\ 3~3~4 612 472.1155 RECEIVED JUN 8 1993 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: June 10, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and ~c~t ~ Jon Sutherland, Building Official ' Jim Fackler, Parks Director 2851 Cambridge Lane Robert & Marilyn Byrnes Brighton Con~on, Wychwood: .and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever the county road as shown on the annexed plat; and do also hereby donate and dedicate to the lot owners of seid 'Wychwood' the use forever of the lanes, roads and commons as shown on the annexed plat." 51735 C Construction on Public Lands Permit Application to Replace Existing Stairway Applicant's Request The applicants are seeking permit approval to replace their existing stairway on the commons. Background and Comments This area of commons has four non-abutting dock sites, one of which is served and located at the end of the 15 foot right of way between lots 9 and 10. The existing stair used to access the applicant's dock site is in poor condition and needs replacement. Staff has met with the applicants to discuss the stair and other conditions on the site including the adjacent access and dock site held by Mr. Tom Casey who does not abut commons. The possibility of combining two stairways into one was discussed with the applicants and Mr. Casey. Staff left the option up to the applicants. Mr. Casey has no objection to combination as this would be less costly for him. The applicant's however, prefer building their own stairway, stating Mr. Casey may use it to access his dock site at anytime. This is similar to the position taken in 1978. printed on recycled paper Robert and Marilyn Byrnes June 10, 1993 Page 2 Other Issues Recoqnized by Staff A 6 foot redwood fence adjoining with Lot 9 to the north, a small portion of which is on the commons. 2. Landscaped area from top of hill to shoreline by a series of retaining walls and plantings, recognized by Resolution #78-209. 3. 15 foot right of way to the south. This area is grass with a series of small retaining walls and is maintained by the applicants. (It is not recognized by previous permits.) ~ecommendation Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: The stairway be constructed to code as approved by the Building Official The fence be allowed to remain at this time and will be addressed at the time of permit application by the adjacent owner at 2845 Cambridge Lane. The series of timber retaining walls on the 15 foot right of way be allowed to remain subject to the owners acknowledging that they constructed these walls and are responsible for their maintenance. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicants dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. The abutting property owners have been notified. Revised 4/19/93 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road. Mound. MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 Distributio0: Building official MCWD DNR LMCD Date Received ~--~-95 · Park Meeting City Council Date TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one) CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I .I PUBLIC LANDMAINTENANCEPERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). I CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an exi.ting improvement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). '--' LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). like boathouses, patio sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All per. its granted ars for a l~ited t~e, ars non-transferable, and the structure must meet State Building Code. ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: ADDITION ~/~ ~E OF P~L~ ~ DOCK SITE $ OWNER' S DAY PHONE SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT' S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK co. c.ro ,,s CONTOUR' S LICENSE ~ PHONE VALUATION/PRO~SED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING ~BOR & DESCRIBE REQUEST & P~POSE: / -- sxgnature/of lipp li&Fa ~ Conc. bl~l< ~ steps :1 r"-- Conc. steps ~ ft. wide ~ I00.01 -- - 6~o) (4o) wood ret. Mo) '~/ woll pltl shed- fndtn. Redwood fence b ff. h,'~h strwY. ff. wide P/cke! fence high 172°]0'30" -- 6215 (40) (zz) 9 9- 8 7 I0 38 (4O) (48) 98.90 -- 8Z$0 -" I 80./0 ~u J 212 May 2, 1978 Councilmember Fenstad moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 78-209 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COHMISSION AND GRANT MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR UP TO 5 YEARS & RENEWABLE WHEREAS, it is necessary for property owners abutting Commons in the City to obtain Maintenance Permits for any personal property or fixtures on said Commons, and WHEREAS, owner abutting Brighton Commons has requested maintenance permit for a terrace, previously constructed and maintained. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Councll concurs wlth the Park Commission and authorizes that a Maintenance Permit be granted to Robert Byrnes, abutting Brighton Commons, for his terrace for a period of up to five (5) years and thereafter renewable. Owner of property to be Robert Byrnes The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Polston and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and ~/ithhart, the follow- lng voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested to by the Acting City Clerk. ~ ~/~i~)~L/~, Mayor L Attest'.' A~l~i~g C~-ty- Clerk Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. [Din I iH TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Fran Clark-Leisinger Mark Koegler May 28, 1993 Flood Plain Overlay Ordinance Enclosed, please find a disk and copies of the Floodplain Overlay Ordinance and the Summary Ordinance for inclusion in the City Council packet for the meeting on June 8, 1993. If you have any questions or need any additional information on this topic, please call me. cc: Mr. Curtis Pearson, City Attorney Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612)83%3160 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. _:1993 FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY REGULATIONS (BEING THE FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, FORMERLY TITLED BUILDING PERMITS IN AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING AND FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS) This Ordinance amends Section 300:15 of the Mound Code of Ordinances by modifying and replacing existing Section 300:15 which is entitled Building Permits in Areas Subject to Flooding and Flood Plain Regulations with Ordinance No. _-1993 to be known as Section 300:15. Flood Plain Overlay Regulations. Ordinance No. _-1993 is being enacted to implement certain flood plain regulation requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Section 300:15, Subdivision 1: The purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and to minimize potential loss due to periodic flooding. The Ordinance takes its statutory authorization from Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 103F and 462 and it contains a disclaimer of liability statement. Section 300:15, Subdivision 2 and 3: The Ordinance which applies to all lands designated as flood plain adopts by reference, the Flood Insurance Rate Map dated September 29, 1978. The Ordinance specifically adds and modifies words and phrases used as definitions in the body of the text. The Ordinance is used as an overlay regulation which supersedes the requirements of the underlying zoning district. Section 300:15, Subdivision 4: The Ordinance contains development standards which address floodway protection, flood fringe structures, nonhazardous materials storage, hazardous materials storage, floodway capacity impairment, minimum floor elevations, vehicular access, accessory uses, manufactured housing, utilities and transportation facilities, and travel trailers. The Ordinance establishes the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation as follows: Lake Minnetonka - 932.0, Dutch Lake - 942.0 and Lake Langdon - 937.0. Section 300:15, Subdivisions 5 and 6: The Ordinance establishes flood plain evaluation procedures including application and permit requirements, Department of Natural Resources notification, State and Federal permits and certification of lowest floor elevations. The Ordinance addresses subdivisions and contains provisions for the removal of the Special Flood Hazard Area Designation. Section 300:15, Subdivision 7: The Ordinance contains variance provisions addressing accessory structures and nonresidential structures. The Ordinance does not allow variances for the placement of residential basements or the lowest floor, if there is no basement, below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Lock boxes are allowed in the flood fringe without flood proofing. The Ordinance requires notification of the Commissioner of Natural Resources for all variance applications. The Ordinance contains provisions addressing nonconformities, penalties for violations, amendments and a clause relating to abrogation and severability. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after passage and publication thereof. This Ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota on ~ 1993. The Summary was adopted by the City Council on , 1993. This Summary of the Ordinance adopted on , 1993, has been reviewed and is approved by this Council for publication and determines that the Summary Ordinance clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the adopted Floodplain Overlay Regulations. A printed copy of the entire text of the Floodplain Overlay Regulations, Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 300:15 is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk (8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday). A printed copy of the entire text of the Floodplain Overlay Regulations, Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 300:15 as published is herewith also posted in the Westonka Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 2079 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, MN. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Publish in The Laker - ORDINANCE # - 1993 FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY REGULATIONS The Mound City Council does ordain: Section 300:15 is hereby modified and added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 300:15. Floodplain Overlay Regulations. Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization, Purpose and Disclaimer of Liability. a. Statutory Authorization. The flood plain regulations contained hereinafter are mandated by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota and adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 103F and 462. b. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and to minimize potential losses due to periodic flooding including loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. c. Disclaimer of Liability. This ordinance does not imply that areas outside of the flood plain or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding and flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the City of Mound or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decisions lawfully made hereunder. Subd. 2. General Provisions a. Adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Map. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Mound, dated September 29, 1978, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is hereby adopted by reference as the Official Flood Plain Map and made a part of this ordinance. b. Lands to Which Ordinance Applies. This ordinance shall apply to all lands designated as flood plain within the City of Mound. c. Interpretation. The boundaries of the flood plain shall be determined by scaling distances on the Official Flood Plain Map. Where interpretation is needed, the Building Official shall be responsible to make the interpretation based on the regional flood profile, if available. If not available, the Building Official shall require the applicant to furnish a floodplain evaluation consistent with Subdivision 5(b) of this ordinance to determine the Regional Flood elevation. d. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words and phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage so as to give this Section 300:15 its most reasonable application. "Accessory Use, Facility or Structure" means a use, facility, structure or portion of a structure subordinate to and serving the principal use structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. "Basement" is any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such floor level qualifies as a first story as defined herein. "Flood Fringe" means that portion of the flood plain lying above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). "Flood Hazard Areas or Flood Plain" means the channel or beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. "Floodway" means that portion of the flood plain lying below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). "Lock Box" means a structure accommodating the storage of boat and beach equipment, not exceeding twenty (20) square feet in total floor area and four (4) feet in height. "Obstruction" means any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, dredged spoil, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, stockpile of sand or gravel or other material, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, lake bed, or regUlatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of flow, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by floodwater. "Regional Flood" means a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and is reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Rate Map. "RegUlatory Flood Protection Elevation" means an elevation no lower than two feet above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from a change in the designation of a floodway. "Story" is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than 6 feet above grade as def'med herein for more the 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade as def'med herein at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. "Story, First" is the lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as def'med herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not more than 8 feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point. "Structure" means anything constructed or erected on the ground including but not limited to buildings, streets, parking lots and on-site utilities. "Variance" means the modification of a specific permitted development standard required by ordinance, to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable by ordinance, but only as applied to a particular property, for the purpose of alleviating a hardship, practical difficulty or unique circumstance as def'med and elaborated upon in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Subd. 3. Overlay Regulations and General Compliance a. Overlay Regulations. Section 300:15 shall be used as an overlay regulation which supersedes the requirements of the underlying zoning district. Permitted uses shall be those specified by the underlying zoning district subject to the standards and criteria established by Subdivision 4 of Section 300:15. b. General Compliance. No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses of land within the City of Mound. Subd. 4. Development Standards The following standards shall apply to land uses in flood plain areas: a. Floodway Protection. The construction of new structures, the addition to the outside dimensions of existing structures and obstructions such as fill or the storage of materials or equipment shall not be permitted in the floodway portion of the flood plain except as otherwise specified hereinafter. b. Flood Fringe Structures. The placement of new structures and land uses as permitted by the underlying zoning district, may be permitted within the flood fringe subject to the standards of this section, Fill placed within the flood fringe portion of the flood plain shall be properly compacted and the slopes protected with riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable methods. c. Flood Fringe Nonhazardous Materials Storage. The storage of nonhazardous materials may be allowed in the flood fringe if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning or if placed on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. d. Hazardous Materials Storage Prohibited. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive or potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life are prohibited. e. Floodway Capaci _ty Impairment Prohibited. No use shall be permitted to adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways of any tributary to the main stream, or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system. f. Minimum Basement/Floor Elevations. All structures, including accessory structures, additions to existing structures and manufactured housing, shall be constructed on fill so that the basement floor, or first floor, if there is no basement, is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation shall be no lower than one foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the limits of the structure constructed thereon. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for each lake is as follows: Lake Minnetonka 932.0; Dutch Lake 942.0; Lake Langdon 937.0. g. Vehicular Access. Any use within a floodplain area that would require vehicular access to lands outside of the flood plain, where all or part of the access would be below the Regional Flood Elevation, shall not be permitted unless granted a variance by the City Council. In granting a variance, the Board shall specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the use and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local emergency response and recovery procedures exist. h. Uses Accessory_ to Commercial and Manufacturing Uses. Uses accessory to commercial and manufacturing uses, such as yards, railroad tracks and parking lots, may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If these facilities are to be used by employees or the public at large, a permit may be granted only if a flood warning system is installed by the owner that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth greater than two feet. i. Manufactured Housing. All manufactured housing located within the flood fringe must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable State or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. j. Utilities, Railroads, Roads and Bridges. All utilities and transportation facilities, including railroad tracks, roads and bridges, shall be constructed in accordance with State flood plain management standards contained in Minnesota Rules 1983, Parts 6120.5000 - 6120.6200. k. Travel Trailers. Travel Trailers are not permitted in the flood plain. Subd. 5. Flood Plain Evaluation Procedure a. Permit Required. A permit issued by the Building Official shall be secured prior to: 1) the construction, addition, or alteration of any building or structure, 2) the use or change in use of a building, structure, or land, 3) the extension of a nonconforming use, or 4) any excavation or the placement of an obstruction within the flood plain. b. Application. Upon receipt of an application for a permit or subdivision approval within a flood plain, the Building Official shall require the applicant to furnish sufficient site development plans and may require a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by a qualified engineer or hydrologist specifying the nature of the development and whether the proposed use is located in the floodway or flood fringe and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the site. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Rules 1983, Parts 6120.5600 (Technical Standards and Requirements For Flood Plain Evaluation) and 6120.5700 (Minimum Flood Plain Management Standards for Local Ordinances) shall be followed during the technical evaluation and review of the development proposal. c. Department of Natural Resources Notification. The Building Official shall submit one copy of the information required by Subdivision 5 of this ordinance to the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist for review and comment at least 20 days prior to the granting of a permit or subdivision approval by the City. The Building Official shall notify the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist within ten days after a permit or subdivision approval is granted. d. State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a permit or processing an application for a variance, the Building Official shall confirm that the applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal permits. e. Certification of Lowest Floor Elevations. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. The City Manager i · l, I · It I I shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) for all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain. Subd. 6. Subdivisions and Removal of Flood Hazard Designation a. Subdivisions. No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the City for reasons of flooding, inadequate drainage, or inadequate water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All subdivisions shall have water and sewer disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this ordinance. In the flood hazard area or flood plain, applicants shall provide the information required by the City Engineer as set forth in this Section 300:15, and the subdivision shall be evaluated in accordance with procedures therein and subdivision regulations of the City as set forth in Sections 330 through 360, inclusive, of the City Code. b. Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the regional flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot developments. These standards shall be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. Subd. 7. Variances a. Procedures. Variances from the provisions of this Section 300:15 shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures contained in Section 325:00. No variance shall allow a use prohibited in a district or permit a lower degree of protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). A variance shall not be granted for a residential structure to allow the construction of the basement or lowest floor, if there is no basement, below the RFPE. When a variance is granted to allow a nonresidential or accessory use or structure below the RFPE, the use or structure shall be flood proofed in accordance with the applicable State Building Code as follows: 1) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be flood proofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 500 square feet in size and, for a detached garage, the garage is used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards, as appropriate: (a) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; and (b) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the RFPE or properly flood proofed. 2) Nonresidential Structures. All nonresidential structures, including basements, shall be dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code. 3) Lock Boxes. All lock boxes as defined herein, shall be allowed in the flood fringe without flood' proofing. b. Notification of Commissioner. The Commissioner of Natural Resources shall receive at least ten days notice of all hearings on variances. A copy of all decisions granting a variance shall be forwarded to the Commissioner within ten days of such action. c. Appeals. Procedures to be followed in the appeal of an administrative determination shall be as specified by the City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 23.502). d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Building Official shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance, and 2) such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. The City shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its a .nnual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. Subd. 8. Nonconformities A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful prior to the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions: a. Alterations. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. b. Interior Alterations. An alteration to the inside dimensions of a nonconforming use or structure is permissible provided it will not increase the flood damage potential of the use or structure. c. Improvement Limitations Within Floodplains. When the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions to the interior and exterior of a nonconforming structure exceeds 50 percent of the Assessor's market value of the structure, the structure shall be made to comply with the standards of Subdivision 4 of this ordinance. The cost of alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of gZ_4'7 the City's initial floodplain ordinance shall be calculated at current cost in making this determination. d. Destruction. If any nonconforming structure or use of land within a floodplain is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The City may issue a permit for reconstruction if the use is located outside the floodway and, upon reconstruction, is adequately elevated on fill in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 9. Penalties for Violations A violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variance) shall constitute a misdemeanor. a. Enforcement. In responding to an ordinance violation, the City may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City is required to act in good faith to enforce these regulations and to correct ordinance violations, to the extent possible, so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. b. Redress. When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the City, the Building Official shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the ordinance. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information shall be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the City's plan of action to correct the violation. c. Notification of Violation. The Building Official shall follow due process of law in notifying the suspected party of the requirements of this ordinance and the nature and extent of the suspected violation. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Building Official may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the City. If the construction or development is already completed, the Building Official may either 1) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period, not to exceed 30 days~ to bring the use or structure into compliance with the ordinance, or 2) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. d. Lack of Response. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Building Official within the specified period of time after being properly notified, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly and the City shall take the appropriate action to accomplish the same. The Building Official shall, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the construction, development or use that was the cause for notification. Subd. 10. Amendments All amendments to this ordinance, including revisions to the Official Flood Plain Map, shall be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. The flood plain designation on the Official Flood Plain Map shall not be removed unless the area is filled to an elevation at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and is contiguous to lands outside of the flood plain. Changes in the Official Flood Plain Map must meet the FEMA Technical Conditions and Criteria and shall receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources shall be given ten days written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this ordinance and said notice shall include a draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under consideration. Subd. 11. Abrogation and Severabili_ty a. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. b. If any section, clause, provision, or portions of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. I i ~, i ! 1~ I I SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE Serving the Communities of: Carver County Scot~ County McLeod County Excelsior Greenwood Tonka Bay Shorewood Chaska Chanhassen Shakopee Mound '~. Bonifacius ,'linne~rista Prior Lake June 2, 1993 Chief Len Harrell Mound Police Department 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: 1994 Cash Match & Resolution Dear Len: The 1994 Grant requires the following documents. Please provide as SOon as possible, as the grant will be submitted the first part of July. a. A resolution from the o · COunt - g vernln y.or city authorizing thatg body of the entity to enter into a contract with the Department of ,'~-' Pub~-~ c ..S a f. et~., ,.. b. A cash match verification of the specific ca match commitment from each participating agenc This caP, be a letter of commi Y. resolution ~ ..... ~ ...... tment, a board of the pert~~ ~ ~urm Ena~ dOCuments the intent match, cipating agency to provide the cash I have attached the dOCuments your agency provided for the 1993 grant. Please contact me if you have any COncerns or questions. Si - sg~iil, i.-ia.m :,T Hudson June 22, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST F~ETRO DRUG TASK FORCE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, authorizes entering into a cooperative agreement with the Office of the Drug Policy in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the project entitled, "Southwest Metro Drug Task Force" during the period from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. is hereby authorized the execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Mound Police Department. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound on June 22, 1993. Signed: Witnesseth: Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager Francene C. Clark City Clerk Dated: Dated: CITY OF HOUND QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION PORTABLE SIGN APPLICATION 472- I 155 REOEIVED JUN 1 ~ 1993 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conJunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public Function. The period oF use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Counctl. Signs shall be placed on the premises oF the advertised event. A permit is required however is exempt From all fees. ' ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION BUILDING OWNER NAME OF APPLICANT ~OJoT. It~. /~J~ (if other than owher) PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: .... ~ PHONE ~ PH C/~2-, J~o / '~"-' DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (materials, is it illuminated, etc. / Z" ~rzee_ ~T~,O,X,u~ 'IJ,.',c~.,l~ e. SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ' q high x ~ wide = LENGTH OF TIME TO BE ERECTED:Ju,../~ ,~ -- JU.{~ ~a~ sq. ft. App I i cant ' s S i gn(aJ~ure Date /////11/////////~'////////////////I//////////////////////////////////// Recommendat i on: APPROVED BY CiTY COUNCIL ON: I · 1, I i it I I BILLS June 22, 1993 BATCH BATCH 3053 3062 TOTAL BILLS $152,675.65 176,628.37 $329,304.02 tn · oo¥ Ii "'2, It, d,,, II · t t Z C c~ ! ! / / ~/L -.r,C I L~ ~'~ C~.--) 8 tn · I, u~ I i 1, i8 '0 c I I 1, I I ~L Z Z Q~ Z I i 1, I ! o' fr. ~j L JZ ~-~ :2: I I It CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT MAY 1993 41.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non- Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue MAY 1993 YTD PER CENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,217,590 0 0 860,500 0 30,140 3,260 4,705 8,919 69,500 3,269 19,624 48,750 1,189 4,360 65,000 6,059 18,954 12,390 1,428 6,731 58,500 {3,678) 2,212 (1,21 7,590) 0.00% (830,360) 3.50% 5,659 273.59% (49,876) 28.24% (44,390) 8.94% (46,046) 29.16% (5,659) 54.33% (56,288) 3.78% TOTAL REVENUE 2 335 490 12,972 90,940 ~ 3.89% FIRE FUND 244,200 12,199 RECYCLING FUND 113,550 5,486 LIQUOR FUND 1,200,000 129,520 WATER FUND 350,000 21,058 SEWER FUND 650,000 54,834 CEMETERY FUND 4,200 520 DOCKS FUND 73,280 2,247 124,807 (119,393) 51.11% 30,214 (83,336) 26.61% 488,390 (711,61 O) 40.70% 122,914 (227,086) 35.12% 274,672 (375,328) 42.26% 2,820 (1,380) 67.14% 69,621 (3,659) 95.01% 06/11/93 rev-93 G.B. CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT MAY 1993 41.67% MAY 1993 YTD PER CENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 57,500 1,104 27,941 29,559 48.59% Promotions 2,000 803 886 1,114 44.30% Cable TV 1,380 396 572 808 41.45% City Manager/Clerk 170,380 12,944 69,531 100,849 40.81% Elections 2,140 0 2,009 131 93.88% Assessing 46,550 11 295 46,255 0.63% Finance 145,900 12,546 59,253 86,647 40.61% Computer 24,000 24 14,479 9,521 60.33% Legal 79,000 6,960 33,734 45,266 42.70% Police 779,200 25,691 311,1 03 468,097 39.93% Civil Defense 4,000 699 1,229 2,771 30.73% Planning/Inspections 138,440 1 O, 166 50,405 88,035 36.41% Streets 406,750 19,983 149,771 256,979 36.82% Shop & Stores 17,100 213 1,178 15,922 6.89% City Property 97,160 23,649 44,130 53,030 45.42% Parks 174,340 8,269 77,187 97,153 44.27% Summer Recreation 33,1 O0 0 0 33,1 O0 0.00% Contingencies 10,000 0 1,058 8,942 10.58% Transfers 136,840 10,244 51,21 7 85,623 37.43% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,325~780 133 702 895 978 1 429 802 38.52% Area Fire Service Fund 244,200 21,517 127,919 116,281 52.38% Recycling Fund 99,350 9,832 64,745 34,605 65.17% Uquor Fund 194,620 18,611 87,942 106,678 45.19% Water Fund 358,190 25,685 149,054 209,136 41.61% Sewer Fund 761,350 101,342 358,265 403,085 47.06% Cemetery Fund 4,790 452 1,568 3,222 32.73% Docks Fund 55,440 9,405 23,158 32,282 41.77% exp-93 06/11/93 G.B. League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55126 (612) 490-5600 May 25, 1993 Mr. Michael Durell 1317 S.E. Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55414 I ..C'D MAY 2 7 Dear Mr. Durell: I am writing to confirm our telephone discussion of earlier today regarding the removal from office of a city official. As we discussed, it is very difficult to remove a councilmember or mayor form his our her office in a statutory city. There is no authority to hold a recall election in statutory cities as there is in some charter cities. Thus, a statutory city official can only be removed from office under the provisions of M.S. 351.02, subd.5. This statute calls for a vacancy in office to occur when a city official has been convicted of an infamous crime or of a violation of his or her oath of office. As a practical matter, an infamous crime is a felony for which the sentence could exceed one year in prison. A violation of the oath of office, on the other hand, can be a lesser crime but it generally would have to rise to the level of malfeasance. Violations of M.S. 609.43 would be good examples of non-felony crimes which could still lead to a city official's removal from office. As you can see, the standard that needs to be met before a city official can be removed from office is quite high. Basically, short of some sort of criminal conviction, a public official can not be forced to resign. From what you have told me thus far, it does not sound as if the mayor of Mound has committed any act that would be sufficient grounds for his forced removal from office. He has not been charged with any crime, and it does not appear that he has been ignoring the duties of his office. As for the alleged verbal and/or physical threats and abuse you mentioned, I do not have first hand knowledge of what has actually occurred so it is not possible for me to make a conclusive judgement on this issue. Piecing together the information I do have, however, it does not sound as if anything has been said or done which would be actionable. In any case, this would be a matter for which you would need to obtain private counsel if you wish to pursue it further. In addition, I know that you believe the mayor was jeopardizing the public's safety by favoring the removal of a particular crosswalk in the city, but in reality the opposite may have been true. When a city maintains a crosswalk it is portraying the area as being a safe place to cross the street. This implies that traffic can be controlled in such a way as to not pose a hazard to either motor or pedestrian I i 1, ! ! it I I traffic. In the situation at hand, the city had maintained a crosswalk from a city parking lot across a main and busy county road to a sidewalk on the other side. Apparently the city has received numerous complaints about the near misses between cars and pedestrians at this crosswalk. Finally, after a pedestrian was struck and killed in this crosswalk, the city and county did a joint investigation and determined that the general public safety would be best protected by removing the crosswalk thus encouraging people to cross at the corners where traffic was more readibly controllable rather than at midblock. I am enclosing a letter written by Ellen Longfellow, the League's loss control attorney, that seems to support the action taken by the city. Thus it does not appear that this action was a breach of a duty but rather was in keeping with the legal expectations for a city. I hope that this information adequately addresses your concerns. As we discussed, League policy requires me to send a copy of this letter and its enclosures to the city. Sincerely, Kent Sulem Research Assistant Enc: cc · Mr. Edward Shukle City Manager 1990 Supplement Chapter ti elected terms of the clerk and treasurer h~id' ended). A Plan A city can abolish the position ~f treasurer even if an appointed person holds the po- sition. Under either the standard plan or Plan A,.' the council may re-establish separate offices of clerk and treasurer by ordinance. If the city has combined the offices of clerk and treasurer, the council must order an annual audit of the city's financial affairs by either the state auditor or a public accountant. This audit must fol- low the minimum audit procedures which the state auditor has preserved. Eligibility for Office Qualifications for elective office are set forth in the Minnesota Constitution. 2 All eligible voters 21 years of age or older may hold elective office in Minnesota. 3 For city offices, elective officers must be qualified city voters, at least 21 years of a~e on the date of their taking office, U.S. citizens, and residents of the state for at least 30 days. 5 An individual who has been convicted of a felony un- der either state or federal law cannot hold elective office in Minnesota unless his or her civil rights have been restored. 6 Individuals the council appoints to fill vacancies must satisfy these same requirements. Beginning January 1, 1991 elected and other of- ficials of cities with population over 50,000 located in the metropolitan area must comply with state conflict of interest disclosure and economic interest reporting requirements. Removal by Operation of Law In most situations, it is not possible to remove statutory elected officials before the end of their term, for cause or otherwise. Statutory city voters have no recall authority. Some charters give voters this option. In some situations, removal by operation of law can occur. A vacancy occurs if an elected official is convicted of any~jnfamous crime. 7 An infamous crime is a felony; that is, a crime for which the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for more than one year. 9 Bribery is a felony. 10 Mis- conduct of a public officer or employee, as defined by law, 11 is a gross misdemeanor, 172 so a miscon- duct conviction docs not create a vacancy on the grounds that it is an infamous crime. 13 A vacancy occurs when an elected official is cod'- victed of an offense involving a violation of the in- dividual's official oath. 14 The official oath is in the Constitution. 15 Many offenses which are not felonies would seem to involve a violation of the individual's oath. 16 For instance, if a person is convicted of misconduct in office which violates his or her official oath, a vacancy occurs, even though it is not an infamous crime.17 The governor also has the power to remove cer- tain officials from public office. The governor may remove any collector, receiver, or custodian of public moneys, when the governor receives evidence that the person has been guilty of mai-.' feasance or nonfeasance in performing official duties. 18 Individuals convicted of violating munidpal ordinances or misdemeanors remain el- igible for office unless the offense involves viola- tion of the individual's oath. An individual loses his or her dvil rights if con- victed of a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony. 19 Discharge restores that individual's dvil rights including the individual's full right to hold office, except an individual convicted of bribery can never qualify to hold public office. 20 City officials should consult an attorney when they are considering removal of a public official. Resignations An official should submit a resignation, in writing, to the officer who has authority to appoint a replacement. In cities, all resignations should go to the council. After receiving a resignation, the council should pass a resolution stating that it has received and accepted the resignation and that a vacancy exists. If the resignation states that it takes effect on a specified date, the vacancy occurs on that date whether or not the council has accepted it. 21 Vacancies Whatever the reason for a vacancy, the council should fill the office as soon as possible. When an office entailing responsibility for hand- ling city funds becomes vacant, the council must provide for an examination of the retiring officer's accounts. If the examination shows any shortage or irregularity, the council must immediately notify the retiring officer and the sureties on his bond (the insurance company which underwrites the of- ficial bond covering the officer). This notice must be in writing and must be served go to the officer and his sureties by mail to their residences, if known. Handbook for Minnesota Cities Page 87 i Legal Notes for Chapter 6 1991 Supplement 1. Minnesota Statutes 412.02, Subd. 3; M.S. 412.591, Subd. 2. See League memo, Qualifications for Voting and Holding Elective Office, 180e2. 3. Minnesota Constitution Art. VII, Section 6; Jude v. Erdahl, 296 Minn. 200, 207 N.W.2d 715 (1973). 4. A naturalized citizen may run for public of- fice even when he or she has not been a U.S. citizen for more than three months before the election day. Attorney General Opinion 184; Aug. 2, 1983. 5. Minn. Coast., Art. VII, Sec. 6; M.S. 201.014; Jude v. Erdahl, cited above. 6. M.S. 201.014, Subd. 2, M.S. 609265. 7. M.S. 351.02(5). 8. Attorney General's Opinion 359-A-.20, No- vember 18, 1952. M.S. 609.02, Subd. 2. M.S. 609.42. M.S. 609.43. M.S. 609.02, Subd. 4. A.G. Op. 475-H, September 1, 1931. M.S. 351.02(5). M.S. 358.05; Minn. Coast., Art. V, Sec. 6. For example, M.S. 609.415 to 609.465. M.S. 609.43. M.S. 351.03. This might include council members, M.S. 412.241. M.S. 609.02, Subd. 1. M.S. 609.42, Subd. 2. M.S. 351.01; 412.02, Subd. 2a. M.S. 351.02. See League memo, Remedies for Non- Attendance at Council Meetings, 415i. A.G. Op. 99, 1920. M.S. 192.261. 10. 12. 13. 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Handbook for Minnesota Cities 26. M.S. 412.02, Subal. 2a. 27. A.G. Op. 471-M, October 30, 1986. 28. M.S. 20510, Sub& 2; 20527, Subd. 6. 29. M.S. 41515. 30. A.G. Op. 471-M, April 12, 1956; A.G. Op. 63-a41, July 23, 1945. 31. A.G. Op. 471-M, December 27, 1977. 32. A.G. Op. 471-M, March 2, 1962; M.S. 412.02, Subd. 2. 33. M.S. 412.121. 34. M.S. 471.46. 35. In the case of a tie, the acting mayor cannot appoint himself mayor. M.S. 412221 and 471.46. 36. M.S. 412.501. 37. M.S. 134.09. 38. M.S. 12.25. 39. M.S. 412.211, Subd. 16. 40. M.S. 44.04, but contrast M.S. 419.02. 41. M.S. 469.003. 42. M.S. 18.231, Subd. 3. 43. M.S. 412.02, Subd. 2. 44. M.S. 412..191, Sub& 1. 45. See League memo, Meetings of Statutory City Councils--Notes and Ordinances, 140Bi. 46. M.S. 18.231, Subd. 3. 47. M.S. 204C.07, Subd. 2. 48. M.S. 204C. 31, Sub& 1. 49. M.S. 378.03. 50. deleted 1991. 51. M.S. 299F.04; 299F. 34. 52. M.S. 12.29. 53. See League publication,,qn Outline of City Go vemm eft t. 54. M.S. 412.101. Also see M.S. 626.84, Subd. 2. 55. Chap. 334, 1987 Session Laws. Page 119 351.01 RESIGNATIONS, VACANCIES, REMOVAL~ 1136 Vacancy in Public Office CHAPTER 351 RESIGNATIONS, VACANCIES, REMOVALS 351.01 Resignations. 35 I. 15 Removal of elecned count}, official. 351.02 Vacancies. 351.16 Petition;review. 351.05 Vacancy during recess of 351.17 Chief justice review;, assignment to legislature' special master. 351.055 Preparations for special elections. 351.18 Waiver. 351.06 Appointment; continuance of 351.19 Public hearing. term; impeachmenL 351.20 Decision; certification. 351.07 Habitual dtunkenne~. 351.21 Appeal. REMOVAL OF ELECTED 351.22 Removal election; disqualification. COUNTY OFFICIAl.3 351.23 Extension of time. 351.14 Definitions. 351.01 RESIGNATIONS. Subdivision 1. To whom made. Resignations shall be made in writing signed by the resigning officer: (I) By incumbents of elective offices, to the officer authorized by law to fill a vacancy in such office by appointment, or to order a special election to fill the vacancy; (2) By appointive officers, to the body, board, or officer appointing them, unless otherwise specially provided. Subd. 2. When effective. Except as provided by subdivision 3 or other express pro- vision of law or charter to the contrary, a resignation is effective when it is received by the officer, body, or board authorized to receive it. Subd. 3. Contingent resignations prohibited; exception. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), no resignation may be made to take effect upon the occurrence ora future contingency. Statements explaining the reasons for a resignation must not be consid- ered to be contingencies unless expressly stated as contingencies. (b) A resignation may be made expressly to take effect at a stated future date. Unless it is withdrawn as provided under subdivision 4, a resignation is effective at 12:01 a.m. on the stated date. Subd. 4. Withdrawal of resignation. A prospective resignation permitted by subdi- vision 3 may only be withdrawn by a written statement signed by the officer and submit- ted in the same manner as the resignation, before it has been accepted by resolution of the body or board or a written acceptance of the officer authorized to receive it. History: (6952) RL s 2666; 1987 c 200 s 2 351.02 VACANCIES. Every office shall become vacant on the happening of either of the following events, before the expiration of the term of such office: (1) The death of the incumbent; (2) The incumbent's resignation; (3) The incumbent's removal; (4) The incumbent's ceasing to be an inhabitant of the state, or, if the office is local, of the district, county or city for which the incumbent was elected or appointed, or within which the duties of the office are required to be discharged; (5) The incumbent's conviction of any infamous crime, or of any offense involving a violation of the official oath; (6) The incumbent's refusal or neglect to take the oath of office, or to give or renew the official bond, or to deposit or file such oath or bond within the time prescribed; I I I I 1137 RESIGNATIONS, VACANCIES, REMOVAI~ 351.07 (7) The decision of a competent tribunal declaring the incumbent's election or appointment void; (8) The death of the person elected or appointed to fill ayacancy, or for a full term, before the person qualifies, or before the time when by law the person should enter upon the duties of the office, in which case the vacancy shall be deemed to take place at the time when the term of office would have begun had the person lived. History: (6953) RL s 2667; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1986 c 444 351.03 351.04 [Repealed, 1986 c 418 s 11] [Repealed, 1986 c 418 s 11] 351.05 VACANCY DURING RECESS OF LEGISLATURE. When a vacancy occurs during the recess of the legislature, in any office which the legislature, or the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate, or ofboth branches of the legislature, is authorized to fill by appointment, unless otherwise spe- cially provided, the governor may appoint some suitable person to perform the duties of such office for the time being. The person so appointed, before proceeding to execute the duties, shall qualify in the manner required by law of the officer in whose place the person is appointed and hold office until the vacancy is regularly filled, as provided by law. History: (6956) RL s 2670; 1986 c 444 351.055 PREPARATIONS FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS. If a future vacancy becomes certain to occur and the vacancy must be filled by a special election, the appropriate authorities may begin procedures leading to the special election so that a successor may be elected at the earliest possible time. History: 1987 c 175 s 17 351.06 APPOINTMENT; CONTINUANCE OF TERM; IMPEACHMENT. Unless otherwise provided for, when a vacancy in an elective office is authorized to be filled by appointment, such appointment shall continue until the next general elec- tion occurring after there is sufficient time to give the notice prescribed by law, and until a successor is elected and has qualified. When any state o~cer, excepting the lieutenant governor, shall be temporarily suspended from the performance of the duties of office by reason of having been impeached, the governor shall appoint some suitable person to exercise the duties of such office during the time of such suspension, and such person, before entering upon the duties, shall comply with the requirements of law relating to the same, and during incumbency shall be governed in the administration thereof by all laws enacted in reference thereto, and receive the compensation provided by law for such office. History: (6957) RL s 2671; 1986 c 444 351.07 HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS. The habitual drunkenness of any person holding office under the constitution or laws of this state shall be good cause for removal from office by the authority and in the manner provided by law. History: (6958) RL s 2672; 1986 c 444 351.08 351.09 351.10 351.11 351.12 [Repealed, 1986 c 418 s 11] [Repealed, 1986 c 418 s 11] [Repealed, 1986 c 418 s 11] [Repealed, 1986 c 418 s 11] [Renumbered 43.223] CRIMINAL CODE 609.45 acceptor will abstain from, discontinue, or delay prosecution therefor, except in a case where a compromise is allowed by law. Subd. 2. Forfeiture of office. Any public officer who is convicted of violating or attempting to violate subdivision 1 shall forfeit the public officer's office and be forever disqualified from holding public office under the state. History: 1963 c 753 art I s 609.42; 1976 c 178 s 2:1984 c 628 art 3 s 11; 1986 c 444 609.425 CORRUPTLY INFLUENCING LEGISLATOR. Whoever by menace, deception, concealment of facts, or other corrupt means, attempts to influence the vote or other performance of duty of any member of the legis- lature or person elected thereto may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. History: 1963 c 753 art I s 609.425; 1984 c 628 art 3 s I1 609.43 MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE. A public officer or employee who does any of the following, for which no other sen- tence is specifically provided by law, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both: (1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a kno~n mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or (2) In the capacity of such officer or employee, does an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or knowing it is forbidden by law to be done in that capacity; or (3) Under pretense or color of official authority intentionally and unlawfully injures another in the other's person, property, or rights; or (4) In the capacity of such officer or employee, makes a return, certificate, official report, or other like document having knowledge it is false in any material respect. History: 1963 c 753 art I s 609.43; 1984 c 628 art 3 s 11; 1986 c 444 609.435 OFFICER NOT FILING SECURITY. Whoever intentionally performs the functions of a public officer without having executed and duly filed the required security is guilty of a misdemeanor. History: 1963 c 753 art I s 609.435; 1971 c 23 s 46 609.44 PUBLIC OFFICE; ILLEGALLY ASSUMING; NONSURRENDER. Whoever intentionally and without lawful fight thereto, exercises a function of a public office or, having held such office and the right thereto having ceased, refuses to surrender the office or its seal, books, papers, or other incidents to a successor or other authority entitled thereto may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. History: 1963 c 753 art I s 609.44; 1984 c 628 art 3 s II; 1986 c 444 609.448 FAILURE TO PAY OVER STATE FUNDS. Whoever receives money on behalf of or for the account of the state or any of its agencies or subdivisions and'intentionally refuses or omits to pay the same to the state or its agency or subdivision entitled thereto, or to an officer or agent authorized to receive the same, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. Histor)': 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.445; 1984 c 628 art 3 s I1; 1989 c 290 art 6 s 17 609.45 PUBLIC OFFICER; UNAUTHORIZED COMPENSATION. Whoever is a public officer or public employee and under color of office or employ- ment intentionally asks, receives or agrees to receive a fee or other compensation in CONSTITtrI'ION OF TIlE $'IATE OF MINNESOTA I~txii lhal ofpostmaster or of nolary public. If elected or appoinled Io another ol~ce, a legisla- for ma)' resign from lhe legislature by tendering his resignation to the governor. Sec. 6. Qualification of legislators; judging election returns and eligibilil)'. Senalors and representatives shall be qualified voters of the state, and shall have resided one year in the state and six months immediately preceding the election in the district from which elected. Each house shall be the judge of the election returns and eligibility of its own members. The legislalure shall prescribe by law the manner for taking evidence in cases of conlested seats in eilher house. Sec. 7. Rules of government. Each house may determine the rules of its proceed- ings, sil upon its own adjournment, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a member; but no member shall be expelled a second time for the same offense. Sec. 8. Oath of office. Each member and officer of the legislature before entering upon his duties shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this statei and to discharge faithfully the duties of his office to the besl of his judgmenl and ability. Sec. 9. Compensation. The compensation of senators and representatives shall be prescribed by law. No increase of compensation shall take effect during the period for which the members of the existing house of representatives may have been elected. Sec. 10. Privilege from arrest. The members of each house in all eases except trea- son, felony and breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of their respective houses and in going 1o or returning from the same. For any speech or debate in either house they shall not be questioned in any other place. Sec. 11. Protest and dissent of members. Two or more members of either house may dissent and protest against any act or resolution which they think injurious to the public or to any individual and have the reason of their dissent entered in the journal. Sec. 12. Biennial meetings; length of session; special sessions; length of adjourn- ments. The legislature shall meet at the seat of government in regular session in each biennium at the times prescribed by law for not exceeding a total of 120 legislative days. The legislature shall not meet in regular session, nor in any adjournment thereof, after the first Monday following the third Saturday in May of any year. After meeting at a time prescribed by law, the legislature may adjourn to another time. "Legislative day" shall be defined by law. A special session of the legislature may be called by the governor on extraordinary occasions. Neither house during a session of the legislature shall adjourn for more than three days (Sundays excepted) nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be assembled without the consent of the other house. Sec. ! 3. Quorum. A majority of each house constitutes a quorum to transact busi- ness, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and under the penalties it may provide. Sec. 14. Open sessions. Each house shall be open to the public during its sessions except in cases which in its opinion require secrecy. Sec. 15. Officers; journals. Each house shall elect its presiding officer and other officers as may be provided by law. Both houses shall keep journals oftheir proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, and the yeas and nays, when taken on any ques- tion, shall be entered in the journals. Sec. 16. Elections viva voce. In all elections by the legislature members shall vote viva voce and their votes shall be entered in the journal. Sec. 17. Laws to embrace only one subject. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. Sec. 18. Revenue bills to originate in house. All bills for raising revenue shall origi- nate in the house of representatives, but the senate may propose and concur with the amendments as on other bills. Sec. 19. Reporting of bills. Ever). bill shall be reported on three different days in League of Minnesota Cities 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600 (FAX: 221-0986) May 1, 1991 Les Peterson City of Virginia 327 First Street South Virginia, Minnesota 55792 Dear Mr. Peterson: I am a staff attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. I talked to you last week about your question regarding the city's potential liability for a crosswalk. It is my understanding that the crosswalk in question is in the middle of the block and is used by employees of the County Health Department. It is a busy street and the crosswalk is diagonal so it is longer than a standar4 crosswalk. The city has been marking it but now the city engineers are concerned about the safety of the crosswalk and are considering removing it. Generally, under Minnesota law, the city has the duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition. There is an immunity from claims from a natural accumulation of ice and snow. (Minn. Stat. 466.03 subd.' 4). If the city creates and maintains a crosswalk, the implication is that the crosswalk area is safe for pedestrians. If an engineer does not feel that this crosswalk is safe, the city should either do something to make it safer or eliminate the crosswalk. The fact that it is a longer crosswalk may show that it is more dangerous, particularly since it is in on a heavily traveled street. For any option, the city certainly would take into consideration the costs involved. For example, the safest crosswalk may be one that has a semaphore but that could be very expensive and there could be other engineering or policy reasons why the city may not want to have a semaphore at the intersection. The fact that there has been a question about the safety of this intersection dictates that the city do something about it. If it doesn't and someone is hurt in that crosswalk, the city could have a difficult defense. The city should conduct a study and if it determines that it is safe, document that. Alternatively, it could decide.to modify the crosswalk or eliminate it. It is important to record that the city has studied the crosswalk at this time and what its conclusion was. If you have any further.questions, please contact me. Since this does involve legal issues, I am sending a copy to your city attorney. Sincerely, Ellen A. Longfellow LMCIT Staff Attorney cc. Thomas Butorac, Virginia City Attorney RECEIVED JUN 9 1993 I ND PLANNI,NG & INSP. 5910 Ridgewood Road Mound, MN 55364 8 June 1993 To the Members of the Park and Open Space Commission: Please excuse my absence from the FOSC meeting scheduled for June 10, 1993o As you may know, I have recently joined a new appraisal firm. My business has quadrupled with the demands of the mortgage refinance business and find that I have limited time to devote to the important business of the Park Commission. Although, I have found time to read the minutes and packets, I do not have the additional time for the meetings at this time. I do not know how long this incredible pace will continue, and in all fairness to all of you, I would ask for a temporary leave until such time as my schedule lightens up. I will understand, however, if you would prefer to have the Commission at full strength and will offer my resignation if that is the group's preference. I have enjoyed working with all of you. Sincerely, Ramona Mueller I i l, i · it I I June 14, 1993 1993 Mr. Edward Shukle Mound City Manager Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Ed: I am writing to formally tender my resignation from the Mound Park and Open Space Commission, effective June 30, 1993. As you know, Sheila and I are purchasing a home in Buffalo, MN. and we'll be moving the end of this month. I have truly enjoyed living in Mound the past eight years, and it was a privilege to have the opportunity to serve on the POSC. Please pass along my appreciation to other members of the city staff for all of their help over the past few years. I extend best wishes to my colleagues on the commission as well. It was a pleasure to work with them, and I wish them success with the issues that arise in coming years. I will miss the chance to work on such projects as NCA~s, redevelopment of Downtown/Lost Lake, and a future trail on the Dakota Rail line. I will look forward to visiting Mound as the future takes shape. Very truly yours, Brian J.~sleson ARNE H. CARLSON GOVERNOR STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 130 STATE CAPITOL SAINT PAUL 55155 TO: FR: DATE: SUBJECT: AFFECTED STATE LEGISLATORS, CLERKS, CITY AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS JOESEPH R. KINGMAN III, DIRECTOR OF APPOINTMENTS AND CONSTITUENT SERVICES JUNE 9, 1993 NOTICE OF MEETING DATE FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CANDIDATES In July 1993, all Metropolitan Council seats will become vacant due to the redistricting of the Metropolitan Council Districts. The Metropolitan Council Nominating Committee must now conduct a public hearing to consider candidates for the seats. Attached is a map showing the new Met Council districts. Governor Carlson has designated the following persons to serve on the nominating committee: Maureen Shaver (Chair), Wayzata Karen Anderson (Elected official), Minnetonka Sally Even, Stillwater Paul Gain, Arden Hills Janice Johnson (Elected official), Hastings Martin Kellogg, Saint Paul Douglas Tenpas (Elected official), Eden Prairie The nominating committee will hold the hearing on Wednesday, July 7, at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers at the Metropolitan Council office, located at 230 East Fifth Street in downtown St. Paul. Persons interested in applying are requested to appear at the hearing. Each candidate will be allotted no longer than 5 minutes to make a presentation before the nominating committee, followed by a brief question and answer period. The nominating committee will then submit a list of nominees to the Governor for this appointment. If you have any questions or need an application, please feel free to call Cheryl Talberg at 296-0077 or John Hultquist at 296-0013. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER O RECYCLED PAPER PRINTED ON i J Metropolitan Council I I Plan · SF1081 I1 ARNE H. CARLSON GOVERNOR STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 130 STATE CAPITOL SAINT PAUL 55155 June 9, 1993 1993 The Honorable Skip Johnson City' of Mound 5341 Maywood Raod Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Mayor Johnson: Now that the 1993 session has been brought to a successful close, it is time to look ahead at the FY 1994-95 budget. As each of you work through the budget planning process for the next biennium, there are a number of concerns to keep in mind. The outlook on the economy is not optimistic. National and regional economic indicators do not predict any significant improvement in the state's revenue outlook for the next two years. In fact, national economic forecasters are more pessimistic than they were just six months ago. Consequently, we cannot anticipate any improvement in the biennial state revenue forecast when the next update is completed in November. To make matters more difficult, the legislature added $320 million more than originally planned for the '94-95 budget. The good news is the adoption of contingency planning authority, reached during the Special Session. The legislature and I reached an agreement that we will cut spending rather than increase taxes if the November revenue forecast deteriorates. If the next forecast indicates declining revenues, it may be necessary to reduce all state general fund and local government trust fund obligations by up to 1% of their biennial budget amounts. I am writing to you to reaffirm my commitment to this process. I am convinced, and I trust that the Minnesota Legislature agrees, that reducing government spending rather than raising taxes to balance the Minnesota budget must be part of fiscal stability for our state. I am equally convinced this is the choice that Minnesota taxpayers want us to make. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER O PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER S,,'~,;i~? ' - ~ I i 1, i i it ! I June 9, 1993 It is the responsibility of all of us to avoid financial disruptions, no matter how minor, by planning for possible budget reductions. In addition to public employees foregoing a pay raise in FY 1994, other cost saving options must be considered including a prudent and thorough review of all operations and the development of cost system innovations. I urge you to keep the state's precarious financial situation in mind and plan your budget to ensure a reserve in your allotment for FY 1994-95. I continue my commitment to holding the line on taxes and ask for your continued support in these challenging times. Warmest regards, LSON Governor MINI. YrES OF A MEE~G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1993 Present were: Commissioners Brian Asleson, Tom Casey, Shirley Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, and Carolyn Schmidt, Parks Director, Jim Fackler; Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey; and Secretary, Peggy James. Absent and excused were: Commissioners Lyndelle Skoglund, Andrea Ahrens, Mo Mueller, and Steve Kirshbaum. MINUTES MOTION made by Casey, secon4ed by Byrnes to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of May 13, 1993 as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES The following items were added to the agenda: 5.A. Letter from Mo Mueller. 5.B. Avalon Park. 5.C. Celebrate Summer. pUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION: Robert and Marilyn Byrnes, 2851 Cambridqe Lane, Lot 10, Block 38, W¥chwood, Dock Bite ~51735. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND TO REPLACE EXISTING STAIRWAY. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicants are seeking permit approval to replace their existing stairway on the commons. The existing stairway is in poor condition and needs replacement. There is another stairway on the adjacent fire lane which is utilized by a non-abutting dock site holder, Tom Casey. The possibility of combining the two stairways into one was discussed with the applicants. The applicant's prefer to build their own stairway, they profess that Mr. Casey may use it to access his dock site at anytime. Other issues recognized by staff include a fence, a series of retaining walls on the hill to the shoreline, and retaining walls on the adjacent fire lane. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 10, 1993 Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the following conditions: The stairway be constructed to code as approved by the Building Official The fence be allowed to remain at this time and will be addressed at the time of permit application by the adjacent owner at 2845 Cambridge Lane. The series of timber retaining walls on the 15 foot right of way be allowed to remain subject to the owners acknowledging that they constructed these walls and are responsible for their maintenance. The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicants dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Applicant, Marilyn Byrnes, informed the Commission that the fence is owned by the neighbors to the south of them (the Gould's), as shown on the survey in the packet. Staff agreed that this fence should not be considered an issue for the Byrnes'. Marilyn also presented a written note from Chris Bollis, previous Parks Director, which states, "24 Aug 84, Bob Byrnes, Please accept this letter as 'official' permission to do the erosion control work you and I discussed on the 23 of Aug. on the 15' walkway from Cambridge to Wychwood Commons. Good luck, Chris Bollis, Park Director.,, The applicant confirmed that the metal shed as shown on the survey in the packet has been removed. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Motion carried 3 to 1. Those in favor were: Schmidt, Anderson and Asleson. Casey abstained. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 10, 1993 DISCUSS DOCK FEES FOR 1994 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, commented that the dock fund is still in the black, and therefore recommended that the fees for 1994 remain the same. A public hearing is scheduled to be held at the July Parks meeting. Future riprapping and dredging projects were reviewed. Fackler clarified that approximately $10,000 is planned to be expended for riprapping in 1994. There is currently approximately $75,000 in the fund. This will be the fourth year the fees have not been raised. Schmidt does not feel it is unreasonable to request an increase in fees. Considering long range planning, there are maintenance dredges to consider, larger and expensive dredging projects which have been requested in the past and denied due to lack of funds, and the cost of riprapping and dredging seems to continually rise. Casey commented that he would like the senior fees to be reviewed, he is not in favor of granting seniors a reduced rate. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council that the dock license fees for 1994 remain the same as 1993. Motion carried unanimously. Optional programs to eliminate or reduce the senior discount were discussed. One option was to require seniors to pay a full fee with their application, and then allow them to apply for a rebate. It was noted that some seniors may be willing to pay a full fee. Anderson commented that the number of seniors and the amount of money involved does not warrant a change in the fee structure. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Schmidt to recommend that the senior rates remain the same in 1994, Motion carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Anderson, Schmidt and Asleson. Casey opposed. Schmidt commented that the way the fee schedule works it is more expensive for a non-senior to share a dock with a senior than it is for a non-senior to share a dock with another non-senior, and this is not right. Fackler and McCaffrey commented that the people sharing the dock work out the payment between themselves, and that most people are just happy to get a dock. They have not received any other complaints relating to this issue. The Commission determined this issue could be raised at the public hearing. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes June 10, 1993 NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS PLAN - REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSIOn: COMMENTS The Planning Commission's comments on the NCA plan were reviewed, as follows: Mueller had suggested that the Park and Open Space Commission review the tax forfeited parcels before the Planning Commission so they may review their comments. MOTION made by Cas·y, seconded by Schmidt to amend the plan to imply that if posslble, tax forfeited parcels be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission prior to the Planning Commission and City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Page 4, within the last paragraph, Mueller questioned if there is a better way to write this sentence to be more easily read. The sentence was modified by the Park Commission, as follows: "The emphasis of the definition is nature which implies an area with few, if any .nan -~- ~-~ .... ~ ...... ~-- human i_mpacts. ~ ........... Page 5, $4., "Sites that have the potential to be readily reclaimed by natural vegetation are also worthy of consideration.,, The comment was that this sentence is somewhat pointless. The Commission agreed this statement should remain as is. They do not want to eliminate sites that contain flora and fauna. Page 5, $3., "In such cases, the City may consider retaining a conservation easement to protect the land." The Park Commission agreed that this item is optional and is okay as is, it offers foresight. Pages 7 & 8, relating to Acquisition Costs, Hanus commented that an example could be added depicting what if two parcels are combined which makes a parcel buildable, what would the ultimate tax implications be with a structure on it. The Park Commission determined that additional examples were not necessary. The second to the last paragraph on page $ was reviewed, and it was determined this covered the concerns. Pl&nning Commission Minutes Apri! 26, 1993 e Page 9, relating to Restoration Costs, Voss commented that the City cannot currently take care of existing vacant properties in Mound, he thinks that $15,000 - $20,000 is not a realistic estimate. Casey speculated to the contrary commenting that through public awareness, maintenance costs may be reduced. It was determined to amend the third paragraph on Page 10, last sentence, as follows: "As NCA's become established, t-he cost A~ ~__A ~ ........ ~_~ the maintenance costs would hopefully be reduced. Page 11, $3., Hanus referred to "Consider encouraging or possibly requiring adoption of NCA's by neighborhood or community groups as a prerequisite of NCA status." What happens when neighbors move? The City would ultimately end up taking care of the NCA. It was determined to keep this language as is. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Casey to forward the amended Nature Conservation Areas Plan to the City Council or Committee of the Whole. Motion carried unanimously. Letter from Mo Mueller Commissioner Mueller, who was not present, had submitted a letter to the commission requesting a leave of absence for an undetermined amount of time due to her busy work schedule. Her letter also stated, "I will understand, however, if you would prefer to have the Commission at full strength and will offer my resignation if that is the groups preference." The Commission would like to have some idea of when she would return. Asleson commented that he is moving July 1, 1993 and therefore will be resigning and wants the Commission to know this as they will then be two commissioner's short. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Byrnes, to request that staff find out how long the absence will be and that the issue be discussed again at the July meeting. Motion carried unanimously. I i ~, i ! It I I Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Avalon Park Commissioner Schmidt, on behalf of the users of Avalon Park, informed the commission that they will be submitting a request for some sort of lighting at the park as several boats have recently been burglarized and vandalized. Celebrate Summer Marilyn Byrnes updated the Commission on the scheduled Celebrate Summer events, as follows: June 11 Sunday July 19 Sunday August 19 Thursday Park Dedication Fees Spaghetti Dinner and Country Dancing Ice Cream Social and Barber Shop Quartet Minneapolis Police Band Asleson noticed discussion in the City Council Minutes relating to Park Dedication Fees and questioned staff of what the Planning Commission recommended was. The Secretary explained that the Planning Commission is in favor of charging a park dedication fee for each "newly created" parcel, and not in favor of charging two fees when one lot is split into two with an existing dwelling on one. The Secretary also noted that the City Council has requested the Park Commission review this issue. Park Director's Repore Jim Fackler informed the Commission that letters have been mailed to those dock site holders who need to update public land permits for private structures, construction activities, and uses on public lands. He reported that due to all the rain they have been very busy mowing, and one of his employees broke his arm which has slowed things down. The Parks Department will continue to be very busy with upcoming various community events. Dock Inspector's Report. Tom McCaffrey reported the following statistics: 394 = Dock Licenses Issued 5 = Docks Available in Dedicated Areas. Docks Available in Non-dedicated Areas (7 are in Jennings Cove) Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Byrnes, to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 8:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Those present were: Commissioners Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Mark Hanus, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were: Commissioners Bill Meyer, Brian Johnson, and Frank Weiland. The following people were also in attendance: Joanne Matzen, Kenneth Dahlgren, Kenneth Roelofs, Gloria Sistek, Keith Putt, Lin Terwilliger, Bill Jacobwith, Mary Moon, Greg & Vickie Pederson, Linda Kunde, LeeAnne Pederson and Karen Pederson. MINUTE__S The Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 1993 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 1993 as written. Motion carried unanimously. Case #93-018: Jerry Weiland for Tim Kenealy, 6319 Bay Ridge Road, Lot 9, Block 1, Halstead Acres 2nd Addition, PID /~r23-117-24 33 0020. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming 12' x 12' sun porch. Staff recommended approval of the request to recognize the existing nonconforming street frontage of 15 feet in order to allow construction of a fully conforming addition onto the dwelling. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the 15 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a conforming 12' x 12' sun porch. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 Case g93-019: David Thompson for Valeri Kavrov, 4822 Glasgow Road, RLS 1571, Tract A, PID f24-117-24 44 0214. VARIANCE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 79.74 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a new dwelling. This property was approved for subdivision in 1984 by Resolution #84-28. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance of 79.74 square feet to the required 6,000 square feet of lot area in the R-iA zone with the following conditions: Ail improvements on the property be constructed in accordance with the City Code with respect to setbacks and hardcover. A hard surface driveway be installed within one year of occupancy as approved by the Building Official. Utility locations must be shown on the survey. If the water service box adjacent to Dale Road on Tract A serves the existing house on Tract B the water service must either be relocated or a private utility easement be granted over an area of a minimum of a 10' x 10' section to allow for possible repairs or maintenance in the future. Mueller questioned if there were any street deficiencies. check on this. Staff will Mueller also expressed a concern about drainage. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the condition that there be no increased drainage to the adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. Case #93-020: Keith Putt, 5562 Sherwood Drive, RLS 1222, Tract C, PID/913- 117-24 23 0030. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow the construction of a conforming family room. The existing swimming pool and patio will be removed. The request involves a variance to impervious surface requirements of 567 square feet and a 2.7' side yard setback variance to the existing dwelling. The proposal will actually reduce the amount of hardcover on the lot. · · tt I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 The Building Official explained that he was unable to contact the applicant regarding the deck. The plans submitted indicate a deck, however, a deck is not shown on the survey. The Building Official recommended that some type of deck be allowed as there are existing patio doors that open to the existing patio that would benefit from a deck. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is conforming to setbacks, a reasonable use of the property, improves the conditions of hardcover, and in addition the triangle shaped lot creates a practical difficulty in placement of buildings on the site. The Planning Commission determined that a deck approximately 12' x 13' would reach both patio doors, and if the corner of the deck projecting towards the side yard was trimmed off it would meet all the required setbacks and would only increase the hardcover by approximately 138 square feet. Mueller commented that he does not feel this lot is conducive to this size of an addition at 26' x 22', it is not the minimum. The proposed addition is one third the size of the existing house and it seems excessive. Hanus commented that the proposal will improve hardcover which is better than what is there now. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, with the inclusion of the following: A deck be allowed to be constructed between the two patio doors and not to exceed 138 square feet. All other existing impervious surfaces in the rear yard, such as the pool and patio area, are to be removed and replaced with a permeable surface. Recognize a 29 square foot lot area variance in addition to the Z.76 foot side yard setback variance and the 715 foot impervious cover variance. MOTION carried $ to 1. Those in favor were: Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, ross and Jensen. Mueller was opposed. Mueller commented that he opposed because he does not feel the proposed addition is the minimum amount that should be allowed after the pool is removed. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. 3 Planning Comm£esion Minutes June 14, 1993 Case g93-021: W, Wayne & Lin Terwilliger, 2945 Cambridge Lane, Lots 9 and 10, Block 34, Wychwood, PID/~r24-117-24 42 0008. VARIANCE FOR COVERED DECK, Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a roof structure over the existing deck/walkway. This is an after-the-fact permit. The proposed roof is conforming with the exception of hardcover. The actual increase in hardcover is only at 47 square feet which is negligible in this case. The total proposed hardcover of 2,822 square feet exceeds the allowable for this parcel of 2,550 square feet by 3.2 percent. The application results in the following variances and existing nonconforming conditions: Required Existing/ Proposed Variance HOUSE FRONT 20' 11.1' 8.9' NORTH SIDE 6' 3.2' 2.8' DETACHED GARAGE FRONT 20' 10.5' 9.5' SOUTH SIDE 6' .9' 5.10' Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling and detached garage in order to construct and entry roof over the existing deck/walkway as shown on the survey, the Planning Commission may consider the following Findings of Fact: The proposed entry roof is conforming to setbacks, will improve the service, utilization and function of the existing dwelling, that a practical difficulty exists as the hardcover is existing on this site. The actual increase in hardcover is slight due to the fact that it is being installed over a predominantly existing impervious surface. In addition, there is greater than 4,250 square feet of adjacent open space in the commons that reduces the impact on impervious surface for this property. Hanus questioned if the side yard setback to the garage should not be 4 feet. Staff will verify the required setback. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the city Council on June 22, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 Case g93-022; Ken Roelofs Const., Inc, for Kenneth Dahlgren, 4347 Wilshire Blvd.. Part of Lots 75, 76 & Lot B in The First Re-arrangement of P.I.P., First Div. PID #19-117-23 13 0008. VARIANCE FOR DECK Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to replace the existing deck and add two more feet which would result in a 44.8 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water. The impervious surface on this property is also nonconforming by 2,140 square feet, or 52 percent, including the proposed deck. Inadequate street frontage also exists of 20 feet to the required 40 feet. This property is unique in size and shape and it could be expected that it may exceed the limit on hardcover due to the configuration and need for a long driveway, however, the extent of hardcover and request to further encroach on the lakeshore setback is inconsistent with the City Code and compensation must be made in some area in order to gain some more conformance with hardcover. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend disapproval of this request due to the fact that any further expansion is inconsistent with provisions in the City Code. It was suggested the applicant work with City Staff to evaluate the hardcover and seek a proposal more consistent with the impervious surface provisions of the code. The Building Official further explained that he discussed with the applicant and contractor just prior to the meeting that if they cannot expand the deck 2 feet more, they would be satisfied with being allowed to replace the deck as is. Mueller suggested a compromise of allowing the extra 2 feet onto the deck if impervious surface is reduced elsewhere, such as the driveway. Jensen commented that she is not in favor of more hardcover, and does not see the need for more deck, however, it would be reasonable to allow the owner to replace the deck as is. MOTION made by Voss, ·econded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance to allow replacement of the existing deck, same size. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. Case/993-023' Dakota Rail, Inc., North of the Existing Balboa Building East of Fairview Lane and South of Lynwood Blvd., PID #13-117-24 34 0068 & 0077 and 13 117-24 43 0144. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALBOA ADDITION - PUBLIC HEARING. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report written by Mark Koegler. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to create two new parcels located on the north side of the existing 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 Balboa Building. Parcel 1 totals .78 acres and Parcel 2 has a total area of 1.58 acres. Most of Parcel 1 is currently used for employee and truck parking. Parcel 2 contains the loading dock area on the north side of the building and the access drive off of Fairview Lane. The parcels will continue to be used in the future as they are currently used today. At the time the report was written, a revised survey had not been submitted, and staff noted the following items that needed to be addressed: Right-of-way needs to be dedicated at Fairview Lane. An easement needs to be established along the north side of the building in Parcel 2 to accommodate NSP's overhead utility lines. 3. Ail local utility lines need to be added to the plat. 4. The plat needs to contain a name. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat for the proposed division by Dakota Rail subject to the following conditions: Easements shall be established for all water service and storm sewer crossing points along the railroad tracks. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing Parcel 76. Parcel 76 includes the balance of the property owned by Balboa. It was clarified that the survey received by the Planning Commission in their packet was an updated survey dated June 9, 1993 which should reflect changes to address staff's concerns. The Building official further explained that because the City Planner was unable to attend the meeting, the Planning Commission should voice any concerns they may have regarding the application and they will be addressed at the City Council's Public Hearing. Vice Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Darlene Bjork who resides on Fairview expressed a concern about the amount of truck traffic and wants to make sure this subdivision will not increase this use. The Commission confirmed that no change is use is proposed. The Building official stated that if a change in use is proposed it would be required to follow the procedure for a Conditional Use Permit and the neighbors would be notified. Vice Chair Michael closed the public hearing. I i 1, i ! it I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 Mueller expressed the following: 1. Should a Park Dedication Fee should apply? Staff will verify this. 2. Is there any sanitary sewer easements for this area? Why is it recommended that Parcels 1 and 2 be combined into one tax parcel? Can you combine parcels that are divided by another property (the railroad right-of-way)? He would rather not see them combined for tax purposes. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Balboa Addition according to the most recent survey with a revised date of June 9, 1993, upon the following conditions: 1. Right-of-way needs to be dedicated at Fairview Lane. Proper easements be established for NSP's overhead utility lines. Easements be established for all local utilities. 0 Verify that there is no sanitary sewer at crossing points along the railroad tracks, but that easements for water services and storm sewer be established and granted to the City. A Park Dedication Fee be collected as determined by the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Case #93-024: Gloria Sistek, 5342 Piper Road, Lot 39, Whipple Shores, PID #25- 117-24 21 0110. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new garage with conforming setbacks. A variance request to impervious surface coverage of 1,050 square feet, and a setback variance of 26 feet from the deck to the Ordinary High Water are required. The existing nonconforming carport and shed would be removed. 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 The calculations below indicates the proposal increases the non- conforming hardcover to approximately 44.4 percent. EXISTING LOT AREA 7,310 SF X 30% = TOTAL EXISTING HARD¢OVER TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER NONCONFORMING BY 2,193 2,583 390 OR 35.3% PROPOSED TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER LESS REMOVALS PROPOSED GARAGE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER NONCONFORMING BY 2,583 OR 35.3% ( 904) 484 1,080 3,243 OR 44.4% 1,050 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial request as proposed, but would support a recommendation substantially reduced driveway. of the with a The Building Official proceeded to recognize a letter which was faxed to the him that day from Gloria Sistek. In the letter, Ms. Sistek asked that the following issues be considered when considering her proposal: 1. Lack of storage in the house as it is a slab house. Her original plan was for a 24' x 28' garage, which she has reduced to a 22' x 22'. 3. Piper Road has no off-street parking. She would like parking space for her boat, and therefore, wants to retain all of the proposed driveway as proposed. Her plans include improving and managing the erosion on her property. The applicant proceeded to distribute photographs which show the existing carport and erosion/drainage concerns. Clapsaddle suggested the applicant install a new material which consists of a cement block type of product which is used for parking areas, and it allows the grass to grow through, it is only 50% impervious. This material could be used on the west side of the garage for boat parking. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the impervious surface coverage variance and lakeside setback variance to allow construction of a 24' wide by 28' deep detached garage, subject to the following conditions: 1. The detached garage conform to all setback requirements. tn · ~, i · i,t I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 The detached garage shall not be set back more than 20 feet from the front property line, as proposed. The 100% impervious surface driveway shall not exceed Z0 feet in width. No more than a 50% impervious type surface shall be installed for the balance of the driveway which extends to the north side of detached garage· Motion carried unanimously· This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. Case #93-025: David Schrupp for Linda Kunde, 4916 Hanover Road, Lots 16 & 17, Block 18, Devon, PID f25-117-24 11 0082. VARIANCE FOR DECK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a impervious surface coverage variance to replace an existing unsafe deck with a new slightly larger deck and stairs. The request amounts to an increase in size of approximately 85 square feet, or 42.5 square feet, of additional hardcover. The total proposed hardcover of 2,264 square feet exceeds the allowable hardcover of 1,920 square feet, resulting in a variance request of 344 square feet. Staff has conducted a site inspection and it appears the house as been constructed as proposed on the original survey and is conforming to setbacks. Staff recommended approval of the request as the proposal is minimal in nature, is conforming to setbacks, and allows the applicant a more functional deck and reasonable use of the property. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff· Motion carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were: Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Mueller, and Voss. Jensen opposed. Jensen stated her reason for disapproval is that there is no hardship when it comes to a deck. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. Case #93-026: Karen and Leeanne Pederson, 2050 Waterside Lane, Lots 1 & 2 Block 2, Lakeside Park Crocker's, PID /913-117-24 23 0022. VARIANCE FOR DECK, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to replace and expand the existing deck. A lot area variance of 2,800 square fee needs to be recognized, impervious surface coverage will be conforming. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 The setbacks as noted in the staff report were done incorrectly as it was first assumed that the "front" yard was Breezy Road, when in-fact Waterside Lane should be considered the front when figuring setbacks. Therefore, the required setbacks are as follows: Front Waterside Lane NE 30' Side Breezy Road NW 20' Side SE 10' Rear SW 15' Therefore, the deck, as proposed, will be conforming to the NW side yard (Breezy Road), however will require a front yard setback variance to Waterside Lane of 11 feet. There is approximately an 8 foot boulevard on Waterside Lane so the deck will be approximately 28 feet to the curb. The existing deck is in good condition and the expansion will not further encroach towards the front property line. Also, considering the placement of existing patio doors and the layout of the property, it is not unreasonable to allow the deck to be constructed as proposed. Staff recommended approval of the variance as requested. NOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance to allow construction of a deck as requested. Finding of Fact is that there is 8 additional feet of green space between the curb and the front property line and the new deck does not project closer to the front property line than the existing deck. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. Case/ e93-027: Greg and Vickie Pederson, 6087 Aspen Road, Lot 18, Brookton, PID #14-117-24 31 0019. VARIANCE FOR A POOL. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to install a swimming pool approximately 3 feet from the side property line, the required setback is 10 feet. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the required front yard setback of 30 feet to Clover Circle resulting in recognition of a 10.9 foot variance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to install a pool upon the condition that it be located so that it conforms to the required setbacks. Optional locations for the pool were analyzed by the Commission. The Building official confirmed that it would be okay to move the pool closer to the deck, as long as it stayed 10 feet from the house. The existing deck is low and the proposed pool will project approximately 2 feet above ground. The applicant's intend to construct a deck around the pool anyway. 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1993 Fencing requirements in relation to the existing retaining walls were discussed. Hanus confirmed that the pool will be screened from Clover Circle. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of a variance to allow the construction of a pool, subject to the following: 1. The pool be placed at least 10 feet from the house. The pool be placed at least 10 feet from the side property line. A conforming deck be allowed to be constructed around the pool accordingly. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1993. CITY COUNCIL REPRESBNTATIVB'S REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council Minutes of the May 11, 1993 meeting. There was discussion relating to the City Council's review of the Rental Ordinance. It was noted that the Rental Ordinance has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review, which will be on the June 28, 1993 agenda, and at that meeting the changes made by the Task Force can be reviewed and discussed. It was suggested that a copy of all the Rental Task Force minutes be included in the packet. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:34 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Attest: Vice Chair, Geoff Michael 11 390Z134 : Notice to Counties and Municipalitie Under Minn. Stat. 237.075, subd. 1 BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES CO~ ................ STATE OF MINNESOTA In the Matter of the Petition ) NOTICE OF APPLICATION of Minnesota Independent Equal ) FOR GENERAL RATE INCREASE Access Corporation for a General) Rate Change ) MPUC Docket No. P-3007/GR-93-1 Minnesota Independent Equ&l Access Corporation ("MIEAC') filed for a general rate increase on March 22, 1993, requesting an increase of $833,923 or about 25.8% of annual revenues. MIEAC is entitled and intends to increase rates on an interim basis effective May 21, 1993, subject to refund. The proposed rate increases are paid by long distance telephone companies and not by local customers. The Public Utilities Commission ('Commission') must decide how much of an increase, if any, will be approved. The Commission's decision will be issued by January 22, 1994 (March 22, 1994 if a contested case hearing on the request is held). Any overcollection, plus interest, will be refunded to long distance companies in a manner as determined by the Commission. The proposed rate schedules and a comparison of present and proposed rates may be examined by the public during normal business hours at the Department of Public Service, Suite 200, Metro Square Building, 121 Seventh Place East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, and MIEAC's office at 10300 - 6th Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441.' Anyone wishing to participate .in the investigation of MIEAC's request should contact Richard R. Lancaster, Executive Secretary, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Metro Square Building, Suite 350, 121 Seventh Place East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2147. 4707 Welcome Ave. N. Crystal, MN 55429 (612) 42O-4546 ! June 12, 1993 City of Mound 5341 l~ywood Rd Mound, ~ 55364 [IEC'O JUN 1 5 Dear Mayor Skip Johnson, We would like to cordially invite you to join us Friday, July 23, 1993 at 12:00 noon, at the Hennepin County Old Tyme Fair. We are having the presentation of Hennepin County's Outstanding Senior Citizen's Awards, followed by a Mayor's Cow Milking Challenge. We would like you to be a part of the fun, and to represent your city in the festivities. A member of the Hennepin County Fair Board will be contacting you in the near future, to see if your schedule will allow you to join us. If you are able to join us, in early July you will be receiving a free admission pass, along with directions to the Hennepin County Old Tyme Fair. The Fair is held at the CorcoranLions Park, 3 miles north of Hwy. 55 on Hwy. 101 and County Road 10 in Corcoran. Enclosed is a schedule of events being planned for the Fair. We look forward to having you join us for an afternoon of old fashioned enjoyment. Sincerely, Karen Hogenson Secretary 2-3/2.. OLD ~ FATR DAILY FREE DAILY $25 DRAWING - 18 & OVER F~F~. DAILY DRAWING - 15 & UNDER GOPHER STATE CARNIVAL RIDES BINGO SWINETIME PIG RACES - 5 DAILY Sponsored by Accoustical Floors, Inc. CItlLDREN'S BARNYARD & P~ITING ZCO PONY RIDES FRTICOPTER RIDES - WEAT~ PERMI/TING 4-H E~RrTS OPEN CLASS ~tIBITS CCl~IAL BOOTSS* sr~ EN~INE DISPLAY & D~N~TIONS WEDNESDAY JULY 21 ENTRY DAY OPEN CL~ & 4-R ONLY 12 noon to 8 p.m. (no admission charge) rmms Y ULY 11:00 - 12 Noon Livestock Entry 12:00 NOON - FaIR OPEN~ l: O0 - 10:00 Carnival 3:30 - 4:30 Pipi the Clown 4:30 - 5:30 D~vid Sleeper, Ventriloquist Sponsored by Premier Too[ Products, Inc. 5:30 - 6:30 Craig Carlson, Magic Sponsored Farmers State Bank of Hamel 6:30 AI'~IA~ TALVNT CONTEST FRIDAY JULY 2~ SENIaR CITI/~N DAY (Seniors receive free coffee/soft drink) 9:30 a.m. 4-H Dairy J;~ing 12:00 - 12:30 Senior Citizen Awards 12:30 Mayors Cow Milking Charlene Sponsored by Gyp-Crete Corporation 1:00 p.m. Open Class Dairy Judging 1:00 p.m. 4-tt Judging, Rabbits, Poultry, Sheep, Goats, & Beef 2:00 - 4:00 Senior Citizen Bingo 2:00 - 3:00 Stro[lin' Dixie 3 Band Sponsored by State Bank of Loretto 3:00 - 4:00 Pipi the Clown 4:00 - 5:00 Craig Carlson, Magic Sponsored Farmers State Bank of ~amel 5:00 - 6:00 David Sleeper, Ventriloquist Sponsored Loram Maintenance of Way 6:30 4-H Fashion Review 6:30 MOTO C~ 7:00 4-H pet Show 8:3o - 12:oo mN B ,D Z. I Sponsored by Floor Systems, Inc. S~AY JULY 24 lO: 00 - 8: OO M~CAL MAFKXlqO Sponsored Loram Maintenance of Way 10:30 - 11:00 Diaper Derby* Sponsored Farmers State Bank Bamel il:00 - 11:30 Miles of Smiles Clown 12:00 Noon Big Wheel Race* Sponsored Farmers State Bank Eamel l: 00 4-H Youth Teaching Youth Alcohol Prevent ion 2:00 Pedal Tractor Pull* Sponsored Farmers State Bank tIamel 2:00 4-ti Share the Fun 2:00 - 8:00 Bingo,,. 3:00 - 4:00 Craig Carlson, ?l~gic Sponsored Farmers State Bank ~amel 4:30 DE~LITION DEt~BY 8:30 David Sleeper, Ventriloquist Sponsored Loram Maintenance of Way SONDAY 3ULY 25 12:00 - 8: OO __~AlqICAL MAI~ Sponsored Loram Maintenance of Way 12:00 - 1:00 ]/%e Bandits 1:00 Angel the Clown 1:30 4-H Dog Show 2:00 - 3:00 Craig Carlson, Magic Sponsored Farmers State Bank ~amel 3:00 David Sleeper, Ventriloquist Sponsored Loram Maintenance of Way 4:00 Parade of Champions 4:30 AMA/1EJ]R TAI.RNT CON~ FINALq 7:00 4-H State Fair Meeting 7:00 F~rold & Donald Schutte 8:00 1993 l~enn~-pin County Fair Closes Exhibits Released * For applications call 420-4,546 'Additional sponsors are: Hays Drywall & Insulation, Inc., Dobo's/Daany's Catering, Inc., Corcoran Tom Thumb, tIeinzen-Ditter V.F.W. Post & Aux., Muller-Pribyl Utilities, James E. Tiller, Attorney at L~w, 1993 is the lOOth Anniv~r~ of the Ferris Wheel ) l II I 1, I i It I ~ ,JUN TNFO 11- , x LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Notice and Agenda 6:00 pm, Wednesday, June 23, 1993 1. Minutes of 5/26/93 review, comment and approval; Subcon~nittee report to the Administrative Committee, per 6/8/93 meeting report, Chair Johnstone: a. Board membership discussion b. Funding discussion c. Committee/organization structure discussion Long range plans (Management Plan), not discussed at 6/8/93 subcommittee meeting (LMCD Enabling Act will be a helpful resource for discussion of the above topics. Please bring your copy included in your LMCD Code Book and/or recently provided) 1994 Administrative Budget review, considering adjustments to municipal levy taking into account an unfunded technician staff position for 1993 at $15,000 to be reallocated to 1994 funding and an additional $10,000 from reserve funds to reduce the municipal levy from $103,500 to $78,500; Board member staggered terms, staff discussion to poll board members on actions taken or intended to be taken, considering at this time that the three year terms of all board members expire the end of 1994, except where board members have already received official action from their city councils for a newly-adjusted term, written city confirmation of which is needed for this discussion; (Spring Park city confirmation has been received) 5. Additional business; 6. Next meeting and adjournment LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee 6:00 PM, Wednesday, May 26, 1993 Tonka Bay city Hall Present: Scott Carlson, Dave Cochran, Bert Foster, JoEllen Hurr, William Johnstone, George Owen, Robert Rascop, Tom Reese, staff members Rachel Thibault and Gene Strommen The report of the 4/28/93 meeting was not prepared at the time of this meeting. There was discussion on the 5/18/93 Report to the Mayors meeting. The committee agreed that the meeting was well received and productive. However, there was little feedback on the structure of the Board. Reese suggested that the Board members contact their mayors or councils to get feedback on this issue and bring it to the Board. Cochran stated that if there were plans to adjust the Board make up, it would be a good time to address alternate funding, such as boat stickers. Johnstone commented that first the LMCD should try to find ways to operate more efficiently and look into alternate funding. These are things to address before the reorganization of the LMCD. Carlson suggested a five year budget relating to the implementation of the Management Plan objectives. There was discussion about the Board make up. There were comments that fourteen board members are too many, yet a lot of volunteer time is required. If the board were smaller, it may require more hired staff. Carlson, said he needed to know how to proceed with the committee, and offered five categories as topics of further discussion: 1. Funding 2. Budgeting 3. Long range plans (Management Plan) 4. Organization 5. Committee structure He suggested a small subcommittee get together to discuss the five issues to get more focused and develop a plan of action. Owen, Hurr, Johnstone volunteered to work with Carlson on the subcommittee. The issue of staggered terms was discussed, and the executive director was asked to redo the proposal for staggering the terms, referring back to the January discussion. 6/8/93 IEFD JUN 2 ! 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting Wednesday, June 23, 1993 Tonka Bay city Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd (County Rd 19) 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Cochran READING OF MINUTES - 5/26/93 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, 6/12/93 meeting Be Gideons Point Homeowners Assn., Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay; recommending reconsideration of the variance application and approval of the revised site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license and variance applications from Gideons Point Homeowners Association, for 46 BSU as outlined in Wartman's 6/2/93 letter, the variance hardship being shallow water Ce Stocks Side Setback Variance application, Mound, Halsteds Bay; recommending approval of the variance for 5' setbacks, with reasons and limitations as stated in 6/12/93 minutes De Joseph Zwak, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay; excess boat storage at outlot, enforcement held in abeyance at committee direction pending recommendation from LMCD Attorney LeFevere Ee Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono; recommending Jim Dunn, President, be allowed a hearing at this meeting regarding the conditions imposed on the 1993 license renewal F. Additional business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, 6/15/93 meeting Be Intoxicating Liquor License Fees, recommending the fee be reduced from $3000 to $1500 in 1994, reflecting this figure in the LMCD Budget 3 LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 6/23/93, Pg. 2 Ce Special Events, new and renewal, informational per minutes a. Personal watercraft practice course, referring application and stipulations in draft letter to Board for discussion De Decibel Test, 5/25/93, program report a. Recommending that the decibel level limit on Lake Minnetonka be reduced from 82 to 80 decibels E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report F. Additional business ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Hurr (no meeting this month) Be Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Report of 6/18/93 meeting (handout) a. Harvest operations progress b. Access treatment and maintenance LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol A. Report of 6/15/93 meeting 1) Task Force Report Preparation Plan 2) City Car/Trailer Parking Agreement Status ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Report of 6/8/93 Fee Study Subcommittee meeting B. Report of 6/8/93 Administrative Subcommittee meeting C. Report of 6/23/93 meeting FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. Financial Reports (hand-out) B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (hand-out) C. 1994 Budget Review and Adoption EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 6/17/93 I! 1, I ! REC'§ JUN 2 1 1993 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM, Wednesday, May 26, 1993 Tonka Bay City tlall CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran at 7:30 ROLL CALL: Members Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven: Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach: Scott Carlson: Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; JoEl len Hurt. Orono: Robert Rascop, Shorewood: George Owen. Victoria; Duane Markus, Wayzata, Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also Present: Charles LeFe- vere, Counsel: Deputy Ken Shilling, Sheriff's Water Patrol: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: James Grathwol, Excelsior; Wm. Johnstone, Minnetonka; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park: Toni Penn. Vice Chair, Tonka Bay. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Cochran Cochran did not have any announcements READING OF MINUTES Carlson moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 4/28/93 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS Don Blaser, Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC), asked for permission to address the actions of a Board member as detailed in a letter from Scott Spaeth, Commodore, WYC, dated 5/26/93. Cochran re- sponded that Board policy allows five minutes for discussion. If the subject cannot be completed in that time it will be continued to the end of the meeting under New Business. Blaser said the letter presents a complaint against Board member Duane Markus, Wayzata. According to the letter, Markus approached several University of Minnesota student sailors and asked them who had given them permission to be on the WYC proper- ty. The letter says he intimidated them, implying the5' had (lone something wrong, and harassed them. It is Blaser's belief that that type of behavior is not expected of Board members. Blaser asked for a definition of what would constitute proper behavior of the Board member when approaching a licensee. The WY(' is concerned about a similar approach being made to thc six and seven year old sailing school participants. Markus responded that it is his belief, that as a Board member, he has the right to go on a licensee's property to check activities. He expressed objection to the use of the WYC facili- ties for activities not covered by its license, tie accused the WYC of allowing the University of Hinnesota Sailing Team to use a barter system of docking its boats in return for dock services. 'Harkus contends that is the same as renting space to them. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 Blaser said the arrangement is that the Sailing Team would have to build its own dock if it should need one. They use the property at no cost as a service of the WYC to the University. Markus said the WYC has no right to do that. · Markus said the WYC has been harassing the City of Wayzata and it is his intention to ask the city to withdraw from the lake access car/trailer parking program. Carlson suggested a different forum is needed to discuss this issue in a less volatile atmosphere. Further discussion will be held under New Business. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock In the absence of Babcock due to a death in the family, Cochran chaired the Water Structures Committee reports. A. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Rascop moved, Cochran seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/8/93 Water Structures Committee meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Gideons Point Homeowners Assn. , (HOA), Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay. On 4/28/93 the Board approved a length variance to 112' for the 12 slip dock on Outlot A and the length variance for the docks on the west end of property was denied with a provision that the 120' docks on Lots 4 and 5 could remain for this season only. A new site plan was to be provided showing the docks, as approved, for the entire shoreline, initialed by the parties agreeing to it at the 4/28/93 meeting. At the 5/8/93 Water Structures Committee meeting the appli- cant submitted revised site plans dated 5/7/93 which did not meet the criteria established by the Board. The Water Structures Committee has recommend the Board deny the Gideons Point HOA site plans dated May 7, 1993, and to recommend approval of the 1985 site plans renewal without change, for this season. Cochran said in fairness to Babcock it would be appropriate to return the application to the committee. The documents needed to prepare the findings and order for the new dock license appli- cation have not been completed and the revised Outlot dock plan was not received until today. MOTION: Cochran moved, Slocum seconded, to approve renewal without change of the 1985 licensed site plan. pending receipt of the dock plan approved on 4/28/93, drawn to scale, initialed by the same people who initialed the plan approved at the 4/28/93 Board meeting. Direct Staff and legal counsel to prepare a memorandum explaining the advantages and disadvantaoes~_ of the various alternatives available to the LMCD in response to the Oideons Point Homeowners Ass'n. application and the legal defen- sibility of those alternatives. The Water Structures Committee is to be directed to consider that memorandum and report back to t he Board. II 1, I I iL i ~ LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 DISCUSSION: LeFevere explained the purpose of the motion is to allow the HOA to get its boats into the water. Ultimately the Board will have to approve or deny the revised application after findings are prepared. He said the amended declarations were not received until yesterday and the Outlot dock plan was received today. This will give the committee another opportunity to look at the issue and the memorandum. Bill Merriam, 25 Gideons Point Road, said the Board had al)- proved a 112' length on Outlot A. He said the City of Tonka Bay has approved the 112' dock on Outlot A. Cochran said the intent of the motion was to have staff and counsel prepare a memorandum for the variance on Lots 1 - q on the west side of the development. Slocum, as seconder agreed with that interpretation. Hurt questioned the inclusion of the 1985 plan in the mot[on when the Board already approved a 112' (lock on the Outlot A and 120' docks on Lots 4 and 5. LeFevere said the only thing that can be approved is the 1985 licensed plan as a renewal without change until the Findings and Order for the new applications are approved. That will allow the rest of the riparian owners to put in their docks. The applicant can wait for approval of thc 4/28/93 plan, and comply with the 1985 licensed plan. or build illegally. They can only build legally to the 19S5 plan. Vern Haug, Mayor, City of Tonka Bay, said thc city has approved the 112' dock with a 125' setback from the east lot line. That dock is under construction to that specification. The city would like the Board to work on the docks on the west end, advising the City of Tonka Bay of its action, lie cant~ot personally see any purpose in going back over the (locks on the east end. Hurr said she would rather not issue any permit than have a permit that is not going to be abided by. Rascop said there was a decision made at the April Board meeting and that should be approved. Cochran said the parcel has to be treated as a whotc, lle would be satisfied to consider the matter of the east end closed. LeFevere said he would have no problem with leaving the east end out of the discussion, treating the west end separately. The problem with taking final action on the west end at this time by denying the pending variance application, it is a final determi- nation which allows no room for reconsideration. Fin(lings are needed to justify the denial. Cochran asked if that means the LMCD will be looking the other way as to the docks being installed per the new site plan presented 4/28/93 on the east end. LeFevere said it has been the LMCD policy to not take enforcement action until the Board has taken final action on an application. The required documents have been received within the past two days so there should be no delay in taking final action. MOTION: Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to table the new (lock license and the variance applications to the Water Structures Committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD O17 DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 MOTION: Cochran moved, Slocum seconded, to direct staff and legal counsel to prepare a memorandum explaining (1) a(lvan- tages and disadvantages of the various alternatives available to the LMCD in response to the Gideons Point Homeowners Assn. vnri- ance application for Lots I - 5 and (2) the legal defcnsil) ility of those alternatives. DISCUSSION: Merriam said it is his understanding that the motion will confine discussion to the variance application on tile west side of the property. Justin Holl, 30 Pearl Street, said he has no objectit~n to the 80' side setback from Pearl Street including tile walkway through the marsh, with the understanding that (I) there will be no filling of the peninsula area, (2) there will be dark colors on the canopies, (3) there will be no lights on the docks at night, and {4) there be a new survey at the end of Pearl Street. Cochran said those are matters for discussion at the Water Struc- tures Committee meeting on June 12. Carlson said the review should include the variance crite- ria. He would also want comment on what kind of precedent this will set. Rascop objects to the motion because this puts the District in the site design business. The applicant should have to pro- vide the alternatives. Merriam said the }IOA has no plan to come forth with a whole series of configurations. Jerry ttoll, 30 Pearl Street, is opposed to the plan for thc west end. She would rather see the (locks for Lots 1 - 3 combined on Lot 3 and no walkway through the wetlands. Reese wants all of the clocks for the development shown on the dock plan. Cochran said that would be on the final plan. VOTE: Motion carried, Markus, Reese, Rascop and Bloom voting nay. C. Clay Cliffe Homeowners Assn., Old Channel Bay, Tonka Bay The Water Structures Committee recommended approval of an application for a new dock license for Clay Cliffe Homeowners Assn. with a minor change in dock configuration per the 4/30/93 site plan. Thibault explained the Association is licensed for 9 slips and uses 7. Its density is 1:100~ The change is to slip #4 from 12' x 32' to 16' x 48' Everyone within 500' was notified and gave their approval of the new site plan. MOTION: Foster moved, Carlson seconded, to approve a new dock license for Clay Cliffe IIomeowners Association with a minor change in the (lock configuration per the 4/30/93 site VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Unrestricted Watercraft Storage Concept The Water Structures Committee recommended staff and the LMCD attorney prepare draft ordinances consistent with the con- cept policy as revised by the committee and explained in the memorandum dated 5/21/93. II 1, I ! it LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS gay 26, 1993 Thibault asked if the exemptions for certain unrestricted watercraft listed in item 4 d) of tile memorandum refer to water- craft stored on land or water or both. If the exemptions are just for unrestricted watercraft on land, that is covered in 4 a) which does not count unrestricted watercraft stored on land at commercial multiple dock sites. Hurr said density on the Lake is density whether stored in the water or on land. It would be inconsistent to not count them for a special class of users. Markus said the unrestricted watercraft should be counted in some way for density. They are still there even if pulled up on land from the water. He asked what constitutes a non-profit organization. The executive director said the organization x~ould have to be an IRS 501-C-3 non-profit as an Educational, Scientif- ic or Religious group to qualify. Markus said this proposal creates the possibi I i ty of an unlimited number of schools on the Lake. Cochran said there are two kinds of density. There is the density of boats in use on the Lake and the density created by the number of boats stored the shoreline. Thibault suggested the unrestricted boats on land and in the water should be allowed with limits based on certain criteria to keep track of the density. Foster said unrestricted boats do not have the same impact on the Lake as larger boats and are self-limiting in thc they cover. Markus did not necessarily agree, as a 16' ltobic Cat can cover the entire Lake quickly. Hurt said if someone wanted to start a canoe rental business she cannot see the difference in whether it is for profit or non- profit. Cochran said there is the possibility o'f the non-profit designation being misused. Foster said he would have no problem with eliminating the word non-profit. Bloom said boat density is a problem and he cannot agree with exempting them. I~OTION: lturr moved, Foster seconded, to return thc prol)()sal to the Water Structures Committee. DISCUSSION: Thibault asked for direction on enforcement regarding unlicensed storage of unrestricted boats in the interim as she does multiple dock inspections. The Board concurred tl~ere would be no violation at this time if the number of unrestricted boats did not increase from last year. The executive director said the staff has information on how many unrestricted there are at each site and can monitor any change in the VOTE: ~Xtotion carried unanimously. E. Walden Tract Y, Deepltaven Walden Tract Y is an outlot owned by the Walden Dock Associ- ation. The Association has submitted documentation a:q cvi¢loi~cc of grandfathered boat storage. The committee recommc[~ds aCCel,k- lng the documentation allowing non-conforming grandfathered status for four slips. MOTION: Rascop moved, Hurr seconded, to direct staff to set up a file for Walden Tract Y, accepting the documentation alloa'- lng a grandfathered status. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 F. June Inspection Tour The committee has set June i1 from 5 PM to 9 PM for the annual boat tour. The time was selected to allow concentrating the inspection on boat activity and density. Hurt said she has made arrangements for a boat . Upon quos- tioning from Slocum she said the boat will be supplied by Tonka Bay Marina, Gabriel Jabbour owner. Slocum questioned the use of a boat from an individual who has publicly expressed his differ- ences with the District. Hurt said, if that were policy, the District could not use a boat from any facility it licenses. The other Board members agreed the offer was appropriate and should be accepted. Hurt withdrew the offer because of the question raised. G. Deicing License Deposit Refunds MOTION: Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to approve deposit refunds of $100 each to the following deicing licensees that m-t the license requirements with few or no deficiencies: Ali Brock, Harrisons Bay Dennis Carlson, St. Albans Bay Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Echo Bay Frank Elshaug, St. Albans Bay Excelsior Bay Assoc., Excc!:sior Bay Gayle's Marina Corp., Maxwell Bay Grays Bay Marina, Grays Bay Howard's Po/ut Marina, S. Upper Lake Mike Kram¢r, Gideons Bay Reid MacDonald, Lafayette Bay Denny Williams, Jennings Bay Leno Mikenas, St. Albans Bay Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata Bay Minnetonka Yacht Club, Carsons Bay Douglas Ramstad, Wayzata Bay Paul F. Resberg, Grays Bay Rockvam Boat Yards, West Arm Sailors World Marina, Smiths Bay Tonka Bay Marina, Lower Lake S Rodney Wallace, St. Albans Bay Wayzata Yacht Club, Site I, Wayzata Bay Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2, Wayzata Bay Wayzata, City of, Wayzata Bay James Wyer, St. Louis Bay Ed Yaeger, Gideons Bay The following licensees had deficiencies and are to have $50 of their refund withheld to cover the cost of the third inspec- tion: Minnetonka Boat Works, Browns Bay North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. I I l, I i il I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 H. Multiple Dock Side Setback Requirements The committee recommends that the staff and attorney prepare a draft ordinance to institute a 10% setback zone for multiple dock licenses. Hurr said it would be ridiculous to require a licensee with 2,000 feet of shoreline to have a 200 foot setback. Carlson said the City of Minnetrista has not had an opportu- nity to look at the proposal. Rascop explained the subject was introduced by Committee Chair Babcock as a method of putt ing outlots for multiple docks in the center of the shoreline of a development. Case in point is the Gideons Point problem where the outlot is on an end adjacent to property not in the develop- ment. This proposal would place the impact of the docks on the development. A motion by Cochran to implement the recommendation of the committee did not receive a second. I. Lakeside Marina, Haxwell Bay, Orono The committee recommended that Jim Dunn, President, Lakeside Marina, be allowed a hearing at this meeting regarding the condi- tions imposed on the 1993 license renewal. LeFevere said there is a quest ion as to whether Dunn gave timely notice of his request for a hearing. Regardless, the committee decided to give Dunn a hearing at this Board meeting. However, the District received notice from his legal counsel that Mr. Dunn is in Florida and cannot make this meeting. The request for a continuance came in Tuesday, May 25, by Dunn's attorney. LeFevere advised him staff could not grant a continuance. That would have to be done by the Board. Counsel for ~r. Dunn asked if he could meet with District representatives to discuss whether there is some way of settling this matter. LeFevere and the executive director met with Dunn's counsel 5/25. LeFevere is not optimistic that settlement can be reached based on what Dunn's counsel proposed. He does feel it is a good idea to grant the continuance until the next Board meeting. The reason for that is, if the matter can be solved by discussion, the time will be well spent. If this issue winds up in litiga- tion it could be a lengthy process. It is LeFevere's opinion the courts would be more sympathetic to the LMCD by its granting a continuance. ~OTION: Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to continue to the June 23 Board meeting the appearance of James Dunn, l,akeside Marina, for a hearing on the conditions placed on the Marina's license. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster A. Approval of Minutes. Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/18/93 Lake Use and Recreation mittee meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. /? LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 B. Paradise Lady Charter Boat~ Wine & Beer License Applica- tions MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve on-sale wine and on-sale beer license applications for the Paradise Lady charter boat, waiving the investigation and investigation fees because the applicant had passed the inspections for thc Paradise Princess charter boat. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Special Events 1) Deposit Refunds MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve deposit refunds of $100 each for the following: a. 1994 Lake Mtka Ice Fishing Contest, 1/29/94 (canceled) b. Holiday/Johnson Crappie Tournament. 4/24/93 c. ~DA/Fina Fishing Tournament, 6/26/93 (canceled) VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Decibel Test Foster said the committee had the cooperation of the ~linnc- sota Pollution Control Agency, the DNR, and the Sheriff's Water Patrol in providing personnel to conduct the test on May 25. One marina operator, two Board members and one private party brought boats for the test. He said it was easy to determine which boats were loud and which ones were not. It was an enlightening expe- rience. A written report will be made. Owen asked what an individual should do when an obviously loud boat goes by. Deputy Ken Shilling said the best way is to notify the Water Patrol by telephoning 471-8528, 525-6210 or 911. The Water Patrol follows up on formal citizen complaints. It is best to have the registration number of the offending boat and a description of the operator. E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report Shilling reported the following since the last Board meet- lng: * Two BWls have been issued * The initial charter boat inspections have been completed. Follow ups will be done where needed. * There was one Personal Injury accident on Crystal Bay as a result of passengers in a smaller runabout being thrown out when hitting the wake from a large cruiser. Commenting on the accident on Crystal Bay, Bloom said the occupants who were injured were fortunate that there was a boat nearby to rescue them. The accident exemplifies the "wash and wake" problems of larger boats. He said as the density increases and boats increase in size there will be more of this type -f accident. Foster said this is worthy of discussion by the committce. ! ! 1, I i it I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, Iq93 F. Presentation of Marine Radar Gun to Water Patrol The execu! ire director reported two inarine r;tdar presented to the Water Patrol on 5/25. cost fundvd the Lake Fund. Captain Peterson accepte;l the behalf of the Water Patrol and expressed appreciation,. explained that the guns register speed down to l Inl, h useful in the quiet water areas. The other Radar for the Water Patrol by the L[1CD in the past continue to 3 · ENV I RONMENT A. Environment Committee, {?hair Hurr 1) Approval of Minutes tturr moved. Ret, se ,4,:co:~{I,~,,I. approve the minutes of 5/11/93 Environment Commi t tcc m,_.,_,t i~:: submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 2) tiurr submitted a concept for contractual s,:r,.'icc to assess the environmental protection objectives of thc, Plan for 'Lake Hinnetonka. Thc cxccut ire director said Dick Osgoo,l, Fc,,~sv-;~,.,m ~t ~;~t,_,- gies, formerly with the Freshwater Foundation, ha:q ob:-¢crxcd the Management Plan environmental protection objectivt~'~ ,:[~,_~1,1 better met if they can he broken down into more sp,eciffic' ties. The executive director said there is a need to contr,~ct with a professional in the area of environmental protection to looL at how the District may want to convert the objectives into thing more definitive. The Environment Committee rcco~men(ls the LMCD Board consider n plan to engage a qualifie,t c,,n:;,.~!t:~nt t,~ lead the agency stakeholders toward a common vision of ~vl~tt tt~cy want the lake to be. Funds are available in lq~3 ftys' thi,; of consultant service and funds are proposed to I~c b~td~eted for 1994. MOTION: Reese moved, Cochran seconded, to proceed ,vi~l~ the plan for contractual services to assess environmental prot~,ct ion goals of the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka as out lin,:d in the Environment Committee memorandum to the Board dated 5/2l/O3. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Strommen f,,r t'l~tir Penn The executive director reported a contract has bc,_,n into with Determan Tank and Sut~ply for fuel tank a(t~liti,~,~ to the four weed harvesters. It should be clone the week of ,lt[l,~' I ;~{. all estimated cost of $6,500, plus tax, compared to the $7,5O0 al lo- cated. This will bring the fuel capacity to appro,:im:~tcly one week's operating supply compared to the current day of day ;~ll{l a half. Nexv crew member applicants have been interviewed. tion will start the week of June 10. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26~ 1993 Nine access sites have been selected for herbicide treat- ment. There has not been an opportunity to examine them to date to determine the individual need. Gray's Bay is scheduled to be · treated the week of June 1. There will be clean up at the accesses to pick up the float- ing weeds. There is no information available on the outcome of State legislation on aquatic exotic funding and regulation. Field enclosures for the SONAR study to test dosage rates will be installed at St. Albans Bay this week. There will be five sets of three enclosures. Lake Zumbro and East Parker Lake will also be tested. The enclosures are 15' in diameter. The Task Force agrees Zebra Mussel is a threat to the I. ake. Because of the inability to identify and locate larvae on a boat, and the threat potential from a multi-state area, the control will have to be a multi-agency operation. The Task Force plans to take leadership in the Zebra Mussel spread prevention effort. Reese said there should be money expended on a projection of what the Lake would be like five years or so after a Zebra Mussel invasion. Markus asked if the LMCD can get some of the state boat license surcharge fee for that purpose. Thc executive director responded that a need statement would have to be pre- pared. So far the DNR has been supportive. The LMCD did receive $60,000 from the exotics funding for Milfoil control. Reese said the milfoil eating weevil had been found in the Lake. The executive director said there was no intentional introduction of the weevil. It is appearing in a natural circum- stance. That could be an asset toward long term Milfoil control. 4. LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Strommen for Chair Grathwol A. Report of 5/7/93 meeting 1) City of Minnetrista Car/Trailer Parking Agreement MOTION: Foster moved, Hurr seconded, to approve thc City of Minnetrista Car/Trailer Parking Agreement as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Lake Access Task Force 1) Report of 5/12/93 meeting. The executive director reported the major portion of the 5/12 meeting was spent on reviewing the subcommittee recom- mendations on potential access sites. Eleven potential sites were reduced to seven sites. The remaining sites will continue as potential sites until a need for new access siting on the l.ake has been determined. Some of the sites are for sale. Others are known to be available. The Task Force accepted the siting sub- committee report. 2) The Task Force recommended directing the LMCD staff, in cooperation with the DNR staff, to: I i 1, I ! i~ I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 a. Continue Pubt ic Access Car/'Frai let Parking negotiations with Hennepin County, Mound, Deephavcn, Wayzata and Spring Park. At the crappie tournament on 4/20 there were 80 car/trailers parked at the Hennepin County Public Works site. County offi- cials agreed to counting 70 spots minimum at that site. That plus the 19 at Spring Park and street parking would give the Spring Park access about 110 car/trailer parking places. The City of Spring Park is scheduled to review its car/trailer siting on June 7. Rascop said he was at thc Sprin~ Park access at 7 AM on fishing opening and there were 4 open car/trailer parking spaces. b. Explore car/trailer public access potent iai ;tmong c(~m- mercial marinas It will be a matter of determining what is available and the cost of leasing spaces for free public access. c. Prepare findings and recommendations on the 1'~02-03 I.akc Access Task Force study by Fall. 1993. The executive director said the Task Force inter,ds to have the findings and recommendations available to the District by Fall, 1993. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. The minutes of the 4/28/93 are not 3'et prepared. B. Report of 5/26/93 meeting: Carlson reported that he. along with Johnstone. Ilurr Owen, will constitute a sub-committee to ,neet with staff to discuss budgeting and organizational changes. The discussion will include information gained at the meeting with the mayors 5/18. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. The April Statement of Cash Transactions has been de- layed primarily due to computer program complexities ar)d ira;nih? of the new ea, ployee. B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment Carlson distributed the check register for May. Cl~eck .Yo. 9161 is to be voided. In the future there will be a memo indicating the purpose of the expenditure. The deposit check for the federal income tax is not shown in the amount of I~IOTION: Carlson moved, Owen seconded, to approve payment bills in the amount of $24,982.51, Check Nos. 9136 thr,.)u~h and payroll checks 1048 through 1058. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. 1994 Preliminary Draft Budget. including EW.~I operations. The 1993 EW~t budget was presented. The executive director reported the 1994 EWM budget is not detailed by line item. It ir-; a total based on the 1993 plan. There are some chang,_'~q in the LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 1993 budget. The executive director pointed out a change Insurance from $8,209 in 1992 to $1,540 in 1993. This results from a change to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust ° (LMCIT). Under Field Operations, the total for Equip,n~t Sup- plies. Maintenance, Fuel Tanks has been increased to $1~.500 from $11,000 to reflect the addition to the fuel tanks. That is an increase from $13,545 in 1992. The bottom line is a decrease of $142 in the 1993 EWM Control Program Budget. MOTION: Carlson moved, Reese seconded, to approve tile 1993 Eurasian Water Milfoil Control Program Proposed 1993 Budget as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The Board received the LMCD 1994 Preliminary Draft Budget. Carlson pointed out there are no funds being taken from the Reserve. There is $45,000 budgeted for ~anagement Plan studies. Hurr asked about the $100 actual expenditure for Ic~al notices in 1992 vs. the $2000 budgeted for 1994. Carlson ex- plained the $100 figure is an error caused by a mis-classifica- tion of accounts. MOTION: Hurr moved, Owen seconded, to approve tile (lraft 1994 LMCD budget for forwarding it to the cities for review and comment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Carlson said the city administrators will be invitc(1 to discuss the budget with the executive director. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. Staff Priorities The executive director reported that Thibault will be moving her activities outdoors now that the summer season is arriving. She will be working on the dock inspections and boat inventory. The executive director commended Thibault for her assuntption of many duties of the secretarial staff when it was short handed during the secretary-bookkeeper staff change. The executive director said Joanne Tyk is moving into her secretary-bookkeeper duties professionally. Appreciation was expressed to Carlson for the assistance he has given in putting the computerized bookkeeping system into operation. Jan Briner, Clerical Assistant, has continued to meet the demands of her position. The executive director is on jury duty but in contact with the office by phone and at each day's end. The executive director anticipates the Administrative Com- mittee will give the staff more challenges. B. Waiver of Immunity - Insurance LeFevere explained that the Minnesota Statutes protect the LMCD from tort liability in the amount of $200,000 to a $600,000 I I 1, I I 1~ I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 limit. The District has purchased $1.000,000 in coverage. The Board can waive its protection up to $I,000,000 if it wants to. It would be a public policy issue to do that. If someone is damaged by any action of the Board, that individual should get at" least as much recovery for that as the insurance coverage. In order to waive the protection above $600,000 to $1,000,000 there is an extra premium of $230. Carlson said the City of Minnetrista waives the protection. MOTION: Hurr moved, Carlson seconded, to waive the Statuto- ry limitation on tort liability and pay the additional premium of $230 to provide the $1,000,000 coverage. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Carlson observed that the differences between Board member Markus and Wayzata Yacht Club have created a situation which requires hearing both sides completely. He does not feel it is something that can be resolved at this meeting. This is thing that three or four Board members could sit down witl~ thc parties and discuss in an orderly manner. The issue carrie>; fair amount of emotion. Markus said he understands from Thibault that the unre- stricted watercraft that are at the WYC are not part of the WYC license. Thibault responded that because of the Code amendment which was being discussed, the unlicensed storage of unrestrict- ed watercraft on land was not being enforced. She asked the to remove the boats from the water and place them on land. They did that. Markus said he then contacted the City of Wayzata. lte said he was not abusive to the young people. He asked if they were renting space from the WYC. Markus was told they are exchanging work for the dockage. He did not block the WYC exit or entrance. He believes he has the right as a Board member to check on licen- see compliance. LeFevere said that when an application for a license is made there is an implied right for the LMCD to inspect and the licen- see consents to that. LeFevere said that when the Board was faced with determining whether members had a conflict of interest it was agreed to be prospective rather than retrospective and try to reach agreement on the concerns. There could be an investiga- tion of this matter to decide who was right or who was wrong in the past. On the other hand the Board could decide whether there should be guidelines that the Board wants to impose oi~ its own Board members in the future. LeFevere said that unless the Board wants to take some action against a member, it is just as produc- tive to look to the future and decide whether the Board wants to consider some guidelines for its own Board members rather than investigating. Blaser said the WYC never intended to deny anyone access. The information they have from more than five or six individuals is that Markus' confrontation might have gotten out of hand. As /7 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 everyone should know it has not beers easy for the WYt7 ;,nd the Markus' to live as close neighbors. The WYC would welcome a review by an impartial group. Cochran suggested that if the Board wants to hear both sides of the issue selected members of the Board, with no conflict of interest, should discuss the issues and come back to the Board with a recommendation. Slocum said they should address the broadest issues. Bloom said this is an unfortunate situation, lie agrees there is a need for guidelines for the future, lie does not believe the Board should determine right or wrong. It is not qualified to do so. There has to be a determination of what kind of standards should apply to Board member's actions. MOTION: Hurt moved. Cochran seconded, that a sma I I commi t- tee be appointed, similar to the one that worked on the conflict of interest matter, to develop guidelines for Board member tions and behavior. VOTE: motion carried, Markus abstaining. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 pxt. David Cochran. Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary ti i 1, I I 11, I I JUN 2 1 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures Committee Meeting: 7:30 AM., Saturday, June 12, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 136 Members Present: Thomas Reese, Acting Chair, Mound; David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Admin- istrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was call to order at 7:30 AM by Acting Chair Reese. 1. Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay. The committee received two options for the Findings and Order for the new multiple dock license and variance applications from the Gideons Point Homeowners Association (HOA), with memo- randum from the LMCD attorney as directed by the Board. The committee also received a letter from Thomas Wartman, Director, Gideons Point Homeowners Association, dated 6/2/93, outlining the HOA proposal, revised site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license for the entire development and the variance on the west. Reese explained that at the May Board meeting the attorney was asked to prepare a memorandum describing the advantages and disadvantages of granting the variance request of the HOA along with the defensibility of either action. LeFevere's 6/4/93 cover letter says that there is sufficient factual basis on the record of proceedings in this case to sup- port either decision. Therefore, it is within the discretion of the Board of Directors to determine whether the standards of the LMCD Code are met. By the very nature of variances, they tend to be subjective. The executive director reported that the HOA has presented a plan for the docks on Lots on 1 - 5 (West End) which follows the 80' setback from the west property line. The neighbors to the west, not in the development, have given their approval. As stated in the 6/2/93 letter, the HOA has agreed to reduce the total number of boat storage units in its license from 51 to 46. The executive director said that is more restrictive than the LMCD requirement of 1:50' The HOA has made specific decla- rations in its restrictions and covenants to cover the changes, including the new site plan for Outlot A. On the overhead projector, Thibault presented the 6/2/93 site plan showing water depths for the docks at the west end with lengths of 170' for the dock on Lot 1 running through the wet- lands, and the other three docks at 140', 128' and 128' to meet a water depth of 4.3' Thibault said the 6/3/93 site plan sub- mitted shows the locations of all of the docks on the development shoreline. Reese said it is his understanding these site plans are agreeable with the neighbors and there is no longer any conten- tion about the 112' dock on Outlot A. .1 / ? WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 Reese directed the discussion back to the docks at the west. Cochran noted that the property owners who originally were not in agreement, have come together and given consideration to the properties outside of the development. Cochran noted that the developer had agreed to use the entire site as single proper- ty for dockage purposes with an easement along the shoreline. That easement was not filed with the county. The purchasers of the lots in the development claim they were not aware of the restrictions to their docking rights. Cochran said he believes it would not be fair to the property owners to try to enforce the 1985 license agreement, or to have the applicants concentrate docks in one area in a marina like style in front of another property and on that basis he supports the variance application. MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of the revised site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license and variance applications from Gideons Point Home Owners Association, for 46 Boat Storage Units as outlined in Wartman's 6/2/93 letter.The hardship for the variance would be the shallow water. DISCUSSION: Foster said the Board members observed this property on the 6/11 tour of the Lake. Within 100' of the end of t'he docks on the west end the boat was churning up lake sedi- ments. He believes it is reasonable to allow property owners to reach 4' water depth~a hardship due to shallow water. He further noted that because this is an inside corner of the Lake, the docks will not interfere with navigation or the public use of the Lake. Johnstone asked if the majority of the affected property owners were in favor of the variances. The executive director responded there was not 100% agreement. Johnstone then asked the executive director if he would recommend approval. The executive director responded that he and Thibault have spent considerable time on this application. He observed that there are needs of this type in many locations around the Lake. Staff does not be- lieve the churning up of the Lake bottom by itself is sufficient reason for granting a variance. However, circumstances have changed since the 1985 plan approval. Low water years have caused additional cattail growth in the lagoon and shore area beyond. The current proposal is not detrimental to the Lake. Fishing boats can enter the lagoon on either side of the dock over the wetland. Recreational use of the Lake is still possi- ble. Thibault added that she believes there is definitely a hardship. Markus said the west end is not reasonable shoreline. It is a swamp. If the District continues to allow docks going out fur- ther and further there were will be requests for use of areas that should not be considered shoreline. Rascop said he believes there could be a better configura- tion. He believes the hardship is not caused by a natural phe- nomenon but by the original developer. I I 1, I i Ii I I WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 Slocum said he does not believe the people who bought Lots 1 through 12 knew that someday they could have a marina in front of their properties. If that information was available they proba- bly would have done something else. It is acknowledged that could be enforced. That would be grossly unfair. As far as the dock over the wetlands, the District has approved this type of arrangement in the past. VOTE: Motion carried, Markus and Rascop voting nay. Rascop noted the Board resolution of 5/26 denying the vari- ances on the west end. The LMCD attorney is to advise how to handle the introduction of the present recommendation. Justine Holl, 30 Pearl Street, asked that the stakes defin- ing the end of Pearl Street be certified. Reese advised Holl that is a land issue to be handled by the City of Tonka Bay. 2. Stocks Side Setback Variance Application, Mound, Halsteds Bay The committee received the report of the Public Hearing to consider a variance application from Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, held on 5/26/93, to reduce the side setback requirements from 10' to 5' to permit installation of a dock and a boat. The Findings of Fact accompanied the Public Hearing report. Thibault pointed out the check list for variance application review dated 6/3/93. Foster said it is his understanding that the property was platted with a 20' lake frontage with the intent to allow a dock. There has been a dock there for many years. To require the 10' setback would negate the use of a dock. The owners, Stocks, are asking to make the dock legal so they can proceed with the sale of the property. Robert Humphrey, the original owner of the lot, said there was never anything documented in regard to dock rights. When he purchased the lot he had a dock on the property with a 25' cabin cruiser. No one seemed to be aware of the LMCD regulations. This is a situation where there is a small lot with large lake frontages on either side. There is no problem with traffic, safety or movement of boats. Roma Stocks clarified the last two sentences in paragraph 4 of the Public Hearing report, indicating that she and Mr. Stocks were not aware, at that time, of any complaint filed with the LMCD about the dock installation. If they had known, it would have helped them resolve the problem when they first bought the property. Humphrey said the LMCD inspector thought there was a 5' setback requirement and inquiry with the City of Mound indicated it was a non-issue. Reese responded that the information was available if there had been a check with the LMCD staff. Rascop added that the City of Mound has adopted the LMCD ordinances by reference. Foster said he does not believe there is a boat traffic problem at this location. He noted there is documentation that the neighbors do not object. Thibault said the neighbors do not object as long as there is no encroachment on their Dock Use Areas. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 Reese said there are many 20' lots around the lake, number unknown. He asked how the District would say "no" to others if this is approved. Foster responded that if the neighbors say no, he would have a hard time voting for the variance. Reese re- sponded that the LMCD Code does not allow "making a deal" on the water. The executive director reviewed the variance check list. He observed that there has been a dock at this location for 20 years. This property is not an outlot, rather there is a home on it. Circumstances would be different if this were a 20' lot next to 40'-50' small lots. Cochran said he does not agree with the process of LMCD giv- ing approval if the neighbors are willing to agree in writing. Future neighbors may not agree. Markus believes approval of this variance application would be a precedent setting action. He suggested the Stocks might have legal recourse against the realtor who sold them the proper- ty with the assurance (represented by the real estate company) that they had dock rights. Foster said he believes there are other 20' lots on the Lake with docks on them. He understands that the neighbors do not want anything on their titles that would indicate approval of the 5' variance but do not object to the variance. He observed that the use is a for small dock for a small boat. The executive director said the LMCD staff is recommending imposing limitations, such as a maximum 3' wide by 40' long dock with no canopy, for a boat with no more than a 7' beam. Johnstone said he is persuaded by the fact that a dock has been there for many years. MOTION: Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend grant- ing the variance for 5' setbacks because this use is reasonable, a dock has existed at this site for 19 years, and would not encroach on the neighboring dock use areas. Limitations should be imposed restricting use to one 40' long "stick" dock, with no canopy slip structure, except the small canopy type used on boat lifts, for one restricted watercraft with a maximum 7' beam, to stay within a 10' dock use area. DISCUSSION: Rascop asked what is the hardship. It was agreed the small lake shore frontage with no dock use area is a hardship. Johnstone said determining hardship is a subjective thing, the essence of granting variances. Robert Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, owner of another 20' lot in the development, was advised he will have to make separate application for a variance. Reese advised him that approval of this variance would not guarantee his variance application would be approved. VOTE: Motion carried, Markus and Rascop voting nay. 3. Joseph Zwak, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay; boat storage at outlot. Joseph Zwak, 5165 Queens Circle, Greenwood, and three neigh- bors are the owners of Lot 7, Strickland Addition, a lakeshore lot adjacent to Zwak's off-lake residential property. Zwak and Z,-'Z''' 4 I I ~, I i it I I WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 his neighbors have 4 boats stored at the lot in violation of LMCD Code Sect. 2.02, Subd. 2, which states that unless Subd. 1 allows a greater number, two restricted watercraft may be stored at a lot without a residence that was platted before 8/30/78. It is this Code provision that allows the storage of only two restrict- ed watercraft at Lot 7, Strickland Addition. Zwak was advised, by certified mail on 6/4/93, that the District requires compliance with the LMCD ordinances, namely storage of no more than two restricted watercraft. An inspection was scheduled for the week of 6/14/93 to verify compliance. Non- compliance would force the District to direct the prosecuting attorney to commence criminal prosecution. Thibault stated the LMCD considers the lot an outlot adja- cent to a residential lot giving access to the Lake. Zwak con- tends Lot 7 is homesteaded by the four users and it has been used since 1979 for 3 or 4 boats. Thibault said LeFevere has advised that an outlot, regard- less of who owns it, does not have any different rights for 87' of shoreline than any other lot, that is storage of 2 boats. The Greenwood City Council adopted a Resolution allowing the four boats to remain for this year while the Council considers the situation. Zwak was present and stated that the reference to this as an outlot is wrong. Zwak views it as a residential lot. He said the LMCD regulations allow a residential lot 4 boats per lot. The owners contend this is a residential lot, homesteaded to their properties, and has been used for over 13 years. It is an unbuildable lot due to a wetland. Zwak says there is case law that upholds their contention. The owners are not asking any more than any other residential lot on the Lake is entitled to. Thibault responded that Lot 7 is not adjacent to the other owners' lots. Zwak said there is an Attorney General opinion in 1986 stating that a lot does not have to be physically adjacent to another lot for homesteading. Thibault responded that the LMCD Code says there has to be a residence on the lot and that all four boats must be owned by residents of the lot. Cochran said, as the Greenwood LMCD representative, he is familiar with the property. He can see no reason to change the LMCD definition of Lot 7 as an outlot. Zwak said, if the Board is not amenable, this will have to be decided in court. He does not like the criminal prosecution referred to in the LMCD letter to him. Cochran said he would be comfortable to go along with the City of Greenwood action to hold off enforcement for a year, with an attempt to solve the problem. Rascop said he believes the LMCD Code is clear. Foster said he would be willing to hold off on the prosecution for further clarification from the LMCD attorney. MOTION: Reese moved, Johnstone seconded, to hold in abey- ance the date of compliance and consult with the LMCD attorney to bring back a recommendation to the Board. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 4. Unrestricted Watercraft Storage concept and affected ordi- nances, discussion and consideration for amending ordinances. Thibault's memorandum regarding the concept of unrestricted watercraft storage was deferred for discussion upon Chair Bab- cock's return. 5. Multiple Dock License Inspections; staff report on procedure Thibault presented the check list used for multiple'dock inspections, dated 6/9/93. She asked the committee to comment and make changes or additions. The following were suggested: Item 1.c. Check for oversized watercraft in docks extending beyond the setback. Item 5. There may be additional signage items to be checked for compliance with licensing requirements and the Code. Johnstone suggested the checklist be provided to the licen- sees when it is completed. The District should know how many vehicle parking spaces are available at the licensee's location, the size of the parking spaces, if impervious or gravel, if spaces are striped and the ratio of parking spaces to boat slips. Foster suggested to add to the list the number of boat clubs involved in the slip use. Foster feels boat clubs add to the density on the Lake because of the heavier use of each boat. Reese would like to know how many unrestricted watercraft are at each location. Johnstone suggested checking the Management Plan for other current or potential elements to be considered 6. Annual June Inspection Tour There was no formal report on the 6/11/93 inspection tour. 7. Foxhill Homeowners Association Thibault reported she has contacted the Foxhill Homeowners Association regarding compliance with its license. The Associa- tion is licensed for 13 slips and have put in 7 or 8. One slip was allowed at 32' with a 40' canopy. The slip was put in at 40' She has not heard from the licensee to date. 8. Dock at Gluek's Point, Deephaven Cochran and Thibault have received complaints about a 240' dock at a residence on Gluek's Point. There will be further investigation to determine whether a variance is appropriate 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 AM. FOR THE COMMITTEE Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair I i 1, I i It I I JUN t 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee 'Meeting: 7 PM., Tuesday, June 15, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, LMCD Office Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Thomas Reese, Mound. Also present: Deputy Ken Shil- ling, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Eugene Strommen Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Foster at 7:05 PM 1. Intoxicating Liquor License Fees The executive director asked the committee to review the fees charged for liquor licenses in light of the 1992 amendment to MN Statutes (per Attorney LeFevere's 4/2/93 letter). The District issues one liquor license to the Queen of Excelsior. The fee charged is $3000. There have not been any reported incidents of liquor license violations for the current licensee. There was one violation of a beer and wine license for a different charter boat. Reese said he agrees the fee charged should reflect the cost of issuing and inspecting, and other directly related costs of enforcement and no more. He believes the $3000 fee is high. Deputy Shilling said the Water Patrol does not stop the charter boats unless a problem is reported or observed. MOTION: Reese moved, Foster seconded, to recommend to the Board that the liquor license fee be reduced to $1,500 in 1994, reflecting that figure in the 1994 budget. DISCUSSION: It was noted that the liquor licensee pays for his own license background investigation. VOTE: Motion carried, Grathwol abstaining because he has done work for the owner of the Queen of Excelsior. e Special Event~: A. New Special Events (Informational) 1) Operation Bass, Inc., Bass Tournament 9/19/93, Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata Renewal Special Events (Informational) 1) Excelsior Chamber of Commerce 4th of July Fireworks 2) Minnetonka Challenge 5-Mile Swim, 8/7/93 and 8/23/93 3) Viking Bassmasters, Bass Tournament, 10/3/93 The executive director reported that an inquiry has been made regarding a personal watercraft practice course on weekdays, under special conditions, on Wayzata Bay between Sunsets and the Depot. It would involve setting up buoys for a slalom course. Three or four personal watercraft would be on the course at one time. Foster said personal watercraft competition is a growing activity all over the country. He said the LMCD has a code provision prohibiting motorized racing on the Lake. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15, 1993 The executive director said there would be speed limit stipulations, not to exceed 40 mph. The practice information does not suggest the activity is intended to be carried on at speeds over the limit. There would be a limitation on the time each session, to meet the 30 minute ordinance requirement for operation in the same area. Reese said it would have to be limited to weekdays during daytime hours, and they would have to meet the 82 decibel re- quirement. The Water Patrol would be notified when the course was being set up. The Water Patrol has the right .to order practice to stop if there are any problems. The practice course will be limited to no less than 300' off shore. Under these and other conditions Reese could favor a conditional permit for one year. MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to instruct the staff to draw up stipulations for a permit based on the committee discussion and to present the application to the Board for dis- cussion. Comments from the Water Patrol are to be included. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. Decibel Test Report The committee received a report from Rachel Thibault, Admin- istrative Technician, regarding the May 25th Decibel Test. The report included comments from Brian Timerson, MN PCA Noise Spe- cialist. Reese said there is a problem in the manner of measuring decibel levels accurately as pointed out by Timerson in his report. Shilling said the PCA says the idle test is legal. He explained the procedure the Water Patrol uses in enforcement. The Water Patrol usually gives a warning to a suspected viola- tor. The violator has to make an appointment for another test at the Water Patrol headquarters. On complaint the Water Patrol will write out a warning without a test. Shilling reported that a boat has to be at least 84 deci- bels, 2 more than the ordinance requirement of 82 decibels, before a citation will be issued. Shilling said that is a PeA requirement based on the possibility of outside noise interfer- ence. Reese said a reduction of the noise requirement to 80 decibels would allow the 2 decibel leeway to bring the citation level to 82 decibels. Foster said he was uncomfortable that the test did not accomplish its intent. Reese said there were not enough boats. Foster expressed concern that boats are being sold that do not meet the noise standards. MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend the decibel level for boats be reduced to 80 decibels, the tests be made at idle and standardized. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. 1993 Charter Boat Roster The executive director suggested the members carry and use the list to assist them in identifying charter boats on the Lake. II I 1, I i iZ I i LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15, 1993 $. Sign up to Ride with Water Patrol Evening/Weekend Patrols This was a reminder to Board members to participate in the ride along program with Water Patrol deputies on evenings and weekends. 6. Water Patrol Report Deputy Shilling reported as follows: * Since the last meeting 5 BWI citations have been issued for a total of 8 for this season. The Water Patrol is observing the use of the designated driver as a reason for a reduction in BWls. * A saturation patrol was held on 5/29. The weather was inclement and there were no citations. * There were several thefts from boats on Harrisons Bay and Cooks Bay. Three juveniles have been arrested for the Cooks Bay thefts. The Water Patrol has suspects for the Harrison Bay thefts. The Orono police assisted in passing on information on the suspects. 7. Boat Wakes Reese introduced the subject of the control of boat wakes following a comment from a fisherman who no longer fishes on Lake Minnetonka because of the wakes. Foster said he has observed strict enforcement of wake violations on the intercoastal waterways in Florida. Reese said he does not believe the boaters who are sending out high wakes are aware of what they are doing. He suggested asking the Power Squadron to do a study on wakes and develop some guidelines on how wakes can be controlled. The executive direc- tor and Foster will contact the Power Squadron for its reaction. 8. Towing Reese said there is a problem for water skiers created by the roughening of the water by boats towing knee boards and tubes. Shilling agreed that there seems to be a lack of courtesy on the Lake. The committee will put this on a future agenda to discuss some of the suggestions. For discussion purposes it was suggest- ed a water skiing group could put out a manual on courtesy. The LMCD could consider a ban on towing of kneeboards and tubes, and/or set up restricted areas on the Lake for water skiing only. 9 Prosecution Decision Grathwol reported the District received an adverse decision on a BWI case. The Board will have to make a decision as to appealing the decision. He feels the District case is borderline LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15, 1993 for an appeal. Grathwol is concerned that the Sheriff's Depart- ment understand LMCD's position on whatever action it takes on a possible appeal. 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 PM FOR THE COMMITTEE Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair II I ~ I I JUN P. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Il Public Itearing: To consider a variance application from Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, Halsteds Bay, to reduce the side setback requirements from 10' to 5' to permit installation of a dock and a boat. Meeting: 7 PM, Wednesday, May 26, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: David Cochran, Chair. Greenwood; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Bert Foster, Deep- haven; JoEllen Hurt, Orono; George Owen, Victoria; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound. Robert Slocum, Woodland and Duane Markus, Wayzata arrived during the discussion. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administra- tive Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The Public Hearing was convened at 7 PM by Chair Cochran. The Board received a report from the staff with site draw- ings, a copy of The Bluffs plat, and a survey of the Stocks' lot. Thibault explained the Stocks' lot was platted on 12/3/74 with 20' of shoreline. The LMCD Code requires 10' side setbacks for a dock use area unless the owners have permission from the neighbors to adjust the side setbacks. There is a code provi- sion, Sect. 2.01, Subd. 2, b) 3), which to allows 5' side set- backs if the lot was platted before 2/2/70. That provision does not apply in this case because of the date of platting. Thibault said the previous owner, Robert Humphrey, had a dock with a boat at this site since 1975. In purchasing the property, the Stocks understood they could have a similar ar- rangement. When Stocks started to sell the property the neigh- bors informed them that they had limited dock rights and the), were not willing to give unconditional approval for a reduced side setback. The Stocks have applied for a variance to reduce the side setbacks to 5' so they can sell the property with dock rights. Roma Stocks presented additional historical facts. She submitted a copy of the advertisement which appeared when they purchased the property. After purchasing the property in 1987. an immediate neighbor, Mrs. Kathren Olson, 6385 Bayridge Road, advised them they could not have a dock. After checking with the previous owner, Humphrey, and gaining assurance from him that they could have a dock, they proceeded with the installation. A complaint was filed with the LMCD. Mr. Melony, the LMCD dock inspector at that time, met with Mr. Humphrey and Mrs. Olson. An arrangement between Humphrey and Olson was arrived at to allow Stocks to keep the dock. Owen asked if Mound has indicated any interest. Mrs. Stocks replied the City approved the lot with a 20' shoreline and city records do not indicate anything about dock rights. Hurr said Mound must have had in mind giving dockage access in allowing the 20' lakeshore on the Stocks' lot and 20' on another lot at the west end of the plat. PUBLIC HEARING~ Thomas Stocks May 26, 1993 Patrick Kelly, attorney representing ~4r. and Mrs. Stocks, stressed there has been a dock on the property for 19 years. There was a problem with the previous owner of the Stocks proper- ty because his dock encroached on the neighbors. Since the Stocks have owned the property there was no problem until the Stocks prepared to sell the property. The neighbors have been unwilling to give written authorization that can be communicated to a buyer saying there are dock rights. Kelly said one of the neighbors indicated they have no object ion to the dock but are not willing to put it in writing. Kelly pointed out that there are no deed restrictions in The Bluffs plat on this property. There is an out lot in the center of the development shoreline which is used as a beach for the non-riparian owners and has restrictions about using it for boat dockage. Thibault called attention to a letter dated 5/20/93 ad- dressed to the LMCD from Harry and Charlotte Reynolds, 6385 Bayridge Road, (formerly owned by Kathren Olson) indicating they have no objection to the Stocks having a dock on their property as long as they do not encroach upon the Reynolds' property or lake frontage rights. Kelly said there was a problem when the previous owner moved the dock over to avoid a storm sewer outlet. That created an encroachment on the Reynolds property. Robert Humphrey, the previous owner, said he purchased the property in 1975 with the express purpose of h'aving a dock for his 25' cabin cruiser. He had various other larger boats at the dock over the years and there were no objections from Mrs. Olson. He said the Reynolds, at one time, kept a fishing boat on his dock. There were no objections when he sold the property to the Stocks. Humphrey said it was his understanding, through conversa- tions with the developer, that the platting was arranged to give dock rights to the two identical lots on either end of the plat through the 20' lake access. He said another issue is the Code itself. He can understand restricting small lots lined up one by one. In this case there is no congest ion because there are larger lake frontages on either side of the two lots. Bob Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, owner of the 20' lot to the west, said he was sold the property in 1977 with the understand- ing that he had dockage rights. He does not feel he has a prob- lem at this time because he shares a dock with a neighbor. Responding to a question from Hurt, Floeder said he can foresee a problem if he were to sell his property. Slocum and Markus arrived. Rascop asked what the significance is of the 1970 platting date. LeFevere responded that is the effective date of the ordinance which limits dockage rights on lots this small. Bloom asked Kelly if, in his review of the public records, he found any mention of the intent to allow a dock on this property. Kelly said he did not find any discussion of the dockage in the public record. ! I 1, I ! It I I PUBLIC ItEARING - Stocks May 26, 1993 Roma Stocks said the tiennepin County Assessor reduced the value of the land from $73,000 to $50,000 for tax purposes when this problem was explained. Humphrey said he has talked to Dick Smith, the developer. Smith said platting documents do not address dock rights. Smith did not have to discuss dockage with the neighbors when building and a dock existed on the property when Humphrey purchased it. There is nothing in the covenants restricting dockage on the lot. A title search did not show anything about setbacks. Kelly asked for prompt action by the Board because of the Stocks' desire to sell. Roma Stocks asked if a variance is granted would there be any restriction on a canopy or a large boat. Cochran responded that the LMCD staff will prepare findings for consideration by the Water StructUres Committee at its meeting on June 12. Cochran asked for the neighbors' names. Roma Stocks re- sponded the Reynolds are on the east and Lauries on the west. She said the Lauries have no objection to the variance. Floeder gave the names of his adjacent property owners as Palen and Benz. Carlson wants the variance request reviewed against the LMCD criteria for granting variances. It was noted that if Floeder needs a variance there will have to be a separate variance application and public hearing on his request. Cochran declared the Public Hearing closed, at 7:38 PM with written testimony to be accepted up to ten days prior to the Water Structures Committee meeting of June 12. FINDINGS: Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, have submitted a variance application to reduce the side setback requirements from 10' to 5' to allow a dock and boat at their property on Halsteds Bay. The Stocks' lot, with 20.5' of lakeshore, was platted on 12/3/74. The Code provision allowing 5' setbacks applies to lots in existence on (platted by) 2/2/70. Therefore, the code provision does not apply to the Stocks' lot. Robert Humphrey, the previous owner of the lot, maintained a dock with a boat since he purchased the property in 1975. Stocks bought the property in 1987 with the seller advertis- ing that the site had dock rights. They purchased the dock with the property. A complaint from Kathren Olson, 6385 Bayridge Road, previ- ous neighbor to the east, was filed with the LbICD in 1987 shortly after Stocks purchased the property. The former LMCD Inspector, Charles ~elony, provided Olson and Humphrey with LMCD Code information regarding dock rights at the ~PUBLIC ItEARING - Stocks May 26, 1993 Stocks' property. Olson, while aware of the dock use area restrictions at the Stocks' property, did not press her objections further with the Stocks. o The Stocks became aware of the dock restrictions when they prepared to sell the property in 1992. There is no mention of dock rights in the platting docu- ments. There is another lot with 20' of lakeshore in the same development. The owner, Robert J. Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, currently does not have a conflict with the neighbors because he shares a dock with one of his adjoining neigh- bors. If a variance is required for that lot, it must be on a separate application. Harry and Charlotte Reynolds, 6385 Bayridge Road, adjoining neighbors to the east, submitted a letter indicating that they have no objection to a side setback variance being granted to the Stocks, as long as it does not encroach upon their property or lake frontage rights. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE MEETING 6/12/93 ffSfb'Cks~Side Setback Variance Application, Mound, Halsteds Bay The committee received the report of the Public Hearing to consider a variance application from Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, held on 5/26/93, to reduce the side setback requirements from 10' to 5' to permit installation of a dock and a boat. The Findings of Fact accompanied the' Public Hearing report. Thibault pointed out the check list for variance application review dated 6/3/93. Foster said it is his understanding that the property was platted with a 20' lake frontage with the intent to allow a dock. There has been a dock there for many years. To require the 10' setback would negate the use of a dock. The owners, Stocks, are · asking to make the dock legal so they can proceed with the sale 'of the property. Robert Humphrey, the original owner of the lot, said there was never anything documented in regard to dock rights. When he purchased the lot he had a dock on the property with a 25' cabin cruiser. No one seemed to be aware of the LMCD regulations. 'This is a situation where there is a small lot with large lake frontages on either side. There is no problem with traffic, safety or movement of boats. Roma Stocks clarified the last two sentences in paragraph 4 of the Public Hearing report, indicating that she and Mr. Stocks were not aware, at that time, of any complaint filed with the LMCD about the dock installation. If they had known, it would have helped them resolve the problem when they first bought the property. ! I 1, I i iL I I I~ Humphrey said the LMCD inspector thought there was a 5' setback requirement'and inquiry with the City of Mound indicated it was a non-issue. Reese responded that the information was available if there had been a check with the LMCD staff. Rascop added that the City of Mound has adopted the LMCD ordinances by reference. Foster said he does not believe there is a boat traffic problem at this location. He noted there is documentation that the neighbors do not object. Thibault said the ne'ighbors do not object as long as there is no encroachment on their Dock Use Areas. Reese said there are many 20' lots around the lake, number unknown, lie asked how the District would say "no" to others if this is approved. Foster responded that if the neighbors say no, he would have a hard time voting for the variance. Reese re- sponded that the LMCD Code does not allow "making a deal" on the water. The executive director reviewed the variance check list. He observed that there has been a dock at this location for 20 years. This property is not an outlot, rather there is a home on it. Circumstances would be different if this were a 20' lot next to 40'-50' small Iots. Cochran said he does not agree with the process of LMCD giv- ing approval if the neighbors are willing to agree in writing. Future neighbors may not agree. Markus bel. ieves approval of this variance application would be a precedent setting action. He suggested the Stocks might have legal recourse against the realtor who sold them the proper- ty with the assurance (represented by the real estate company) that they had dock rights. Foster said he believes there are other 20' lots on the Lake with docks on them. He understands that the neighbors do not want anything on their titles that would indicate approval of the 5' variance but do not object to the variance. He observed that the use is a for small dock for a small boat. The executive director said the LMCD staff is recommending imposing limitations, such as a maximum 3' wide by 40' long dock ~ith no canopy, for a boat with no more than a 7' beam. Johnstone said he is persuaded by the fact that a dock has been there for many years. MOTION: Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend grant- ing the variance for 5' setbacks because this use is reasonable, a dock has existed at this site for 19 years, and would not encroach on the neighboring dock use areas. Limitations should be imposed restricting use to one 40' long "stick" dock, with no canopy slip structure, except the small canopy type used on boat lifts, for one restricted watercraft with a maximum 7' beam, to stay within a 10' dock use area. DISCUSSION: Rascop asked what is the hardship. It was agreed the small lake shore frontage with no dock use area is a hardship. Johnstone said determining hardship is a subjective thing, the essence of granting variances. Robert Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, owner of another 20' lot in the development, was advised he will have to make separate application for a variance. Reese advised him that approval of this variance would not guarantee his variance application would be approved. VOTE: Motion. carr'ied, Markus and Rascop voting nay. I I 1, I I Ii I I LAKE MINNETONKA CONSEtRVATION DISTRICT CHECK LIST FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW Applicant's name and address:Thomas and Roma Stocks 3032 Highview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Property is located in the ci[y of: Mound Bay/oreo: Halsted's #1 Section 1.07, Subd. 1. General Statement. Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from the requirements of this Code or may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted by this Code, provided that such variance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes .of this ordinance, the public health, safety and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by the public or riparian owners. 1. 'Type of variance being applied for: side setback variance from 10' to 5'. 2 Practical difficulties and/or hardship requiring variance: Small lakeshore frontage · (20') 3.. Decision standards for variance os observed by staff: ',res A. The proposed use is reasonable. YesB. It would be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance. No C. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property. "' * D. The problem is not one created by applicant. " xo E. The variance, if granied, will ual alter the essential character of ihe Iocali[y. COMMENES: 3A. Proposed use of a 40' long dock for one small boat (not to exceed a 7' beam) with 5' setbacks is reasonable, without a full canopy, except for a modified canopy on a boat lift. 3B. It is unreasonable to conform to the ordinance in that with 10' setbacks, there is no dock use area. 3C. The small lot shoreline width is not unique to this property. There are many similarly-sized lots around the lake, including another 20' lot in the same development. 3D. 3E. The problem was not created by the applicant, in fact, the applicants purchased the property with the understanding that they had dock rights. The developer subdivided the lot in 1974 after the LMCD ordinance for Dock Use Areas (DUA) was adopted, apparently unaware of the DUA restriction. The City of Mound approved the development without bringing the LMCD DUA restriction to the developer's attention. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character, as there has been a dock at this location for 19 years. Date: Stocks Side Setback Variance, Application Review, Page 2 options as recommended by staff: Deny the variance because the ordinance creating dock use areas was, in part, designed to limit docks on small lots. The hardship is that the lot was platted with only 20' of shoreline after the ordinance for 10' setbacks was adopted, which makes it subject to the ordinance's limitations. Grant the variance for 5' side setbacks because this use is reasonable, a dock has existed at this site for 19 years, and would not encroach on the neighboring dock use areas. Limitations could be imposed restricting use to one 40' long "stick" dock, with no canopy slip structure (except the small canopy type used on boat lifts), for one restricted watercraft with maximum 7' beam, to stay within a 10' dock use area. id >- SPA~ m Z I I l, I i It I I STOCKS PROPERTY SURVEY ~-~ AL%TIEAD - CREST MAY 41993 ", L-.M.C.O. Lo~ 7, B~_°c~ 3 -. _: MEA~iDE~ COO-.NEI~ We ;,o,,.I)~ ce~ify ~ha~ Ibis is n Irue aqd correc~ reoresemafion ol a survey of ~h~ bnundanes of Ihe land described and n~ 'h~. Iocnhon ol ~11 buildings ~hnreon. ~na all visible encroachments, if ~ny. from or on ~a,J InnO. lhal lhis su~ey was or¢~pared by me or under my direc~ ~upe~is~p, and Ihnl Iarn a~uly Heg,s~ered Land Surveyor under_l~e I~ws mi M,"n~S, hi As surveyed by me this ._ ~' day of ~ECE~ ..... Ig ~ .: C~'~:..~'" "-~;.. 47q(B- 5 4G?. ................ :! .P