Loading...
1993-07-27I I CITY OF MOUND ~H._~6~ION STATEMENT. The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUF~DAY, JULY 27, 1993 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. e Se Se APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 13, 1993, REGULAR MEETING AND THE JULY 20, 1993, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. PG. 2480-2490 BID AWARD: GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER & SEWER REVENUE BONDS - SERIES 1993B. PG. 2491-2504 BID AWARD: GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS - SERIES 1993 C. PG. 2505-2520 ~ASE NO. 93-023: APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BALBOA ADDITION, DAKOTA RAIL, INC. NORTH OF 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. PG. 2521-2557 PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE. PG. 2558-2587 ~ASE ~93-012: GARY & KATHLEEN SPAULDING, 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-24 21 0069. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. PG. 2588-2623 CASE ~95-016: RICHARD & DARLENE SOLLIE, 4936 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOT 8, BLOCK 23, SHADYWOOD POINT PID #13-117-24 11 0083· ' REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. PG. 2624-2645 2478 0 10. 11. 12. 13. GJ ~ JOSEPH & KIMBERLY RASMUSSEN, 5725 SUNSET ROAD, PART OF LOT 68, MOUND ADDITION, PID #14-117-24 41 0038. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. PG. 2646-2654 ~ ROBERT & JUDITH HUTCHINS, 3054 BRIGHTON COMMONS, N 1/2 OF LOT 22 AND 23, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, AND TRACT D, RLS 1149, PID #24-117-24 43 0092. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENs PRESENT. PG. 2655-2672 PAYMENT OF BILLS. INFORMATION MISCELLANEous Financial Report for June 1993 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Invitation from LMCD to attend annual public officials lake tour & luncheon to be held Saturday, August 7, 1993, with boarding at Lafayette Club at 11:00 A.M. Please let Fran know by Friday, July 30 1993, if you want to attend. , LMCD MAILINGS. PG. 2673-2680 PG. 2681-2682 PG. 2683 Letter dated July 17, 1993 PG. 2684 rental property in Lakewin~sfr°m an OWner of Rental Housing Ordinance. re: Proposed PG. 2685-2686 Invitation from Commissioner Emily Ann Staples to attend a summer barbecue at her home. There are three dates available. Please let Fran know if you wish to attend and on what date. PG. 2687 News Release from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District re: lakeshor contractors re~=~-~- e property as it relates to due to the ~A~xng eroded beaches and banks this year. recordbreaking rainfall experienced Planning Commission Minutes of PG. 2688-2691 July 12, 1993. PG. 2692-2707 2479 Il 1, !, !, it i Mound City Council July 13, 1993 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 13, 1993 The city Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 13, 1993, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Ken Smith was absent and excused. Councilmember Smith arrived at 8:35. P.M. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Joanne Matzen, Pam Koring, Justine Guyot-Goode, Duane Norberg, Joyce & Marvin Nelson, Duane Leisinger and Mark Jorland. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES 1.1 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve the Minutes of the June 2Z, 1993, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PRESENTATION OF BRUCE MILLER CANVASBACK PRINT BY THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS Mark Jorland and Duane Leisinger, representing the Northwest Tonka Lions presented a print of Bruce Miller's Canvassbacks, the 1993 Duck Stamp Winner, to the City Council and the citizens of Mound. The Council thanked the Lions for their participation and the gift. 1.2 REQUEST TO REMOVE NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD, FROM THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE BLVD. w~ST APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET, MOUND EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH The city Manager introduced Mr. Duane Norberg, Trustee, for the Mound Evangelical Free Church. He stated that they need the extra parking mostly on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. He has contacted the Police Chief and he has no problem with removing the no parking on the South side of Alder Road. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-89 RESOLUTION TO REMOVE THE NO PARKING RESTRICTION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD FROM THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE BLVD. WEST APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council July 13, 1993 1.3 pUBLIC HEARING= gASE NO. 93-023: PRELIMINARY PLAT F O R BALBOA ADDITION, DAKOTA RAIL, INC. NORTH OF EXISTIN~ BanBO~  UILDIN~ EAST OF FAIR¥~WLANEANDSOUTH OF LYNWOOD BLED. PI~ 13-117-24 34 0068 & 0077 AND 13-117-24 43 0144 The City Planner explained the case. The staff recommendation was approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. 2. Newly created Parcels i and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. 3. The Owner-Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. He stated that the Council can approve the preliminary plat with these conditions and have the Park Dedication Fee clarified before the final plat is approved. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Joanne Matzen, Attorney representing Welsh Companies, stated they agree with the conditions except for the park dedication fee requirement. She stated that this is not a typical platting. There will not be further development and it does not cause additional burdens on the community. She requested that the Council delete the Park Dedication requirement in this platting. The City Attorney stated that Park Dedication fees are required of every new plat. He stated that he has discussed this with Ms. Matzen and because they are paying an inflated amount for the property the park dedication fee could be less than $22,000.00. The City Attorney suggested that the Council can approve the preliminary plat this evening and he and the Staff will continue to negotiate on the park dedication fee before final plat approval on August 10. Ms. Matzen stated that timing is very important because the closing on the property is set for August 16 and the property is in receivership and any extra costs need to be approved by the court prior to closing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council indicated they would like the City Attorney to continue to negotiate with Ms. Matzen and Mr. Hart about the Park Dedication Fee and bring it to their Committee of the Whole Meeting next Tuesday for discussion. This could then be acted upon on the next ! I ~, ! !, tt i Mound city Council July 13, 1993 city Council Meeting, July 27. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-90 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "BALBOA ADDITION" INVOLVING LANDS OWNED BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. LOCATED NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE Councilmember Jensen asked that #la. in the proposed resolution be changed to read as follows: "Park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances." The Council agreed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 CASE NO. 93-028: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR A DECK, PAMELA KORINGt 1701 AVOCET LANE, LOTS it 2, 3 BLOCK 8, DREAMWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 21 0021 The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Ms. Koring was present and agreed with the proposed resolution. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-91 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 1701 AVOCET LANE, PART OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 8, DREAMWOOD, PID %13-117-24 21 0021, P & Z CASE #93-028 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 CASE NO. 93-029: REQUEST FOR FENCE VARIANCE, DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS i & 32, S & C RAVENSWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 41 0035 The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval on a 7-1 vote. present and agreed with the proposed resolution. The Planning Ms. Sween was Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-92 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS i AND 32, SKARP LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID %13-117-24 41 0035, P & Z CASE %93-029 Mound City Council July 13, 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE NO. 93-035 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR A GAI~GE, ~VIN NELSON, 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, 8HADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-23 32 0012 The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-93 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINTt PID %18-117-23 32 0012, P & Z CASE %93-035 Councilmember Jensen asked that the following be added to the proposed resolution: "7. Removal of existing shed." The Council agreed and so did the applicant. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.7 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTaWDINC BONDS OF THE $3,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 ISSUE The City Manager advised that there is currently sufficient money in the General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund of 1979 to pay the balance due on these bonds. Ahrens moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-94 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $3,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 ISSUE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $300,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 ISSUE The City Manager advised that there is currently sufficient money in the General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund of 1982 to pay the 11 1, ! !, I~ i Mound City Council July 13, 1993 balance due on these bonds. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~93-95 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $300,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 ISSUE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED "BALBOA ADDITION" BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC., INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE, AUGUST 10, 1993, 7:30 PM MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to set August 10, 1993, for a public hearing to consider a final plat request for the proposed ,,Balboa Addition" by Dakota Rail, Inc., involving lands north of the Balboa Building at 5300 Shoreline Drive. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PROGRAM REVIEW/ANALYSIS TO LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CITIES The Mayor explained that this is a way for the lake communities to study ways to cooperatively deliver services. Councilmember Jensen stated this agreement will allow the Met Council staff to gather data and crunch numbers. The Council will be updated as the study continues. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-96 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW/ANALYSIS TO LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CITIES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT AND TEMPORARY ON-SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMIT FOR INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a Public Dance Permit and a Temporary On-Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor Permit for the Incredible festival, Our Lady of the Lake Church. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council July 13, 1993 1.12 .~992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS - REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT THE AMOUNT OF $3,861.51 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to approve Payment Request #5 from Grldor Construction, Inc., for the 1992 Lift Station Improvement Project in the amount of $3,861.51. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 PAYMENT OF BILL~ MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $329,202.59, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR JUNE 1993. Be LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR JUNE, 1993. LMCD MAILINGS. D. LETTER FROM TRIAX CABLEVISION RE: JUNE SUBSCRIBER STATEMENTS. Ee F® He Je LETTER FROM ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) RE: SUMMER OUTREACH BREAKFAST SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1993, AT 7:30 AM, MINNETONKA RADISSON HOTEL, (RIDGEDALE). PLEASE LET ME KNOW ASAP IF YOU WISH TO ATTEND. LETTER FROM LOCAL RESIDENT RE: MOUND CITY DAYS. PRELIMINARY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHANGES AS OF 4-1-92, AS PREPARED BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. LMCD ADOPTED BUDGET FOR 1994. THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR: MEETING DATE NO AUGUST MEETING SEPTEMBER 7 OCTOBER 5 NOVEMBER 2 DECEMBER 7 MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL LIZ ANDREA PHYLLIS KEN REMINDER: C.O.W., TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1993, 7:30 PM. Mound City Council K. 1.Z July 13, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 6-28-93. RECONSIDER REQUEST TO REMOVE NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD, FROM THE INTERSECTION OF COMMEROm BLVD. WEST APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET, MOUND EVANGELICAL FRE~ ~HURCH The Building official explained that he has spoken with the Fire Marshal and he advises that a certain number of feet on the South side of Alder Road needs to remain no parking because the Fire Department would need to hook into the fire system on that side of the Pond Arena if there were a fire. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to reconsider Item %1.2, Resolution %93-89, because new information has been received. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council discussed the situation and Duane Norberg agreed that an area to accomodate the Fire Department equipment should remain. The Building official will contact the Fire Department and find out how many feet from the corner of Commerce Blvd. and Alder Road that will be required to stay no parking. Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-89 RESOLUTION TO REMOVE THE NO PARKING RESTRICTION ON A CERTAIN SECTION OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Smith arrived at 8:35 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION The City Attorney asked that he be allowed to present the Summons and Complaint to the Council and visit with them to get direction in Executive Session. He further related that the allegations made in the complaint, essentially relate to a sign which is in front of the House of Moy and it is the contention of the plaintiff that the City, which has not taken action to get rid of the sign at this point, is violating their freedom of speech and First Amendment rights. The Attorney stated that it is unfortunate that the materials that appeared both in the newspaper and on TV tonight emphasize the crosswalk when the litigation basically relates to the two signs that are in front of the House of Moy. Mr. Pearson stated that he has spoken to Mr. Tanick, the attorney for the House of Moy, and with direction from the Council, Mr. Pearson is hopeful that they can work out a relatively quick settlement as it relates to this matter. Mound City Council July 13, 1993 The City Attorney also stated he needs to speak to the Council about another litigation which relates to the Bluebird Lane situation. The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:45 P.M. The Council resumed after Executive session at 9:25 P.M. The City Attorney stated he has reported to the Council of the two lawsuits. The first relates to the lawsuit that was served today by the House of Moy vs. City of Mound and after discussion the following action will be taken. MOTION made by Ahrens mo~ed, seconded by Jensen directing the City Attorney to negotiate with the plaintiff and · their attorney and indicating that the. Cl~y of Mound ha? no intention of depriving anyone of their First Amendment rights and that we shall try to resolve this lawsuit in a e~uitable fashion as quickly as posslble with a minimum amount of expense to both the Plaintiff and the City. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney reported that the second item that was discussed related to a threatened lawsuit by 5 residents on Bluebird Lane against the City of Mound. He reported that Mr. Shukle, and Mr. Fackler and Mr. Pearson have been working on this for some extended period of time. They have visited the site and have reported back to the Council with various findings. The Plaintiffs have demanded 7 different remedies, of those we have previously indicated that we don't think 5 of them are negotiable. There were 2 items that were left open, one related to marking the Commons and the other related to the number of dock sites. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen directing the City Attorney to respond to M~..Maynard ind%cating that the City will put forward some minimal suggestions relating to the demands, but in essence it is the consensus of the Council that the dock sites are very important to the people in the subdivision and there is not desire to make any change. Counciimember Ahrens stated that she has always said that there is room for some more movement so she cannot vote for the motion as it was made. The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. carried. Motion COUNCIL SALARIES The Mayor stated that he asked the City Manager to review what Council salaries have been over the years. He reported that in 1966 the Mayor got $30.00/month and the Council got $10.00/month; ]1 1, i !, I~ ii Mound City Council July 13, 1993 in 1969 the Mayor got $75,00/month and the Council got $50.00/month; and in 1978 the Mayor got $150.00/month and the Council $100.00/month. The 1978 salary is still in place. This was food for thought. No action was taken. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk N~NUTES - CONNITTEE OF THE b'~IOLE - ~ULY ~0, ~993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Jensen, Jessen, Smith. Absent and excused: Ahrens. Also present: Mark Koegler City Planner and Ed Shukle, City Manager. ' Mark Koegler, City Planner, entertained questions on the final draft of the Nature Conservation Area (NCA) study that was done by him in cooperation with the Parks and Open Space Commission. Some minor changes were suggested and the City Council consensus was to bring the final draft for discussion and approval to the August 10, 1993 regular meeting. It was also noted that the Parks and Open Space Commission should be invited to attend that meeting and make any comments with regard to the draft prior to adoption. The Park dedication issue on the Balboa property was discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle presented a letter dated July 20, 1993 from Keith Rennerfeldt, Hennepin County Assessor, to Curt Pearson, City Attorney, dealing with this issue. He suggested that based on his analysis that the estimated market value on this area is approximately $70,000. Using the Park Dedication Fee ordinance and applying the 10% factor, the Park Dedication Fee would become $7,000. The City Council consensus was to go forward with this proposal at the August 10th final plat hearing. City Manager Ed Shukle polled the Council as to whether or not they were interested in having a fall cleanup. The answer was "yes". They suggested charging at least 50 cents more per tire. There was no interest in an admittance charge. Also suggested was perhaps using the Welsh property to the east to assist in making easier turn arounds should the clean up day be busy. The suggested date for the fall cleanup is Saturday, October 16, 1993. Public Works outdoor storage was briefly discussed. No action was taken on this matter. Council member Jensen presented some information relating to goal setting. The City Council is to review this and make any comments or suggestions at the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Mayor Johnson and Ed Shukle, City Manager, updated the Council on the results of the Duck Stamp event. They indicated that it was a very positive event for the community. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that merchandise is still remaining to sell to offset expenses incurred by the City for this project. He indicated that he has made arrangements with the Incredible Festival and Crazy Daze to sell the t-shirts, sweatshirts and prints that are left over. He asked the Council to work at the Incredible Festival this weekend if they were available. Ed Shukle, City Manager, indicated that the Rental Housing Ordinance will be placed on the City Council agenda for July 27th. [11 1, ! !, u AWARD: SALE: 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' Sutte 2507 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1800 (612) 333-9177 Fax: (612) 349-5230 16655 West Bluemound Road Suite 290 Brookfidd, WI 53005-5935 (414) 782-8222 Fax: (414) 782-2904 6800 Coltege Boulevard Suite 600 Overland Park, KS 66211-1533 (913) 345-8062 Fax: (913) 345-1770 1800K Street NW Suite 831 $1,350,0OO Washington, DC 20006-2200 (202) 466-3344 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Fax: (202) 223-1362 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1993B FBS INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. And Associates July 27, 1993 Moody's Rating: A Standard & Poor's Rating: A Interest Net Interest True Interest Bldde.._._._~r Rate.~s cBS INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. ,~loore, Juran and Company, Incorporated Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. CRONIN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED American National Bank Saint Paul 3.00% 1995 3.30% 1996 3.60% 1997- 3.90% 1998 4.10% 1999 4.25% 2000 4.40% 2001 4.60% 2002 4.80% 2003 5.00% 2004 5.10% 2005 5.20% 2006 5.25% 2007 5.30% 2008 5.40% 2009 3.15% 1995 3.40% 1996 3.70% 1997 4.00% 1998 4.15% 1999 4.30% 2000 4.50% 2001 4.70% 2002 4.85% 2003 5.00% 2004 5.10% 2005 5.20% 2006 5.25% 2007 5.30% 2008 5.40% 2009 Price__ Cost $1,335,150.00 Rate._._ $651,883.75 5.0499% $1,332,585.00 $657,618.75 5.1034% (Continued) Bidder Interest Rate8 MILLER, JOHNSON & KUEHN, INC. DAIN BOSWORTH INCORPORATED DOUGHERTY, DAWKINS, STRAND & BIGELOW, INCORPORATED Craig-Hallum, Incorporated 3.10% 1995 3.30% 1996 3.70% 1997 3.90% 1998 4.10% 1999 4.30% 2000 4.45% 2001 4.60% 2002 4.75% 2003 4.90% 2004 5.10% 2005 5.20% 2OO6 5.30% 2007 5.40% 2008-2009 4.20% 1995 4.35% 1996-1999 4.375% 2000 4.50% 2001 4.70% 2002 4.95% 2003 5.00% 2004 5.05% 2005 5.10% 2006 5.15% 2007 5.20% 2008 5.25% 2009 DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INCORPORATED 3.30% 1995' PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED 3.60% 1996 3.80% 1997 4.00% 1998 4.15% 1999 4.30% 2000 4.45% 2001 4.60% 2002 4.80% 2003 4.95% 20O4 5.10% 2005 5.20% 2006 5.30% 2007 5.40% 2008 5.50% 2009 PIPER JAFFRAY INC. 3.20% 1995 3.50% 1996 3.80% 1997 4.00% 1998 4.20% 1999 4.35% 2000 4.50% 2001 4.70% 2002 4.90% 2003 5.00% 2004 5.10% 2005 5.25% 2006 __Price Net Intereet True Interest --Cost Rate $1,331,100.00 $657,825.00 5.1055' $1,331,105.85 $658,109.15 5.1245% $1,331,235.00 $662,036.25 5.1388% $1,333,800.00 $664,568.75 5.1519% (Continued) Interest Net lnterest True Interest Bidder Rate~_.. 5.35% 2007 5.45% 2008 5.50% 2009 NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. 3.25% 1995 3.45% 1996 3.80% 1997 4.O5% 1998 4.20% 1999 4.40% 2000 4.50% 2001 4.70% 2002 4.90% 2003 5.00% 2004 5.10% 2005 5.20% 2006 5.30% 2007 5.40% 2008 5.50% 2009 JOHN G. KINNARD & COMPANY INCORPORATED NATIONAL CITY BANK 3.10% 1995 3.50% 1996 3.80% 1997 4.00% 1998 4.2O% 1999 4.35% 2000 4.50% 2001 4.70% 2002 4.90% 2003 5.00% 2004 5.15% 2005 5.30% 2006 5.40% 2007 5.45% 2008 5.50% 2009 Price_ Cost Rate $1,331,235.00 $665,167.50 5.1644% $1,331,370.00 $668,985.00 5.1917% These Bonds are being reoffered at par. BBI: 5.61 Average Maturity: 9.54 Years 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 (913) 345-8062 Fax: (913) 345-1770 1800K Street NW Suite 831 Washington, DC 20006-2200 (202) 466-3344 $540,000* Fax: (202) 223-1362 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBUGATION BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1993C AWARD: FBS INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. And Associates SALE: July 27, 1993 Moody's Rating: A Standard & Poor's Rating: A Interest Net Interest True Interest 31dder Rates Price Cost Rate FBS INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. 3.30% 1996 $535,680.00 $150,260.00 4.4616% Moore, Juran and Company, Incorporated 3.60% 1997 Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. 3.90% 1998 4.10% 1999 4.25% 2000 4.40% 2001 4.60% 2002 4.80% 2003 MILLER, JOHNSON & KUEHN, INC. PARK INVESTMENT CORPORATION 3.30% 1996 3.70% 1997 3.9O% 1998 4.10% 1999 4.30% 2000 4.45% 2001 4.60% 2002 4.75% 2003 4.00% 4.10% 4.25% 4.40% 4.50% 4.75% 1996-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2O03 $535,140.00 $151,1 20.00 4.4910% $535,140.00 $151,942.50 4.5209% (Continued) Intereet Net Interest True Interest Bidder Rat_e_- Pr~-_---_- Coet Rate CRONIN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED 3.40% 1996 $535,140.00 $153,378.75 4.5572' American National Bank Saint Paul 3.70% 1997 4.00% 1998 4.15% 1999 4.30% 20O0 4.50% 2001 4.70% 2002 4.85% 2003 DAIN BOSWORTH INCORPORATED DOUGHERTY, DAWKINS, STRAND & BIGELOW, INCORPORATED Craig-Hallum, Incorporated 3.40% 1996 3.70% 1997 3.90% 1998 4.20% 1999 4.35% 2O00 4.50% 2001 4.70% 2002 4.95% 20O3 $535,140.00 $154,275.00 4.5825% These Bonds are being reoffered at par. Subsequent to bid opening, the issue size was not changed. BBI: 5.61 Average Maturity: 6.23 Years I I ~, ! i, U I I Minutes - Committec of thc ~o1¢ - Jul~ 20, 1~93 - P~¢ 2 Other business discussed was the LMCD and the issue of too man~:~ variances. The City Manager is to consult with the city planne~ and city attorney as well as the building official on this matter. The next meeting of the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for Tuesday, August 17, 1993, at 7:30 PM, at Mound City Hall. Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Smith and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.  pec. t fu~tted, City Manager ES:is 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, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 27th day of July, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The Mayor announced that the next order of business would be the consideration of bids for the purchase of $1,350,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B. The Finance Director then presented the bids which had been delivered to him prior to the time specified in the terms of proposal and said bids had been opened, examined and found to be as follows: I I City of Mound, Minnesota G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C IFull Crossover Advance Refunding of G.O. Building Bonds of 1988 Even Annual Debt Service Structure Issuer Funds Required: $0.00 Date of Bonds: Delivery Date: Refunded Call Date: 1st Callable Date: 08/01/93 08/30/93 02/01/95 O2/O 1/96 Comparison: Refunded Refunding Principal: 510,000 540,000 Bond Years: 3,240.00 3,365.00 Avg. Maturity: 6.353 6.231 NIC: 6.8220/0 4.465% Prepared: 07/27/93 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated ! ! C{ty of Mound, Minnesota I. Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C Annual Savings Analysis Schedule E Non-Refunded Refunding Date Debt Service Debt Service (1) (2) (3) 64,812.50 82,015.00 (3,274 18) 82,490 00 80,510 00 78,350 00 81,010 00 83,345 00 80,370 00 82,290 00 83,840 00 02/01/94 08/01/94 02/01/95 08/01/95 02/01/96 08/01/96 02/01/97 08/01/97 02/01/98 08/01/98 02/01/99 08/01/99 02/01/2000 08/01/2000 02/01/2001 08/01/2001 02/01/2002 0'~'01/2002 C 01/2003 Total New Debt Service (4) 64,812.50 78,740 82 82,490 00 80,510 00 78,350 00 81,010 00 83,345 00 80,370 00 82,290 00 83,840 00 Prepared: 07/27/93 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Existing Debt Service (5) 64 , 812 . 50 82, 015.00 84,315.00 86,215 00 82,695 00 84 , 120 00 85,100 00 85, 680 00 85,850 00 85, 600 00 Savings or (Loss) (6) 3,274.18 1,825.00 5,705 00 4,345 00 3,110 00 1,755 00 5,310 00 3,560 00 1,760 00 Tot~ls 146,827.50 Present Value Rate...: Present Value Savings: As % of P.V. Ref. D/S: 648,930.82 4.31320% 25,094.77 4.72% 795,758.32 826,402.50 Excess Proceeds ...... : Funds to Sinking Fund: Total Net Savings .... : 30,644.18 30,644.18 After due consideration of said bids, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $1,350,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1993B; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT. BE IT RE$OLVED, By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The bid of to purchase $1,350,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B of the City described in the terms of proposal is hereby found and determined to be the highest and best bid received and shall be and is hereby accepted, such bid being to purchase such bonds at a price of $_ plus accrued interest to date of delivery, such bonds to bear interest as follows: The sum of $_ ~jO ~O , being the amount bid in excess of $1,331,160, shall be credited the bond sinking fund hereinafter created. The City Clerk is directed to retain the good faith check of the successful bidder pending completion of the sale and delivery of the bonds. The City Clerk is directed to return the checks of the unsuccessful bidders forthwith. 2. The City of Mound shall forthwith issue and sell its General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B (the "Bonds") in the principal amount of $1,350,000, dated August 1, 1993. The printed, fully registered Bonds shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or higher multiples thereof for any single maturity, bearing interest as above set forth, all interest payable August 1, 1994, and semiannually thereafter on February 1 and August 1 in each year, and which bonds mature serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT 1995 $35,000 2003 $ 95,000 1996 70,000 2004 100,000 1997 70,000 2005 100,000 1998 75,000 2006 110,000 1999 80,000 2007 115,000 2000 80,000 2008 120,000 2001 85,000 2009 2002 90,000 125,000 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. 3. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable at and the City of Mound shall pay the reasonable charges of said bank for its services as paying agent. 4. The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form: (Face of the Bonds) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF NINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY CITY OF MOUND GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND, SERIES 1993B Rate Maturity Date of Original Issue August 1, 1993 CUSIP $ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, (the City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received, hereby promises to pay to or registered assigns, the principal sum of on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing August 1, 1994, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the 15thday (whether or not a day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon business presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of the and, upon Bond Registrar hereinafter designated, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft of the in , Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Transfer Agent and Paying Agent (the Bond--Registrar), or its successor designated under the Resolution described herein. Additional provisions of this Bond are contained on the reverse hereof and such provisions shall for all purposes have the same effect as though fully set forth hereon. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WiTNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: (Facsimile Signature) City Manager (Facsimile Signature) Mayor CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent By_ Authorized Representative (Reverse of the Bonds) This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $1,350,000 (the Bonds), all of like date and tenor except as to serial number, denomination, interest rate, maturity date, and redemption privileges, issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on July 27, 1993, (the Resolution), to finance the construction of improvements to the water and sanitary sewer systems of the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444, and is issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota thereunto enabling, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. This Bond is payable primarily from net revenues of the water and sanitary sewer systems of the City which are credited to the General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 1993B Fund (the Bond Fund) of the City, but the City is required by law to pay maturing principal hereof and interest hereon from any available funds of the City if moneys on hand in the Bond Fund are insufficient therefor. The Bonds are issuable only as fully registered bonds, in denominations of $5,000 or any multiple thereof, of single maturities. 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. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or his attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange, the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or !1 1, i !, governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City according to its terms have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form as so required; that the City has pledged water and sanitary sewer system revenues, and ad valorem taxes, collectible in the years and amounts required to produce sums not less than five percent in excess of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as such principal and interest respectively become due, and has appropriated the same to the Bond Fund in the manner specified in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61; that, in the event of any accumulated or anticipated deficiency in the Bond Fund, additional ad valorem taxes are required by law to be levied upon all taxable property in the City without limitation as to rate or amount; and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to the applicable laws or regulations: TEN C0M - as tenants UNIF TRANSFERS MIN ACT...Custodian .... in common (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT - JT TEN - list. as tenants by the entireties as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act ..... ~t~t~) .... Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above ASSIGNMEN~ For value received, the undersigned hereby sells assigns, and transfers unto, the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the within Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: The assignor,s ~ signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges. The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided: Name and Address (Include information for all joint owners if the Bond is held by joint account.) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 5. The Bonds shall be issuable only in fully registered form. The interest and principal amount thereof shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 6. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond shall be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case such Bond shall be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to August 1, 1994, in which case such Bond shall be dated as of August 1, 1993. The interest on the Bonds shall be payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, COmmencing August 1, 1994, to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day. 7. Registration. The City shall appoint and shall maintain a bond registrar, transfer agent, and paying agent (the Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. Whenever any Bond is surrendered by the registered owner for exchange, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing. (d) Cancellation. All Bonds surrendered upon any transfer or exchange shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Bond or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which, in its judgment, it deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of such Bond, whether such Bond shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Bond and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the City upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of Bonds, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bond shall become mutilated or be lost, stolen or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of any such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any such Bond lost, stolen or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the R c~n~ection therewith; and, in the c ..... e~is~rar in a~ or a Bond lost, stolen or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar evidence satisfactory to it that such Bond was lost, stolen or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar an ap ro fiat indemnitvin for~ ~..~-~ ..... P P e bond or ..... , ~uu~u~nce anG amount satisfactory to it, in which bond the City and the Registrar shall be named as obligees, all pursuant to the provisions of Statutes, Sections 475.69 and 475.70. A1 Minnesota surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancell~ Bonds so evidence d by it and of such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. 8. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City hereby appoints as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove any Registrar upon thirt 3 , appointment of ~e~ ..... Y (0) days notice and · a su .... ou~ Registrar, in whic upon the ~glstrar 3hall deliver all cash ~,~ ~-~- :~ ~ent the predecessor successor ~e~istrar an~ ~ ~_~:_~..~_~u~_ ~n l~s possession to the Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without ..... ~ u~xxver ~ne Dong register to the successor further order of this City, the City Clerk shall transmit to the Registrar, from the General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 1993B Fund described in paragraph 10 hereof, monies sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. !1 t, i i, ,, ,' 9. Preparation and Delivery. The Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the City Clerk and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that the Mayor and City Manager's signatures may be facsimiles thereof. In case any officer whose signature, or a facsimile of whose signature, shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on such Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different bonds need not be signed by the same representative of the Registrar. The executed certificate of authentication on each bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. When the Bonds have been so executed and authenticated, they shall be delivered by the City Clerk to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 10. The Bonds shall be payable from the General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B Fund hereby created, and the proceeds of the net revenues of the water and sanitary sewer systems are hereby pledged to said fund. If any payment of principal or interest on the Bonds shall become due when there is not sufficient money in said fund to pay the same, the City shall pay such principal or interest from the general fund of the City and such fund may be reimbursed for such advances out of proceeds of net revenues of the water and sanitary sewer systems when collected. 11. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file in the office of the County Auditor of Hennepin County, a certified copy of this resolution, together with such other information as the County Auditor may require and to obtain from the auditor a certificate that the Bonds have been entered upon the bond register as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63. 12. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the purchaser of the revenue bonds, and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance thereof, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to said bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of said bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the terms of proposal prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief said statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of said terms of proposal. 13. When all revenue bonds issued under this resolution have beep discharged as provided in this paragraph, all pledges, covenants and othe rights granted by this resolution to the holders of the revenue bonds shall cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the revenue bonds (and premiums, if any) shall remain in full force and effect. The City may discharge all revenue bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar for such bonds on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or if any bonds should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also at any time discharge this issue of bonds in its entirety by complying with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivisions 4 to 12, except that the funds deposited in escrow in accordance with said provisions may (to the extent permitted by law), but need not be, in whole or in part, proceeds of advance refunding bonds. The City may discharge revenue bonds as herein provided without the consent of any bondholders. 14. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the Reglations), and covenants to take any and all actions within its powers to ensure that the interest on the Bonds will not become subject to taxation under the Code and the Regulations. Bonds will b( designated by the City as "qualified tax-exempt obli atioTnhse. of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 It is also determined g for purposes · that the Bonds are not arbitrage bonds and are not private activity bonds. 15. The City has agreed to furnish to the purchaser the approving legal opinion of Messrs. Wurst, Pearson, Larson Und Minneapolis, Minnesota. an~ ~.,~ ^-:-:- . _ , . erwood, and Mertz, of Clerk shall obtain a o~v n~ -~-~.'~ u_F_~n~o.n is ner_eDy requested· The Cit c_=~ v_ oaxu approving legal opinion, which shall bey complete except as to dating thereof, and shall cause said opinion to be printed on each Bond, together with a certificate to be signed by the facsimile signature of the City Clerk in substantially the following form: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the legal opinion executed by the above named attorneys, except as to the dating thereof, which opinion has been handed to me for filing in my office prior to the time of bond delivery. Francene C. Clark City Clerk City of Mound At the time of delivery, the City Clerk shall prepare a similar separate certificate, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificate in the name of the City upon receipt of such opinion and to file the opinion in the City offices. !1 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly _, and upon vote being taken seconded by Member thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Approved this _____ day of July, 1993. Mayor Attest' City Clerk !1 t, i i, 16. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to instruct the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, , to receive $ of the bond proceeds on the date of closing which represents the costs of issuance of the bonds. The Bond Registrar and Paying Agent is directed to pay from such proceeds the fees and expenses of the following persons in the amount set forth opposite the name of such person as follows: Person Service Performed Amount Springsted Incorporated Fiscal Consultant $ Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz Bond Counsel $ Rating Agency $ Registrar and Paying Agent $ The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Approved this day of July, 1993. Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF MOUND I, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, held on July 27, 1993, with the original thereof on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the issuance of General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B of the City. (SEAL) City Clerk City of Mound, Minnesota STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS TO TAX LEVY AND REGISTRATION I, the undersigned County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of Mound, Minnesota, on July 27, 1993, levying taxes for the payment of $1,350,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B of said municipality dated August 1, 1993, has been filed in my office and said bonds have been entered on the register of obligations in my office and that such tax has been levied as required by law. WITNESS My hand and official seal this __day of .-, 1993. County Auditor Hennepin County, Minnesota (SEAL) By Deputy EXT]~ACT 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, State of Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 27th day of July, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The Mayor announced that the next order of business would be the consideration of bids for the purchase of $540,000 General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C as advertised for sale. The City Finance Director then presented the bids which had been delivered to him prior to the time specified in the terms of proposal and said bids had been opened, examined and found to be as follows: After due consideration of said bids, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. as RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $540,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1993C; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT. BE IT RESOLVED, By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, follows: 1. The bid of ~lb~ to purchase $540,000 General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C of the City described in the terms of proposal is hereby found and determined to be the highest and best bid received and shall be and is hereby accepted, such bid being to purchase such bonds at a price of $~/A$O~ plus accrued interest to date of delivery, such bonds to bear interest as follows: YEAR RATE YEAR RATE 1996 % 2000 % 1997 % 2001 % 1998 % 2002 % 1999 % 2003 % The sum of $ ~-qO ., being the amount bid in excess of $535,140, shall be credited ~o the bond sinking fund hereinafter created. The City Finance Director is directed to retain the good faith check of the successful bidder pending completion of the sale and delivery of the bonds. The City Finance Director is directed to return the checks of the unsuccessful bidders forthwith. 2. The City of Mound shall forthwith issue and sell its General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C (the "Bonds") in the principal amount of $540,000, dated August 1, 1993. The printed, fully registered Bonds shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or higher multiples thereof for any single maturity, bearing interest as above set forth, all interest payable August 1, 1994, and semiannually thereafter on February 1 and August 1 in each year, and which bonds mature serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: YEAR 1996 1997 1998 AMOUNT $60,000 60,000 60,000 YEAR AMOUNT 2000 $70,000 2001 70,000 2002 75,000 1999 65,000 2003 80,000 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. 3. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable at in _~~A~ sota, he City of Mound shall pay the reasonable charges of said bank for its services as paying agent. 4. The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form: !1 1, i !, NO. (Face of the Bonds) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY CITY OF MOUND GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 1993C Rate Maturity Date of Original Issue August 1, 1993 CUSIP KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, (the City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received, hereby promises to pay to or registered assigns, the principal sum of on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable on August 1 and February 1 in each year, commencing August 1, 1994, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of the Bond Registrar hereinafter designated, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft of in , Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Transfer Agent and Paying Agent (the Bond Registrar), or its successor designated under the Resolution described herein. Additional provisions of this Bond are contained on the reverse hereof and such provisions shall for all purposes have the same effect as though fully set forth hereon. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. INWITNESSWHEREOF, the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: (Facsimile Signature) City Manager (Facsimile Signature) Mayor CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent Sy,~ Authorized Representative (Reverse of the Bonds) This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $540,000 (the Bonds), all of like date and tenor except as to serial number, denomination, interest rate, maturity date, and redemption privileges, issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on July 20, 1993, (the Resolution), to finance the refunding of a bond issue previously sold to finance construction costs of a public works facility, the callable maturities of which issue will be paid from the proceeds of this issue, and is issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota thereunto enabling, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. This Bond is payable from an Escrow Account and from ad valorem tax levies which will be credited to the General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C Fund Fund) of the City, but the City is required by law to pay maturing (the Bond principal hereof and interest hereon from any available funds of the City if moneys on hand in the Bond Fund are insufficient therefor fully registered bonds, in denominations The Bonds are issuable only as %f $5,000 or any multiple thereof, of single maturities. 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. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or his attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange, the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City according to its terms have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form as so required; that the City has pledged funds in the Escrow Account and ad valorem taxes, collectible in the years and amounts required to produce sums not less than five percent in excess of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as such principal and interest respectively become due, and has appropriated the same to the Bond Fund in the manner specified nesota Statutes, Section 475.61; that, in the event of any in Min . . · · · Fund additional ad ted or anticipated deficiency in the Bond , . . ac~umul~ ........... ired bv law to be levied upon all taxable property in valorem tax~ ~L= ~ ~ the City without limitation as to rate or amount; and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to the applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants UNIF TRANSFERS MIN ACT...Custodian .... in common (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT - JT TEN - list. as tenants by the entireties as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act ..... ~t~t~) .... Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns, and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder and does hereby irrevocabl constitute and appoint ' attorney to transfer the within Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: The assignor,s signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or bya brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges. The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided: Name and Address (Include information for all joint owners if the Bond is held by joint account.) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 5. The Bonds shall be issuable only in fully registered form. The interest and principal amount thereof shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 6. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond shall be dated as of the last interest payment date precedin the d which interest on the Bond ~=~ ~ ...... ~-~ .ate of authentication to unless (il the d=~ ^~ ~,.~-~ ~n p~o o~ ~a~e available for paym t, · ' '~ ~ ~u~~ca~on ~s an ~nterest payment date to w~ch interest has been paid or made available for . Bog? s~all be dated as of the date of a,.~ .... payment, in.which case such uua~n~cat~on, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to August 1, 1994, in which case such Bond shall be dated as of August 1, 1993. The interest on the Bonds shall be payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing August 1, 1994, to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day. 7. Registration. The City shall appoint and shall maintain a !1 t, i i, u '' bond registrar, transfer agent, and paying agent (the Registrar). The effect of registration and the.rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. Whenever any Bond is surrendered by the registered owner for exchange, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing. (d) Cancellation. All Bonds surrendered upon any transfer or exchange shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Bond or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which, in its judgment, it deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of such Bond, whether such Bond shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Bond and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the City upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of Bonds, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bond shall become mutilated or be lost, stolen or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of any such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any such Bond lost, stolen or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond lost, stolen or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar evidence satisfactory to it that such Bond was lost, stolen or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar an a ro rlat indemnity in form --~ ..... PP P ' e bond or ~ , ~uu~nce anG amount satisfa . in which bond t ~ ~ .... ~ ...... ctory to it, h_ ~ aHu ~ne ~eg~strar shall be named as obligees, all pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.69 and 475.70. All Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. 8. Appointment of Initial Registrar ~...~~ · The City hereby appoints of _ ~, _, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with as Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Re i performed. TheCitv r ..... ~ ...... g strar for the services (30) days' notice ~ ese~.=o ~ z~gn~ ~o remove any Registrar upon thirty and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar shall deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and shall deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this City, the City Finance Director shall transmit to the Registrar, from the General Obligation Building Refunding Bond Fund described in paragraph 10 hereof, monies sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 9. Preparation and Delivery. The Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the City Manager and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that the Mayor and City Manager's signatures may be facsimiles thereof. In case any officer whose signature, or a facsimile of whose signature, shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for s the same as if such officer had remained in office until all purpose.., ....... ~-- -uch execution, no Bond shall be valid_or delivery. Notwltnstan~ln~ ~ ' obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on such Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on onds need not be signed by the same representative of the different b ........... ~ -..~ntication on each bond shall Registrar. The executea certificate u~ ~u~.~ be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. When the Bonds have been so executed and authenticated, they shall be delivered by the City Finance Director to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 10. The Bonds shall be payable from the General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C Fund hereby created, earnings on the escrow account made available pursuant to the escrow agreement, and the proceeds of ad valorem taxes hereinafter levied are hereby pledged to said fund. If any payment of principal or interest on the Bonds shall become due when there is not sufficient money in said fund to pay the same, the City shall pay such principal or interest from the general fund of the City and such fund may be reimbursed for such advances out of proceeds of any funds available or future ad valorem tax collections. The Finance Director shall deposit the proceeds of the Bonds, other than any amounts set aside to pay expenses, in an escrow account withe bank whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and whose combined capital and surplus is in excess of $500,000, and shall invest such funds in securities authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.66, maturing on such dates as shall be required to provide funds sufficient to redeem the principal amount of the General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988 on February 1, 1995. Prior to and including said dates, investment earnings on said escrow account shall be used solely to pay interest on the Bonds and shall be remitted to the Registrar for said purpose. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into an escrow agreement with said Bank establishing the terms and conditions for the escrow account. The City Clerk is authorized and directed forthwith to give notice of the redemption and prepayment of the General Obligation Building Bonds of ~9~s Notice of the redemption shall be given in accordance with the of the resolutions authorizing issuance of said Bonds. The Escrow Agent is directed to cause notice of the call for redemption for each issue being redeemed to be published and to republish the notice of redemption not more than 90 days nor less than 45 days before the date fixed for their redemption, in the manner provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subd. 7. 11. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property within the corporate limits of the City, a direct, annual tax in an amount sufficient, together with the earnings on the escrow account made available pursuant tn pararaph 10, to pay and for the express purpose of paying the interest on t] Bonds as it falls due, and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof au maturity. This levy shall not be repealed or the collection of said tax obstructed until all such payments have been made or provided for. Such tax shall be from year to year carried on t collected as other taxes are co~^-~-= ~ t~x r011 of the City and · ~~ ro carried on the tax roll m _ .P. vlaed that the amount o · . . ay be reduced in the f tax surplus ~n the s~nk~n fund _ . year by the amount of g created as provided below. ~ .......... any ~..~ ~muu~L or saia tax carried into the tax rolls prepared in each of the following years, for collection in the ensuing year, shall be such that if fully collected it will, together with the investment earnings on the escrow account appropriated pursuant to paragraph 10 hereof, produce the aggregate amount of such interest and principal, which is estimated for each of said collection years as follows: LEVY YEAR COLLECTION YEAR LEVY AMOUNT There is hereby created a special sinking fund for the Bonds, separate from every other fund, which shall be maintained until the indebtedness is fully paid or otherwise extinguished. All moneys appropriated and collected as provided in this paragraph shall be deposited in the sinking fund, and shall be used only to pay the amounts of principal and interest becoming due and payable on the Bonds in each year. The sinking fund shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.66. Nothing herein stated shall affect the taxes levied in the Resolutions selling the 1988 Bonds being refunded by this issue, but the City shall take action to cancel any remaining levies on those Bonds when the Bonds have been redeemed. In order to ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), and applicable regula allocation of any funds to the sinkingti°ns' the Finance Director, upon fund, shall ascertain the balance then on hand in the sinking fund. If it exceeds the amount of principal and interest on the Bonds to become due and payable through the December 1 next following, plus a reasonable carryover equal to 1/12th of the debt service due in the following bond year, said excess shall (unless an opinion is otherwise received from bond counsel) be used to prepay or purchase Bonds, or invested at a yield which does not exceed the yield on the Bonds calculated in accordance with the Code, based upon their issue price to the public ( %). 12. The City Finance Director is hereby directed to file in the office of the County Auditor of Hennepin County, a certified copy of this resolution, together with such other information as the County Auditor may require and to obtain from the auditor a certificate that the Bonds have been entered upon the bond register as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63. 13. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the purchaser of the refunding bonds, and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance thereof, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to said bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of said bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. The Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Director are hereby authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the terms of proposal prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief said statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of said official statement or prospectus. 14. When all refunding bonds issued under this resolution have been discharged as provided in this paragraph, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the holders of the refunding bonds shall cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the refunding bonds (and premiums, if any) shall remain in full force and effect. The City may discharge all refunding bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar for such bonds on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or if any bonds or interest should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also at any time discharge this issue of bonds in its entirety by complying with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivisions 4 to 12, except that the funds deposited in escrow biunt accordance with said provisions may (to the extent permitted by law), need not be, in whole or in part, proceeds of advance refunding bonds. The City may discharge the refunding bonds as herein provided without the consent of any bondholders. 15. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the Reglations), and covenants to take any and all actions within its powers to ensure that the interest on the Bonds will not become subject to taxation under the Code and the Regulations. The Bonds will be designated by the City as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It is also determined that the Bonds are not arbitrage bonds and are not private activity bonds. 16. The City has agreed to furnish to the purchaser the approvin legal opinion of Messrs. Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood, and Mertz, o~ Minneapolis, Minnesota, and such opinion is hereby requested. The City Clerk shall obtain a copy of said approving legal opinion, which shall be complete except as to dating thereof, and shall cause said opinion to be printed on each Bond, together with a certificate to be signed by the facsimile signature of the City Clerk in substantially the following form: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the legal opinion executed by the above named attorneys, except as to the dating thereof, which opinion has been handed to me for filing in my office prior to the time of bond delivery. Springsted Incorporated Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz Francene C. Clark City Clerk City of Mound At the time of delivery, the City Clerk shall prepare a similar separate certificate, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificate in the name of the City upon receipt of such opinion and to file the opinion in the City offices. 17. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to instruct the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent receive $... , of the bond proceeds on the date A~ _. . -f ti represents the costs of ' u~ u~oslng wnicl~ issuance of the bonds. The Bond Registrar and Paying Agent is directed to pay from such proceeds the fees and expenses of the following persons in the amount set forth opposite the name of such person as follows: Person Service Performed Amount Fiscal Consultant Bond Counsel Rating Agency Registrar and Paying Agent $ $_ The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 16. The City has agreed to furnish to the purchaser the approving legal opinion of Messrs. Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood, and Mertz, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and such opinion is hereby requested. The City Clerk shall obtain a copy of said approving legal opinion, which shall be complete except as to dating thereof, and shall cause said opinion to be printed on each Bond, together with a certificate to be signed by the facsimile signature of the City Clerk in substantially the following form: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the legal opinion executed by the above named attorneys, except as to the dating thereof, which opinion has been handed to me for filing in my office prior to the time of bond delivery. Francene C. Clark City Clerk City of Mound At the time of delivery, the City Clerk shall prepare a similar separate certificate, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificate in the name of the City upon receipt of such opinion and to file the opinion in the City offices. ~ 17. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to instruct the \~ to receive $ of Agent ' Escrow , the bond proceeds on the date of closing which represents the costs ~fissuance of the bonds, and to use said proceeds to pay those costs. ~ The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly 1 seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken/ thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ~t~ ~ and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Approved this .. day of July, 1993. Mayor Attest: City Clerk III i i ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the City of Mound, Minnesota, herinafter called the Issuer, and , in , hereinafter called the Agent; WITNESSETH, that the parties hereto recite and, in consideration of the mutual covenants and payments referred to and contained herein, covenant and agree as follows: 1. The Issuer has duly issued and presently has outstanding the following issue of bonds: Title G.O. Building Bonds of 1988 Original Outstanding Date of Principal Principal Issue Amount Amount 5/1/88 $790,000 $600,000 and has issued its $540,000 General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C, dated August 1, 1993, (hereinafter called the "Refunding Bonds"), to advance refund those outstanding bonds of the above issue maturing in the years 1996 through 2003 (the "Refunded Bonds") in a crossover refunding pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subd. 13. 2. The Issuer has also, in accordance with a resolution adopted July 27, 1993, simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, transmitted proceeds of the Refunding Bonds in the amount of $ to the Agent to be used as follows: (a) $ of the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds to be used to purchase the $ principal amount of United in · l, I i, t[ I I States Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness and Notes - State and Local Government Series, described in the attached Exhibit A; and (b) $ of the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds to be used to pay bond issuance expenses, and $ to be returned to the Issuer for deposit in the debt service fund from which the Refunding Bonds are payable. In the opinion of , certified public accountants, the federal securities designated in paragraph (a) mature at such times and bear interest at such rates that the collections of principal and interest thereon will produce the amounts shown on Exhibit B attached hereto to be applied against the interest due on the Refunding Bonds to and including February 1, 1995, (the Crossover Date"), and will be sufficient to pay the principal amount of the Refunded Bonds on such date. 3. The Agent agrees to apply the funds received from the Issuer in the manner and for the purposes set forth in Section 2 hereof and this Section. The Agent acknowledges purchase and receipt of the federal securities described in Section 2 and agrees that it will hold such federal securities ina special escrow account (the "Escrow Account") in the name of the Issuer, and will collect and receive on behalf of the Issuer all payments of principal and interest on such secruties and, prior to and including the Crossover Date, will remit from said Escrow Account to the Registrar and Paying Agent for the Refunding Bonds, the moneys received from time to time for the payment of interest thereon prior to and including the Crossover Date as shown in Exhibit B. On the Crossover Date, the Agent will remit to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or its successor, as paying agent for the Refunded Bonds, the sum of $510,000 from the Escrow Account to pay the principal of the Refunded Bonds on the ! I l, ! i, I~ I I Crossover Date. Any remaining funds in the Escrow Account after such transfer shall be remitted to the Issuer. The Agent will also, not less than 45 days nor more than 90 days prior to the Crossover Date, cause the appropriate notice of the redemption relating to the Refunded Bonds to be mailed to the Registrar with instructions that said notice be mailed to all registered owners not less than 30 days prior to the Crossover Date and to be published once in substantially the form set forth in the attached Exhibit C, in a daily or weekly periodical published in a Minnesota city of the first class, or its metropolitan area, which circulates throughout the state and furnishes financial news as a part of its service, and to be mailed to the paying agent for the Refunded Bonds. 4. In order to insure continuing compliance with the Internal Revenue Code, and present Internal Revenue Service Regulations promulgated thereunder, the Agent agrees that it will not reinvest any cash received in payment of the principal of and interest on the federal securities held in the Escrow Account. Said prohibition on reinvestment shall continue unless and until an opinion is received from nationally recognized bond counsel that reinvestments, as specified in said opinion, may be made in a manner consistent with the Code and then existing Regulations. 5. The Agent also acknowledges receipt from the Issuer of the sum of Dollars ($ ) as and for full compensation for all services to be performed by it as Agent under this Agreement, and the Agent expressly waives any lien upon or claim against the moneys and investments in the Escrow Account. 6. In , 19__, and in of each year thereafter until termination of the escrow for which provision is herein made, the Agent shall submit to the Issuer a report covering all ! I ~, I I, II I I money it shall have received and all payments it shall have made or caused to be made hereunder during the preceding calendar year. Such report shall also list all obligations held in the Escrow Account and the amount of money existing in the Escrow Account on December 31 of such preceding year. 7. It is recognized that title to the federal securities and money held in the Escrow Account from time to time shall remain vested in the Issuer but subject always to the prior charge and lien thereon of this Agreement and the use thereof required to be made by the provisions of this Agreement. The Agent shall hold all such money and obligations in a special trust fund and account separate and wholly segregated from all other funds and securities of the Agent or deposited therein, and shall never commingle such money or securities with other money or securites. It is understood and agreed that the responsiblity of the Agent under this Agreement is limited to the safekeeping and segregation of the moneys and securities deposited with it in the Escrow Account, and the collection of and accounting for the principal and interest payable with respect thereto. 8. This Agreement is made by the Issuer for the benefit of the holders of the Refunding Bonds and the Refunded Bonds, as their interests may appear, under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, and is not revocable by the Issuer, and the investments and other funds deposited in the Escrow Account and all income therefrom have been irrevocably appropriated for the payment of interest on the Refunding Bonds prior to and including the Crossover Date and the payment and redemption of the Refunded Bonds on said date, in accordance with this Agreement. 9. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Issuer and the Agent and their respective successors and assigns. In addition, this Agreement shall constitute a third party beneficiary contract for the benefit of the holders of the Refunding Bonds and Refunded Bonds, as their interests may appear. Said third party beneficiaries shall be entitled to enforce performance and observance by the Issuer and the Agent of the respective agreements and covenants herein contained as fully and completely as if said third party beneficiaries were parties hereto. 10. Upon merger or consolidation of the Agent, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Agent. Upon the resignation of the Agent, which shall be communicated in writing to the Issuer, or in the event the Agent becomes incapable of acting hereunder, the Issuer reserves the power to appoint a successor Agent. No resignation shall become effective until the appointment of a successor Agent. Upon appointment of a successor Agent, the Issuer shall cause notice thereof to be published in a daily or weekly periodical published in a Minnesota city of the first class or its metropolitan area, which circulates throughout the state and furnishes financial news as a part of its service, within 30 days after said appointment, but failure to make such publication shall not invalidate the appointment of said successor Agent. IN WiTNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be duly executed by their duly authorized officers, on the _ _ day of __, 1993. City of Mound, Minnesota By Its Mayor (SEAL) And Its City Manager By¸ Its (SEAL) ti I 1, i I, B I I EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF REDEMPTION $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988 Dated May 1, 1988 City of Mound Hennepin County, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the bonds of the above issue which mature on February 1 in the years 1996 through 2003, and bear CUSIP numbers through , are called for redemption and prepayment on February 1, 1995. The bonds will be redeemed at a price of 100% of their principal amount plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. Holders of such bonds should present them for payment to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on or before said date when they will cease to bear interest. Dated , 19__. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Clerk City of Mound, Minnesota lB · I, · m, I~ il and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Approved this day of July, 1993. Attest: Mayor City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF MOUNDPARK I, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, held on July 27, 1993, with the original thereof on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the issuance of General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C of the City. (SEAL) City Clerk City of Mound, Minnesota ti, I 1, i I, It i i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS TO COUNTY OF HENNEPIN TAX LEVY AND REGISTRATION I, the undersigned County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of Mound, Minnesota, on July 27, 1993, levying taxes for the payment of $540,000 General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C of said municipality dated August 1, 1993, has been filed in my office and said bonds have been entered on the register of obligations in my office and that such tax has been levied as required by law. 1993. WITNESS My hand and official seal this__ day of , (SEAL) By County Auditor Hennepin County, Minnesota Deputy PROPOSED RESOLUTION #~-.. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FINAL PLAT FOR "'BALBOA ADDITION" INVOLVING LANDS OWNED BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. LOCATED NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE P&Z CASE #93-023 WHEREAS, the final for Balboa Addition has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code Section. 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and Ordinances of the City of Mound; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Plat approval Case #93-023, Balboa Addition is approved upon compliance with the following requirements: 1. Per final plat Exhibit "A". Per requirements set out in Resolution #93-90, approving the preliminary plat of Balboa Addition. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the owners and subdivider after completion of the requirement of their use as required by M.S.A. 462.358. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. This final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager in accordance with Section 330 of the City Code and shall be recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution with one copy being filed with the City of Mound. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the Certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of property compliance therewith by the Subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the Ordinances of the City. Ju.t 20 ,g5 12:U$ N0.UU$ P.U'2 HENNEPIN ASSESSOR A-2103 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 July 20, 1993 Curt Pearson Mound City Attorney 1100 One Financial Pla~a 120 So. 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Pearson: Re: Proposed Balboa Addition MD. Jeanne Matzen called me on July'19 and requested an estimated market value for the proposed ~alboa .Addition. ProPerty Identifica%lon Number 13-117-Z4-34-0077 covers approximately one half of the proposed addition's land area. This PIP has a 1993 *mt~mated market value of $35,000. The proposed Balboa Addition plat Jeanne sent mc contains approximately 100,000 ~guare feet. The estimated market value on this area will be ~ppru~imut~ly $70,000. Please call me at 34B-3046 if you have any que~tione. Yours truly, · R.nner .f~dt Principal Appr~ z~er KMR: jb c¢: Ed Shukle Joann~ Matzen HENNEPIN COUNTY un ~quol opportunity employer MINUTES OF A MEE~G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case//93-034; Dakota Rail Inc., "Balboa Addition", PUBLIC HEARING, FINAl, PLAT - Building Official, Jon Sutherland, Reviewed the City Planner's report. The request being heard is for the Final Plat for Balboa Addition, tomorrow night the City Council will be holding a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, as submitted, addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to-date. The issue of a park dedication fee has been reviewed by staff resulting in a fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the Mound ordinance. Approval of the Final Plat is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels i and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. Joanne Matzen, Attorney for Winthrop & Weinstine, and a Representative of Welsh Companies, informed the Commission that they are in agreement with the recommendation of staff, with the exception of the park dedication fee requirement. 11 ! I ~, I I, I[ I : Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Matzen believes that this request is not a typical platting situation as the land will not be developed, they are only trying to acquire the fee title of the access that Balboa is already leasing from Dakota Rail. She referred to the City Ordinance which states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial industrial or other . . ." She believes this statement allows a park dedication fee to be exacted for only those properties "allowing development," and this request does not involve a development or and expansion of use. In addition, she stated that there is case law which indicates there must be a rational nexus between the dedication fee exacted and the burden the subdivision places on the community. The Planning Commission discussed the park dedication issue. Mueller commented that there are no "new lots" being created because the parcels will be combined with the existing Parcel 0076, therefore three parcels will be combined into one. Mueller also commented, that in his opinion, the Commitment to Insure does not represent clean title and the City Attorney should investigate. Betsy Brady questioned the hours of operation for the trucks at the Balboa building, she stated that they operate during all hours of the night and she is very concerned. The Building Official informed her that she could come into City Hall and discuss the issue with staff. Sutherland added that the businesses in the Balboa building are required to obtain an operations permit which is reviewed by the City Council and notices are published in the local paper when the Council reviews these applications. Chair Meyer confirmed with staff that the platting of this property is not intended to change the use of the building. Mueller questioned if the Conditional Use Permit, which allows for the issuance operation permits, is attached to the current legal description; and does the Conditional Use Permit need to be updated if the legal description changes? Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Balboa Addition as recommended by staff with the exception of condition #1 requiring payment of park dedication fees as no new lots are being created. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson and Weiland opposed. 12 Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Johnson commented that he does not like second guessing the attorney and he feels there is a possibility development could be allowed for this property. Weiland agreed. A public hearing will be held on July 13, 1993 by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will review the request for Final Plat on August 10, 1993. HUL~INUIUN lB · I B, I~ ! IbL l',lO.blZ-:dSb-31bU JUl. f,U5 l~:Sb Hoisington Koegqer Group Inc. ! 111 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1993 SUBJECT: Final Plat - Balboa Addition APPLICANT: Dakota Rail, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 93-4P~ O~' HKG FILE NUMBER: 93-10d LOCATION: East of Fairview Lane, South of Lynwood Boulevard and North of the Existing Balboa Building EXISTING ZONING: Industrial (I-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat of Balboa Addition on June 14, 1993. The preliminary plat is scheduled for action by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff prepared a supplemental report for the City Council summarizing a number of issues. A copy of the supplemental report is attached. COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION: The Final Plat for Balboa Addition addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to date. Approval is recommended subject to the conditions identified in the Planning Report Supplement dated July 7, 1993. Land Use / Environmental ' Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneaplis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612} 835-3160 JUL--I$--9~ TUE 12 :$0 P. 02 WINTHROP & WEI NSTI N E (612) 290-$546 July 13, 1993 Mr. Edward Shukle, Ir. City Manager City of Mound 534I Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 BY FACSIMILE Re: I~Icota Rail/Ba.lboa Addition Dear l~'. Shuklc: This office represents the receiver for the Balboa building located at 5300 Shoreline Drive in Mound. In connection with the operation of this building, Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. has leased a portion of the adjacent railroad right of way to the rear of the building which provides access to the loading docks. Control over this adjacent property, currently owned by Dakota Rail, Inc., is critical to the operation of the Balboa property. On May 27, 1993, Dakota Rail submitted an application for a major subdivision of land to facilitate a sale of this portion of the railroad right of way to Balboa. The City of Mound, as you know, does not allow a major subdivision of land without the creation of a plat. Therefore, we have submitted the propo~ plat of 'Balboa Addition' to the City for approval. In response to a suggestion made at the Planning Commission Hearing on the preliminary plat of Balboa Addition, the City Planner recommended in his supplementary planning report of July 7, 1993, that a park dedication fee of $22,000 (10% of the purchase price for the land) should be exacted. We question whether a park fee is appropriate under these circumstances. At its hearing on the final plat on July 12, 1993, and after further consideration of the issue, the Planning Commission voted to delete the park fee from the requirements for plat approval. Il ~, I JUL-- 1 ~ 9~ TUE 1 2 : ~O I Mr. Edward Shuklc, Ir. 1uly 13, 1993 Page 2 As noted above, the purpose of the Balboa plat is simply to enable litle to the subject property to transfer. Virtually no development of this property is planned or even possible. Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances reads in relevant part as follows: In every plat...or subdivision of land allowing development for...commercial, industrial, or other uses or combination thereof...a reasonable portion of such land and/or cash shall be set aside and dedicated by the u-act owner or owners to the general public aa open space for park and playground purposes... (emphasis added). Since this particular subdivision does not allow for development, it follows that no authority exists for exaction of a park dedication fee. Minnesota caselaw, requiring a 'rational nexus' between the exaction imposed and the n_,x_d created by the subdivision, is in accord. In ¢oll[s v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, I7-18, 246 N.W.2d tg, 26 (I976), the court interpreted § 462.358 of Minnesota Statutes which enables exaction of reasonable park fees. Recognizing the possibility for arbitrariness and unfairness in the enforcement of such exactions, the court A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from a subdivider far out of pro, trion to the needs created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional services on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would allow an otherwis~ acceptable exercise of police power to become 'grand theft. ' Thus, the court stated that reasonableness of thc fe~ is measured by thc impact on thc recreational needs of the community as a result of the subdivision. S~ also M[ddlemist v. City of Plymouth, 38'7 N.W.2d 190 (1986). The use to which this property will be put is thc same as its present use. No additional services will be consumed; no additional needs will be created by the proposed subdivision. We, therefore, respectfully request that the requirement of a park dedication fee be dropped from the conditions for approval of the final plat. In addition to the foregoing, since the l~lboa building is in receivership, the intended purchas~ must be approved by the court. The court has previously approved an expenditure of $220,000 for the subject property. The 10% park fcc essentially increases the purchase price to $242,000 necessitating a new court order authorizing the purchase. The purchase agreement between Balboa and Dakota Rail calls for a closing on or before August 16, 1993. Since time is of the essence in this transaction the need for court approval could cripple or kill this transaction. JUL--l~--95 TUE 12:~1 P.04 Mr. Edward Shulde, Ir. .~uly 13, 1993 Page 3 Assuming the City feels thc continued existence and use of the Balboa building is an economic benefit to the community the exaction of park fees should be reconsidered. On behalf of the purchaser we ask that you review this letter and the City ordinances and the cases. If you would like to discuss any of the foregoing point~ in more detail, please feel free to call us. We appreciate your consideration and again respectfully request that you advise the council that the pazk dedication fees do not apply under the foregoing circumstances. Very truly yours, ~OP & w~$~, P.A. Ms. Denise Brown Curtis Pearson, Esq. Thomas Underwood, F~1. Mz. Thomas M. Hart I I Hoisington Koegler Group Inc, PLANNING,REPORT SUPPLEMENT TO: Mound City Council and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1993 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval - Balboa Addition This report is intended to provide clarification a~d to update the City Council on several issues relative to the proposed preliminary plat known as Balboa Addition (Case Number 93-023). This case was on the Planning Commission's agenda on Tune 14, 1993. The original planning report addressed a number of issues and identified other issues that were unresolved at that time. Since the report was drafted and subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the City Engineer and I have met with representatives of Balboa to review all outstanding issues. Thc following is a commentary on some of the issues pertaining to this case: · The preliminary plat identifies right-of-way being dedicated for Fairview Lane. · NSP has a lease agreement with Dakota Rail for the overhead utility lines that n~n along the north side of the building. The City of Mound does not need easements for utilities in this axea. · All City utility lines are located in the dedicated right-of-way areas for Fairview Lane. Therefore, no other easements will be necessary. Park Dedication - The initial planning report did not discuss park dedication requirements. Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses or combination thereof, or in a planned development area, or where a waiver or variance is granted, a reasonable portion of such land and/or cash shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for park and playground purposes..." Subdivision 3 of this section further states that, "At the City's option, except for minor subdivisions as herein defined, the subdivider shall contribute an equivalent amount of cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the land which the City may require such owner to dedicate pursuant to Subd. 2 hereof, in accordance with the schedule set by resolution of the Council which cash contribution shall be a minimum of 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 Land U~e / Environmental · Planning / Design m Minneapolis, Mi,hecta 55439 m (612) 835-9960 · Fax:(612) 835-3160 Planning Report Supplement July 7, 1993 Page 2 ten percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication of cash be less than $500 for each lot being created." In this particular case, two new lots are being created. The City's park needs in this area are being adequately met by existing facilities and therefore, it is assumed that a cash dedication is in order in lieu of a land dedication requirement. According to representatives of Balboa, the sales price of the two lots is approximately $220,000. This results in a park dedication fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the ordinance. The original staff report contained a recommendation that the newly subdivided lots be combined for tax purposes with existing parcel 76. Parcel 76 includes the balance of the property owned by Balboa. This clause was included to ensure common ownership of all parcels, particularly since proposed Lots I and 2 individually are unsuitable for conforming industrial structures. The City Attorney has further concerns regarding Title issues pertaining to the subdivision. These concerns are addressed in the staff recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the Balboa Addition subject to the following conditions: Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels I and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. ! I 1, ! I, II I I RESOLUTION g92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "BALBOA ADDITION" INVOLVING LANDS OWNED BY DAKOTA RAII J, INC. LOCATED NORTH OF ~ BALBOA B UHJDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE P&Z CASE g93-023 WHEREAS, the preliminary for Balboa Addition has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and Ordinances of the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. WHEREAS, the Mound Advisory Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve the preliminary plat for Balboa Addition as shown on the attached Exhibit A, upon the following conditions: ae Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. The existing legal description of the property to be platted is attached as Exhibit B. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-023 Balboa Addition The proposed legal descriptions are as follows: Parcel 1 (33,942 square feet): Ail that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of-way located in the South Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East along said center line a distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly Ivy Street, extended southerly; thence North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 40.16 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line a distance of 846.76 feet to the southwesterly corner of Lot 22, Block 11, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park; thence South 2 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 40.00 feet to said line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to, the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right- of-way; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West parallel with said center line a distance of 850.35 feet to said point of beginning. Parcel 2 (68,733 square feet): Ail that part of Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way located in the south Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. i I 1, I i, tt i i Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-023 Balboa Addition railroad right-of-way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes' 58 seconds East along said center line a distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13, said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly Ivy Street, extended Southerly; thence South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 40.16 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line a distance of 1586.25 feet to the west line of Lot 10, Block 2, "L.P. Creivers Subdivision of Lot 36, Lafayette Park"; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said west line of Lot 10 a distance of 8.77 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 08 seconds East along the North line of said lot 10 and its easterly extension a distance of 144.02 feet to the center line of Fairview Lane; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said center line of Fairview Lane a distance of 41.93 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of- way; thence westerly, parallel with said center line a distance of 140.37 feet, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the south having a radius of 8584.37 feet, a central angle of 0 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds and a chord that bears South 87 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West continuing parallel with said center line and tangent to said curve a distance of 1589.10 feet to said point of beginning. BALBOA ADDITION FINAL PLAT RESOLUTION ~93- EXHIBIT A Il ~, ! I, t m RlgSOLU'rlON {93- ~IBIT B EXHIBIT "A" All that portion of Burlington Northern Railroad Company's ~ayzata to Hutchinson, Minnesota Branch Line right-of-way, varying in width on each side of the Main Track centerline as originally located and constructed upon, over and across Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: All that portion of said Railroad Company's lO0-foot wide right-of-way being SO feet wide on each ~tde of. the hereinafter described Main Track centerline as originally located and constructed upon, over and across the SWINE{, StNW{, NtSW{ of Section ], NiSEi, NE~SW{, Government Lots 3 and 4 of Section 2, Government Lot I of Section 11, Government got 1, W{NE¼, Government Cots 6, 3 and 4 of Section 10, Government Lots 1 and 2, Section XS and a portion of Government Lot 7 of Section 16 all .in TllTN, R23W, ;th P.M.. Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying between the Southwesterly line of Brantor's Minneapolis to Willmar 150 Toot wide right-of-way and the Southerly extension of the Westerly line of Lot 78 of the original plat of Minnetonka Beach on file and of record in th~ Office of the Register of Deeds in said Hennepin County. MAIN ll~ACK CENTERLIN£ DESCRIPTION Co~m~encing at a point on the East line of said Section 1 distant 223,0~ feet South of the Ei corner of said Section 1, said point being on the centerltne of said Minneapolis to Willmar 150 foot wide right-of~way; thence Westerly at an angle of 89°3g' as measured f~om North to West for a distance of 196,I feet; thence Northwesterly along a tangential curve to the right having a radius Of 6,177.36 feet (delta angle 5°1Z') for a distance of 556.3 feet; thence continuing Northwesterly along a c~pound curve to the right having a radius of 2,938.39 feet (delta an~le 7°48') for a distance of 400 feet; thence continuing Northwesterly along a compound curve to the right having a radius of 3,437.87 feet {delta angle I3' 00') for a distance of 777.0 feet to the end of said compound curve; thence Northwesterly tangent to the last described curve a distance of 29.3 feet to the Point of Beginnin~ of the Main Track centerltne to be described; thence along a tangential curve to the left concave Southerly having a radius of 1,910.08 feet (delta angle 37° 05') for a dtstmnce of 1,236 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 3,814 feet; thence along a tangential curve to the left concave Southeasterly haying a radius of 2,864.93 (delta of 18° 00') a distance of gOO feets thence Southwesterly tangent to last described curve a distance of 1,400 feet; thence along a tangential curve' to the left concave Southeasterly having a radius of 5,729.65 feet (delta angle 4° 34') a distance of 456.7 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent .to last described curve 3,244.3 feet; thence along a tapgenttal curve to the left concave Southeasterly having a radius of ~,864.93 (delta angle 14° 08') a distance of 706 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to last described curve 863 feet; thence along a tangential curve to the left concave Southeasterly having a radiu~ of 2,864.93 feet {delta 24° 47') a distance of 1,240 feet; thence'Southwesterly tangent to last described.curve a distance of 4,500 feet; thence along a tangential curve to the right concave Northwesterly having a radius of 1,637.2B feet {delta angle 79" 20') a distance of 2,266.5 feet and there terminating. -1- All that portion of said Railroad Company's property at Mtnnetonka Beach on said Branch Line situated in ~overnment Cots 7, 6 and 5 Section 16, TllTN. R23W of the 5th P.M., described as follows: Begtnniqg at the point of intersection of the North line of Lot gO of said original plat of Minnetonka Beach and said Southerly extension of the Westerly line of Lot 78 of the original plat of Mtnnetonka Beach; thence Westerly along the North lines of said Lots 20 through ! inclusive, said original plat of Minnetonka Beach and the Westerly extension thereof to the centerline of vacated Lafayette Place: thence Southerly at right angles to the last described course 20 feet; thence Westerly parallel with and 50 feet Southerly as measured at right angles to said Main Track canto,line to the Easterly line of Northview Road; thence North along said Easterly line 20 feet~ thence Westerly along the Northerly line of 45 foot wide Westwood Road to the East line of Lake Street according to said recorded plat of Mtnnetonka Beach; thence Northerly along said East line of Lake Street to a point $0 feet Northerl~ and at right angles from said Main Track centerline~ thence Easterly in a straight line to a point in the Northwesterly line of Cottage Place 8g.4 feet distant Northeasterly measured along said Northwesterl line from Main Track canto,line, thence continuing Easterly along satdYstraight lin[a[~ the Southeasterly line of said Cottage Place at a point 75 feet Northerly and at right angles to said Main Track canto,line; thence Easterly parallel with said Main Track canto,line to the canto,line of said vacated Lafayette Place; thence South along said centerltne 25 feet; thence Easterly 30 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot -101 said original plat of Minnetonka Beach; thence continuing Easterly along the South lines of said Lots 101, 202, 8g, 87, 85, 85, 84, 83, 8~, 81, 80 and 79 a distance of 1,1g2.4 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 78; thence Southerly along the Southerly extension of the esterly line of said Lot 78; a distance of ~00 feet to a point on the North ina of said Lot 20; thence Westerly along said North line to the. Point of Beginning: also, All that portion of said Railroad Company's I00 foot wide right-of-way being 50 feet wide on each side of the hereinafter described Main Track canto,line upon, over and across government Lots 4 and 5, Section 25, and Government Lots 6. 5 and 8 and the SENSE¼ of Section 17, T~17N, R23W, lying ~esterly of the Westerly line of said Lake Street; also, An additional parcel of land being $0 feet wide and lying adjacent to and Southerly of the hereinabove described ~00 foot wide right-of-way situated in said Government Lot 8 of said Section 27, Tl17N. R23W, lying between two lines drawn parallel with and distant respectively 50 feet and 100 feet Southerly measured at right angles and radially to the hereinafter described Main Track canto,line and bounded on the Northeasterly side by a 'line drawn at right angles and radially to said hereinafter described Main Track canto,line distant 697 feet Easterly from the West line of said ~overnment Lot 8 as measured along said parallel line distant [00 feet Southerly and parallel with said hereinafter described Main Track centerline, bounded on the West by the West line of said Government Lot 8. EXCEPTING T~EREFROM, the following five parcels .of land situated in Government Lot ~, Section ~6, and Lot 6, Section 17, T1L7N, R23W. described as follows: -2- Il PARCEL I Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of Lot 26, Block I, Townsite of Langdon Park; thence Southerly on a Southerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot 26, a distance of 18 feet; thence Easterly along a line parallel with the Southerly line oT said Lot 26 to its intersection with a line which is parallel with and distant 118 feet Easterly from the Westerly line of said Lot 26; thence Northerly parallel with said Westerly line of Lot 26 a distance 'of 18 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 2; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of Lot 26 to the Point of Beginning. PARCEL I~I Beginning et the Southwesterly corner of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 171, Files of Registrar of Titles, Nennepin County, Minnesota; thence Southerly on a Southerly extension of the Westerly line of said Tract B, a distance of 10 feet; thence Easterly along a line parallel with the Southerly line of said Tract B to its intersection with a Southerly extension of the Easterly line of said Tract B; thence Northerly along said extension of said Easterly line to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract B; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Tract B to the Point of Beginning. PARCEL III Beginning at the Southeasterly corner of Tract B,. Registered Land Survey No. 171, in Lot 27, Block 1, Townsite of Langdon Park, thence Southerly on a Southerly extension of the Easterly line of said Tract B, to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant I0 feet Southeasterly measured radially to the South line of said Lot 27; thence Northeasterly along said line drawn parallel with and distant 10 feet Southeasterly measured radially to the South line of said Lot 27 a distance of 115.S feet; thence Northwesterly on a line drawn radially from the last described course to the point of intersection with said South line of said Lot 27; thence Southwesterly along said South line of said Lot 27 to the Point of Beginning. PARCEL IV That part of Government Lot 6, Section 17, Tll7N, R23W of the 5th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot 7, Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach; thence on an assumed bearing of NS4°E along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 7 to the most Easterly corner of said Lot 7; thence S2g°E a distance of 16.67 feet; thence S58°W to an intersection with a line bearing S29°E ~hrough the Point of Beginning; thence NLm3°W to the Point of Beginning. PARCEL V A strip or piece of land 5 feet wide and 150 feet long being all that part of the right-of-way of the railway of the former Great Northern Railway Company {now Burlington Northern Railroad Company), in Government Lot 6, Section 17, TlITN, R23W of the 5th P.M., lying parallel with.and adjoining the Southeasterly lines of Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota. according to the recorded plat thereof. _/Z1A~ TRACK CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION Beginning at the point of temlnatton of the herelnabove described Main Track centerltne ?scriptton; thence Westerly tangent to the last descrJbed curve go993.5 feet, thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve to hart.n9 a radius of 2,910.08 feet (delta angle 42° 00') a distance the left · of 1,400 feet t~ence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve l,O00 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 2,292,01 feet '(delta angle 20° 00') a distance of 800 feet; thence Souttnvesterly along a tangential, compound curve to the right having a radius of 2,657,28 feet (della angle. 17 28') a distance of 499 feet; thence Westerly tangent to tahe last described curve 698.1 feet; thence Westerly along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 2,864.93 feet (delta angle I3° 40') a distance of 683.3 feet; t~enc described curve 1 4 - e South~esterl tan en right havtn a , 57 fee:, thence Wes.terly alone a tal~n---*?~e~ t_.t_o Th? 1.a.st ·eec and there terminating; als~ ':"~ ~ae~a angle I6° $6') a distance of 830 All that portion of said Railroad C , .b~e~ng. 40.fee_t ~de on the North s,a- ..?m?~a~n~.' s .240..foot wide right-of-way, cna nere~nal~ter described Mai- ~'-'-~-~'-~,_,_~_).uU..Teec mae on the South s~de of constructed u on ov - ~raG~ cen:erllne, as ori ina11 P · er and acros g Y located and lying Easterly of the Sout~...+~-~s.-$,°_.v_e_rnment Lot 6_, Section 18 Tl17 . , ., ,,v~,, -u. az ~bunse: urive); All that portion of said Ratlroad Company's station ground property at Spr~ng Park~ H~nne~ota, varying ~n width on each stale of said hereinafter described Ha~n Track centerline, as origtnall.v located and constructed upon, ove~ and across Government Lots ~, 8, ? and 6~ Section 18, TiZTN, described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly llne of said :ounty Road No, 52 distant 52 feet North and at r~ght angles to sa~d hereinafter described Main Track cen:erline; thence l~esterly parallel with said Hain Track centerline to the intersection of a 11ne drawn at right angles to sa~d Main Track centerline distant 896 feet i~est as ~easured alon sa - .East line of said Section g id Ma~_n Track center]the fr centerline 104 feet-~en , -,=.u= Me~: parallel with said Ain Main Track centerings, -~ Nor~ 1.5 feet as measured at -~, ---,-- - rrac~ ..... · ~nence west a . -.v.~ .,,gmes :o saia ~nd S~ feet Northerly thereof to a .~~e[Ji~_~a)~ Mal~.Track centerline · ownslte of Langdon Park, accordtn,~"C~"~ ~?c )~e ot ~t ~2, Block ~ -- ~-~ P,,~ :hereof- on file and of ~cord in the Office of the Register of Oeeds, ~ennepin County; thence South Z feet' measured ab right angles to said ~in Tr · ~r~ll~l with, S0 feet ~or _ ack centeTl~ne; thence .Wes cen:erllne to therly of and at Pfght an terly ~.~ ._ _ ~he West line of said S ~*~-- ~o..~ gl~ to said Main Track :'"T_ ~ a point ~0 feet distant f~'~'L.t~L~n?ce ~o?h along said West ~ou:ner)~ of said Main Track ...... .~__., ~,~-aur~a a: _r~g~t angles to and ~e,~er~ne, :hence gasterly parallel with said Main Track centerline to the point of intersection with the Southerly line of vacated ~arren Avenue, Village of S ran . Southerly line of vacat-a u ..... ,.._~. g Pa.rk,. ~e.nce Easterly ong said ~a~d Southerly line at ~' ~i'~":~v~ ~o ~. l l~e ?a,n at rightalangles to. ~ ,, aa~a ~ou~ner~y Pine which is 1,100 feet we~ter)~ f~ the most Easterly boundary oF said Avenue; thence Northerly I I along said right angle line ~00 feet tO the Northerly line of said vacated Warren Avenue; thence Easterly 'along said Northerly line to a line drawn at right angles to said Main Track centerltne at a point 220 feet Westerly, measured along said Main Track centerltne, from the East line of Lot 22, said Block 12, Townstte of Langdon Park; thence North along said line drawn at right angles to said Main Track centerline to a point being 50 feet Southerly of and at right angles to said Main Track centerltne; thence Easterl~ parallel with said ~4atn Track centerline to a line drawn at right angles to said Main Track centerline distant 660 feet Westerly fr~m the East line of said Section 18 as measured along, said Main Track centerline; thence South along said line at right angles to said 'Main Track centerltne 25 feet; thence Easterly parallel with said Main Track centerline 20 feet; thence South and at right angles to the last described course ZS feet; thence East parallel with and distant 100 feet Southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said Main Track centerline to the intersection with said Northwesterly line of County Road No. $1; thence Northeasterly along said Nor. thwesterly line to the Point of Beginning; also, EXCEPTING TFIEREF'ROH the following described parcel of land: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Government Lot 8 distant g32.4 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof; thence Northerly parallel with said East line to the South line of vacated Warren Avenue, being the Point of Beginning of the parcel of land to be described; thence continuing .Northerly parallel to said East line to the Southerly right-of-wmy line of Burlington Northern Railroad Company; thence Easterly along the Southerly right-of-waY line to a line drawn parallel with said East line of Government Lot 8 distant S~4,85 feet West of said East line as measured along the Southerly line of said vacated Warren Avenue; thence Southerly parallel to the East line of Government Lot 8 ta the South line of vacated Warren Avenue; thence Westerly along the South line of vacated Warren Avenue to the Point of Beginning. All that portion of said Railroad Company's 100 foot wide Branch Line right-of-way, being $0 feet wide on each side of said hereinafter described Main Track centerline, as originally located and constructed upon, over and across Government Lots 7 and B, Section 13, Tll7N, R24W, Sth P.)4., lying Easterly of the East line of Block 2, LoI Pe Crevter's Subdivision of part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park; also, All of Lots 7, 8 and g, Block 2, said L. P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park; also, · All that portion of said Railroad Company's 100 foot wide Branch Line right-of-way, being 50 feet wide on each side of said hereinafter described Main Track centerline, upon, over and across that part of said Government Lat 7, Government Lot $ and the SW¼SW~ of said Section 13; Government Lots 8, 9, 10 and 1I of Section 14; Government Lot 4, Section 23; the NE¼, S½N~ and N~¼SW~ of Section Z2~ the SE¼ of Section Z~; the NW¼~W4NE¼ and the ~W~ of Section 28; the SE¼SE¼NE~, the SE¼ and. the SE¼SE¼SW¼ of Section 29; the NW) and the NWJNW¼SW¼ of Section 32~ and the SE¼ and the SE¼S£¼SW~ of Section 31~ all in Tl17~, R24W, 5th P.M., lying between the West line of said Block 2, L. P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park and the South line of said Section 3~, Tl17N, R24W, being the South line of Hennepin Countyk also~ Ail that Portion of .'aid ~Wt~l~.~NEi of Section 28, TllTH, ~or~h~eS~erly Of and ad~acen~ to ;he heretnabove described ]00 foot ~lde rlght-of-we~; al;o, All that PO~on of said Railroad Compan '~ Hound, N1nnasota ] Y station ground ~ err Beginning at a point 50. feet Southerl~ of and a r heretna~te~ described Ma~n Track e,~,..~.. ~,..._~t .~h~ ~ngles to sa~d r~aht an~le- :- *-,~ L_~'':";~ ",~¥~ ~a~n: SO fee: ~OUtherl fro . = . ~v aa~u ~aln /r&cx centerl~ne from th Y m and at 25 ~eet of sa~d S~S~t- then _ e ~esterT~ ltn~.of the East cen:er]~ 40 feet. ,~:--- ?-~~]~ ~ rts~. ang]qs from sa~d aeon Track tO I ~ v,,;,,~c ac~=rl7 ~ra/iel ~:n said Math Track centerl~ne point dls~nt S~O ~ee: Yester17 as ~asured along said parallel l~ne feet Southe~17 of said Math Track center11~e from the East line of said S~tS~; t~nce due Sou~ ~ feet; thence ~esterl7 tn a straight 11ne 208 ~re Or less, :o a potnt ~00 fee: Sou:her17, ~asured a: r~ght angles, sa~d Ha~n Tract centerl~ne distant ~g5.~ feet E~s:ee17~ ~easured along a parallel ~:R~ ~00 feet Souther17 from and at r~ght angles to satd ~a~n r ck centerlfne ~ the ~est 11ne of sa~d S~; thence ~estpr17 ~n a s:ratght 11ne b~3.7 ~eet~ more or ]ess~ to a point on sa~d ~est 1~ of ~e dls~ant &g.47 feet South measured along said Ees: 11ne f~m said r~tn Tra:k centerl~n~ ~ence No~h along satd Res: ltne o~ the ~S~t to a point d~s~nt 50 feet Sou~erly f~m, ~a~ured at r~ ht center]Ina, the g '~ng]es :o, sa~d ~a~n Track cn ~ ..... ~ . ncc. EaSter~~ ~ral~el w~th sa~d ~n r~ae~ centeeline ~v ,~e~ :nereTrom :o the Potnt of Begfnn~ng~ also, A~l that port~on of said R~tlro~d.Co~,s ~tat~on ground proper~ at ~ound, ~tnnesota lyfng adjacent co ane ~or:nerly of the herefnabove described ~00 foot wtde Branch L~ne right-of, way s~tuated tn the S~S~ of sa~d ~ect~on 13, TI]TN, Rgq~, l~ng bet~en t~o ~tnas dr~wn parallel ~th ~nd d~stant respectively 50 Feet and ~50 fe~t ~o~her~ , ~,_~afd ~n Track centerl~ne: bound, a ,, +~- e.~ measured at n~ght angles ............ ~ ~a~ s~de by a line dra~n r~gnt angles to sa~d gain Track ~nter~ne d~stan: 8~ fee: Easterl~ of the  st ~ne of sa~d S~i as ~asured along said Hain Tr~ck Center]tne, bounded the ~es: by safd ~est line of the ~WiS~i of Section ~3; A11 that portion of said Railroad Company's statton g~und p~per~ at St. Bontfac~us, ~tnnesota, lytng ~djacent to and Northwesterly of the heretna~ve d~cribed 100 fOOt ~fde Branch L~ne ~'~ght-of-~ay s~tuoted in ~atd ~ of Section 32, TIIT~, R24~, lytng between'two 11nas drawn parallel and dtstant respectively 50 feet and lO0 feet ~orthwesteely, ~easured at angTes to, sa~d herinafter described ~atn ~rack centerlfne; bounded on.the ~outhwest sl~e by a I~ne drawn a: rtgh: an les ~ain 7r~ck centerttne dl ~ , g _ to sa~d.~m~l,afLer st~n~ ~00 feet ~ortheasterly of the-~outh l~ne of ~ as measured along sa~d ~aln Track center]fha; bounded on the sfde by a ]1ne dra~n at r~ght angles to satd Hafn Track cantcrltne distant 4~9 feet Sout~est. or the ~orth 11ne of sa~d ~; I .£ All that portion of said Railroad. Company's statlon ground property at St. Bonifacius, Minnesota, lying eSjac~nt to and Southeasterly of the heretnabove described lO0 root wide Branch Line right-of-way situated in said ~W~, Section 32, Tll/~, R24W, lytng between two lines drawn parallel with and d!s~ant, respectively, 5U feet and 200 feet Southeasterly of, measured at right angles to, said hereinafter described Hafn Track centerline; bounded on the Southwest sfde by a line drawn at right angles to sa~d ~ain Track centerline distant &O0 feet Northeasterly of the South line of said ~ as measured along said Main Track centerljne; bounded on the No~heas: by a line running due North from a point.~,2S6.S feet South and 375.375 feet West of the Northeast corner Of said N~t. . RAIN TRACK CE~TERLINE DESCRIPTION Beginning at the point of termination of the hereinabove described Main Track centerltne description; t~ence Westerly tangent to the last described curve 6,70g.b feet; thence Westerly along a tangential, curve to the left having a radius of 8,~94.4~ feet {delta angle 6° 18') a d~stance of g45 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 4,16g.7 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 4,16g.7 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 3,819.83 feet (delta angle 16e 09') a distance of 1,076.7 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 5,131 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 2,854.g3 feet {delta angle lge ~0°} a distance of 966.7 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 10,123.9 feet,'passing a point on the West line of Section 28, Tl17N, R~4W, distant 2,27~ feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence along a tangential curve to the left hav!ng a radius of 7,639.49 feet (delta angle ~3° 21') a distance of 1,779.4 feet, thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 5,7)0.6 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right hav~ng a red(us of S,7~9.65 feet (delta an le 10° 27') a distance of 1,04S feet, thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 3,193 feet to a point on the South line of Section 3I, Tl17N, R24W, and there terminating. ]OA. EX~. 142 -7- CIT' ' of MOUND 534' !.~AY'A'OOD r-C-' D '.JND '.' ';NESOTA 55~,!z '7.-.- ~.'2 472-0600 FA) .2~,2~ ~'T2 0621 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 93-023 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED "BALBOA ADDITION" BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT $300 SHORELINE DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 13, 1993 to consider a request for Preliminary Plat involving land located north of the Balboa building for lands owned by Dakota Rail, Inc. The subdivision will result in the creation of two new parcels, generally located in the following described property: All that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of way located in the South Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A copy of a plat map showing the location of the proposed subdivision is attached for your reference. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. 'n ene ~. ]21ark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" June 28, 1993, and mailed to property owners within 350' on June 25, 1993. ! I l, ! i, t~ I June 22, 1993 RECEIVED FROM: M.E. Peterson, Community Service Mgr. NSP Co., Minnetonka Area TO: Peggy James, Planning & Inspeclion City of Mound SUBJECT: Dakota Rail Replat Le~e Agreement with Northern States Power Co. Northern States Power Company Mlnnetonka Divlfion 5505 County Road 19 P.O. 8ox 10 [x¢01$ior, Minno~oIo 55301 Toleprtono (612) Dear Peggy: ' 1:15 PM on Tuesday June 22, 1993 I had a conversation with the l'resident of ...akota Rail, Mr. Elli Mills in regard to the above subject. He informs me that Northern States Power Co. has a 5 year lease agreement with Dakota Rail for their facilities within the Railroad Right of Way and that wc do not need to draw up a new Easement due to the above mentioned re-plat. Sincerely, M.E. Pctcrson ~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI,qSION JUNE 14, 1993 ~ 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 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 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: 1. Right-of-way needs to be dedicated at Fairview Lane. 2. 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: 1. Easements shall be established for all water service and storm sewer crossing points along the railroad tracks. 2. 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. 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. 3. Easements be established for all local utilities. 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. Hoisington Koegier Group Inc. mil PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 9, 1993 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval - Balboa Addition APPLICANT: Dakota Rail, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 93-023 HKG FILE NUMBER: 93-93-10d LOCATION: East of Fairview Lane, South of Lynwood Boulevard and North of the Existing Balboa Building EXISTING ZONING: Industrial (I-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial BACKGROUND: The owner (and applicant) is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to create two new parcels located on the north side of the existing 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. COMMENT: This report is a compilation of comments from both the city planner and city engineer. At the time of the writing of this report, the preliminary plat drawing is incomplete. The surveyor is currently modifying the drawing to reflect Mound's platting requirements. Specific items that need to be addressed include: 1. 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. Land Use/Environmental, Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard: Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 i · 1, i I, I,t I I Dakota Rail Preliminary Plat Planning Report June 9, 1993 Page Two 3. All local utility lines need to be added to the plat. 4. The plat needs to contain a name. As was stated earlier, it is our understanding that the Owner's surveyor is currently modifying the preliminary plat drawing to include these items. Staff will update the Planning Commission at the meeting as to the Owner's compliance with the preliminary platting requirements. The proposed division does not present any major planning or engineering issues excepts as noted above. The parcels will continue to be used in the future as they are currently used today. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the proposed division by Dakota Rail subject to the following conditions: 1. Easements shall be established for all water service and storm sewer crossing points along the railroad tracks. 2. 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. JVN-- I 0--95 THU ? : 48 June 10, 1993 Mr. John Su~herland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN S5364-1687 RECEIVED JUN 1 0 1993 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. P.02 Northern States Power Company Mlnnotonke Divlelon 5505 Coum¥ IRoacl 19 P.O, Box ~0 Excelsior, MInno$ol~ $5337 Telephone (612) 474-8861 Subject: Major Subdivision request by Dakota Rail, Inc. Involving lands North of the Balboa Building at S300 Shoreline Drive. Dear Mr. SuCherland; Northern States Power Company has an overhead faader line running within the property now owned by Dakota Rail Inc. which serves the Mound Area. This was previously owned by Great Northern Railroad. N.S.P. Co., currently holds permins which ~iv¢ us the right to be in this area. We would like to reserve this right of way in its entire~y for easement rights to continue to serve ~he CJ.~y of Mound. I would like to have a copy of the new Plat map fo~.' any new d~vclopment which may require new electrical service oz' ~he re-routing of present facilities. Sincerely,/? M.~. Peter$on Manager, Community Services 470-3305 ! I 1, i I, ti I I CIT' of X IOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 93-023 NOTICE OF AN INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, June 14, 1993 to consider a major subdivision of land located north of the Balboa Building for lands owned by Dakota Rail, Inc. The subdivision will result in the creation of two new parcels, generally located in the following described property: Ail that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of way located in the South Half os Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A copy of a plat map showing the location of the proposed subdivision is attached for your reference. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350' on June 3, 1993. 3JO SHERMAN WINTHROP ROBERT R. WEINSTINE RICHARO A. HOEL ROGER Do GORDON STEVEN C. TOUREK STEPHEN J. SNYDER HART KULLER DAVID P. PEARSON THOMAS M. HART IV DARRON C. KNUTSON JOHN A. KNAPP MICHELE D. VAILLANCOURT DAVID E. MORAN,JR. DONALD J. BROWN WINTHROP & WEINSTINE A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JON J. HOGANSON SANDRA J. MARTIN GARY W. SCHOKMILLER TODD B.URNESS SCOTT J.DONGOSKE PETER J. GLEEKEL EDWARD J. DRENTTEL JEFFREY R. ANSEL LAURIE A. KNOCKE LLOYDW. GROOMS JULIEK. WILLfAMSON BETSY J. LOUSHIN MARK T. JOHNSON JENNIFER WIRICK BREITINGER BROOKS F. POLEY ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 3200 MINNESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL~ MINNESOTA S5t01-4901 TELEPHONE (612) 290-8400 FAX I612} 292-9347 DIRECT DIAL (612) 290-8546 JULIE WIDLEY SCHNELL THOMAS H. BOYD JOSEPH C. NAUMAN DANIEL C. BECK ERIC J. NYSTROM KRISTIN L. PETERSON JOANNE L. MATZEN WILLIAM L.WINSON EVAN D. COOBS THOMAS A* WALKER GINA M. GROTHE FOLLEN PATRICK W. WEBER CHARLES A. DURANT CRAfG A. BRANDT DAVID A. KRISTAL KAR~L A.WEBER JONATHAN D. CRAN TOMAS L.STAFFORD CARLA J- PEDERSEN JAMES W. DIERKING CATHERINE A. DOMINGUEZ CHRISTOPHER W. MADEL SUZANNE M. SPELLACY JOSEPH S- FR~EDBERG OF COUNSEL DANIEL W. HARDY OF COUNSEL June 8, 1993 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 HAND DELIVERED Re: Dakota Rail, Inc./Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. Dear Sir or Madam: With this letter, please find enclosed the original signed Application For Major Subdivision of Land by Dakota Rail, Inc. A copy of the signed Application was sent to you with my letter of May 27, 1993. You should soon be receiving, if you have not already received the revised Preliminary Plat from Egan Field & Nowak. Please call me if you have any questions about this Application. Very truly yours, WINrl~ROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. By' JLM: sic Enclosure !1 1. ! I, Ii I I JUbi-- 8--9:~; TUE 1! :02 (Revised 12/8/92) R CEiVED -= JUN 8 1993 Application for PLANNING & INSP. Cit~, og Hound $341 MeT'wood Road~ Mo~d, ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600t ~ax: 472-0620 CLky Council Date: ~oning sheet Completed; Copy to c£t¥ Planner: copy to Public Works= Copy to City Engineer: Other: C&Be ~0,' Sketch Plan Reviews. Preliminary Pla~:, r£nal Plak[.. Escrow De~os£t: SISO.O0 ~ls9.oo SXO0,,00 · S1.000.00 Delinquent Taxes? VARZANC8 P.T~U IRtD? Address of Subject Pcope=t¥ , Mound, MN Owner's Name Dakota Rail, Inc. Day Phone (813) 585-4727 Owner's Addresa..~25 Adams Street North, Hu~ch~pn, MN 55350 Appl£can¥/~aame (if other ~han ~ner)~_lboa M/nneeota Co., Inc./Dakota Rail, Inc. Denise Brown, Welsh ~ompanxes,-~n~. ' ~ddreas__8 Pine ~ree Drive, Ste. 240, Arden Hills, MN 55112 Day Phone_ !612) 484-4~34 ~ame of Surveyor= Jack Bolke, c/o Sgan Field & Nowak, Inc. Day Phone (612) 546-6837 Name of Engineer~ Ja¢~ Bolke. c/o Eq~_Field & Nowak, Inc. Day Phone (612) 545-$857 EXZSTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION; Lot See Exhibit A attached Block RoR. 13-117-24-34-006-8 .... PZD Mo. 1~-117-24-43-014-4 Leasehold PID No. 13-117-24-34-00~7 Use of Property; Railroad_Track/Access ~o ~oading Dock Add£tion PROPOSED PLAT HAME: Has an application eve= been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, of other zoning procedure for th£a property? ( ) yes, (x) no. If ~ee, list data(s) of application, action ~aken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by ~ owners of the sub, eat property, or an ex~plana=ionog%ven why this is not the case. ~i~a~ure of Owner O,a'te ignature of Owner Date Application for M IOR__SUBDIX(ISiON OF / tit7 of Mound ~bO~e~ 472-0600~ F~Xl Site Visi~ Scheduled: cody Copy to Public ~ork~:' ~, ....... COpy Sketch Plan Rev£ew: Final Pla~: ..--_Escrow Deposit= .... ~1~OOO.00 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinc~uent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? ~lease type or prier the followiag £nformation: Address of Sub,eot Property, , Mound, MN Owner's Name Dakota Rail, Inc. Day Phone (813) 585-4727 Owner's Address 25 Adams Street North, Hutchinson, MN 55350 Applicant's ~amK (1% othet than ownet) Balboa Minneso%a Co., InC./Dakota Rail, Inc. c/o uenzse erown, Welsh Compa~le~, znc. ' ........ Address 8 Pine Tree Drive, Ste. 240, Arden ~ills, MN 55112 Day Phone (612) 484-4334 Name of Surveyor= Jack Polka, c/o Egan Pield & Nowak, Inc. Day Phone (612) 546-6837 Name of Engineer= Jack BoOks ~-¢Zo Eqan Field & NDwak. t Inc. Day Phone (612) 546-6837 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot See Exhibit A attached Addition Soning District Z-1 PROPOSED PLAT NAME= glcck R.R. 13-117-24-34-006-8 PID No. 13-117-2.~.r. 4.3-014-4 Leasehol~ PID No. Use of Proper~y: Railroad Track/Access tO Loading Dock Has an application eve= been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure fo~ this property? ( ) yes, (x) no. l~ ~ee, last date(s) of applica~ion, ac:ion ~aken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolu=£ons. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an why this is not the case. Signature of Owner Date i · 1, I I, I~ I I ~ "~ERMAN WINTHROP ~BERT R. WEINSTINE RICHARD A. HOEL ROGER O. GORDON ST£VEN C.TOUREK STEPHEN J. SNYDER HART KULLER DAVID P. PEARSON THOMAS H. HART IV DARRON C. KNUTSON JOHN A. KNAPP MICHELE D. VAILLANCOURT DAVID E. MORAN, JR. DONALD J. BROWN WINTHROP ~. WEINSTINE A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JON J. HOGANSON SANDRA J. MARTIN GARY W. SCHOKMILLER TODD B. URNESS SCOTT J. DONGOSKE PETER J. GLEEKEL ROBERT S. SOSKIN EDWARD J, DRENTTEL JEFFREY R. ANSEL LAURIE A, KNOCKE LLOYDW. GROOMS JULIEK. WtLLIAMSON BETSYJ. LOUSHIN MARK T. JOHNSON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 3200 MINNESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA SSIOI TELEPHONE (612) 290-8400 FAX {612} 292-9347 DIRECT DIAL JULIE WIDLEY SCHNELL THOMAS H. BOYD JOSEPH C. NAUMAN DANIEL C. BECK ERIC J. NYSTROM KRISTIN L. PETERSON JOANNE L. MATZEN WILLIAM L. WINSON EVAN D. COOSS THOMAS A.WALKER GINA M. GROTHE FOLLEN PATRICK W. WEBER CHARLES A. DURANT CRAIG A. BRANDT (612) 290-8546 DAVID A. KRISTAL KARL A. WEBER JONATHAN D. CRAN ALOK VIDYARTH I TOMAS L STAFFORD CARLA J. PEOERSEN JAMES W. DIERKING CATHERINE A. DOMINGUEZ CHRISTOPHER W. MADEL SUZANNE M. SPELLACY JOSEPH S. FRIEDBERG OF COUNSEL DANIEL W. HARDY OF COUNSEL May 27, 1993 HAND DELIVERED City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Dakota Rail, Inc./Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. Dear Sir or Madam: With this letter, please find enclosed for filing the Application for major subdivision of land currently owned by Dakota Rail, Inc. Dakota Rail is in the process of selling a portion of its property to Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc., which owns adjacent land. Kindly review the enclosed documents, and call me or Tom Hart of our office if you require further information. It is my understanding from prior conversations with Peggy that for a lot split of this nature, it will not be necessary to create a formal plat with a distinct name. If I am mistaken in my understanding, please advise immediately. As we discussed with Mark Kegler, it is our hope that the requirement for a topographical map can be waived in this instance. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. Joanne L. Matzen JLM/gmh, o2s Enclosure cc: Denise Brown (w/encls.) Jack Bolke Thomas M. Hart I. IJ · ! i [ 1, i l, fl I I Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. May 4, 1993 Mr. Elli Mills, President Dakota Rail, Inc. 801 West Bay Drive, Suite 800 Largo, Florida 34640 Dear Mr. Mills: I am in receipt Of your letter dated April 27, 1993 regarding the potential subdivision of land currently owned by Dakota Rail. When we discussed this issue on the telephone, the focus of the conversation was on the form of the subdivision that would be required (plat versus metes and bounds description). Your letter raises another issue, specifically, the conveyance of property and subsequent subdivision by parties other than Dakota Rail. As I generally stated on the telephone, the City of Mound requires subdivisions to take place prior to the conveyance of land. The City's procedures require that Dakota Rail, as the land owner, be the applicant on the subdivision application form. This is the same process that you followed when you divided the Norwest Bank parcel. Therefore, in order to sell the subject parcel to Mr. Royer, Dakota Rail will first have to submit an application and complete the subdivision process. Regarding the form of the subdivision that will be required, I am enclosing a copy of Section 330:20 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. As you can see, minor subdivisions involving the creation of metes and bounds descriptions can only occur in cases of small scale residential subdivisions. Therefore, in order to subdivide the subject site, you will need to comply with the platting requirements found in the Code. Sincerely, R. Mark Koegler, RLA Consulting City Planner Enc. cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager Mr. Curtis Pearson, City Attorney [aMUse/Environmental' lrlanning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Su,t¢ 525 · M]nneapolis. M,nnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-99(~o ~557 ~'l~' ,' "9 O00aSSi~ 0~' ~'~ ;/0 lb~J ¥1 I SS] JUL "7 Who's leading the charge? Hey now, who's leading the charge? Do we have many religious groups, welfare workers, H.U.D. representatives, tennants' union's officers' and oppressed renters themselves pounding on the city hall door and demanding a rental housing licensure law? Or, do we maybe just have one to three. council members out front leading that cha~ge with virtually no one really following them? How many renters have ever petitioned our city government of the people, by the people and for the people for a rental licensing law? How many have demonstrated in the streets because the city ignores their basic housing needs? A report of the June 23 council meeting stated: 1. "The purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the housing stock in the community and have people live in a habitable home." How can a rental license law applying to only ! 50 rental buildings result in maintenance of all our 3,200 or so housing stock and have all 10,000 of us Moundites living in a habitable home? 2. "People who rent' units in' this city have a right to a safe place to live.. Mound has a ,:ur;lus of marginal housing and thi~ ordinance is designed to address that." Seems we only wanl to require renters to live 'in habitable and safe places. That's unfair, we all should have the right to pay $75 yearly to be told if we're living in habitable and safe housing or not. The inspector's suggested fee estimate figures out to be at least .$26,025 yearly .to go to 150 rental buildings or houses and look into 809 housing units. No~ too shabby, $26,000 for about three weeks' work looking al an average of 10 buildings per eight hour day for 15 working days. The second year's inspection would take maybe half the first year's time? Lakewinds' 192 units were constructed in 1970 and then converted to condos and completely refurbished (new decorating, appliances, paint, stain, carpeting, countertops, electrical outlets, GFI circuits, etc.) in 1984-86; the 106 Seahorse units were built about 1965; the 88 Grandview Terrace units were built in 1970; Westonka Estates was built in 1984; Westonka Villa was completed in 1970;, all big rental unit buildings built by professional contractors, by skilled tradesmen, with modern materials according to current building codes. The problem housing in Mound is not all these rentals, it's the old houses built years ago by w. ee.k~nd amateurs using old materials and following few or no building codes - old plumbing, wiring, heating units, siding and windows now beyond repair. Why teU a landlord to fix up his old house, but not tell the owner- resident of a similar house right next door to do the same fix-ups? Will any of our council people have the gall to demand licensing of ali these newer rental units, while continuing to live in their own unlicensed, uninspected houses originally consU-ucted in 1918, 1930, 1930, 1947 and 19547 Ted Fox Mound, MN -. fF( i · l, i I, I~ I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1993 RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE, Geoff Michael referred to a letter written to the City Council from the Rental Task Forced which was received by the City Manager on 5/25/93 and clarified that as a member of the task force and liaison to the Planning Commission he did not sign the letter or see it until after it was received by the City, and that it does not represent the official position of the entire Task Force. The Building Official, Jon Sutherland, briefly reviewed the changes made to the Rental Ordinance by the Rental Task Force. Liz Jensen clarified for the Commission that it was the direction of the City Council for them to review the revised ordinance and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chair, Michael, clarified that this is not a public hearing. Michael also confirmed that it is the wish of the Rental Task Force that if this ordinance is going to be approved, they would like this draft approved. Jim Bedell commented that he feels existing laws cover all of the regulations in the proposed ordinance. The Building Official's authority in enforcing existing state laws was discussed. The Building Official commented that the purpose of having these regulations in the City Code is to offer City staff direction and to gather the laws into one document. Violations can then be cited by City Code in conjunction with State Statute. It is more effective to enforce state laws when the City adopts an ordinance that establishes minimum requirements and references State Statutes. Clapsaddle thanked those task force members who were present and added that the Planning Commission has no right re-writing ordinances and that it is okay to refer to State Statutes. He feels the ordinance is needed to simplify enforcement and the ordinance is needed for some absent landlords. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1993 The Planning Commission reviewed the revised Rental Ordinance Draft dated 5/18/93, page by page, and made the following comments and/or changes. Weiland suggested that the City Attorney develop language to use for those sections which refer to a specific state statute that allows for a current reference. In other words, what happens if the state statute number is modified or changed? The language could be modified to include, for example, "or such State Statute as in affect at that time." Those sections which contain this statement were addressed, "Shall be installed according to the Building Code in effect at the time the building was constructed.,, What if the building was constructed in 1920 and there was no building code at that time, what do you use for enforcement? It was suggested that a minimum code be chosen, such as the 1945 Uniform Building Code to be consistent with minimum standards. The following statement, wherever it appears, was suggested to be amended as follows: "Shall be constructed and maintained according to the code in effect when the building was constructed. On page 20 of the draft, the Commission agreed that Subd. 7. relating to fire alarms remain in the proposed ordinance. On page 21, Subd. 8, relating to Smoke Detectors, it was suggested to modify this section as follows: "Shall be installed according to State Statute ~ ~..:,~ .... ~ ~ ~ .... ~,, c~cc~ ~hen th~ building 'was constructA---~. ........ ~ ~d~ ~- Page 21, Section 319:60 relating to Maximum Density, Minimum Space, for Rental Units: there was discussion about allowing this section to remain, but it was determined to leave it out for now. Page 23, Section 319:80. Mueller would like this section to remain as it requires "The materials used to secure the building shall be painted a color which is consistent with the exterior color of the structure and does not constitute a public nuisance." It was noted that this requirement should apply to all secure, unfit, and vacated dwellings and maybe this should be added to the current City Code. Page 23, Section 319:85 relating to Hazardous Building Declaration. Mueller questioned why not leave this in if it doesn't do anything different? 4 i · 1, i I, I~ I nn£ng Commiss£on Minutes June 28, 1993 Vice Chair Michael questioned where the Commission wants to go next with this proposed ordinance. Mueller commented that there have already been a couple of public hearings and he suggested the proposed ordinance be moved forward to the City Council with the Planning Commission's comments. Voss agreed. Johnson also agreed to send the ordinance forward, however feels it is unfair to proposed an ordinance only for rental property, it should be for all properties. Council Representative Jensen stated that it would be helpful if the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Council, not just comments. Jensen commented, that as a landlord, this proposed ordinance would not hurt her. In comparing the application of this ordinance to owner occupied as well as renter occupied, she feels they are trying to divide what someone chooses to live in as owner occupied and what someone intends to do as a business owner. If she chose to live in an inadequate house, that is her choice. However, as a business owner, to put someone in an inadequate rental house and when the tenant requests the inadequacies be fixed, they should do so. This proposed ordinance gets into life and safety issues for people that are in the "business" of a landlord. Modifications to be recommended were discussed, as follows: The City Attorney should develop language for those sections which refer to specific state statutes to provide reference to current laws, such as, "or such State Statute in affect at that time." Modify those sections which contain the statement "Shall be installed according to the Building Code in effect at the time the building was constructed.,, A minimum date should be set to allow for older buildings to comply with a minimum building code. The Planning Commission could not achieve a concensus on these issues, or how to recommend the changes. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the Proposed Ordinance relating to Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Housing as written in the draft printed 5/18/93 with the exception that Sections 319:60, 319:80, and 319:85 remain. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Johnson, Michael, Voss, Hanus, and Jensen. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Mueller and Weiland. 5 ommission Minutes June 28, 1993 Those Commissioners who voted in opposition clarified that they are in favor of the proposed ordinance, however, did not vote in favor of the motion because they want additional changes as previously discussed. Hanus stated that he is against the ordinance, but as a Planning Commissioner he has been tasked by the City Council to write this proposed ordinance to the best of his ability and he feels this has been done. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend to the City Council that all the regulations outlined in this ordinance apply to all the housing in Mound, not just rental. Motion carried ? to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Johnson, Michael, Hanus, and Voss. Jensen opposed. [ I J, ! I, tt ~ i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 319 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOUSING MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL HOUSING The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 319 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 319 - Housinq Maintenance Requlations for Rental Properties Section ~19:00. purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and the general welfare of the people of the City. These general objectives include, among others, the following: 8ubd. 1. To protect the character residential areas within the City. and stability of 8ubd. Z. To correct and prevent housing conditions that adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the life, safety, general welfare and health. Subd. 3. To provide minimum standards for cooking, heating and sanitary equipment and for light and ventila~t~on necessary to protect the health and safety 0~_ occupants ~ buildings. Subd. 4. To prevent the overcrowding of dwellings. 8ubd. 5. To provide minimum standards for the maintenance of existing residential buildings and to thus prevent substandard housing and blight. 8ubd. 6. To preserve the value of land and buildings throughout the City. With respect to disputes between tenants and landlord, and except as otherwise specifically provided by the terms of this ordinance, it is not the intention of the City Council to intrude upon the accepted contractual relationship between tenant and landlord. The City Council does not intend to intervene as an advocate of either party, nor to act as an arbiter, nor to be receptive to complaints from tenant or landlord which are not specifically and clearly relevant to the provisions of this ordinance. In the absence of such relevancy with regard to rental disputes, it is intended that the contracting parties exercise such legal sanctions as are available to them without the intervention of City government. In enacting this ordinance it is not the intention of the City Council to interfere or permit interference with legal rights to personal property. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 Sectfon 3~9:05. Applicability of Ordinanc, . This ordinance establishes minimum standards for maintaining rental dwelling units, accessory structures and related premises. This ordinance is intended to provide standards for rental housing and to provide standards to protect the character and stability of residential areas in the City. These regulations shall apply to rental housing as defined ~-~ .i c-~~ c ~^. .~ .... ' c., ~d by £ ct.~n ~= of thc Cit~ ~ Code. Section 319:10. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance. Sttbd. 1. ~ccessor¥ Use or Structuren. A nonresidential use or structure subordinate to, and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. Subd. ~. A r~. As to materials and types of construction, refers to approved by the Compliance Official as the result of investigation and tests conducted by him/her, or by reason of accepted principals or tests by recognized authorities, technical or scientific organizations. Subd. 3. ~. Any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure for persons, animals, or chattel, and when said structure is divided by party walls without openings, each portion of such building so separated shall be deemed a separate building. Subd. 4. ~om~liance Official. The City Manager and his/her designated agents authorized-to administer and enforce this ordinance. Su~d. ~. ~. A building or one or more portions thereof occupied or intended to be occupied for residential purposes; but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boarding houses, trailers, tents cabins or trailer coaches. , Subd. 6. _Dwellin~, One-Family. A building designed exclusively for and occupied exclusively by one (1) family. Sttbd. 7. _Dwelling, Two-Family. A building designed exclusively for or occupied by no more than two (2) families living independently of each other. Subd. ~. Dwelling, TWo-FamilyTwin Hom,',. A building designed exclusively for or occupied exclusivel~ by no more than two (2) families living independently of each other with each unit located on a separate, single parcel of record, with the party wall separating the units acting as a dividing lot line. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 2 i · ~, i I, I~ I Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Subd. 9. Dwellinq Unie. A single family dwelling or unit designed to accommodate one family. Subd. 10. Family. An individual, or two or more persons each related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit; or a group of not more than four (4) persons not so related, maintaining a common household and using common cooking and kitchen facilities. Subd. 11. Flush Water Closet. A toilet with a bowl and trap made in one piece, which is connected to the City water and sewer system or other approved water supply and sewer system. Subd. 12. Garbage. As defined and regulated by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 13. Habitable Building. Any building or part thereof that meets minimum standards for use as a home or place of abode by one or more persons. Subd. 14. Habitable Space (Room). Space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space. Subd. 15. Heated Water. Water heated to a temperature of not less than 110 degrees Fahrenheit, or such temperature required by government authority, measured at faucet outlet. Subd. 16. Kitchen. A space which contains a sink with counter working space, space for installing cooking and refrigeration equipment, and space for the storage of cooking utensils. Subd. 17. Maintenanc________ge. Upkeep of property and equipment in a safe working condition for which it was installed and/or constructed. Subd. 18. Multiple Family Dwellings. A dwelling or portion thereof containing three or more dwelling units. A building designed exclusively for or occupied exclusively by three (3) or more families living independently of each other, but sharing hallways, main entrances and exits. Subd. 19. Occupant. Any person (including owner or operator) living, sleeping, cooking and eating in a dwelling unit or living and sleeping in a rooming unit. 8ubd. 20. Operate. As used in this ordinance, the term "operate" means to charge a rental fee for the use of a unit in a rental dwelling. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Su~d. 21. Operator. The owner or the owner's agent who has charge, care, control, or management of a building, or part thereof, in which dwelling units or rooming units are let. Subd. 22. Owner. Any person, firm or corporation who, alone, jointly, or severally with others, shall be in actual possession of, or have charge, care or control of, any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit within the City as owner, employee or agent of the owner, or as trustee or guardian of the estate or person of the title holder. Any person representing the actual owner shall be bound to comply with the provisions of this ordinance to the same extent as the owner. Subd. 23. Permissible Occupancy. The maximum number of persons permitted to reside in a dwelling unit or rooming unit. Subd. 24. Person. An association, corporation, organization of any kind. individual, firm, partnership, company or joint venture or Subd. 25. Plumbing. Ail of the following supplied facilities and equipment in a dwelling: gas pipes, gas burning equipment, water pipes, steam pipes, garbage disposal units, waste pipes, water closets, sinks, installed dishwashers, lavatories, bathtubs, shower baths, installed clothes washing machines, catch basins, drains, vents, and any other similar fixtures and the installation thereof, together with all connections to water, sewer and gas lines. Subd. 26. Premises. A platted lot or part thereof or unplatted parcel of land, and adjacent right-of-way either occupied or unoccupied by any dwelling or non-dwelling structure, including such building or accessory structures. Subd. 27. Public Hall. A hall, corridor or passageway for providing egress from a dwelling unit to a public way and not within the exclusive control of one family. 8ubd. 28. Refuse. As defined and regulated by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 29. Rental Dwelling. As used in this ordinance the term "rental dwelling" shall mean any dwelling rented or leased to a person or persons other than the owner with one or more dwelling units. "Rental dwelling,, does not include hotels motels, hospitals and homes for aged. ' Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 4 ! I l, ! I, I~ I I Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 8ubd. 30. ReDair. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building or its utilities, facilities or equipment for the purpose of its maintenance. Subd. 31. Rodent Harborage. A place where rodents commonly live, nest, or establish their habitat. Subd. 32. Roominq Unit. Any room or group of rooms forming a single habitable unit used or intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for cooking and eating purposes. Subd. 33. Rubbish. As defined and regulated in Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 34. Safety. The condition of being unreasonably free from danger and hazards which may cause accidents or disease. Subd. 35. Story. 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 defined herein for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. Subd. 36. Story, First. The lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as defined 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. Subd. 37. Substandard Dwelling. Any dwelling which does not conform to the minimum standards established by City ordinance. Subd. 38. Supplied. Paid for, furnished by, provided by or under the control of the owner, operator, or agent of a dwelling. Subd. 39. Meaninq of Certain Words. Whenever the words "dwelling", "dwelling unit", "premises", or "structure" are used in this ordinance, they shall be construed as though they were followed by the words "or any part thereof". Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Section 319:~5. Responsibilities of Owners and Occupantz. No owner or other person shall let to another person any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit unless it and the premises are fit for human occupancy and comply with all applicable legal requirements of the State of Minnesota and the City of Mound, and as set forth specifically in the following sections. Subd. 1. Maintenance of Shared or Public Area,. Every owner of a dwelling containing two or more dwelling units shall maintain or shall provide for maintenance of the units shared or public areas of the dwelling and premises thereof. Subd. 2. Maintenance of Occupied Area,. Every occupant of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit shall maintain that part of the dwelling, dwelling unit and premises thereof that he or she occupies and controls. Subd. 3. Storaqe and Disposal of Rubbish. Every occupant of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit shall store and dispose of all his or her rubbish and garbage and any other organic waste which might provide food for insects and/or rodents in a manner as prescribed by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 4. Responsibility for Storaqe and Disposal of Garbaq,% and Rubbish. Every owner of a dwelling, two family, two family town homes or a multiple family dwelling shall supply facilities for the storage and/or disposal of rubbish and garbage. In the case of single or two-family dwellings, it shall be the responsibility of the occupant to furnish such facilities as prescribed by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 5. Responsibility for Storm and Screen Doors an,l Windows. The owner of a rental dwelling unit shall be responsible for providing, maintaining and hanging all screens and storm doors and storm windows whenever the same are required under the provisions or this ordinance. Subd. 6. Responsibility for Pest Exterminatio-. Every occupant of a dwelling containing a single dwelling unit shall be responsible for the extermination of vermin infestations and/or rodents on the premises. Every occupant of a dwelling unit in a dwelling containing more than one dwelling unit shall be responsible for such extermination whenever his/her dwelling unit is the only one infested. Notwithstanding, however, whenever infestation is caused by the failure of the owner to maintain a dwelling in a reasonably rodent-proof condition, extermination shall be the responsibility of the Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 il 1, i I, ", , Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 owner. Whenever infestation exists in two or more of the dwelling units in any dwelling or in the shared or public parts of any dwelling containing two or more dwelling units, extermination thereof shall be the responsibility of the owner. Subd. 7. Rodent Harboraqes Prohibited in Occupied Areas. No occupant of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall accumulate boxes, firewood, lumber, scrap metal or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about any dwelling or dwelling unit. Outside stored materials shall be stacked neatly in piles at least 4 inches off bare soil or ground. Subd. 8. Rodent Harborages Prohibited in Public Areas. No owner of a dwelling containing two or more dwelling units shall accumulate or permit the accumulation of boxes, lumber, scrap metal or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about shared or public areas of a dwelling or its premises. Materials stored outside by the owner or permitted to be stored by the owner shall be stacked neatly in piles at least 4 inches off bare soil or ground. Subd. 9. Prevention of Food for Rodents. No owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall store, place or allow to accumulate any materials that may serve as food for rodents in a site accessible to rodents. Subd. 10. Maintenance of Plumblng Fixtures and Facilities. The owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall maintain all supplied plumbing fixtures and facilities therein. Subd. 11. Minimum Heating Capability and Maintenance. In every dwelling unit or rooming unit when the control of the supplied heat is the responsibility of a person other than the occupant, a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit or such lesser temperature required by government authority shall be maintained at a distance of three feet above the floor and three feet from exterior walls in all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments from September 15 to May 1. Subd. 12. Removal of Snow and Ice. The owner?6~:~h~ of any rental dwelling shall be responsible for the'""~6~'i""'°f snow and ice from parking lots and/or driveways, steps and walkways on the premises. Individual snowfalls of three inches or more or successive snowfalls accumulating to a depth of three inches shall be removed from walkways and steps within 48 hours after cessation of the snowfall. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Subd. 13. Minimum Exterior Lighting. The owner of a rental dwelling or dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining effective illumination in all exterior parking areas and walkways. Subd. 14. ~aintenance of Drivinq and Parking Area~ . The owner of a multiple family dwelling or dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining in good condition paved a,nd dclincate~ parking areas and driveways for tenants. Subd. 15. Owner/Occupant Responsibilities Define4. Every owner remains liable for violations of duties imposed upon them by this Code even though an obligation is also imposed on the occupants of their building, and even though the owner has, by agreement, imposed on the occupant the duty of furnishing required equipment or of complying with this Code. Every owner, or their agent, in addition to being responsible for maintaining their building in a sound structural condition, shall be responsible for keeping that part of the building or premises which they occupy or control in a clean, sanitary and safe condition. Every occupant of a dwelling unit, in addition to being responsible for keeping the dwelling or dwelling unit or premises which they occupy and control, in a clean, sanitary and safe condition, shall dispose of all rubbish, garbage and other organic waste in a manner required bylaw. All occupants shall keep their premises in a safe and sanitary condition. Section 319:20. Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment an, Facilities. No person shall rent or let to another for occupancy, any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purposes of living, sleeping, cooking and eating therein which does not comply with the following requirements: Subd. 1. Provide a kitchen sink in good working condition and properly connected to an approved water supply system and which provides at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure and which is connected to an approved sewer system per Section 600 and/or 300 or 305 of the City Code. Subd. 2. Provide cabinets and/or shelves for the storage of eating, drinking and cooking equipment and utensils and of food that does not require refrigeration for safekeeping; and a counter or table for food preparation. Said cabinets and/or shelves and counter or table shall be of sound construction furnished with surfaces that are easily cleanable and that will not impart any toxic or deleterious effect to food. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 ti · 1, i I, I1 I Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Subd. 3. Provide a stove or~.,.~-~-~- ~.~~"~- for cooking food and refrigeration ~- -~-~ -- ........ for the safe storage of food which are properly installed with all necessary connections for safe, sanitary and efficient operation. Provided that such stove, refrigerator -:-~ ~- Jr ...... i~ dcvice~ need not be installed when a dwelling unit is not occupied and when the occupant is expected to provide same on occupancy, in which case sufficient space and adequate connections for the installation and operation of said stove, refrigerator ~ similar device must be provided. Subd. 4. Every dwelling unit shall have at least four (4) square feet of floor area to ceiling closet space for personal effects of each permissible occupant. If it is lacking in whole or in part, an amount of space equal in square footage to the deficiency shall be subtracted from the area of habitable room space used to determine permissible occupancy. Subd. S. Toilet Facilities. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non-habitable room which is equipped with a flush water closet in compliance with Minnesota State Plumbing Code. Such room shall have an entrance door which affords privacy. Said flush water closet shall be equipped with easily cleanable surfaces, shall be connected to an approved water system that at all times provides an adequate amount of running water under pressure to cause the water closet to be operated property, and shall be connected to a sewer system in compliance with Section 300, 305, and 600 of the City Code. Subd. 6. Lavatory Sink. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a lavatory sink. Said lavatory sink may be in the same room as the flush water closet, or if located in another room, the lavatory sink shall be located in close proximity to the door leading directly into the room in which said water closet is located. The lavatory sink shall be in good working condition and shall be properly connected to an approved water system and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Subd. 7. Bathtub or Showe~. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non-habitable room which is equipped with a bathtub or shower in good working condition. Said bathtub or shower may be in the same room as the flush water closet, or in another room, and shall be properly connected to an approved water supply system and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated water under pressure and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Section 319:2S. General Requirement-. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose Draft Printed 5/~8/93 Revised 7/21/93 9 57O Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: Su~d. 1. Foundations, Exterior Walls and Roof,. The foundation, exterior walls and exterior roof shall be substantially water tight and protected against vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and repair. The foundation element shall adequately support the building at all points. Every exterior wall shall be free of structural deterioration or any other condition which might admit rain or dampness to the interior portion of the walls or to the interior spaces of the dwelling. The roof shall be tight and have no defects which admit rain and roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent rain water from causing dampness in the walls. All exterior surfaces, other than decay resistant materials, shall be protected from the elements and decay resistant materials, shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or other protective covering or treatment. If approximately 10% or more of the total exterior surface is unpainted or lacks a protective coating or is determined by the Compliance Official to be deteriorated, the surface shall have a protective covering applied. If approximately 10% or more of the total exterior surface of the pointing of any brick, block or stone wall is loose or has fallen out, the surface shall be repaired. Subd. 2. Windows, Doors and Screens. Every window, exterior door and hatchway shall be substantially tight and shall be kept in repair. Every window other that a fixed window or storm window shall be capable of being easily opened. Every window, door and frame shall be constructed and maintained in such relation to the adjacent wall construction as to completely exclude rain, vermin and rodents from entering the building. Every window which can be opened shall be supplied with sixteen (16) mesh screens during the months of May through September to keep out insects. Subd. 3. Floors, Interior Walls and Ceilings. Every floor, interior wall and ceilings shall be protected against the passage and harborage of vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair. Every floor shall be free of loose, warped, protruding or rotted flooring materials. Every interior wall and ceiling shall be maintained in a tight weatherproof condition. Toxic paint and materials with a lasting toxic effect shall not be used. Every toilet room and bathroom floor surface shall be capable of being easily maintained. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 10 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Subd. 4. Rodent Resistant. Buildings found to be rodent infested shall be made rodent, resistant. All openings in the exterior walls, foundations, basements, ground or first floors and roofs which have a 1/2" diameter or larger opening shall be made rodent-resistant in an approved manner· ii h impervlous .... t .... I. Subd. 5. Fence Maintenance. All fences shall consist of chain link, wood, masonry or other decay resistant material. Fences shall be maintained in good condition by the Owner. Materials, other than decay resistant varieties, shall be protected against decay by use of paint or other preservatives. Subd. 6. Accessory Structure Maintenance. A c c e s s o r y structures shall be structurally sound and be maintained in good repair. The exterior of such structures shall be made weather resistant through the use of decay-resistant materials such as paint or other preservatives. If approximately 10% or more of the total exterior surface is unpainted or lacks a protective coating or is determined by the Compliance Official to be deteriorated, the surface shall have a protective covering applied· Subd. 7. Safe Building Elements. Every foundation, floor, roof, exterior and interior wall, ceilings, and every appurtenance thereto of a rental dwellings shall be safe to use and capable of supporting loads that normal use may cause to be placed thereon. Every stairway, inside or outside, of a rental dwelling and every porch or balcony shall be kept in safe condition and sound repair. Every flight of stairs and every porch and balcony floor shall be free of deterioration. Every stairwell and every flight of stairs which is more that two (2) risers high shall have handrails approximately thirty (30) to thirty-Eight (38) inches high, measured vertically from the nose of the stair tread to the top of the handrail. Ail unenclosed floor and roof openings, open and glazed sides of landings and ramps, balconies or porches which are more than thirty (30) inches above grade or floor level, and roofs used for Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 11 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Ce other than service of the building, shall be protected by a guard rail not less than forty-two (42) inches in height. Open guard rail and stair railings shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere six (6) inches in diameter cannot pass through. Exceptions to guard rail requirements shall be accommodated as provided for in the Minnesota State Codes. Every handrail and balustrade shall be firmly fastened and maintained in good condition. No flight of stairs shall have settled out of its intended position or have pulled away from the supporting or adjacent structures enough to cause a hazard. 6. No flight of stairs shall have rotting, loose, or deteriorating supports. 7. Excepting spiral and winding stairways, the treads and risers of every flight of stairs shall be uniform in width and height. 8. Stairways shall be capable of supporting a live load of two hundred (200) pounds per square foot of horizontal projection. Every sleeping room below the fourth story shall have at least one (1) operable window or exterior door approved for emergency escape or rescue. The units shall be operable from the inside to provide a full clear opening without the use of separate tools. 1. All egress or rescue windows from sleeping rooms shall have a total glazed area of at least five (5) square feet. The smallest net clear opening for each such window shall be twenty (20) inches in width by twenty-four (24) inches in height. Where windows are provided as a means of escape or rescue, they shall have a finished sill height not more than forty-eight (48) inches above the floor. Any such window replaced or newly installed shall be done so in accordance with Section 300 of the Mound Ordinance Code and the Codes adopted by reference therein. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 12 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 .... h-fl h~.~ incorporated :- ~ -:- · th~ deslgn ~l~v effectlvcly .... -' - .... t .... the fire ih does occur. Subd. 8. Facilities to Functio-. Ail equipment or utilities required under City ordinances and every chimney and flue shall function effectively in a safe working condition. Subd. 9. ~rading and Drainag-. Every yard, court, or passageway on the premises on which a dwelling stands shall be graded and drained so as to be free of standing water that constitutes a detriment to health and safety. Subd. 10. Yard Cover. dwelling stands shall erosion. Every yard to a premise on which a be maintained to prevent dust and Subd. 11. Minimum Ceiling Height. In order to qualify as habitable rooms of rental dwellings and rental dwelling units, rooms shall have a clear ceiling height of not less than seven (7) feet, except that in attics or upper-stories used for sleeping, study or similar activities, the ceiling height shall be not less than seven (7) feet, over at least one half (1/2) of the floor area. In calculating the floor area of such rooms in attics or upper-stories, only those portions of the floor area of the room having a clear ceiling height of five (5) feet or more may be included. Subd. 12. Access Through Sleeping Rooms and Bathroom~. No rental dwelling unit shall have a room arrangement such that access to the unit itself or to a bathroom or water closet compartment intended for use by occupants of more than one dwelling unit can be gained only by going through another dwelling, nor shall the room arrangement be such that access to a sleeping room can be gained only by going through another sleeping room. A bathroom or water closet compartment shall not be used as the only passageway to any habitable room, hall, basement, or cellar or to the exterior of any dwelling unit. Section 319:30. Door and Window Locks. No owner, shall rent or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit unless all exterior doors of the dwelling or dwelling unit are equipped with safe, functioning locking devices. Rental dwellings shall be furnished with door locks as follows: Subd. 1. For the purpose of providing a reasonable amount of safety and general welfare for persons occupying multiple family dwellings, an approved security system shall be maintained for each multiple family building to control Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 13 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 access. The security system shall consist of locked building entrances or foyer doors, and locked doors leading from hallways into individual dwelling units. Dead-latch type door locks shall be provided with releasable lever knobs (or doorknobs) on the inside of the building entrance doors and with key cylinder devices on the outside of building entrance doors. Building entrance door latches shall be of a type that are permanently locked from the outside and permanently unlocked from the inside. Subd. 2. Every door that provides ingress and egress for a dwelling unit within a multiple family building shall be equipped with an approved lock that has a deadlocking bolt that cannot be retracted by end pressure, provided, however, that such door shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. Subd. 3. Every window opening within eight (8) feet of finished yard grade shall be equipped with locking devices to secure the window in a closed position. Section 3~9:35. Minimum Standards for Liqht and Ventilation. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: All habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall be provided with natural lights by means of exterior glazed openings with an area not less than{-/-1-Z (8 {-~%) of the floor area of such rooms with a minimum of eight (8) square feet. All habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall be provided with natural ventilation by means of openable exterior openings with a area of not less than 1/25 (4%) of the floor area of such rooms with a minimum of four (4) square feet. Every bathroom and water closet compartment, and every laundry and utility room, shall contain at least 50% of the light and ventilation requirement for habitable rooms, except that no windows shall be required if such rooms are equipped with a ventilation system which is approved by the Compliance Official. Section 319:40. Electric Service, Outlets and Fixtures. Every dwelling unit and all public and common areas shall be supplied with electric service, functioning overcurrent protection devices, electric outlets, and electric fixtures which are properly installed, which shall be maintained in a safe working condition, and shall be connected to a source of electric power in a manner prescribed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of the city of Mound and by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The minimum capacity of such electric service and the minimum number of electric outlets and fixtures shall be as follows: Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 14 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Subd. 1. A dwelling containing one or two dwelling units shall have at least the equivalent of 60 ampere, three-wire electric service per dwelling unit. Subd. 2. Each dwelling unit shall have at least one branch electric circuit for each 600 square feet of dwelling unit floor area. Subd. 3. Every habitable room shall have at least one floor or wall-type electric convenience outlet for each 60 square feet or fraction thereof of total floor area, and in no case less than two such electric outlets; provided, however, that one ceiling or wall-type light fixture may be supplied in lieu of one required electric outlet. S~bd. 4. Every water closet compartment, bathroom, kitchen, laundry room, and furnace room shall contain at least one supplied ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture and every bathroom, kitchen an laundry room shall contain at least one electric convenience outlet. Subd. 5. Every public hall and stairway in every rental dwelling shall be adequately lighted by natural or electric light at all times, so as to provide effective illumination. Every public hall and stair in structures containing not more than two dwelling units may be supplied with conveniently located light switches controlling an adequate lighting system which may be turned on when needed, instead of full-time light. Subd. 6. A convenient switch or equivalent device for turning on a light in each dwelling shall be located near the point of entrance to such unit. Section 319:45. Minimum Thermal Standards. Sub4. 1. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living therein, which does not have heating facilities which are properly installed and maintained in safe and working condition and which are capable of safely heating all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments in every dwelling unit located therein to a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit at a distance of three feet above floor level and three feet from exterior walls at normal weather condition. Sub4. 2. Gas or electric appliances designed primarily for cooking or water heating purposes shall not be considered as heating facilities within the meaning of this section. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 15 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Subd. 3. Portable heating equipment employing flame and the use of liquid fuel does not meet the requirement of this section and is prohibited. Subd. 4. No owner or occupant shall install, operate or use a space heater employing a flame that is not vented outside the structure in an approved manner. Section 319:50. Winterizinq. Owners of residential rental properties built before 1976 that are occupied from November 1 through April 1 are required to comply with energy-efficiency standards in compliance with Minnesota State Rules 4170.4100 S~a~u~e=.~G~=:~G.~.~.~-.~.,~ and this -- ~ .............. are 3 I t ii - - ....... Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 16 i · 1, I I, ti I Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 openings `.- 4-u- ..... 4- `.-- env¢lopu Adder ..... i 4170 .... section a19: S~. ztre Protection. ~ I I k .... ~&&--~ ----~ ........ ~ .~&k~ ~.~ aft "~-~ ~ .... -~--~-"-~-~ -~- ~ ~-~- ~~,,~ 1972~ ~-~ Euilding Code. do eo ' ' g i activatln .... -- - -ddeJ from 4-~A -- ~ ..... served. .... opening ......... z fo Su~d. 2. Stair.Construction. Draft Printed 5/I8/93 Revised 7/21/93 17 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 C .... d "- ' i~, ........ p ght ..... rotectcd ~-- ~z ~ tl 1 rating ~f ........................ t~t~d th ~ -'t--~-I- d rk nship th ~- ~ ...... a ~t ..... ti~ clo==ng by ~ .... ,.~ d~t~-t~- ~- ~ ...~ ~, .............. ~ ~ ........... ,,~,,,,~' .... St~t ..... d 1972 . "'~ .... ' Draft Printed 5/I8/93 Revised 7/21/93 18 II, · 1, · B, I& I Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 total ' ...... th~.. doors, ~..~ ..... d~ shall be fourths hour fl~ '~-- "'- · ...... located Ce do .......... ~-^4- and shall be ........ ..dth --~ -~-- ~-~ ..... ~---~- shall ..~t ...... ~ ~" inches floor opening ...... than ~- sta~r~-ay opening grcate~ Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 19 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 ~-~ '=~ f "~ serving --- ~-~ ~, ......... ~ shall support a concentrated ladders shall ~ at l~t~- 15~..~h~=-- ~' "=-~,~ located ......... ~ ...... ~ ....... f ...... ladders through ................... -- shall h~.~ -~-: .... ~ .... = .... ~ 30 inches by 3D inchos constructed. kept ~i ...... d .... b~t.~ted at all Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 2O Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 be that when ~- iowez detect.rs shall .... ~-,~ ~-~- ~-~ ........... from ...... theft ..... ~ rcgulat~d bz .... M ........ t~ ~-~ .... ~ ~ ~ .......... · ng Code. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 21 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Section 319=60. Maximum Density, Minimum Space, For Rental Units. No person shall permit or let to be occupied any rental dwelling for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: Subd. 1. Permissible Occupancy of Dwellinq Unit. The Maximum permissible occupancy of any rental dwelling unit shall be determined as follows: For the first occupant, 150 square feet of habitable room floor space and for every additional occupant thereof, at least 100 square feet of habitable room floor space. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed two times the number of habitable rooms, less kitchen, in the dwelling unit. Subd. 2. One Family Per Dwelling Unie. Not more than one family except for temporary guests, shall occupy a dwelling unit. Section 319:69~. Enforcement and Inspection Authority. The City Manager and h'is/her designated agents shall be the Compliance Official who shall administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance when reason exists to believe that a violation of this ordinance has been or is being committed. Inspections shall be conducted during reasonable hours and the Compliance Official shall present evidence of his/her official capacity to the owner or occupant in charge of a dwelling unit. Section 319:70. Inspection Access. The Compliance Official shall make a reasonable attempt to contact the Occupant and the Owner to arrange inspections. If any owner, occupant, or other person in charge of the dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or of a multiple dwelling fails or refuses to permit free access and entry to the structure or premises under his/her control, or any part thereof, with respect to which an inspection authorized by this ordinance is sought to be made, the Compliance Official may, upon a showing that probable cause exists for the inspection and for the issuance of an order directing compliance with the inspection requirements of this section with respect to such dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or multiple dwelling, petition and obtain such order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 319:75. Unfit for Human Habitation. Subd. 1. Any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof which is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin or rodent infested or which lacks provision for basic illumination, ventilation or sanitary Draft Printed 5/I8/93 Revised 7/21/93 22 i I l, I I, I~ I I Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 facilities to the extent that the defects create a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or of the P.U_b..~.~.C....~.~Y..~e. ~ec~.9~ unfit for human ~ ~ ';'~ ~'"~'"':~'"~'~' .................. ........ ~, ........ ~ ................ ~ ....... as bcen declared ............................,. , th~ ..... ~--~ ....... ~: .... off~ ~I shall ............. thl ........... bl~ ""~ -". It shall ~ .... ~---~-,N ........ ~ ....... rOomlng unit. Section 319:80. Secure Unfit and Vacate4 Dwellings. The owner of any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit which has been declared unfit for human habitation or which is otherwise vacant for a period of 60 days or more shall make the same safe and secure so that it is not hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of the public. The materials used to secure the building shall be painted a color which is consistent with the exterior color of the structure and does not constitute a public nuisance. Any vacant dwelling open at doors, windows, or wall opening, if unguarded, shall be deemed to be a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public and a public nuisance within the meaning of this ordinance. Section 319:85. Hazardous Buildinq Declaratio-. In the event that dwelling has been declared unfit for human habitation and the owner has not remedied the defects within a prescribed reasonable time, the dwelling may be declared a hazardous building and may be removed, razed or corrected pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 to 463.261. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 23 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 copy ,,. ....4__ .-,,..~ ., h ii ~- th ...... ~ ti ...... upon the ...... ~-- ....... z pos ng ~ ~- ~"=~ th ..... ff~cl~l ..... F~F~ of the structure --~ ,,~t~d on ~ .......... Section 319:95. Riqht of Appeal. When it is alleged by any person to whom a Compliance Order is directed that such Compliance Order is based upon erroneous interpretation of this ordinance, or upon a misstatement or mistake of fact, such person may appeal the Compliance Order to a Board of Appeals and Adjustments as established by Section ~ ~i~i~i~i~ of the City Code. The Planning Commission as an advi'~6~ ............ body shall forward their recommendation to the City Council as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments in the manner set forth in Section ~ ~67~i'~i~i~i Such appeals must be in writing, must specify the grounds~:+~6~':':':~ appeal, must be accompanied by a filing fee as designated by the City Council in cash or cashier's check, and must be filed with the Compliance Official within five (5) business days after service of the Compliance Order. The filing of an appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless such a stay would cause imminent peril to life, health or property. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/2~/93 24 i · 1, i I, t I Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Section 319:100. Board of Appeal's Decision. Upon at least five (5) business days' notice to.the.appellant of the time and place for hearing the appeal and within 30 days after said appeal is filed, the Board of Appeals shall hold a hearing thereon. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council as the Board of Appeals that the order be reversed, modified or affirmed in whole or in part. Section 319:105. Restrictions on Transfer of Ownership. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit upon whom a pending compliance order has been served to sell, transfer, mortgage or lease or otherwise dispose thereof to another person until the provisions of the compliance order have been complied with, unless such owner shall furnish to the grantee, lessee or mortgagee a true copy of any notice of violation or compliance order and shall obtain and possess a receipt of acknowledgement. Anyone securing an interest in the dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit who has received notice of the existence of a Compliance Order shall be bound by same without further service of notice upon him/her and shall be liable to all penalties and procedures provided by this ordinance. Section 319:110. Penalties. Any person who fails to comply with a Compliance Order after a right of appeal has expired, and any person who fails to comply with a modified Compliance Order within the time set therein, upon conviction therefor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day of such failure to comply shall constitute a separate punishable offense. Section 319:115. Execution of Compliance Orders by Public Authority. Upon failure to comply with a compliance order within the time set therein, and no appeal having been taken, or upon failure to comply with a modified Compliance Order within the time set therein, the criminal penalty established hereunder notwithstanding, the City Council after due notice to the owner may by resolution cause the cited deficiency to be remedied as set forth in the Compliance Order. The cost of such remedy shall be a lien against the subject real estate and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and Section 370 of the City Code, for any of the reasons set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101, Subd. 1, and specifically for the removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, but the assessment shall be payable in a single installment. It is the intent of this section to authorize the City to utilize all the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101 and Section 370 of the City Code to promote the public's health, safety and general welfare. Draft Printed 5/18/93 Revised 7/21/93 25 Proposed Ordinance - Section 319 Section 319:120. Severabilit¥ Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Draft Printed 5/I8/93 Revised 7/21/93 26 [l, · l, i I, ~ I I PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK $, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-Z4 Zl 0069 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-012 WHEREAS, the applicants, Gary and Kathleen Spaulding, have applied for a 6.83' front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive and to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to Baywood Lane resulting in a .99' variance to allow construction of an addition, and; WHEREAS, the requested variance will allow construction of an addition which includes an entryway, and; WHEREAS, the City Council requested a Resolution of denial for the original setback variance request of 7.5' at their meeting on May 25, 1993, 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, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with 6 in favor and 2 opposed, with the following Finding of Facts: The 30 foot setback requirement to both streets on this corner lot makes it difficult to construct a conducive addition and less than a 30 foot setback on one of the frontages is reasonable. ~. ~The original placeme~ of th~house D~ecludes the \ / ~bil~Ry to/a~-on~/~ a~ti~eos~ d s the pr perty. 3. The addition is more conducive to the neighborhood. 4. The addition will be an improvement to the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Proposed Resolution Case #93-012 Page 2 The City does hereby approve a 6.83' front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive and recognizes an existing nonconforming front yard setback to Baywood Lane resulting in a .99' variance to allow construction of an addition at 5335 Baywood Shores Drive. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subd. $ 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 an addition which includes an entryway. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 7, Replat of Harrison 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 been filed with the City Clerk. ! I l, ! I, I~ I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case #93-012: Gary & Kathleen Spaulding, 5335 Baywood Shores Drive~ .Lot 4, Block 5, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID #13-117-24 21 0069~ VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, explained that this case has previously been reviewed by the Commission and the applicant has now returned with a clarified request. All the facts in the request for an entryway and second story addition are essentially unchanged with the exception of the setback being requested to Baywood Shores Drive. The actual setback variance now being requested is 6.8 feet, the previous request was 7.5'. The Planning Commission's original recommendation was for approval by a 5 to 3 vote citing these findings: A practical difficulty exists due to the fact the house was poorly placed on the corner lot. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 The proposed entryway addition will create a more conducively designed house for the neighborhood. The City Council action was to deny the request, and a resolution was prepared by staff and the applicants requested at the following City Council meeting that the Council refer the case back to the Planning Commission so they may submit a modified proposal. The City Council's resolution for denial was included in the packet. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission finds the reduction in the variance request is substantial enough that it may alter the Council action, then a recommendation for approval should be made. If it is found that the request is still not adequate as detailed in the proposed resolution, a recommendation for denial should be made based on the resolution. Liz Jensen commented that the Planning Commission needs to look for additional facts to support a recommendation for approval, or if no additional facts can be found, then action should be made accordingly. Mueller suggested the request be moved forward and he reviewed what he believes to be practical hardships being: the setback requirements for corner lots precludes the ability to move the footprint in different directions, and the placement of the house is such that it didn't grant the applicant reasonable use of their property. Mueller compared this request to Resolution 93-019 which granted a lakeside setback variance for a corner lot. In that case the house was placed such that it did not allow the deck to be increased in any direction except towards the street, and even though there was room to do such without a variance, a variance was granted. He feels these requests are very similar because they are in the same neighborhood, both corner lots, and the reason for granting is due to the placement of a house on a corner lot which he believes to be a practical difficulty. Meyer commented that he is in favor of the request, but for different reasons than Mueller. He feels it is irrelevant to compare the neighbors deck variance with this request. Mueller clarified that he did not vote in favor of the neighbors deck setback variance. Meyer commented that corner lots do suffer some setback problems in Mound because of the two street frontage setback requirements. Normally there is concern about what the improvement will do to the neighbors or the neighborhood or other peoples views or to the rules for those who conform, in this case he cannot find anything ! I 1, ! I, tt I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 negative that this would bring to the community, he can only see positive things. Weiland commented that he has been trying to find something wrong with this request, but feels there will be no negative impact; the addition will not stick out or project in front of other houses, the house would look very nice with the addition and would improve property and enhance neighborhood without being obtrusive. Hanus agrees with Meyer, and feels it is hard to argue that the addition will not be a marked improvement, but practical difficulty is a hurdle. Meyer concluded there are only two houses on Baywood Shores on that side of the street. Mueller stated that sometimes common sense should prevail. You cannot write an ordinance for every property and maybe this is a situation when the ordinance does not directly apply. This is more important than the strict letter of the code that was written for a lot of properties and not a specific property in mind. Mueller moved a recommendation for approval for the variance to allow the 6.83 foot setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive with the followlng findings of fact: The 30 foot setback requirement to both streets on this corner lot makes it difficult to construct a conducive addition and less than a 30 foot setback on one of the frontages is reasonable. The original placement of the house precludes the ability to add-on in a direction that makes sense and does not interfere with the enjoyment of the property. 3. The addition is more conducive to the neighborhood. The addition will be an improvement to the neighborhood· Hanus seconded the Motion. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, and Hanus. Johnson and Michael voted in the negative. Johnson and Michael commented that they feel nothing has changed from the original request. This case will be heard by the City Council July 27, 1993. 3 W.O. 89-055 63/5-7 Survey For: GARY & KATHY SPAULDING SUNDE LAND SURVEYING, INC. EDWARD H. SUNDE 9001 EAST BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY (35W) · BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55420 · 612-881-2455 Surveyor's Certificate PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 4, Block 7, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Oo '/ "' LOT g$ ~/I NOTES & LEGEND RECEIVED ~ JUL 1 2 1993 * Garage floor elevation = 938.0 * Top of block elevation : 938.4 * Basement floor elevation = 935.4 I hereby certify that this survey, plan or IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION report was prepared by me or unJer my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered AREA OF HARD SURFACE: Land Surveyor under the laws of the Sta' o (House, Garage & Driveway Mi nnesota. & 50% of deck) = 3,366sq. ft. TOTAL LOT AREA' = 13,200 sq, ft, Edward H. Sunde, R.L.S. q<~ Date: Morch 16, 1950 Reg. NO..86___1_2 ERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 25.5% REVISED: Morc, 20,19e9 (BId~. Ties) REVISED April 14~1993 {Proposed Addilion) I · ~, i I, I~ I I CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534~ UAYWOOD ROAD !/OU~,ID '.I N~E$OTA 55364 !687 · .~2 .!,72 060,,0 FAX 612) 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of June 12, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request APPLICANT: Gary & Kathleen Spaulding CASE NO. 93-012 LOCATION: 5335 Baywood Shores Drive, Lot 4, Block 5, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID ~13-117-24 21 0069 ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants have continued and clarified their variance request for an entryway and second story addition onto the existing dwelling. All the facts in the case are essentially the same, with the exception of the actual setback to Baywood Shores is as noted on the latest survey. This clarification results in a slightly reduced variance request of 6.83 feet to the required 30 foot front yard setback. The previous request resulted in a 7.5' variance request. The Planning Commission's original recommendation was for approval by a 5 to 3 vote citing these findings: A practical difficulty exists due to the fact the house was poorly placed on the corner lot. The proposed entryway addition will create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood. The City Council action was to deny the request, and a resolution was prepared by staff and the applicants requested at the following City Council meeting that the Council refer the case back to the Planning Commission so they may submit a modified proposal. The City Council's resolution for denial is included in the packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that if the Planning Commission finds the reduction in the variance request is substantial enough that it may alter the Council action, then a recommendation for approval should be made. If it is found that the request is still not adequate as detailed in the proposed resolution, a recommendation for denial should be made based on the resolution. This case will be heard by the City Council July 27, 1993. June r'"lr. Jon BL~ildir,,~ Cit_q ,:, f r'.'l o ,- r, ,-I., L~ t h e r I ~ r, ,-! in~pectom r..I¢, u r, d r'.1N 552:,64 DeAr r'.'ln. .,eu~.henlar, d: Subject: Variance Request For 5335 BagbJood Shores []lr. kle ~Jould like to resubmit our variance request to the Planning Commis sion s o that ~Je mag modiFcj our proposal as follou~s: I · He b~ish to clariFg, t~e are reques ting a 6.5' addition to the entry~Jay (not 7.5") - using the criteria that ~Je include the !.5' cantilevered point From ~Jhich the setback (not From the addition end of the house is reques ted. overhang bJe the a s the measure Foundation). to the east a 4' addition In 1979 udhen the house udas built, uJe understood our house uJas conforming to city ordinance, measuring From the Foundation. II j 1, i J, I,J I I The Surveyor's Certificate indi- cates a 6.5' projection from the cantilever~ houJever the addition entryuJay uJili project 6.~5' and the balance of the addition odill pro ject 4". m The architect's draoding did not shood or consider the i.5' canti- levered overhang from odhich point the proposed addition is to be measured. Therefore, the entry~Jay to the street ~Jould 83.18'. Both the Survey & the Elevation are being updated to s hood this. setback from the be ! Hardship practical to the Fact that the poorly placed on the In addition, the lot is as previous ly s tated difficulty exis ts due the backyard is to the Fact that propert~j on the placed exactly on setback (over :30' a 15' deck are on What little back~jard decor and drainage. very the house odas corner lot. s haliot~ and s hallouJ due adjacent north side is the 10' side of house plus fha t line). is left is for In addition,~~ the lot is too Ioua in the north- east corner For constuction. The entryuaay is tiny, as toeil the lower level bedrooms. The propos ed improvements uaouId enhance the value of the house, update its appearance, and compliment the neighborhood. relation lot. Ping improve Rlso, uae Feel the proposed land use request appropriate due the the location oF our property in to the lake L~ our lagoon steps toe can take to the property's value use toiil be to the betterment of not onltj us, but to the neighbor- hood and community as Please also consider ttoo variances granted uaithin the Harrison Shores area: Resolution #86-82, Jultj 1986, Recommendaton to approve a lot size and variance For Lot 8, Block 4, Replat o£ Harris on Shores ~ Res olution Resolution to approve a lakeshore setback variance to alloua construction of a deck, expansion of existing non- conforming deck, at Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. Required ~equest. enclosures Thank you accompany our for tjour time and tn · ~, I I, ~ I cons ideration oF this variance request. Gar~j and I~athleen SpauIding 5335 Bagt~ood Shores Drive Mound, Mn, 4 ?;2-38;22 JUL 05 '93 10:11 9001E BLOOHIN6TOM 6la 888 95a6 P.a W.O. 89-055 63/5-7 Survey For: GARY &.KATHy SPAULDING SUNDE LAND SURVEYING, INC. EDWARD H, SUNDE 9001 EAST BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY (35W) · BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 · 612-881-2466 Surveyor's PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 4, Block 7, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ? "' LO7' 25 ~// NOTES & LEGEND_ ' ~ ~ . * Garage floor elevation = 938.0- * Top of block elevation =--9'3-~'.4 * Basement floor elevation ~.4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIO]~ AREA OF HARD SURFACE: (House, Garage & Driveway & 50% of deck) = 3r366sq. ft. TOTAL LOT AREA: = ~ ~(~PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 25.5% I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registe-~d Land Surveyor under the laws of the Sta f Minnesota. Edward )~. Sonde, R.L.S. Date: Morch 16 t 1989 Reg. No.. 8612 REVISED: Morch20.1989 (Brdg. Ties) ~ REVISED: April 14,1993 (Proooled Ad&finn) tn · ~, i I, ~ I I 152 July 28, 1992 RESOLUTION %92-88 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE X LAKESHORE SETBXCK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT LOT 4t BLOCK 4t REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD LA14E) PID %13-117-24 21 0087 P&Z CXSB NUMBER 92-019 WHEREAS, the applicants, George and Cheryl Fougeron, have applied for a 6 foot 1ak.shore setback variance to allow an expansion to the WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback_to Bay~ae, a-2~~o~ s~tDacK 2o Th~-~-~P6'ints Blvd., and a 50 foot set~ to the Ordinary High 'Water elevati~on; and - WHEREASv All other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and~ WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the requested variance and recommended approval with 6 in favor and 3 opposed. Approval was recommended based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an extension to an existing nonconforming deck at 1701 Baywood Lane, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to building permit issuance. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the ltvability 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: 152 % o3 I I I July 28, 1992 Construction of 6' x 24' deck extension onto an existing 6' x 47'8" deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property; Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. PID %13-117- 24 21 0087. Se This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith · and seconded'by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Counctlmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted Jensen & Jessen. Attest: City Clerk in the negative: 153 Iii !l:l i · I I July 8, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86-8:> RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-2~ 22 00~6 P.e. CASE ~86-518 WHEREAS, Steven Coddon, owner of the vacant parcel of land described as Lot 8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, ~13-117-24 22 0046, has applied for variances in lot size and setback to the north Three Points Blvd. property line to allow' construction of a single family dwelling with conforming side yard and lakeshqre setbacka;.and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 10~000 square foot lot in the R-1 Zoning District with a front yard setback of 30 feet; and / WHEREAS, the property described has a'Iot area of 9,640 square feet above the 929.50HW elevaton, requiring.a setback variance to allow a structure within 20 feet of the north property line abutting Three Points Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend the lot size and setback variances be approved to afford the owner reasonable use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the lot size variance and a 10 foot front yard setback variance, as the lot size is within 90% of the required lot area ands_the hardship is ~ shallowness of the lot to allow the 20 f~ s~orJ~ot 8, BlOck 4, Replat of Hart so hores, ~l~J ~17-24 22 0046, to allow the construction of a single family dwelling with conforming setbacks to the side lot line and the lakeshore for lots of record. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councllmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councllmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers none. Attest: City Clerk-- voted in the negative: Mayor MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 8v 1993 1.1 CASE ~93-012= RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR GARY & KATHLEE~' SPAULDING, 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 4m BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13 ~17-24 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 Planninq Commission be qiven a copy of the resolution for denial for their information. The vote vas un&nimously in favor. Motion carried. June 8, 1993 Mr. Jon Sutherland, Building Inspector City of Mound Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jon: SUBJECT: Request for Variance at 5335 Baywood Shores Drive I am aware of the Mound City Council's action denying my request for a variance. We would like to ask the council to send the variance request back to the Planning Commission so we may submit a modified proposal. Thank you for hearing this request. Sincerely, Gary Spaulding 5335 Baywood Shores Drive Mound, MN 55364 WFLUM IbL: 53W-262b Jun 03,~3 14:42 No.O1U H.O2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0069 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-012 WI~EREA$, the applicants, Gary and Kathleen Spaulding, have applied for a 7.5 foot front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive and to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to Baywood Lane to allow construction of an addition, and WBEREAS, 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 WTiEREA$, the City Councll, after thorough review of the facts involved in this case, and the Mound City Code regulations regarding the R-! Zoning District and specifically the 30 foot front yard setback requirement has determined that the granting of the variance request is not consistent with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 350:05 for variances, and W~EREAS, in this case there has been insufficient showing of hardship or practical difficulty to warrant granting a variance, and WBEREAS, there is currently a .94 foot encroachment to the front yard setback, and the proposed addition includes an entryway which would result in further encroachment into the required 30 foot setback of 7.5 feet, and WI~EREAS, when the applicants' house was constructed it was poorly placed on the corner lot but substantially according to the setbacks required at that time, and WBEREAS, the applicants' case was presented to the Planning Commission on April 12 and May 10, 1993, and the Commission recommended approval with 5 in favor and 3 opposed, NOW, TBEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby deny the request for a 7.5' front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive to allow construction of an addition at 5335 Baywood Shores Drive based upon the following findings: There is at present a minor encroachment into the front yard setback. The request is to increase the encroachment to 7.5 feet (22.5 feet from the street). WHLUM ! · I I ~ Jun US,~J5 14:42 No.U1U F.U.5 Variances are to be used in cases of hardship such as lot size, lot shape, soils, topographic conditions, and things of that nature. In this case there is no showing of hardship but merely for the property owners' convenience. Allowing variances without true hardship or extenuating circumstances would merely circum- vent the ordinance setback requirements and perpetuate the difficulties in getting properties in the City to conform to current ordinances. The fact the existing house was poorly placed on a corner lot does not provide justification for varying the setback requirements. The Council finds that the granting of the requested variance would confer on the applicants special privileges that are denied by the zoning code to other owners of land in the same residential district. The granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties in the area, since no hardship has been shown on the owners of this property other than convenience to justify the issuance of the variance. The Council further finds that if general standards and requirements are waived or relaxed for one property owner, other property owners have the right to expect the same type of treatment or their constitutional rights would be adversely affected by failing to apply the equal protection rules of the constitution for all citizens. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - N~Y 25, 1993 1.2 ~ABE ~93-012: GARY & KATHLEEN SPAULDING, 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117- 24 21 0069. REQUEST: VARIANCE. Building Inspector Jon Sutherland explained this item. Staff had originally recommended to the Planning Commission that if lack of hardship or practical difficulty exists the request should be denied. It is found that practical difficulty exists due to the fact the house was poorly placed on the corner lot and that it is reasonable to allow the further encroachment of 7.5' into the front yard, and further that the addition will create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood, a favorable recommendation could be made. The Planning Commission recommendation was approval of the variance by a 5 to 3 vote. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the variance. Motion failed with of vote of 3 to 2, with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting no. Motion failed. MOTION by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to direct city attorney to prepare a resolution of denial for the variance request on case ~93-012, Motion carried, Ahrens voting no. [l, I 1, i I, I~ I ~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-24 21 0069 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-012 WHEREAS, The applicants, Gary and Kathleen Spaulding, have applied for a 7.5' front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive and to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to Baywood Lane resulting in a .99' variance to allow construction of an addition, and; WHEREAS, The addition includes an entryway which would result in a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood as other houses in the area also have entryways, and; WHEREAS, When the house was constructed it was poorly placed on the corner lot, 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, Ail other setbacks, lot area and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with 5 in favor and 3 opposed, with the following Finding of Facts: Practical difficulty exists due to the fact that the house was poorly placed on the corner lot when constructed. The proposed entryway addition will create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 7.5' front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive and recognizes an existing nonconforming front yard setback to Baywood Lane resulting in a .99' variance to allow construction of an addition at 5335 Baywood Shores Drive. Proposed Resolution Case #93-012 Page 2 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subd. $ 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 an addition which includes an entryway. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 7, Replat of Harrison 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 been filed with the City Clerk. ! I 1, ! I, t I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 1993 Case ~93-012: Gary & Kathleen Spauldinq, 5335 Baywood Shores Drive, Lot 4, Block 5, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID #13-117-24 21 0069. VARIANCE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the status of this request. On April 12, 1993 the Planning Commission tabled this request until further information could be provided. Issues of hardship, reasonable use, and practical difficulty were discussed. It was noted the house was improperly set on the corner lot by not providing enough setback for an entryway. There was the impression that the entryway would create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood and that other houses in the area also have entryways. The revised survey shows a setback of 22.5' from the proposed addition to Baywood Shores Drive, the required setback is 30'. The existing nonconforming setback to the south property line of 29.01' also needs to be recognized. All other setbacks and impervious surface coverage are conforming. Staff recommended that if lack of hardship or practical difficulty exists the request should be denied. If it is found that practical difficulty exists due to the fact the house was poorly placed on the corner lot and that it is reasonable to allow the further encroachment of 7.5' into the front yard, and further that the addition will create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood, a favorable recommendation could be made. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the 7.5' front yard setback variance to the south front property line (Baywood Shores Drive) to allow construction of an entryway addition, and to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 29.01' to the west front property line (Baywood Lane), including the following finding of facts: Practical difficulty exists due to the fact that the house was poorly placed on the corner lot. The proposed entryway addition will create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood. Michael questioned what the difference is from the original request other than the proposed variance is only a half a foot less. Jensen also commented that she finds it difficult to believe that because the house was improperly placed creates a practical difficulty and that the house needs the additional space as it is already a fairly large house, it is hard to see the hardship. MOTION carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Meyer, Hanus, Mueller, Voss and Weiland. Those opposed were: Johnson, Jensen and Michael. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 25, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534' MAYWC3D ROAD MOUNZ' MINNESZ.-A 55364-4687 6'2~ --&X 612 z-2-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. Planning Commission Agenda of May 10, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Sutherland, Building Variance Request Gary & Kathleen Spaulding 93-012 LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND 5335 Baywood Shores Drive, Lot 4, Block 5, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID $13-117-24 21 0069 R-1 Single Family Residential This case was tabled by the Planning Commission at the April 12, 1993 meeting until further information could be provided. The applicants also stated they would further investigate their plan. The Planning commission discussed the issues of hardship, reasonable use, and practical difficulty as they apply to this case. It was noted the house was improperly set on the corner lot by not providing enough setback for an entryway. There was the impression through further discussion that the entryway would create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood and that other houses in the area also have entryways. The revised survey scales 22.5' from the proposed addition to Baywood Shores Drive, the required setback is 30'. This results in a variance request of 7.5' and recognition of the existing nonconforming setback of 29.01' to the south front property line. All other setbacks and impervious surface coverage are conforming. RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission finds a lack of hardship or practical difficulty exists in this case, a recommendation of denial should be made. If it could be found that practical difficulty exists due to the fact that the house is poorly laid out on the corner lot and that it is reasonable use to allow the further encroachment of 7.5' into the front yard, and further that the addition will create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood a favorable recommendation could be made. This case will be heard by the City Council May 25, 1993. ~ JO ] ~ ~ printed on recycled paper MINUTFS OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COI~L~HSSION APRIL 12, 1993 CASE ~93-012: GARY it KATHLEEN 8PAULDING. 5335 BAYWOOD SHORE~ DRIVE, ~.OT 4, BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRISON BEORESt PID ~13-117-24 21 0069. FARI~NCE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland,. reviewed the applicant's request for a front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive of 8 feet to the required 30 foot in order to construct an addition onto the home. The addition will allow for an entryway and expansion of the bedrooms. Staff noted that an updated survey was received today which shows the "existing" structures versus the "proposed". This survey does not show the proposed addition. The survey indicates that the existing front yard setback from Baywood Lane is 29.06 versus the required 30 foot setback. The surveyor also calculated existing impervious surface at 21 percent. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission finds a lack of hardship in this case, a recommendation of denial should be made. If it could be found that other dwellings in the same area have equal or less setbacks and hardcover percentages as this site, a recommendation of approval based on the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district could be made. In this case the applicant would have to compile adequate information in order for staff and the Planning Commission to come to that conclusion. The Planning Commission discussed the figure presented for variance and there was some confusion where the setback was being measured from. There is an existing cantilever that will be removed. The existing setback to the foundation wall is 31.12. The furthest most projected wall line of the proposed addition will measure 8 feet from the existing foundation wall, therefore, it was assumed that the proposed setback will be 23.12, resulting in a 6.88 foot variance. The questions of hardship was posed. Weiland commented that he may not be in favor of the variance, however, he does not feel the addition would negatively impact the neighborhood. Does reasonable use exist? Could the fact that this is a corner lot present some type of hardship? Setting a precedence for the neighborhood was discussed. The applicant, Kathleen Spaulding, noted that all the other houses in the neighborhood have nice entryways, and one neighbor has a covered porch which she thinks projects into the setback. Voss suggested tabling the request to allow the applicant time to bring back adequate information. Jensen questioned, why invest more time if nobody is in favor of the request. Meyer again questioned hardship and noted that there is room on the lot to expand to the north and east. The applicant commented that due to the existing floor plan it is not economically feasible to add to the north and east, and their proposal is the most economical way to expand. Michael informed the applicant that financial reasons cannot be considered a hardship. The Commission discussed the fact that the addition will create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood and it is possible that the house was improperly sited for the lot. The applicant's suggested that they come back with exact numbers and further investigate their plan. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the request until further information can be provided. Motion carried unanimously. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWQOD MZUhS !,"7',,r,,~ESOTA 55364 SAz STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. Planning Commission Agenda of April 12, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official~ , Variance Request , Gary & Kathleen Spaulding 93-012 LOCATION: 5335 Baywood Shores Drive Lot 4, Block 5, Replat of Harrison Shores PID #13-117-24 21 0069 ZONING: BACKGROUND R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant's are seeking a variance of 8 feet to the required 30 foot front yard setback in the R-1 zone in order to construct an entryway and second story expansion onto the home. The request appears to be slightly over the 30 percent maximum hardcover allowed by ordinance, but this is difficult to assess as the survey must be updated in order to accurately depict all the actual conditions on site. The proposed addition does enhance the exterior appearance and functional aspect of the home, however, it is difficult to find hardship in this case. From a practical standpoint, some other homes in the area appear to be setback slightly less than 30 feet. pr~nted on recycled paper i I ~, i I, tt I I Staff Report Spaulding, 5335 Baywood Shores Drive April 12, 1993 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission finds a lack of hardship in this case, a recommendation of denial should be made. If it could be found that other dwellings in the same area have equal or less setbacks and hardcover percentages as this site, a recommendation of approval based on the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district could be made. In this case the applicant would have to compile adequate information in order for staff and the Planning Commission to come to that conclusion. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 27, 1993. JS:pj revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP HOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Hound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~'OJZ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: ., Copy .t.o City ~,~eer: .4 ~,.~ c','2 ........... ,._.,.,.., ....... f A .'~.-,.x~. 7'-.-t. ?. ..................................... Please print the following information: s 2ect Owner' s Address .~.~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner).. Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: /_%- Il"/- ~-~-~ - oo~q zoning, 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, numbe~ of stories, type of use, etc.): /~~~~~~//~~~ ~ ' ~ . · f V ~ _ ' · ~ ~ !1 1, ! I, ~ I I revised 4/2/92 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: Rear Yard: Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: l(~~i Side Yard: ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or exis.~ing) A d ~ ~,,~,~F'~ ft. ft. . . /~ ' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. j~' ft. ft. ft. ~' ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 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 ~lease describe: ~~ ~/~~~ ~ - ~~~ 5. Was the hardship described above created by t~ef~ction of anyone havin~' property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case NO. ~'~-'(~lc~ Se Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~Q. If yes, explain e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~), ~). 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, required by Applicant' s ii~ll.o&~tl~~sting, maj~taining and removing s~.ch notices as ma~~e i · ~, i I, u, I I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: % % \ o x 1ooo ~1 DMx~el Iron monument ~ off.t mk. DorK~# exbting Dehorn Proposed .l.v. Oenot~ lJrfK~ drllnnge Propoled girlge floor I~opo~l top of found~tion olev. - BENCH MARK: DEMAP~ · GABRIEL I hereby c~rtlfy thet this Is I true end correct representation of o survey of the boundaries of the Ibovl described lind end of the location of ill I~Jilding~. If any, the~on, end all vllll~a encroachments, If any, from or on laid land. File No, Book - Pop fBOffT8 IIDBs LAJ~IHOI~II I u · · v SO' ~M&mured frc~ O.H.¥. ] IXDII II I' · IIDBj II I · L,AJ~S#OP. II SOe I~fi&lUlred frills A. BA.q t # ~ {d I (66) (58) (5~) :~0 ~ 0 c ! I l, i I, tt I i PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 4936 GLEN ELYN ROAD LOT 8v BLOCK 23~ SHADYWOOD POINTv PID #13-117-24 11 0083 PaS CASE NUMBER 93-016 WHEREAS, the applicants, Richard and Darlene Sollie, have applied for a variance to impervious surface coverage and side yard setback to allow construction of an addition consisting of a second floor, a garage and an entry, and; WHEREAS, there is an existing nonconforming garage that substantially encroaches into the front yard setback that as a result of this proposal will be removed and will represent a substantial improvement to the property, and; WHEREAS, the existing hardcover is at 35.1% and the proposed hardcover is at 38.8%; the maximum allowed is 30%, and; WHEREAS, drainage is a major concern for this property and the adjacent property, and the proposed addition is expected to improve the existing drainage problems, and; WHEREAS, the setback variances requested include the following: SIDE WEST 1.6' LAKESIDE O.H.W. 1.0' 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, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with 7 in favor and I opposed. 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 517 square feet, or 8.<1%, a 1:.6' side yard setback variance, and a 1' setback variance to the ordinary high water from 'the existing deck, contingent upon the following conditions: The final grading plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance by the City Engineer and Building Official. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-016 A drainage plan for the property, specifically at the east side of the dwelling, should be reviewed and approved by staff. Ce Ail retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height shall be properly engineered. The nonconforming detached garage be removed prior to building permit issuance, or some type of guarantee be provided, such as cash escrow or a bond. Ail setbacks be conforming on the east side of the property, including the setback to the addition. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subd. $ 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 an addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 8, Block 23, Shadywood Point. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. i I 1, ! I, I~ I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Case #93-016~ .Richard and Darlene Sollie, 4936 Glen Elyn Road, Lot 8, Block 23, Shadywood Point, PID #13-117-24 11 0083. VARIANCE FOR ADD~ This case was previously tabled by the Planning Commission. The applicants have modified their original variance to construct an entry and attached garage by reducing the amount of hardcover. The requested setback variances remain the same. The existing hardcover is at 35.1% and the proposed hardcover is at 38.8% which is a minimal increase for the type of improvement. The drainage is a concern and will need to be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant proposed the bituminous driveway to drain towards the street and the house gutters to drain towards the lake. Staff recommended approval of the request to recognize existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks and a variance of 234 square feet, or 3.7 percent to the maximum 30 percent impervious coverage allowable by City Code with the following conditions: The final grading plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance by the City Engineer and Building Official. Ail retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height shall be properly engineered. The nonconforming detached garage be removed prior to building permit issuance, or some type of guarantee be provided, such as cash escrow or a bond. Hanus confirmed that the applicant has no problem with condition #3 in the staff recommendation regarding the removal of the existing garage. The applicant reviewed the hardcover calculations and changes from the original request, as follows: Removal of a concrete pad (well room) at the west side of the house. 2. Removal of the existing garage. Originally the large deck at the lakeside was calculated at 100%, and is now calculated at 50%. 3. Decreased the size of the driveway. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 4. The entry stairs have been changed from concrete to wood. The applicant emphasized the hardship for this lot being the slope and drainage concerns. Both him and his neighbor have water problems in their basement and he believes his proposal will help improve the drainage problems. He listed three options to relating to the drainage concerns: 1) continue to drain water down towards the house, 2) drain towards the street, or 3) install some type of tiling to direct runoff. He further stated that the property needs to be redeveloped and in order to do so they need some lee-way. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the proposed improvements will positively affect the neighbors drainage concerns. The Building Official commented that the applicant will need to provide more information to ensure that the drainage will work. Neighbor, Rosemary DeGuise restated her concerns as expressed at the May 10, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting, including drainage concerns and the fact that the survey is incorrect. Meyer reviewed the motion made by the Planning Commission that the applicant was to try and resolve the issue relating to the accuracy of the survey. Staff reiterated that the applicant has submitted a survey completed by a registered land survey and it would be the neighbors responsibility to obtain an additional survey to verify there are inaccuracies. It was noted that if evidence is received which verifies the applicant's survey is incorrect it will change all the setbacks, then the request would be brought back to the Planning Commission and Council for review. Mueller questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations, and questioned the required setback to the stairway at the side of the house, it is his understanding that the stairs should be setback 2 feet from the side property line. The Building Official understood the stairway could be located up to the property line. It was noted that there is 5.3' between the house and property line and if the stairway is only 3' wide will comply to a 2' setback. The setback variances being requested as outlined in the staff report were confirmed and corrected by the Planning Commission, as follows: SIDE EAST .7' SIDE WEST 1.6' LAKESIDE O.H.W. 1.0' Since there is only a .7' setback variance proposed at the east side to the proposed garage, it was suggested that the proposed garage be scaled back to allow for a conforming setback. 5 i I 1, i I, I~ I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 MOTION made by Ranus to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff, including the following conditions: The final grading plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance by the City Engineer and Building Official. A drainage plan for the property, specifically at the east side of the dwelling, should he reviewed and approved by staff. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height shall be properly engineered. 0 The nonconforming detached garage be removed prior to building permit issuance, or some type of guarantee be provided, such as cash escrow or a bond. All setbacks be conforming on the east side of the property, including the setback to the addition. Compliance to condition #1 is stressed. Michael seconded the motion. Motion carried ? to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Johnson, Weiland, Jensen, Hanus, and Michael. Mueller was opposed· Mueller commented that his reason for not approving is that he feels there is too much house proposed for the lot. This case will be heard by the City Council July 27, 1993. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PreporeO for' 4,I 0t4,) Total Lot ,'~rea = 63~(: s<~. I! . ( Above a. 2q.4) HARD SURFACE COVERAGE: Exlxtlng House Existin,j Jeck Proposed Addition Prcposed steps & patios Proposed driveway Proposed Hard Cover sq. ft. -38.1 per cent GENERAL NOTES 0 Denotes )ran m0numen~ '"' De,~ote$ cross ch,selecl m cc,ncrele · 939.7 Denotes e~,st,ng spot elevot,on ~ Denotes Ixoposed spot elevot,on · Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lib. es denotes proposed features Solid contour hnes denotes ex,st,n9 features ,ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2}40 Daniels Streef Long Lake, Minnesota 55556 Ph. 475- 1433 Proposed topo! foundahon elevot;on = Proposed basement f~oor elevoHon = mropose~ garage floor e)evat,on : BENCHMARK: to,dsc, p, .~ ~,~,~ c,,,,,~, c~l¢. bY R. 5elh'~ I ~ereby cart,fy t~al thil lmvly, p~ o~ rlgo~f SCALE was prepared ~ ~ o~ uncle, ~ d-Ici tu~rv,lson and that I Gm · duly Reg,itered ~ Surveyor ~dlf fbi taWl of the State of M,nnesota DATE OCT. S) l~8~ REG ~ 170~ FILE NO. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepored for' RECEIVED HAY 10 ~993 Exixting House 1050 Existing Jeck 369 Proposed Addition 705 Prcposed steps & patios 242 Proposed driveway 603 Proposed Hard Cover 2969 sq. ft. - 47 per cent ~ ~J~ ~ENERAL NOTES ,o t5 CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534.1 M~vWOOD ROAD MOUND. MIN",E$OTA 55364-!687 /6~2 472-0600 FAX iE' 2: 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Planning Commission Agenda of July 12, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Of ficial ARC6. Variance Request Richard and Darlene Sollie CASE NO. LOCATION: 93-016 4936 Glen Elyn Road, Lot 8, Block 23, Shadywood Point, PID ~13-117- 24 11 0083 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants have modified their original variance to construct an entry and attached garage by reducing the amount of hardcover. The requested setback variances remain the same. Attached are two revised surveys labeled "existing" and "proposed" which details the request. The main issue is the increase in hardcover, originally proposed at approximately 47 percent. This has now been reduced to 38.8 percent total hardcover or an actual increase of 3.7 percent. This slight increase would result in the removal of the grossly nonconforming detached garage and a much improved and more functional entry and garage for the property. The reduction in the area of driveway has improved the conditions of impervious cover. In staffs original recommendation it was noted the proposed garage is of minimal size and is better suited to the property than the existing situation. In addition, the topography and the need to provide easy access creates a practical difficulty when considering placement and design of the improvements that are needed on this site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for variances to recognize existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks and a variance of 234 square feet, or 3.7 percent to the maximum 30 percent impervious coverage allowable by City Code with the following conditions: 1. The final grading plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance by the City Engineer and Building Official. 2. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height shall be properly engineered. 3. The nonconforming detached garage be removed prior to building permit issuance, or some type of guarantee be provided, such as cash escrow or a bond. This case will be heard by the City Council July 27, 1993. JS:pj 2 ~ ~1 ~ printed on recycled paper ! I 1, i I, I~ I I PROPOSED HARD COVERAGE & DRAINAGE PLAN 4936 GLEN ELYN ROAD Existing Hard Coverage: Proposed Hard Coverage: Increased Coverage: 2,239 sq.ft. 2,473 sq.ft. 234 sq.ft. 35.1% 38.8% 3.7% Drainage as shown on Proposed Plan Only bituminous drive drains to s%reet House gutters will drain toward lake RECEIVED J tJt~t 3 0 1993 .CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for: RICHARD SOLLIE $ I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 23, SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. O 2~'.0 GENERAL NOTES . o Denotes iron monument '+' Denotes cross chiseled in concrete x 939.7 Denotes existing spot elevation ~] Denotes proposed spot elevation ( Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour linee denotee proposed features Solid contour linee denotes existing features ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2:540 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55556 Ph; 475-1453 Proposed top of foundation elevation = Proposed basement floor elevation = Proposed garage floor elevation = BENCHMARK: '~ herald)· certify that thll eurvey, plan or rlport Wal prlpared by me o, under my direcl eu~rvieiofl and that Z am a duly Regiltered ~nd Survl~of under the Iaw~ of the Stale of Minnesota. 170~5 SCALE I"' BOOK FILE. NO. 87 18Z-A tn · i, I~ I I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for' R £CHARO Total Lot A-rea = 6380 sq. t't. (Above 929.4) HARD SURFACE COVERAGE: Ex[xting House 1050 Existing ~eck Ig[ Proposed Addition 705 Prcposed steps & pat2os Proposed driveway Proposed Hard Cover sq. ft. -38. Sper cent GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron monument '+' [)anDreS cross ch,seled m concrete ~939.7 Denotes extshng spot elevation ~ Denotes proposed spot elevation ( Denotes surface drainage Dashed cor~o~Jr hnes denotes proposed features Solid COntOur I~nes denotes ex,stm(j features .ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, M,nnesota 55356 Ph. 475- 1433 Proposed lop of foundation elevation = Proposed basement floor elevation = Proposed garage floor elevation = BENCHMARK: Rt.,-hF,e, ~ ~ show OCT.5;I987REG NO ~70~ ?.3 NO. i · I, i I, I~ I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 1993 Case #93-015~ Richard and Darlene 9olli®, 4936 Glen g1¥~ Road, Lot' ~. Block 23, 8hady~ood Point, VID #13-117-24 11 0083. VARXANCB~ Building Official, Son Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to the lot coverage requirements and to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks. A revised survey was received today and results in the following: Recm£r~ Kx£st£n~ Pro~x~ee~ FRONT 20' 20' 0' SIDE ~AST 6' 10.1' 5.3' 4.7' $IDN WEST 6' 4.4' __ 5.6' LAF~SIDE OHW 50' 49' -- 1o LOT COVERAGZ 30% (1914 sf) 4?% (2969 sf) 17% (1055 The request includes an addition consisting of a second story entry and garage. The applicants intend to remove the nonconforming detached garage and restore this area to green space. The proposed garage is of minimal size and is better suited to the property in its proposed location. The topography on this lot and the need to provide easy access creates a practical difficulty when considering design provisions for the updating that is needed on the home. It appears reasonable to allow some flexibility in the application of the impervious surface provisions of the City Code. Staff recommends approval of the request for variances to recognize existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks and a variance of 1,055 square feet or 47 percent to the maximum 30 percent impervious coverage allowable by City Code with the following conditions: 1. The final grading plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance by the City Engineer and Building Official. 2. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height shall be properly engineered. 3. The nonconforming detached garage be removed prior to building permit issuance, or some type of guarantee be provided, such as cash escrow or a bond. Richard and Rosemary DeGuise of 4932 Glen Elyn Road, neighbors to the east, commented on the water problems caused by poor drainage due to the raising of the street when it was improved. They want to make sure that this drainage problem is corrected, or at least improved, if the proposed addition is allowed to be constructed. They also disagreed with the survey submitted by the applicant stating that the property line between them was improperly located because the survey used the wrong stake as an origin. The Building Official commented that the City Engineer also expressed a concern with the elevations and drainage. Mueller expressed a concern regarding the amount of hardcover and commented that the front patio is too big and the deck is also very large, and these are items that affect run-off when there is too much hardcover. Mr. Sollie addressed the Commission and stated that the reason for the hardcover driveway is because they are proposing that the garage be elevated higher than the street and with the hardcover driveway will direct the drainage towards the street instead of down the hill to the houses. He agreed that the patio could be reduced in size. Mr. Sollie commented that this is their third set of plans as they have been trying to develop the best plan possible to help correct the drainage concerns. 1 It was noted that if the survey line is incorrect, it would change the side yard setback and the hardcover percentage. NOTION made by Voss, seconded by Wailand to table the request to allow the applicant to try to resolve issue relating to the accuracy of the survey, to try and reduce the amount of hardcover, and tO receive comments from the City Engineer relating to dr&inaga. ~otion carried unanimously. CITY of MOUND 534~ MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA55364-~687 ~6~2~ 472-0603 FAX ~6121 472 0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of May 10, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~J Variance Request APPLICANT: Richard and Darlene Sollie CASE NO. 93-016 LOCATION: 4936 Glen Elyn Road, Lot 8, Block 23, Shadywood Point, PID #13-117- 24 11 0083 ZONING: R-iA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking variances to recognize existing nonconforming setback to the dwelling of 4.4' to the west side, and __' to the Ordinary High Water in order to construct an addition consisting of a second story entry and garage. At the time this report was prepared, a revised survey had not yet been submitted. Staff will detail the accurate information to the Planning commission at the meeting. The following information has been established: Required Existing Proposed Variance FRONT 20' -- SIDE EAST 6' 10.1' 5.3' ~-~' SIDE WEST 6' 4.4' -- ~ ],~ LAKESIDE OHW 50' -- According to the applicant's calculations on lot area and hardcover, the proposal is 41 percent total impervious surface or 11 percent over the maximum 30 percent allowable (this information will be reviewed again when the revised survey is received). g ,37 printed on recycled paper tn · i, · l, IJd I I Staff Report 4936 Glen Elyn Road May 10, 1993 Page COMMENT AS part of this proposal, the applicants intend to remove the nonconforming detached garage and restore this area to green space. The proposed garage is of minimal size and is better suited to the property in its proposed location. The topography on this lot and the need to provide easy access create a practical difficulty when considering design provisions for the updating that is needed on the home. It appears reasonable to allow some flexibility in the application of the impervious surface provisions of the City Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for variances to recognize existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks and a variance of square feet to the maximum 30 percent impervious coverage allowable by City Code with the following conditions: The final grading plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance by the City Engineer and Building Official. Ail retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height shall be properly engineered. The nonconforming detached garage be removed prior to building permit issuance, or some type of guarantee be provided, such as cash escrow or a bond. This case will be heard by the City Council May 25, 1993. JS:pj 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Naywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 APR 2 2 Planning Commission Date: ~10 --fi~ City Council Date:. -~-~--ZS~ Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~"~OI ~ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engine~r- ............. DN. ..... ...................................... Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~ ~ Gte~ fL gO Owner's Name ~QHARD +~LfWf 50a&l~ Day Phone ~7[- Owner's Address ~3 ~ GL~ ~L y~ ~D · Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address · Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: lock Zoning Distriot~--~A Use of Property: ~~d~~'al - 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.): ~ DD l rl c l~ OF S~co~ ~ f%Tr¥ I'Z. f'X Gq.r¢.¢~- ZZ.33 × 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 2. DO the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback r~ulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes  , No ~). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N~E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: Side Yard: S ) Side Yard: ( N S ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ~ I required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ~0 ft. ZO ft. O~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ' ~~~ ft. ~ '+/- ft. ~'~/-- ft. ft. ~,~ ft. l~)~ ft. ~ ft. }O ft. ft.  ft. .~6~) ft. ~ ft. -- sqft ~ sqft _ q ~t'/q~m3 t ~sq ft 7 sq ft sq Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-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: 0 boc,c l qz. q , 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 O~. If yes, explain 4/~ Variance Application Page 3 6. 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. Owner' s Signature ~J~/~9~ z/,///~ ~/~ Applicant's Signature Date Date I · ~, I I, I~ I I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for: RICIIARD SALLIE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 23, SHADYWOOD POIMT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron monument ' +" Denotes cross chiseled in/concrete x 939.7 Denotes existing spot eld, allan [~9--] Denotes proposed spot elevation ( Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed fealures Solid contour lines denotes existing features __A. LL-METRO LAND _SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph.;~ Proposed lop of foundolion elevalion = Proposed basement floor elevalion = Proposed garage floor elevation = BENCHMARK: I hereby csrlify thai Ihls survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 7. am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota· DATE OCT. 5, 1987 REG. ,o.. 170Z5 ~P~ 2.2 SCALE FILE NO. D CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY RICHARD SOLLIE Prepared for' -I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 23, SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES , i · 1, i i, I~ I I HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA ~,t 3 ~ q~ ¥ SQ I~ X 30% = EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FYX 15% = LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: -3o x 35' = /z.9 x /y : X = TOTAL HOUSE ........... GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: OTHER: TOTAL G . . 2-0 X = X ~ x TAL DRIVEWAY DECK ........... T~AL DECK @ 50% ~___/ /o TOTAL OTHER ........... SQ FT / /¢¢ / ¢ ,_/. / TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? DATE __YES ~ NO GENERAL ZONLNG INFORMATION SI[EET FRONT t FRONT SIDE: IS THIS WILL THE PROI~OSED X)(PROVKHII(T· CO#FORJ4? Il· ! J ! I 1, i, I, I J, I I PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ~ VARIAI~CE TO IMPERVIOUS LOT COVEI~GE TO ~LOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED G~,GE AT 5725 SUNSET ROAD, PART OF LOT 68, MOUND ADDITION, PID $14-117-24 41 0038, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-031 WHEREAS, the applicants, Joseph and Kimberly Rasmussen, have applied for a variance to impervious lot coverage to allow construction of a detached garage, and; WHEREAS, total proposed hardcover is 50% @ 3,135 square feet resulting in a variance request of 20% or 1,240 square feet, and; WHEREAS, there is a shared driveway with the adjacent property which compounds the problem of hardcover, and; WHEREAS, the garage size is reasonable and the policy of the City has been to promote garages to ease the accumulation of clutter. It is difficult to place a garage on the site due to the existing layout of the house; the natural placement of the garage is in the rear and this results in a long driveway and an excessive amount of hardcover. The proposed garage is not outside the normal size range. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two 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, an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5.8 feet resulting in a .2 foot setback variance is also requested, 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 the following Finding of Fact: the construction of a garage is a reasonable use of the property in that a practical difficulty exists in the fact that there is no other location available on the site, and the condition of a shared driveway creates a hardship with respect to hardcover. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 20% (1,240 square foot) lot coverage variance and a .2 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of an otherwise conforming detached garage at 5725 Sunset Road. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-031 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 24' x 24' one story detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lot 68, Mound, lying North of the South 20 feet thereof. 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. tn · I, i I, ~ I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case g93-031: Joseph & Kimberly Rasmussen, 5725 Sunset Road, Part of Lot 68, Mound Addition, PID #14-117-24 41 0038. VARIANCE FO."_ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to the impervious surface requirements of the code in order to construct a new garage. According to the hardcover calculations this would result in a 50 percent or 3,158.5 square foot variance. The fact that there is a shared driveway with the adjacent property compounds the problem of hardcover. The garage size is reasonable and the policy of the City has been to promote garages to ease the accumulation of clutter. A difficulty results in placing a garage on the site due to the existing layout of the house. The natural placement of the garage is in the rear and this results in a long driveway and the excessive amount of hardcover. The only option to minimize the hardcover is to reduce the size of the garage. As proposed, the garage is not outside the normal size range. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance to hardcover in order to construct an otherwise conforming detached garage. Approval of the request will allow the applicant more reasonable use of the property. It is suggested the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: The construction of a garage is a reasonable use of the property in that a practical difficulty exists in the fact that there is no other location available on the site, and the condition of a shared driveway creates a hardship with respect to hardcover. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded recommend approval of the variance as staff. Motion carried unanimously. by Jensen to recommended by This case will be heard by the City Council on July 27, 1993. CITY of MOUND MOUND MINNESOTA5536~ ~687 (612'~ 472-0600 STAFF REPORT ~AX {6~2~ 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of July 12, 1993 TO: FROM; SUBJECT: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ Variance Request APPLICANT: Joseph & Kimberly Rasmussen CASE NO. 93-031 LOCATION: 5725 Sunset Road, Part of Lot 68, Mound Addition, PID ~14-117- 24 41 0038 ZONING: R-2 Two Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a variance to the impervious surface requirements of the code in order to construct a new garage. According to the hardcover calculations this would result in a 50 percent or 3,158.5 square foot variance. The fact that there is a shared driveway with the adjacent property compounds the problem of hardcover. The garage size is reasonable and the policy of the City has been to promote garages to ease the accumulation of clutter. A difficulty results in placing a garage on the site due to the existing layout of the house. The natural placement of the garage is in the rear and this results in a long driveway and the excessive amount of hardcover. The only option to minimize the hardcover is to reduce the size of the garage. As proposed, the garage is not outside the normal size range. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance to hardcover in order to construct an otherwise conforming detached garage. Approval of the request will allow the applicant more reasonable use of the property. It is suggested the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: The construction of a garage is a reasonable use of the property in that a practical difficulty exists in the fact that there is no other location available on the site, and the condition of a shared driveway creates a hardship with respect to hardcover. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 27, 1993. JS:pj printed on recycled paper ! I 1, i I, t I I 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF NOUND 5341 Malr~ood Road, Mound, lin 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~--0 ~] Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name 305C~h ~ ~01b~'J~ ~$;~it)~C~n Day Phone Owner's Address '725 5u, t sct ou-d Applicant's Name (if other than owner) .ddress 5a~d Day Phone ~45-2100 C k:,~-t) g .SC P ON: Block Addition ~OUD~ Zoning District PID No. Use of Property: IZl- 1{7-24 4l 00~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~) no. If yes, list ~ate(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.): ~ ' ~ 2~' 0i1~ ~0 ~'~ +~C ~-~ 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. ~.~--~_~I 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~i) Side Yard: ( N S ) Side Yard: ( N S ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 5-~ ft. , ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft ~i~5 sq ft l~0 sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X), 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 ( ) 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 (X)- If yes, explain ! I i, i I, I~ I I 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 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No Q<). 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. [m · i, I l, i~ I GENERAl, ZONING LNFOI~L~IATION SILEE'F Survey on file? yes Required Lot Width: Existing L~t Width no Date of survey. Lot of Record? yes no__ ? (front&ge on an £mproved l~blic itreet} , Depth FRONT FRONT SIDE: SIDE: I~EAR: /.AJ~SHOI~: BXXBTXNG FRONT FRONT $XDEi SlDlt · RONT FRONT SIDE: SIDEr PEARs SO' tree&lured from O,fl,W,! FRONT: N S I M FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E M SIDE: N S I M REAR= S S I ACCKSSOR¥ BUILDING Il THIS PROPERTY CONFOP~qIk~? YES I¥: ? WILL, TJ~ PROPOSED ZPLi:'RO~NTS CONIPOPJ4? YES EL~ RD V (; ,~Q ( (s) (?) f! PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS LOT COVER, AND TO RECOGNIZE NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING AND A NONCONFORMING SHED TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 3054 BRIGHTON COMMONS, LOT 23 AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF LOT 22, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, AND TP~%CT D, RLS 1149, PID #24-117-24 43 0092 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-032 WHEREAS, the applicants, Robert and Judith Hutchins, have applied for a variance to impervious lot coverage and recognition of existing nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a addition onto the principal structure, and; WHEREAS, the total proposed hardcover is 2,536 square feet resulting in a variance of 18% or 388 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the existing~~red~ have 10 foot side yard setbacks and therefore recognition of a ~' variance to the north ~~-~c to the south is requested, and; WHEREAS, the house setbacks were conforming at one time, but a portion of the property was sold to the parcel to the south which created a new lot line therefore changing ~he lot of record status resulting in a required 10 foot side yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the parcel across the street at the lake contains a nonconforming shed which requires a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. When the shed was constructed it was in compliance with City Code provisions; the Shoreland Management Ordinance had not yet been adopted, and; WHEREAS, the shed is of sound construction and is used to house a generator which provides power to raise their boat lift, 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; Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-032 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance as requested, inclusive of the following Finding of Facts: It is reasonable to expect the ability of having power on the lakeside parcel and it is impractical to deliver power by any conventional means; the presence of the shed provides the appearance of private property; and the shed was recently constructed, was conforming at that time, and was constructed with the knowledge of the City. 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 an addition: Required Existing/ ~roposed Variance Side North 10' 8' ~, Side South 10' , ~' , Shed to O.H.W. 50' -~7~ 46' The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, 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 18' x 18' one story family room addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 23 and the North 1/2 of Lot 22, Block 15, Arden; and Tract D, Registered Land Survey Number 1149. 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 3 Case ~93-032 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 JULY 12, 1993 Case ,q93-0321 Robert and Judith Hutchins, 3054 Brighton Commons, N 1/2 of Lot 22 and 23, Block 15, Arden, and Tract D, RLS 1149, PID//24 !17-24 43 0092, VARIANCE FOR ADDITION Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to the impervious surface requirements of 388 square feet, or 18%, and a north side yard setback variance of 2 feet to the required 10 foot setback to construct a family room addition. Jon pointed out that the house setback was conforming at one time, but a portion of the property was sold to the parcel to the south which created a new lot line therefore changing the lot of record status. The sale of that portion of property did not go through the subdivision process, and this was discussed with Mr. Koegler, City Planner, who stated that this is behind us now and a subdivision would not be required at this point. Due to the splitting of this lot, both parcels lost their lot of record status, therefore, the side setback went from an 8 foot to a l0 foot requirement. A portion of the parcel is across the street and is private lakeshore, staff has calculated both portions on the hardcover worksheet. A revised survey was distributed to the Commission showing the existing 8' x 8' shed on the lakeside parcel. The lot area of the lakeshore parcel, Tract D, has been verified to be by the surveyor. A revised survey showing the lot area and lakeshore (O.H.W.) of the lakeside parcel was to be submitted today, however, was not received. The shed is now 9onconforming and recognition or removal of this structure is an issue. When the shed was constructed it was in compliance with City Code provisions; the Shoreland Management Ordinance had not yet been adopted. Any decisions regarding this shed will set a precedence for staff recommendations on future cases. The shed is approximately 8' x 8' has 72 square feet in roof area and is not attached to the ground. 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 The elevations of the house were verified by a surveyor to be in compliance. The proposed family room is to be constructed over an existing patio that is 144 square feet and therefore the actual increase in hardcover is only 180 square feet. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request with the condition that the shed be moved to a conforming location on the property. Mueller clarified that the shed is used to house a generator to operate their boat lift. The applicants stated that they have investigated other options to get power to their shoreline, however, to install lines across Brighton Commons would require an easement and the cost is extraordinary. Staff raised the fact that a conforming lock box could be constructed to house the generator according to the new Shoreland Management Ordinance, Section 350:125 b. The applicants also stated that the shed helps give their lakeside property the appearance of private property; they have had problems with the public believing their shoreline to be commons. The Planning Commission discussed the uniqueness of the property in having a separate parcel at the lakeside and the need for a shed to protect the generator. It was suggested that a precedence for all sheds would not be established because of the uniqueness of this property. Michael questioned the hardship. Clapsaddle suggested that practical difficulty exists due to the generator and the fact that the property is so unusual. Johnson commented that it is impractical to provide power to the shoreline because of the layout of the land, and there is a practical difficulty that the presence of the shed helps keep people off their private property. Mueller questioned why the shed should be required to be removed when it is of sound construction and was conforming when it was built? The only reason it is nonconforming is because the rules were changed. Weiland noted that there is no concrete slab foundation for the shed and he would like the shed recognized as a temporary structure. It was discussed that since the shed is not a substantial structure it will eventually go away. The side yard setback from the house to the south property line was questioned by Mueller. It was suggested that the applicant verify this setback with a surveyor and if it is nonconforming it should be recognized. 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 MOTION made by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the exception that the shed be allowed to remain and the setback to the south side property line from the house be verified and if the setback is nonconforming it be recognized as well. Findings of fact for the shed include= It is reasonable to expect the ability of having power on the lakeside parcel and it is impractical to deliver power, by any conventional means; the presence of the shed provides the appearance of private property; and the shed was recently constructed, was conforming at that time, and was constructed with the knowledge of the City. Motion seconded by Hanus. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 27, 1993. ns 5 CITY of MOUND 534! MAYWOOD MOUND MINNESOTA 612i 472 FAX (612,472 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Planning Commission Agenda of July 12, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official \(~' Variance Request Robert and Judith Hutchins CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 93-032 3054 Brighton Commons, N 1/2 of Lot 2A and 23, Block 15, Arden, and Tract D, RLS 1149, PID $24-117-24 43 0092 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a variance to impervious surface requirements of 388 square feet, or 18%, and a north side yard setback variance of 2 feet to the required 10 foot setback to construct a family room addition. This property is unique due to the fact that a portion of the parcel is across the street and is private lakeshore. Staff has calculated both portions on the hardcover worksheet. The lot area of the lakeshore parcel, Tract D, has been verified by the surveyor (a revised survey will be submitted). Additional survey work is required due to the fact that the proposed elevations show the garage floor elevation at 932.8, the current minimum building elevation is 933 for Lake Minnetonka. Not shown on the survey, but existing on Tract D is a nonconforming detached accessory structure used for storage. This structure is less than 120 square feet and when constructed was in compliance with City Code provisions as the Shoreland Management Ordinance had not yet been adopted. Recognition or removal of this structure is now an issue. Any decisions regarding this will set a precedence for staff recommendations on future cases. The shed is approximately 8' x 8', has 72 square feet in roof area and is not attached to the ground. The proposed family room is to be constructed over an existing patio that is 144 square feet and therefore the actual increase in hardcover is only 180 square feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request with the condition that the shed be moved to a conforming location on the property. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 27, 1993. printed on recycled paper 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, HN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: July 12, 1993 City Council Date: July 27, 1993 Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~O~Z Copy to Public Works: , ~-Z~-fl'~ ~?/~5 ~,-~5 '~ i - to - ,, * Please t~e or print the following information: Address of Subject Property. 3054 Brighton Co~ons, Mo~d ~ 55364 Owner's Name Robert ~udi th Hutchins Day Phone 937-4573/473-2352 Owner's Address ~54 Brighton Co~ons, ~d ~ 55364 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) N/A Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot The North 1/2 of Lot 22 and Lot 23, Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1149 Addition PID No. Block 15, Arden 24-117-24 43 0092 Zoning District Use of Property: Residential Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (X) 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.): 18 x 18 Family Room, one story, over space currently occupied by 12 x 12 patio~ in rear of house. 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 (X), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S ~ W ) Side Yard: ( N S E ~ ) Side Yard: ( ~ S E W ) Street Frontage:- Lot Size: Hardcover: 20 ft. 30 ft. ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 8 ft. 8 ft. Ba2~ ft. 8 ft. 12 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 6000 sq ft 6000 sq ft sq ft 1800 sq ft 2464 sq ft sq ft all except ~ tt covered now Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No (x)' If specify each non-conforming use: Coverage law has chanKed to 30 percenty coverage of property without addition is 2,284. Coverage with addition would be 2464 square feet. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (XX) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ~ drainage ( ) existing ( i shape ~X) other: specify Please describe: water table is.too high for home ~o hove m b~.~ement. Commnn.~ 1And adjacent to hous~ and lakeshorm. T,~I-,~ of ~rmen o~n ~narm addition wn~ld Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain Variance Appl£¢at£on Page 3 Case No. 6. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (X), No (). If yes, explain in affect after the house was built. such as the New Total 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?_ We have one of the bigger yards in our neighborhood the water table has made it that the houses - behind have basemencs buc none of the huu~e~ i~ uu~. -~.uu~ ,~,.~.~ ........ e current 30 percent hardcover rule, we would all be over. Comments: We have three children 6, 2 and 4 months. We have no basement and with the three children we are finding that we do not have enough space in our kitchen to put a table in so we can all eat together. The plan is to change the current family room to a dining room area and then add on a 18 x 18 family room. We currently eat~ around a counter which there is only room for three people comfortably. We would appreciate your consideration for this variance as we would like to continue to live in Mound, but cannot afford to buy a bigger house at this time. 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. ~ , HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ADDRESS 3054 BRIGHTON CO}glONS MOUND MN 55364 NAME ROBERT AND JUDITH HIYlL~INS EXISTING LOT AREA 6000 DOES NOT INCLUDE LAKE LOT EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: LENGTH SQ FF X 30% SQ Frx 15% WIDTH X X X TOTAL HOUSE ........... 1800 I I sQ FT = 936 936 448 GARAGE: 21.2 X 21.1 = X = TOTAL GARAGE .......... DRIVEWAY: 22 X 30 = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY ......... DBCK: 14.3 X 13.4 = X = TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ $0% ........ OTHER: Proposed F~lyR~ 18 X 18 = X = TOTAL OTHER ........... MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? BY Rnh~rt H'.t c'h'~ ng I DATE 448 660 660 192 192 96 324 324 464 I YES X NO I I CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA "T'C~'/~'[... LOT AREA SQFT X'~% = ~_/lZr~ HOUSE: LENGTH WIDTH GARAGE: TOTAL HOUSE t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t X = X DRIVEWAY: TOTAL GARAGE ****************** X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) TOTAL DECK OTHER: TOTAL DECK @ 50%******'~******** X X _- TOTAL OTHER **********,,******** TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT C.OVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * ,. * * * * * * , , . , BY: ~ S' DATE: , YES_z~_NO Certificate of Survey for Pa'u! Host of Lots 22 and 23, Block 15, ARDEN Hennepirl County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 22 and 23, Block 15, ARDEN, and the proposed location of a proposed house thereon. It' does not put'- port to show any other improvements or' erlcr'oachments. >caie 1" = 30' Da:e : 4-12-88 o : Iron markeF ~.~¢j,.,, ; '. Spot elevation COFFIN & ~RONBERG, INC. Mark. S. ~ront)er~ LF¢. No. 12'7-5-5---- Engine,.ers, Land Surveyors, Piar~ners Long Lake, Minnesota ~~ ~ / 0 · q "[[ BRIGHTON COMMON z ,,, ~8 7-12-93 Mr. Robert Hutchins 3045 Brighton Commons Mound, MN 55364 Dear Bob: On July 9, 1993 we shot some elevations on your existing house in Lots 22 and 23, Block 15, ARDEN, and found them to be as follows: Lowest Floor Garage Floor Top of Fndtn 934.5 933.75 934.9~ Siding cover~ blocks so this could vary a little. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg i I 1, I I, ~ I I ] t 4~.r~ FAMILY ROOM c" .... '~-J -- -,L- _ : LIVING ROOM 3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4'= 1'-O ',% I. O,t .I FAMILY ROOM ~1_ I0 --1I. 1(,,311 ! I 1, i I, ~ I I ADDRESS: Survey on file? yes no Date of survey · Re~lred ~t ~idth: (frontage off Existing ~t ~idth ~ Depth FRONTs R · B If · IDiOt # S s, If LA~SHOR,E j P'RON?: N · · FRO~ ~ N $ · If SID~'f # · B If I~AJt: # · · ACCESSORY BUXLDXN~ FROHT: · $ · W SIDEr N S t LA~ S HO#: ACCESSORY BUILDI N~ I5 1~411PROPERTY C~NrOP. J4ING1' YES BY: NO 1' MILL THI;PROPOSED II4PROV~N·NT· CONPOPJ47 yu'· RO e " ~.BI 'RL~....r.':'N'"T:"I'.. 1~4 .,~,r '-s..t~L ¢'47) '] ? / BILLS July 27, 1993 BATCH 3072 TOTAL BILLS $118,653.74 $118,653.74 ,., ::~ I t Q~ Ii · I I z I Z ~- LU ;LO Q. Z Z uJ Z 0 C~ Z UJ o00 0~0~ ! ! oo O0 ! ! LU Z Q:: ~ .J o00 O~ ~-40 0 !0 0 O0 O~ ! 0 o ! OO 0 0 ~4 0 UJ n,. U. lC~ I ,'""~ .-I n,.z on.,, o oo Z: I..- I ZZ O0 ! 0 ,4' I L~ VI L~ C~ 0 ~' '~ Z ,,.4 ,,,N1_ ,"-~ Z o I I I 00o iZ Z ::3 U, JW Z 0 · I u'~Z On,. Om I-- "~ UJ I-- Z Z ,-,, Lid IIIIIIIIll 0 I Z.J ;:]CZ Ut'"') ~ 0~0~ 0· O0 · i I 1, I I, ~ I I ~'-,Z ,no i T n- n, ! ! O0 0.-4' oo 00000 IIII 0000 IIII 00~ I I O0 I I W',' UJ Z '~'Z I I ,-4.-4 C, :1 I I I I I I I 0 00o 0~0, I I oO ! I 0 Z 0 UJ t~ Z 0 0 0 I I OO I ! ~0 0 0 0 UJ -J 'Z m- o z o .-4 0 O0 0¢ 0 ( i I 1, i I, ti I I RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY OF MOUND STAFF TO EXPLORE THE FEASIBILITY OF SHARING A PUBLIC WORKS OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA WITH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been actively seeking an alternative site to the existing Lost Lake site for Public Works outdoor storage; and WHEREAS, many sites have been studied throughout the past several years; and WHEREAS, none of the sites studied resulted in a relocation of the Public Works outdoor storage; and WHEREAS, recently the City of Mound contacted the City of Minnetrista to discuss the possibility of sharing a Public Works outdoor storage site; and WHEREAS, those discussions have led to an understanding whereby the City of Mound and the City of Minnetrista would jointly pursue exploring the feasibility of a Public Works outdoor storage area to be located on City of Minnetrista property; and WHEREAS, this Public Works outdoor storage area is located to the rear of the existing City of Minnetrista City Hall and Public Works building; and WHEREAS, the City of Minnetrista and the City of Mound have already agreed to work on a study to cooperatively deliver services with other cities around Lake Minnetonka utilizing the Metropolitan Council for technical assistance; and WHEREAS, exploring the feasibility of a joint Public Works outdoor storage area fits within the concept of the project currently underway with other Lake Minnetonka cities including the City of Minnetrista and the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the feasibility study would be conducted simultaneously with the other project; and WHEREAS, a number of issues will be analyzed within the Public Works outdoor storage feasibility study including, but not limited to the following: site design, joint purchasing of materials, sharing of equipment, stormwater management, engineering, administrative and legal issues, etc. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that it directs the City of Mound staff to undertake a feasibility study in conjunction with the City of Minnetrista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the expenditures for engineering, legal and administrative costs associated with the feasibility study. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: city Clerk ,-41 ,'-¢ '4' ! Z O 0 O0 0 O0 0 ~ ~ O0 0 CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT JUNE 1993 50.00% GENERAL FUND JUNE 1993 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE Taxes 1,21 7,590 0 0 Business Licenses 3,260 1,085 10,004 Non-Business Licenses and Permits 69,500 1 O, 113 29,737 Intergovernmental 860,500 5,000 35,140 Charges for Services 48,750 1,122 5,482 Court Fines 65,000 6,018 24,972 Other Revenue 58,500 17,293 19,505 Charges to Other Departments 12,390 1,216 7,947 PER CENT VARIANCE RECEIVED (1,21 7,590) 0.00% 6,744 306.87% (39,763) 42.79% (825,360) 4.08% (43,268) 11.25% (40,028) 38.42% (38,995) 33.34% (4,443) 64.14% TOTAL REVENUE 2,335,490 41,847 132 787 {2,202,703) 5.69% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 244,200 23,225 148,032 (96,168) 60.62% 113,550 31,235 61,449 (52,101) 54.12% 1,200,000 119,366 607,756 (592,244) 50.65% 350,000 34,614 157,528 (192,472) 45.01% 650,000 46,615 321,287 (328,713) 49.43% 4,200 455 3,275 (925) 77.98% 73,280 155 69,776 (3,504) 95.22% 07/16/93 rev-93 G.B. I I 1, I I, E I I CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT JUNE 1993 50.00% JUNE 1993 BUDGET EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 57,500 1,587 Promotions 2,000 4,754 Cable TV 1,380 0 City Manager/Clerk 170,380 12,592 Elections 2,140 36 Assessing 46,550 19 Finance 145,900 11,273 Computer 24,000 2,850 Legal 79,000 4,039 Police 779,200 50, 818 Civil Defense 4,000 22 Planning/Inspections 138,440 9,279 Streets 406,750 18,109 Shop & Stores 17,100 857 City Property 97,160 3,637 Parks 174,340 11,062 Summer Recreation 33,100 0 Contingencies 10,000 32 Transfers 136,840 10,243 Y'rD PER CENT EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 29,528 5,640 572 82,123 2,O45 314 70,526 17 329 37 773 361 921 1 251 59 684 167 880 2 035 47 767 88,249 0 1,090 61,460 6 41 417 2 78 238 27,972 (3,640) 808 88,257 95 46 236 75 374 671 227 279 749 756 870 15,065 49,393 86,091 33,100 8,910 75,380 51.35% 282.00% 41.45% 48.2O% 95.56% 0.67% 48.34% 72.20% 47.81% 46.45% 31.28% 43.11% 41.27% 11.90% 49.16% 50.62% 0.00% 10.90% 44.91% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2 325 780 141,209 1,037,187 1,288,593 44.60% Area Fire Service Fund 244,200 21,517 133,104 111,096 54.51% Recycling Fund 99,350 9,832 68,614 30,736 69.06% Liquor Fund 194,620 18,611 103,031 91,589 52.94% Water Fund 358,190 25,685 175,732 182,458 49.06% Sewer Fund 761,350 101,342 428,637 332,713 56.30% Cemetery Fund 4,790 452 2,084 2,706 43.51% Docks Fund 55,440 9,405 26,609 28,831 48.00% exp-93 07/16/93 G.B. BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chair Greenwood Tom Penn, Vice Chair Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spring Park Scott Carlson, Treasurer Minnetrista Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoEIlen L. Hurr Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Robert Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound Robert E. SIocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REC'D JUL 2 ! Lq83 YOU AND YOUR GUEST ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS LAKE TOUR AND LUNCHEON SATURDAY, AUGUST 7, 1993 ON LAKE MINNETONKA HOSTED BY THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT All Aboard at 11:00 AM Return to Port at 2:00 PM at the LAFAYETTE CLUB DOCK 2800 Northview Road, Minnetonka Beach (please observe designated parking areas) Please RSVP by Friday, July 30, including guest's name, 473-7033 il l, i I, II I I JUL ! 1993 The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors announces the following MINIMUM WAKE RESTRICTION for Lake Minnetonka effective as of July 17, 1993: MINIMUM WAKE REQUIRED DURING THIS DECLARED HIGH WATER EMERGENCY Minimum Wake Required 600 feet distance from shore and in the following named bays: * Emerald Lake * Libb's Lake * Seton Lake Echo Bay * Bay St. Louis * Black Lake * Coffee Cove * Big Island Passage Robinson's Bay Tanager Lake Forest Lake Veteran's Bay * Carson's Bay * Excelsior Bay Old Channel Bay Smithtown Bay Priest's Bay St. Alban's Bay ** Gray's Bay Stubb's Bay Harrison's Bay Carman's Bay Jenning's Bay Smith's Bay "Minimum Wake" means the wave moving out from a watercraft and trailing behind in a widening "V" of insufficient size to affect other watercraft or be detrimental to the shoreline. VIOLATION IS SUBJECT TO HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF WATER PATROL CITATION Your proper boat operation to preserve the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka from further erosion and water pollution due in large measure to boat wakes will be beneficial to all. This Minimum Wake regulation will remain in effect until the LMCD executive director determines that the Lake Minnetonka lake level has been lowered to 929.8' mean sea level and so publically announces. THANK YOU! * These bays are long-standing "Minimum Wake" areas ** This bay is a long-standing "Minimum Wake" area on weekends I I I ~, ! I,, ~ I I You Are Invited To loin Other £1ec~ed Officials From Suburban Hennepin County for a SUMMER BARBECUE and DISCUSSION at the home of Hennepin County Commissioner EMILY ANNE STAPLES 1640 Xanthus Lane, Plymouth July 25 5:00 PM August 4 6:30 PM August 17 6:30 PM Please RSVP for I of these 3 dates by calling 473-9120 II ~, I I, Iii I I ~ ~' 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard ,,~----~~ ~ED~)w Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345-1597 office: (612) 939-8320 fax: (612) 939-8244 LAKE MINNETONKA DISTRICT COORDINATOR: Ellen B. Klanderman R~ JUL ~ 2 1993 / BOARD OF MANAGERS: C. Woodrow Love · John E. Thomas · Clarkson Lindley Thomas Maple, Jr.. Thomas W, LaBounty · Martha S. Hartfid · Pamela' G, Blixt Press Release Shoreline Owners Protected by New Rule For Immediate Release July 19, 1993 With Minnesota's recordbreaking rainfall this year, people owning lakeshore property are likely to consider repairing their eroded beaches and banks. Shoreline improvement is especially likely in the large Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which contains Lake Minnetonka and 108 other lakes. However, in the past few years the District noticed a rash of incompetent work from "fly-by-night" contractors, said vice president Woody Love. "We had a bunch of inexperienced contractors going door to door peddling cheap, ineffective work," like retaining walls that collapsed later. In response, the District passed the enforceable "Rule M" this February, which requires contractors to be licensed, insured, and bonded with the District before making shoreline improvements. Clarkson Lindley, a District board member who lives on Lake Minnetonka, explained, "The boundary between the lake and land is a very difficult area to work in because of varying water levels, waves, wind, snow, ice, and other forces of nature that meet there. It is hard to work in a wet, amphibious environment and many contractors do not understand the Shoreline Owners --Cont.-- Page 1 forces involved." He believes his own erosion control project was a success because his contractor could knowledgeably address conditions ranging from bluffs to shallow shore. A lawyer by trade, Clarkson described other concerns with unlicensed contractors. "We have had problems where the contractor has not verified the property boundary and ended up doing work on the neighbor's property. There are also restricted areas such as channels, bays, and sanctuaries, and we found that too often unlicensed contractors did not know about them." By requiring a license, the District is pressing contractors to understand not only District rules but also the myriad of regulations from organizations like the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and municipalities. "When we license a contractor, we bestow our blessing that we believe they can navigate through the alphabet soup of agencies," said Clarkson. Mike Panzer, District engineer, reported that the rule won approval from technical staff from all 30 District communities, Hennepin and Carver counties, the Hennepin Conservation District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota DNR. "People no longer talk to unscrupulous siding salesmen or seal coating salesmen, but they still get stuck with shoreline contractors who don't understand what they are doing," said Clarkson. "Our rules help prevent competent, responsible contractors from being undercut by the unscrupulous ones." Shoreline Owners --Cont.-- Page 2 a · ~, i I, tt I I Who Is Affected? (see map) The rule applies to contractors making shoreline improvements within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which covers 188 square miles in Hennepin and Carver counties. All or portions of 30 communities are contained in the District: Chanhassen, Deephaven, Edina, Excelsior, Golden Valley, Greenwood, Hopkins, Independence, Laketown, Long Lake, Maple Plain, Medina, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Plymouth, Richfield, St. Bonifacius, St. Louis Park, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Waconia, Watertown, Wayzata, and Woodland. The District covers a wide band along Minnehaha Creek from upstream of Lake Minnetonka to the creek's outlet at Minnehaha Falls. Rule M applies to the creek, Lake Minnetonka, and 108 other lakes. In Hennepin County, these include Calhoun, Cedar, Christmas, Dutch, Forest, Gleason, Harriet, Isles, Katrina, Langdon, Little Long, Long, and Nokomis lakes. In Carver County, they include Auburn, Lunsten, Marsh, Minnewashta, Parley, Schutz, Stieger, Stone, Virginia, Wasserman, and Zumbra lakes. Many smaller lakes are also covered by the shoreline rule. For More Information: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Mr. Tom Maple, President · 474-4514 (H) Mr. Woody Love, Vice President · 474-2533 (W) Wenck Associates, Inc. (Consulting Environmental Engineering Firm) Mr. Mike Panzer, District Engineer · 479-4207 (W) Mr. Pat Mulloy, District Lake Specialist · 479-4208 (W) Shoreline Owners --End-- Page 3 ! i l, i I, I[ I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Bill Voss was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Tom Taylor, Jean Sween, Richard Sollie, Kathleen Spaulding, Shannon Piper, Tim Lovaasen, Joyce Lovaasen, Betsy Brady, Wende Brady, Mr. Rasmussen, Kim Rasmussen, Judy Hutchins, Robert Hutchins, Joyce Nelson, Marv Nelson, Gene Bristol, Jeanne Bristol, Rosemary DeGuise, Richard DeGuise, and Jeanne Matzen. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 1993 were presented for approval. Two changes were noted: 1. Page 3, 3rd paragraph should read July 23, 1993. Page 5, 3rd paragraph should read, "Jensen commented, that as a landlord, this proposed ordinance would not have hurt her." Jensen is no longer a landlord. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded By Mueller, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 1993 as written. Motion carried unanimously. .Case #93-012: Gary & Kathleen Spaulding, 5335 Baywood Shores Drive. _Lot 4, Block 5, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID #13-117-24 21 0069. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, explained that this case has previously been reviewed by the Commission and the applicant has now returned with a clarified request. All the facts in the request for an entryway and second story addition are essentially unchanged with the exception of the setback being requested to Baywood Shores Drive. The actual setback variance now being requested is 6.8 feet, the previous request was 7.5'. The Planning Commission,s original recommendation was for approval by a 5 to 3 vote citing these findings: A practical difficulty exists due to the fact the house was poorly placed on the corner lot. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 The proposed entryway addition will create a more conducively designed house for the neighborhood. The city Council action was to deny the request, and a resolution was prepared by staff and the applicants requested at the following City Council meeting that the Council refer the case back to the Planning Commission so they may submit a modified proposal. The City Council's resolution for denial was included in the packet. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission finds the reduction in the variance request is substantial enough that it may alter the Council action, then a recommendation for approval should be made. If it is found that the request is still not adequate as detailed in the proposed resolution, a recommendation for denial should be made based on the resolution. Liz Jensen commented that the Planning Commission needs to look for additional facts to support a recommendation for approval, or if no additional facts can be found, then action should be made accordingly. Mueller suggested the request be moved forward and he reviewed what he believes to be practical hardships being: the setback requirements for corner lots precludes the ability to move the footprint in different directions, and the placement of the house is such that it didn't grant the applicant reasonable use of their property. Mueller compared this request to Resolution 93-019 which granted a lakeside setback variance for a corner lot. In that case the house was placed such that it did not allow the deck to be increased in any direction except towards the street, and even though there was room to do such without a variance, a variance was granted. He feels these requests are very similar because they are in the same neighborhood, both corner lots, and the reason for granting is due to the placement of a house on a corner lot which he believes to be a practical difficulty. Meyer commented that he is in favor of the request, but for different reasons than Mueller. He feels it is irrelevant to compare the neighbors deck variance with this request. Mueller clarified that he did not vote in favor of the neighbors deck setback variance. Meyer commented that corner lots do suffer some setback problems in Mound because of the two street frontage setback requirements. Normally there is concern about what the improvement will do to the neighbors or the neighborhood or other peoples views or to the rules for those who conform, in this case he cannot find anything · · ~, i I, tt I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 negative that this would bring to the community, he can only see positive things. Weiland commented that he has been trying to find something wrong with this request, but feels there will be no negative impact; the addition will not stick out or project in front of other houses, the house would look very nice with the addition and would improve property and enhance neighborhood without being obtrusive. Hanus agrees with Meyer, and feels it is hard to argue that the addition will not be a marked improvement, but practical difficulty is a hurdle. Meyer concluded there are only two houses on Baywood Shores on that side of the street. Mueller stated that sometimes common sense should prevail. You cannot write an ordinance for every property and maybe this is a situation when the ordinance does not directly apply. This is more important than the strict letter of the code that was written for a lot of properties and not a specific property in mind. Mueller moved a recommendation for approval for the variance to allow the 6.83 foot setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive with the following findings of fact: The 30 foot setback requirement to both streets on this corner lot makes it difficult to construct a conducive addition and less than a 30 foot setback on one of the frontages is reasonable. The original placement of the house precludes the ability to add-on in a direction that makes sense and does not interfere with the enjoyment of the property. 3. The addition is more conducive to the neighborhood. 0 The addition will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Hanus seconded the Motion. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, and Hanus. Johnson and Michael voted in the negative. Johnson and Michael commented that they feel nothing has changed from the original request. This case will be heard by the City Council July 27, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Case g93-016: Richard and Darlene Sollie, 4936 Glen Elyn Road, Lot 8, Block 23, Shadywood Point, PID #13-117-24 11 0083. VAR/ANCE FOR ADDITION, This case was previously tabled by the Planning Commission. The applicants have modified their original variance to construct an entry and attached garage by reducing the amount of hardcover. The requested setback variances remain the same. The existing hardcover is at 35.1% and the proposed hardcover is at 38.8% which is a minimal increase for the type of improvement. The drainage is a concern and will need to be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant proposed the bituminous driveway to drain towards the street and the house gutters to drain towards the lake. Staff recommended approval of the request to recognize existing and proposed nonconforming setbacks and a variance of 234 square feet, or 3.7 percent to the maximum 30 percent impervious coverage allowable by City Code with the following conditions: The final grading plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance by the City Engineer and Building Official. Ail retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height shall be properly engineered. The nonconforming detached garage be removed prior to building permit issuance, or some type of guarantee be provided, such as cash escrow or a bond. Hanus confirmed that the applicant has no problem with condition #3 in the staff recommendation regarding the removal of the existing garage. The applicant reviewed the hardcover calculations and changes from the original request, as follows: Removal of a concrete pad (well room) at the west side of the house. 2. Removal of the existing garage. Originally the large deck at the lakeside was calculated at 100%, and is now calculated at 50%. 3. Decreased the size of the driveway. 4 !1 1, ! I, tt I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 4. The entry stairs have been changed from concrete to wood. The applicant emphasized the hardship for this lot being the slope and drainage concerns. Both him and his neighbor have water problems in their basement and he believes his proposal will help improve the drainage problems. He listed three options to relating to the drainage concerns: 1) continue to drain water down towards the house, 2) drain towards the street, or 3) install some type of tiling to direct runoff. He further stated that the property needs to be redeveloped and in order to do so they need some lee-way. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the proposed improvements will positively affect the neighbors drainage concerns. The Building Official commented that the applicant will need to provide more information to ensure that the drainage will work. Neighbor, Rosemary DeGuise restated her concerns as expressed at the May 10, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting, including drainage concerns and the fact that the survey is incorrect. Meyer reviewed the motion made by the Planning Commission that the applicant was to try and resolve the issue relating to the accuracy of the survey. Staff reiterated that the applicant has submitted a survey completed by a registered land survey and it would be the neighbors responsibility to obtain an additional survey to verify there are inaccuracies. It was noted that if evidence is received which verifies the applicant's survey is incorrect it will change all the setbacks, then the request would be brought back to the Planning Commission and Council for review. Mueller questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations, and questioned the required setback to the stairway at the side of the house, it is his understanding that the stairs should be setback 2 feet from the side property line. The Building Official understood the stairway could be located up to the property line. It was noted that there is 5.3' between the house and property line and if the stairway is only 3' wide will comply to a 2' setback. The setback variances being requested as outlined in the staff report were confirmed and corrected by the Planning Commission, as follows: SIDE EAST .7' SIDE WEST 1.6' LAKESIDE O.H.W. 1.0' Since there is only a .7' setback variance proposed at the east side to the proposed garage, it was suggested that the proposed garage be scaled back to allow for a conforming setback. Planning Con~nission Minutes July 12, 1993 MOTION made by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff, including the following conditions: The final grading plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance by the City Engineer and Building Official. A drainage plan for the property, specifically at the east side of the dwelling, should be reviewed and approved by staff. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height shall be properly engineered. The nonconforming detached garage be removed prior to building permit issuance, or some type of guarantee be provided, such as cash eSCrOW or a bond. All setbacks be conforming on the east side of the property, including the setback to the addition. Compliance to condition #1 is stressed. Michael seconded the motion. Motion carried ? to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Johnson, Weiland, Jensen, Hanus, and Michael. Mueller was opposed. Mueller commented that his reason for not approving is that he feels there is too much house proposed for the lot. This case will be heard by the City Council July 27, 1993. Case ~g93-030; Jack and Elly Pieper, 4872 Brunswick Road, Lots 7 - 11, Block 23, Wychwood, PID//24-117-24 41 0196. MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to create two lots, both of which will be conforming to lot area provisions of the code. The R-iA zone requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet, Parcel A, with the existing dwelling, is proposed to be 9,740 square feet, and Parcel B is proposed to be 6,505 square feet. Two variances also need to be recognized on the proposed Parcel A for setbacks to the existing house. This subdivision, if approved, will create a non-lot of record status resulting in the following i i 1, I I, tt I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 setbacks and variances: Existing/ Required Proposed Variance Side Yard West 20' 18.5' 1.5' Side Yard East 10' 5.8' 4.2' The hardcover shown by the proposed footprint on Parcel B is approximate and at the maximum 30 percent. An exact footprint and drainage plan must be provided at the time of building permit application and any proposal must be conforming to all provisions of the City Code. The City Engineer's review is incorporated into staff's recommenda- tion. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision and variances subject to the following: The sanitary sewer and water service locations availability should be verified with Public Works. and This combination of five lots was only assessed one unit charge when the streets were reconstructed in 1979. With this proposed subdivision creating an additional building parcel, a deficient unit charge of $1,768.45 should be collected. The elevations of the property appear to be suitable for construction of another single family home. Final approval of a grading plan could be delayed until building permit application. A cash deposit in the amount of $500.00 should be required to offset any direct outside City expenses. Se A park dedication fee be paid as required by the City Council of $500.00 per lot being created. Any future construction on Parcel B shall be conforming to all provisions of the City Code, including impervious surface, and special consideration shall be given to correct any drainage problems onto the adjacent properties from this site. The applicant expressed a concern regarding the deficient unit charges. Meyer explained that the Planning Commission does not get involved in deliberating charges such as these, and any concerns should be directed to the City Council. 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 The setbacks as outlined in the staff report were corrected by the Planning Commission as follows: Existing/ Requ ired Proposed Variance Side West 20' 19.3' .7' (MaHbom SAde East ~) 10' 7.0' 3' SAde East ~ 6' 5.8' .2' The issue of park dedication fees was discussed and it was suggested that since one new lot is being created only one park dedication fee of $500 should be collected. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff with the exception that the City Council review the park dedication fee and if possible charge only one fee, and delay required payment of the deficient unit charges until a building permit is issued because there is no impact on the property until it is built upon. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Case//93-031: .loseph & Kimberly Rasmussen, 5725 Sunset Road, Part of Lot 68, Mound Addition, PID //14-117-24 41 0038. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to the impervious surface requirements of the code in order to construct a new garage. According to the hardcover calculations this would result in a 50 percent or 3,158.5 square foot variance. The fact that there is a shared driveway with the adjacent property compounds the problem of hardcover. The garage size is reasonable and the policy of the City has been to promote garages to ease the accumulation of clutter. A difficulty results in placing a garage on the site due to the existing layout of the house. The natural placement of the garage is in the rear and this results in a long driveway and the excessive amount of hardcover. The only option to minimize the hardcover is to reduce the size of the garage. As proposed, the garage is not outside the normal size range. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance to hardcover in order to construct an otherwise conforming detached garage. Approval of the request will allow the applicant more reasonable use of the property. It is !1 ~, ! I, II] I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 suggested the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: The construction of a garage is a reasonable use of the property in that a practical difficulty exists in the fact that there is no other location available on the site, and the condition of a shared driveway creates a hardship with respect to hardcover. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded recommend approval of the variance as staff. Motion carried unanimously. by Jensen to recommended by This case will be heard by the City Council on July 27, 1993. Case//93-032: Robert and Judith Hutchins, 3054 Brighton Commons, N 1/2 of Lot 22 and 23, Block 15, Arden, and Tract D, ~ 1149, PID #24. 117-24 43 0092. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to the impervious surface requirements of 388 square feet, or 18%, and a north side yard setback variance of 2 feet to the required 10 foot setback to construct a family room addition. Jon pointed out that the house setback was conforming at one time, but a portion of the property was sold to the parcel to the south which created a new lot line therefore changing the lot of record status. The sale of that portion of property did not go through the subdivision process, and this was discussed with Mr. Koegler, City Planner, who stated that this is behind us now and a subdivision would not be required at this point. Due to the splitting of this lot, both parcels lost their lot of record status, therefore, the side setback went from an 8 foot to a 10 foot requirement. A portion of the parcel is across the street and is private lakeshore, staff has calculated both portions on the hardcover worksheet. A revised survey was distributed to the Commission showing the existing 8' x 8' shed on the lakeside parcel. The lot area of the lakeshore parcel, Tract D, has been verified to be by the surveyor. A revised survey showing the lot area and lakeshore (O.H.W.) of the lakeside parcel was to be submitted today, however, was not received. The shed is now nonconforming and recognition or removal of this structure is an issue. When the shed was constructed it was in compliance with City Code provisions; the Shoreland Management Ordinance had not yet been adopted. Any decisions regarding this shed will set a precedence for staff recommendations on future cases. The shed is approximately 8' x 8', has 72 square feet in roof area and is not attached to the ground. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 The elevations of the house were verified by a surveyor to be in compliance. The proposed family room is to be constructed over an existing patio that is 144 square feet and therefore the actual increase in hardcover is only 180 square feet. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request with the condition that the shed be moved to a conforming location on the property. Mueller clarified that the shed is used to house a generator to operate their boat lift. The applicants stated that they have investigated other options to get power to their shoreline, however, to install lines across Brighton Commons would require an easement and the cost is extraordinary. Staff raised the fact that a conforming lock box could be constructed to house the generator according to the new Shoreland Management Ordinance, Section 350:125 b. The applicants also stated that the.shed helps give their lakeside property the appearance of private property; they have had problems with the public believing their shoreline to be commons. The Planning Commission discussed the uniqueness of the property in having a separate parcel at the lakeside and the need for a shed to protect the generator. It was suggested that a precedence for all sheds would not be established because of the uniqueness of this property. Michael questioned the hardship. Clapsaddle suggested that practical difficulty exists due to the generator and the fact that the property is so unusual. Johnson commented that it is impractical to provide power to the shoreline because of the layout of the land, and there is a practical difficulty that the presence of the shed helps keep people off their private property. Mueller questioned why the shed should be required to be removed when it is of sound construction and was conforming when it was built? The only reason it is nonconforming is because the rules were changed. Weiland noted that there is no concrete slab foundation for the shed and he would like the shed recognized as a temporary structure. It was discussed that since the shed is not a substantial structure it will eventually go away. The side yard setback from the house to the south property line was questioned by Mueller. It was suggested that the applicant verify this setback with a surveyor and if it is nonconforming it should be recognized. 10 i · 1, i I, U I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 ROTION made by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the exception that the shed be allowed to remain and the setback to the south side property line from the house be verified and if the setback is nonconforming it be recognized as well. Findings of fact for the shed include: It is reasonable to expect the ability of having power on the lakeside parcel and it is impractical to deliver power by any conventional means; the presence of the shed provides the appearance of private property; and the shed was recently constructed, was conforming at that time, and was constructed with the knowledge of the City. Motion seconded by Hanus. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 27, 1993· Case//93-033; Withdrawn. Case//93-034; Dakota Rail Inc., "Balboa Addition". FINAL PLAT - PUBLIC HEARING. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, Reviewed the City Planner's report. The request being heard is for the Final Plat for Balboa Addition, tomorrow night the City Council will be holding a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, as submitted, addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to-date. The issue of a park dedication fee has been reviewed by staff resulting in a fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the Mound ordinance. Approval of the Final Plat is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. Jeanne Matzen, Attorney for Winthrop & Weinstine, and a Representative of Welsh Companies, informed the Commission that they are in agreement with the recommendation of staff, with the exception of the park dedication fee requirement. 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Matzen believes that this request is not a typical platting situation as the land will not be developed, they are only trying to acquire the fee title of the access that Balboa is already leasing from Dakota Rail. She referred to the City Ordinance which states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial industrial or other . . ." She believes this statement allows a park dedication fee to be exacted for only those properties "allowing development," and this request does not involve a development or and expansion of use. In addition, she stated that there is case law which indicates there must be a rational nexus between the dedication fee exacted and the burden the subdivision places on the community. The Planning Commission discussed the park dedication issue. Mueller commented that there are no "new lots" being created because the parcels will be combined with the existing Parcel 0076, therefore three parcels will be combined into one. Mueller also commented, that in his opinion, the Commitment to Insure does not represent clean title and the City Attorney should investigate. Betsy Brady questioned the hours of operation for the trucks at the Balboa building, she stated that they operate during all hours of the night and she is very concerned. The Building Official informed her that she could come into City Hall and discuss the issue with staff. Sutherland added that the businesses in the Balboa building are required to obtain an operations permit which is reviewed by the City Council and notices are published in the local paper when the Council reviews these applications. Chair Meyer confirmed with staff that the platting of this property is not intended to change the use of the building. Mueller questioned if the Conditional Use Permit, which allows for the issuance operation permits, is attached to the current legal description; and does the Conditional Use Permit need to be updated if the legal description changes? Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Balboa Addition as recommended by staff with the exception of condition $1 requiring payment of park dedication fees as no new lots are being created. Motion carried $ to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson and Weiland opposed. 12 Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Johnson commented that he does not like second guessing the attorney and he feels there is a possibility development could be allowed for this property. Weiland agreed. A public hearing will be held on July 13, 1993 by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will review the request for Final Plat on August 10, 1993. Case g93-035; Marvin Nelson, 2025 Shorewood Lane, Lots 5 & 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point, PID//18-117-23 32 0012. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The principal dwelling is setback 3.7 from the front property line resulting in a request for a 26.3 foot setback variance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance as requested upon the condition the existing shed be removed. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Case g93-036: Gene & .loAnne Bristol, 5140 Woodland Road, Lots 20 & 21, Block 5, Woodland Point, PID //13-117-24 12 02~.~.. MINOP_ SUBDIVISION, The applicant has applied for a minor subdivision to divide Lots 18 & 19 from Lots 18, 19, 20 & 21. To-date a survey has not been received therefore a report has not been written. This item has been left on the agenda for discussion only until adequate information is received. The applicant briefly reviewed the history of the purchase of the subject property and when it was combined with other lots and separated in the past. At one time the applicant owned three buildable parcels in the area. He does not understand why he needs a survey as nothing has changed with the property and he is not in favor of paying a park dedication fee. Mueller summarized that the applicant has separated tax parcels in the past and was not required to go through the process of a minor 13 Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 subdivision. He feels a precedence was set because the properties were originally purchased separately. The applicant did not rearrange any 10t lines, when the lots where purchased they were separate parcels, and the lots were only combined for tax purposes. Meyer commented that there are questioned that need to be answered however the City Council is the body to give the answers and the City Council can determine if the subdivision process is required. Sutherland commented that staff can research the history and prepare a chronological for review. Mueller clarified that, in his opinion, it is questionable whether a minor subdivision is required or if the P.I.D. numbers can just be changed. Sutherland stated that with a minor lot line adjustment the subdivision process has to be followed. Meyer suggested the applicant work with staff, and if a resolution is unattainable then the issue should be forwarded to the City Council. Variation to Workrules Mueller moved, and Hanus seconded a motion to waive the requirement to conclude the meeting at 11:00 p.m. as stated in the workrules. Motion carried unanimously. Case g93-029: DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD, OF LOTS 1 & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035. VARIANCE FOR FENCE, This item was added onto the agenda at the request of the applicant. Jean Sween came to the meeting and when she realized she was not on the agenda, she made it known that she received in the mail a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes which stated at the bottom "This case will be heard by the city Council on July 12, 1993." This was a typo, the date should have been July 13. In addition, she said she did not receive a City Council agenda. Ms. Sween added that she was advised not to appear at the June 28, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting at which her request was recommended to be denied. She requested that she now be given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Planning Commission. The Building Official quickly reviewed the applicants request for a 6 foot high fence extending to the lake resulting in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. Staff recommended approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent city property does present a negative 14 · · l, ! I, tt I I Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The applicant explained reasons for needing the fence, including: 1. Adjacent property is used for commons docks which creates noise and commotion. Adjacent property is used as dumping area for leaves, grass and other debris. There is a city pump station on the adjacent property which has bright yellow posts and a red light on the top that flashes and a siren goes off when the power goes out Boaters trespass onto her property to relieve themselves, asking for water, and to use their bathroom There is excessive traffic on the adjacent Arbor Lane which is used as a turn-around area and parking area. A daycare across the street increases the amount vehicles turning around in this area. She explained that she would rather have hedges, however, the cost is excessive and she feels the City should pay for hedges if she cannot have a fence. Tom Taylor, Ms. Sween's neighbor to the south, confirmed that the activities at the end of Arbor Lane have gotten considerably worse over the last ten years. He also believes the ground may be too wet to grow trees along the subject property line. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Johnson to reconsider the motion made by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993 relating to the request for a fence height variance b~ Dr. Sween. Motion carried 7 to ~. Those in favor vere: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. The height of the proposed fence was reviewed. The applicant clarified that the height of the fence will taper down to 2 feet high at the lake. Mueller suggested that a 6 foot high fence be allowed to provide screening of the pump station, but the balance be required to conform to the ordinance at 3 feet high. 15 Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the fence height variance to allow construction of a $ foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the llft station, the remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum of 3 feet high. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see the fence be a temporary solution and have both the applicant and the City plant trees to create a reasonable final solution to this issue. MOTION carried ? - 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. Weiland stated that he opposed because he feels it was a financial based decision. Hanus remarked that he did not like the potential height of the trees which could be planted. Clapsaddle commented that the time involved to develop appropriate plantings to provide the desired screening is unreasonable. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn the meeting at 11:36 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 16 ! 1, ! I, ~ --' ", MANSFIELD-'& ' TANICK'- A PROleg,~IlO NAL .. .'. A~or~ ~t ~ '" . , ' t~GO IN~ZRNATIONA~ ~NTRE ' ' 9QO'S~COND AVEN~ GOUTH '' ·: . :f . MINN'E~O~IS, MINNESOTA 5540~.3~.3 ,. . '" ,S~YMOUR'd M~NS~I~D ? FAX iGI~) 33~-31GI EAR~*H, COHEN .i' , . ROBERT A. JOHNGON 'I~HARD J FULkER .. .. SHOC~Y A, o~u~m JUly 26', '19'9~ , " ' ' O/ Co.~l ' ' .. ' ' . ~de~oo~ A 'Me~tz .... $~00 'F~r"2. Bank ~ac~ Wes~ .. .. MSnn~a~O~,,. ~ ,,S~402 , · gncl'o~ed.[, .the docum~nta2~o' I' have ~e~red, Cone-stun2 ~:~' Our ·discussion ~'he ocher ~ay'. : .- .- '~lease gtve,~e a.call alter you ha~e a~'opPort~nitY. to'review it, tf acce~.tabte,.,Z wiI1 'have ~he.'dooumen~e Si~ed and .~u~ni'sh ~hem to you-fbr exec~ion., -. Very: 33317 ... .( I l, !, I, This Agreement is entered into on this_____day of July, 1993, between Fi Yin Ng Moy, d/b/a House of Moy (hereinafter ."Moy") and the City of Mound (hereinafter ,,the City). In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth below, it is hereby agreed as follows~ 1. Moy shall cause to be dismissed, with prejudice, a lawsuit entitled Fi Yin Ng Moy, d/b/a the Mouse of Moy v. The city of Mound, a municipal corporation, File No. 93-11736, Hennepin County District court, State of Minnesota, without award of costs to either partY- 2. Moy may maintain, in front of her premises, the two signs that are situated in front of the restauran~ in ~heir current form, together with attached lights. Moy need not apply for any permit or other authorization from the City to maintain the signs in their current placement and condition. 3. The City acknowledges that City ordinances pertaining to regulation o~ signage do not apply to these signs because they constitute the expression o£ Political beliefs and statements under the FirSt Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Minnesota State Constitution. Therefore, the City will take no administrative, civil, or criminal action with respect to the signs as long as they remain in their current condition and placement. 4. The city shall cause to be dismissed a criminal proceeding brought against Moy, citation No. 393, relating to the aforesaid signs, and agrees that it will not bring any other I administrative, civil, or criminal actions against Moy with respect to those signs in their current condition. 5. Moy acknowledges that the City has warned her that the color of the signs and the attached lights may be viewed by some drivers or pedestrians as such traffic control devices and potenuially pose a traffic hazard to vehicles and pedestrians, and the City has asked that the colors be changed and lights removed at the discretion of Moy. Moy shares the City's expressed concern for safety of vehicles and pedestrians but, after consultation with an independent expert, does not agree that the color, lights, or any other aspects of the signage create any traffic hazards. 6. Nothing contained herein is intended to restrict either party with respect to any other matters, and Moy and the City preserve any and all rights with respect to any other matters except as expressly set forth herein. 7. The parties have read %his Agreement carefully, understand the terms and conditions, have consulted with their own independent counsels, and sign this Agreement freely and voluntarily with intent to be bound by these terms and conditions. Dated: July ___, 1993 THE CITY OF MOUND By, Its - 2 - DateCl: 1993 July ~' FZ y~N NG MOY, D/B/A THE HOUSE 3333.1 !1 1, ! I, [ I I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF }{ENNEPIN Fi Yin Ng Moy d/b/a the House of Moy, Plaintiff, The city of Mound, a municipal corporation, Defendan=. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Type of Case: Other NOTICE OF DISMISSAL Court File No. 93-11736 TO: Defendant City of Mound and its counsel: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Fi Yin Ng Moy d/b/a the House of Moy hereby serves Notice of Dismissal of the above action, with prejudice, and without award of costs to any party. This Notice is made pursuant to Rule 41.01(a)(1) of =he Minnesota Rules of civil Procedure. Dated: July __, 1993 MANSFIELD & TANICK, P.A. By: DRAFT Marshall H. Tanick (#108303) 1560 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-3383 (612) 339-4295 33312 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF FI YIN NG M0Y B/b/& THE HOUSE OF MOY CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ALLOWING ALTERNATES VOTING POWER ON LMCD ISSUES RESOLUTION 93-14 WHEREAS, The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has operated under By-Laws adopted some time ago; and WHEREAS, In said By-Laws there is no provision for a duly appointed alternate to vote when the regular member is unable to attend; and WHEREAS, Certain crucial issues arise where each City's voice should be heard, and a duly appointed alternate should be able to vote when the regular board member from the City is unable to attend. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Counci! of the City of Spring Park is recommending that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors consider an amendment to the By-Laws to a!!ow an alter- nate representative to vote when the appointed representative is unable to be present. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRING PARK THIS 19th DAY OF July, 1993. ATTEST- APP VED: Mayor lerome P. Rockvam 47~-9515 Councilmembers Wm. D. Weeks 471-7285 MaryAnn Thurk 471-9286 Harlyn Dill 47 J -8857 Mark Breneman 471-7555 IIF. L"O JUL 6 1993 July 23, 1993 TO: Al! Member Cities Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Dear Mayor & City Council: The City Council of the City of Spring Park has adopted the enclosed resolution regarding the ability to express the City's view through an alternate representative when the regular board member is unable to attend. In the past, there have been times and issues that need ail member cities' views to adequately express the actual needs and perhaps the regular board member is unable to be present. At these times there should be some means for each city to have a vote even when the regular member is not available. ! S/ncerel-y-~. ~/xt .oc , JCAYOR P.O. BOX 452, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-0452 · Phone: 471-9051 · Fax: 471-9055 ti I I In, I~ I I JUL 2 6 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Conmmittee Meeting Notice and Agenda FO 5:30 PM, Wednesday, July 28, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Meeting report review of 6/23/93 meeting (to be mailed 7/26) o Board member Johnstone draft of an issues outline for review with public officials addressing LMCD organization, funding, fee structure, lake access car/trailer parking and other points of concern; Board terms to meet Management Plan objective for staggered terms; Nominating Commnittee for new officers, procedural discussion; 5. Additional business recommlended by the committee; 6. Next meeting date confirmation, adjournment ATTN ALL BOARD MEMBERS: (all board members are included in the Administrative Committee meetings) * Please confirm your plans to attend for food provision planning; Regrets also needed; * Bring copy of Management Plan and LMCD state enabling act included in Code books, with update provided in past year; Thank you JUL 2 6 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearings 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARINGS Revier Dock Use Area Variance Application, Carmans Bay, Orono Cosentino Dock Length Variance Application, Lower Lake South, Deephaven 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Cochran READING OF MINUTES - 6/23/93 Board Meeting, 7/15/93 and 7/17/93 Emergency Board Meetings ?UBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, 7/10/93 meeting Stocks Side Setback Variance application, Mound, Halsteds Bay; recommend approval of the Findings and Order approving the side setback variance application Lakeside Marina license conditions, Maxwell Bay, Orono; recommend proceeding with prosecution on the off-lake storage violation, unless James Dunn, President of Lakeside Marina, brings the facility into compliance by this meeting, and to amend the license conditions to show that the records shall include the MN number, or name and port of call for documented boats, for identification of all boats stored on land, in lieu of name, address and phone number as previously stated De Navarre Cove Homeowners Assoc., Carmans Bay, Orono; recommend approving the revised Navarre Cove HOA site plan dated 6/8/93 changing the three stick docks from 25' to 44' for 6 BSU, subject to LMCD receiving the Association's documentation of boat storage rights Ee Excelsior Park Tavern amenities, Excelsior Bay, Excelsior; recommend amendment to Excelsior Park Tavern license to reflect a trade in amenities from the pool for swim lessons to the provision of free charter boat rides to handicapped and under- privileged community groups - which are of equal Code value LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 7/28/93, Pg. 2 F. Additional business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, 7/19/93 meeting B. High Water Level; recommend plan presented by the executive director C. Decibel Level Or4inance Amendment; changing the decibel level limit on Lake Minnetonka from 82 to 80 decibels, with LMCD Counsel's memorandum on legality of proposed ordinance De Special Events 1) New and renewal, informational per minutes 2) Deposit Refunds @ $100 each, recommending approval: a) Minnetonka Bass Classic, 6/5/93 b) IN Bass Tournament, 6/6/93 c) Mound City Days Fireworks & Water Ski Show, 6/20/93 Ee Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol 1) Report of significant activity since 6/23/93 Board meeting 2) Charter Boat Inspection summary 4/28/93 - 7/10/93 F. Additional business E~IRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Hurr (no meeting this month) 1) Draft proposal to contract for environmental planning, implementation services Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Report of 7/16/93 meeting 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Report of 7/28/93 meeting FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. Financial Reports B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. First Reading of Ordinance relating to mandatory (BWI) chemical testing on Lake Minnetonka; amending Code Sect. 3.17, Subd.14 B. Appoint nominating committee and confirm Board member terms ADJOURNMENT 7/22/93 JUL 6 I I I~KE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT In Re: Application for Variance of Thomms and Roma Stockm FINDINGS On Wednesday, May 26, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., pursuant to due notice, a public hearing was held by the Water Structures Committee of the Board. of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District at Tonka Bay City Hull in thc City of Tonka Bay, Minnesota. The hearing was held to consider tho appltemtion of Thomas and Roma Stocks, the owners of property located on Halsteds Bay at 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, Minnesota. The application of Mr. & Mrs. Stocks was for a variance from the setback limitations provided by the LA{CD Code of Ordinances. Mr. & Mrs. Stocks appeared at the hearing on behalf of tile application. The subject lot was platted on December 3, 1974. It has 20 feet of shoreline. Under the LMCD Code of Ordinances, lots platted after February 2, 1970 require a 10 foot setback from each extended lot line. Therefore, the subject property has no dock use area without a variance. The board finds that this is a hardship within the meaning of LMCD Code Section 1.07, subd. 1. In determining whether to gTant a variance, the board must conclude not only that there is a hardship, but that granting the variance, along with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, will not adversely affect the purposes of the LMCD ordinances, the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the lake by the public or riparian owners. Under Section 1.07, subd. 6, the Board may only grant variances when it is demonstrated that such action is in keeping wSth the spirit and intent of the code. The variance requested in this case is significant. There will be many cases in which it is not appropriate to allow docks or boat storage on lots as small as 20 feet CLL55199 LKllO-¢ wide. Here, however, the Board finds that there are a number of factovs which tend to reduce the .impact of granting the variance request. Among those are the following: 1. Halsteds Bay is a remote bay on Lake Mlrmetonka which tends to reduce the impact of boat storage on the public as a whole. 2. The subject parcel is located along a concave shoreline which reduces the effect of a somewhat higher boat storage density on the public and the lake generally. 3. The parcel is on the north end of Halsteds Bay. This end o£ thc bay i:; largely developed. Therefore, there is little reason to expect that future development of this area, together with the effect of this variance, will create too great a density of boat storage on this part of the lake. 4. The subject lot is adjacent to larger lots. The adjacent lots to the west and east are 79 and 160 feet in width respectively. Although there is one other 20 foot lot in the same development, the reminder of the shoreline has been developed at lot sizes which are substantially larger. 5. The District has determined that it is appropriate to g-rant the right to somewhat greater boat storage in the case of single family residential lots which are occupied by houses and where the watercraft are owned by the residents of the site. See Code Section 2.02. In this case, the site is occupied by a single faudly residence and the boats stored at the site will be owned by residents of the site. 6. The variance preserves a 5 foot setback on each side. Thoro Is no adjustment of extended lot Lines and lhere will be no encroachment of either docks or boats across ex~ended lot lines or in~o neighboring dock use aretl.q, CLL5519g LKIIO-4 7. The owners of adjacent dock use areas have stated that thoy have no objections to the granting of the variance as long as it does not encroach into their dock use areas. Additionally, there has been a dock and boat on [his site since ]975. Neither of these facts is dispositive of the question whether to grant a variance; however, both are evide~]c~ th[~t constructing and maintaining a dock at this site has not created any problems in the past, and therefore is not likely to do so hi the future. 8. The 1973 Lake Use Study Boat Density Indoxes contained in the Boat Density PoLicy Statement adopted by the Board on October 13, 1974 showed Halsteds Bay as one of tho few bays on the lake not considerc, d to be in critical or potentially critical condition with respect to boat density. It was one of the least crowded bays in terms of boats stored per water acre and boats stored per mile of shoreline. Therefore, granting the requested variance will not be contributing to substantial overcrowding. 9. The restrictions imposed by the following order will help substantially to reduce any potential adverse impacts. The dock allowed will be small, and no canopy will be allowed. Additionally, the owner will be Limited to storage of one watercraft of moderate size at tile dock. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board concludes that there is a hardstlip and that granting the variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the purposes of the LMCD Code of Ordinances, the public health safety and welfare, or reasonable access to or use of the lake by the pubLic or by o~her riparian owners. The Board further finds that granting the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. CLL55 ~99 LKllO-& 3 ORDER On the basis of the foregoing, it is ordered that the variance requested be granted subject to the following conditions and limitations. 1. The dock constructed at the site may be no more than 40 feet in length, and must be a single straight dock with no "L", "T", etc. The dock may be no more than 3 feet in width. 2. Only one boat or watercraft may be stored at the dock, and such watercraft may not have a beam of more than 7 feet. 3. No canopy may be constructed in conjunction with the dock. 4. The dock and boat storage shall be so constructed, located, and maintained that a 5 foot setback shall be maintained on each side of the subject parcel. The variance provided for herein shall grant no vested rights to the use of Lake Mtnnetonka. Such use shah at all times remadn subject to regulation by the District to assure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the lake. By order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District tkis __ day of , 1993. ATTEST: David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary LKllO-4 IEC'D JUL 2 6 D ,AFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM., Wednesday, June 23, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chalr Cochran at 7~30 PM. ROLL CALL Members Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven, James Grathwol, Excelsior; Wm. Johnstone, Minnetonka; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minne- trista; Thomas Reese, Mound; JoEllen Hurt, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; George Owen, Victoria. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Lt. Esensten, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Slocum, Woodland. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements from the Chair. READING OF MINUTES Hurt moved, Orathwol seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/26/93 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from persons in attendance on sub- jects not on the agenda. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of Minutes Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the minutes of the 6/12/93 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Gideons Point Homeowners Assn., Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay At the 4/28/93 Board meeting, approval was given for a new dock license for the Gideons Point Homeowners Association with direction to the LMCD staff to prepare the Findings to allow a 112' dock on Outlot A and requiring 100' docks on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, with a one year variance to be granted for the 120' docks on Lots 4 and 5, with no variance on Lots 1, 2 and 3. At the 5/26/93 Board meeting, the new dock license and variance applications for Gideons Point HOA were tabled to the Water Structures Committee. Staff and legal counsel were di- rected to prepare a memorandum explaining (1) the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives available to the LMCD in response to the Gideons Point Homeowners Assn variance appli- cations for Lots 1 - 5 and (2) the legal defensibility of those alternatives. LblCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 LeFevere submitted a letter, dated 6/4/93, indicating there is sufficient factual basis on the record of the proceedings to support approval or denial of the variances. The LeFevere letter was accompanied by a memorandum and Findings supporting granting the variances on the west end of the development, Lots I - 5, and a memorandum and Findings supporting denial of the variances on the west end. The Board received a recommendation from the Water Struc- tures Committee to reconsider the variance application and to ap- prove the revised site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license and variance applications from the Gideons Point Homeowners ASsociation, for 46 Boat Storage Units as outlined a letter from the applicant, Thomas Wartman, dated 6/2/93, the variance hardship being shallow water. MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to reconsider the actions taken by the Board on 4/28/93. VOTE: Notion carried, Rascop, Carlson, Bloom, Owen and Babcock voting nay. NOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to approve the site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license and vari- ance applications from Gideons Point Homeowners Association, for 46 BSU as outlined in Wartman's 6/2/93 letter, the variance hardship being shallow water. DISCUSSION: Reese noted that the 112' dock on Outlot A has been approved. Hurr asked about the length of the currently installed docks on Lots 4 and 5. At the Water Structures Committee meeting they were informed the dock on Lot 4 is 125' and the dock oa Lot 5 is 108' There are no docks on Lots 1 - 3. Hurr questioned why a variance to 128' is needed if the dock is installed at 108' Don Trembly, 50 Gideons Point Road, is the owner of Lot 5 which has the 108' dock. He said this length is sufficient for his current needs, but he or a future owner may want a larger boat. He could see no reason to build the dock any longer than 108' until the need arises. Carlson said this points out that there is no need to go out to 128' because of shallow water. There is nothing unique about these locations. Hurt asked for information on the dock going through the wetlands. Bill ~erriam, 25 Gideons Point Road, said the 170' dock portion beyond the wetlands will be taken out and put in each year. The walkway dock through the wetlands will be left in. Babcock said the LMCD does not want permanent, pile driven docks in wetlands. Thomas Wartman said it will be a hand driven dock as required by the L~CD and DNR. Thibault said the DNR advises that docks in wetlands should be left in over the winter. She referred to a letter from the ~nDNR dated 6/23/93 commenting on the Gideons Point HOA variance application. She added that a DNR permit is required for the dock on Outlot A. Penn said he would like this information from the DNR in the variance find- ings. !i 1, ! I, tt I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 Bloom said he does not believe a hardship has been shown. He thinks the long walkway/dock through the wetlands could be avoided by angling the dock for Lots 1 and 2 from the end of Pearl Street. He also does not believe the intent to acquire a larger boat is a reason for having a longer dock. Cochran said the LMCD has permitted docks to reach 4' of water. Babcock said he has a problem with applicants coming in with plans for what they want rather than what they need. Merri- am responded that the HOA has been trying to meet LMCD require- ments, the requests are reasonable, the variances are needed, and a number of other alternatives have been considered. He believes Babcock's comments are unfair. Penn asked how the walkway/dock over the wetlands differs from the long docks approved in Carsons Bay. Babcock said a hardship existed across the entire frontage of the property in Carsons Bay whereas in this case there is other frontage in the HOA without the hardship. Penn recognized there is a hardship in getting to the lake from the Lot 1 and 2 properties. Babcock responded that the whole shoreline should be considered. Jeff May, 20 Gideons Point Road, owner of Lot 2, was told by the developer he could build a dock to get to navigable water. Babcock explained that the dock rights belong to the HOA. Bab- cock pointed out that the site plan approved in 1985 complied with LMCD ordinances. The current request is for additional consideration and variances over and above what the HOA was granted in 1985. Cochran said he supports approving the variances. The original site plan approved was for each parcel to have individu- al docks, except the combined dock for Lots 1 and 2. He does not agree with the idea that the docks should be moved down the shoreline. He said there is the problem of the 8' easement not being filed. However, the attempt is to reach open water. There is the matter of the cattail growth having moved lake access further away from the land. The applicant has worked to re- design the docks to make them more acceptable to the property owners outside of the development. Justin Holl, 30 Pearl Street, favors the proposed plan presented by Wartman compared to the 1985 plan which places the docks only 10' to 15' from Pearl Street. The proposed plan has less impact on him. It places the dock more in front of Lots 1 and 2. He added that the Tonka Bay City Council has unanimously approved the plan. Penn said he believes the real issue is with how the de- veloper originally handled this site. Penn believes the property owners should have'-access to the Lake. He is not supportive of how the development was put together but is supportive of the people involved. Thibault pointed out that the Tonka Bay City Council action was to approve the setback variances between the properties. It did not take any action on the dock length variances. Vern Haug, Mayor, Tonka Bay, explained the city's ordinances speak only to setbacks. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 Foster said his belief is that people are entitled to navi- gable water. In this case, the properties are on an inside cor- ner. He does not believe any water use is being taken away from the general public. LeFevere said care should be taken that all documents are more descriptive of the actual property rights, that documents are recorded before giving final approval and that covenants are not changed without LMCD approval. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to call the ques- tion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Before voting on the variance motion, LeFevere said there would have to be an additional requirement in the Findings re- garding the method of installing the dock in the wetlands. VOTE: Foster, Grathwol, Cochran, Johnstone, and Penn voted aye. Bloom, Carlson, Reese, Hurr, Rascop, Babcock, and Owen voted nay. Motion failed. Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the Findings denying the new dock license and variances. The motion was withdrawn. MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to approve the 112' dock on Outlot A 'and to deny any variances on Lots 1 - 5. VOTE: Foster, Cochran, Johnstone, Bloom, Carlson, Reese, Hurr, Rascop, Penn and Owen voted aye. Grathwol and Babcock voted nay. Motion carried. MOTION: Reese moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the Find- ings, Order and memorandum for approval of the 112' dock on Outlot A and denial of variances for Lots 1 - 5. VOTE: Motion carried, Grathwol voting nay. C. Stocks' Side Setback Variance Application, Mound, Halst- eds Bay The committee has recommended approval of a variance allow- ing 5' setbacks for the Thomas and Roma Stocks property. 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, per the minutes of its 6/12/93 meeting. MOTION: Hurt moved, Johnstone seconded, to grant a variance' for 5' setbacks for the Stocks property 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. Limita- tions 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 The Board received a letter from LeFevere. dated 6/18/93, in which he concludes the Board may grant the variance, but should only do so if it is prepared to treat all similarly situated applicants alike. Carlson said the Findings should be specific to this one lot so a precedent is not set. Babcock and Carlson expressed their concerns about other 20' - 40' lots on the Lake. Hurr said the new shoreland regulations. when adopted, will not allow platting of the small lots without MnDNR approval. ! I ~, I I, iii I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 Commenting on his letter of 6/18, LeFevere said not all 20' lots will be the same. The Findings which accompany any approval should address the hardship existing for this lot in relation to other 25'-30' lots. A question to answer is, is it a way to avoid what the Ordinance intended. Is the variance reasonable in light of the ordinance? Cochran suggested conditions for approval could be based on' the previous platting of the property, that there is an existing house on the property, and the dock has been in existence for many years. LeFevere said the approval should be based on something that distinguishes this small lot from others. Is there a reason, affecting the Lake, why a house on the site makes a difference? There has to be a rationale of how the use relates to the Lake as a whole. This small lot is in the neighborhood of larger lots so the shoreline isn't crowded. Cochran said other items to consider are the position of this lot among lots of much larger frontage and whether or not this lot can be isolated from other small lots because the basic policy is the same. LeFevere added that as far as the Lake is concerned, it does not matter how long the parties involved were ignorant of the law. Rascop said this is a dangerous precedent to set as there are hundreds of ye.fy small lots on the Lake. Grathwol said he opposes this variance. He believes a mistake was made in allowing the dock to remain over the years. He used as an example of what could happen, a 40' lot, with four owners, which could be divided into smaller lots. He believes approval would be inviting people to create 20' or smaller lots. This is an opportunity to take a position on small lots. Hurr said the Stocks are asking for only 5' Robert Humphrey, previous owner of the lot, said this lot' was designed to provide for a dock and a boat at the time of platting. He used the dock for 12 years and the Stocks have had a dock for six years. He said there was never any mention that the neighbors had any "say so" about where he put his dock. He believes that there should be a method of advising lakeshore buyers and sellers of LMCD requirements which would affect the use of the property. Mrs. Stocks said there was only one inci- dent of a neighbor raising an issue about the docks. The LMCD did not inform her or her husband of the issue. Robert Floeder. 3027 Bluffs Lane, said he has similar cir- cumstances on his lot at the other end of the development and will claim the same hardships. He, too, has been unaware of the situation. Babcock said there should be some way buyers can be made aware of LMCD restrictions on the use of lakeshore. Title searches do not bring up the subject. Humphrey said he understood the LMCD was involved in the platting of the property. LeFevere responded that the LMCD has no authority on land. It is possible the Minnehaha Creek water- shed District (MCWD) might have looked at it. Mrs. Stocks said she has checked the files and the only reference is to the MCWD. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 Johnstone said he is going to vote in favor of the variance. He bases his approval on the size of the lot and its character in relation to the neighboring lake frontages and that it has been used for a substantial number of years. Hurr said there are Findings of Fact that make this property unique. It is only a 5' variance. Bloom said the District provides a Code of Ordinances and in approving this variance would be going against everything the LMCD wants to accomplish. The Code is available to both the seller and buyer of property. It will not be possible to distin- guish this property from any other property of a similar size. Johnstone responded that the essence of a variance means that there is a departure from the Code. Variances are granted based on the appropriateness of the circumstances. Bloom added that he would like to see a sunset provision rather than having it grand- fathered forever. Babcock mentioned that one of the neighbors had previously objected. Hurr said she does not believe in granting variances based on what the neighbors say. Babcock said variances should be based on uniform enforcement, not only when notified by a neighbor that a problem exists. Mr. Stocks said the neighbor's complaint was based on an encroachment into her dock use area and that complaint was in 1987. LeFevere recommended Findings be prepared before the final approval is granted. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Hurr and Johnstone added to their motion to include a direction to staff to prepare Findings of Fact, based on the discussion, to support the approval of the variance. VOTE: Foster, Cochran, Johnstone, Reese, Hurr, Penn and Owen voted aye. Grathwol, Carlson, Rascop and Babcock voted nay. Bloom abstained from voting. Motion carried. Stocks indicated a concern about the delay in final approv- al, for approval of the Findings, because they are trying to sell the property. Hurr said she does not believe the Board has ever reversed a decision on a variance, once the Board has voted to prepared Findings for approval. LeFevere suggested that if they have a buyer they obtain a purchase agreement contingent on final approval. COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC Vern Haug, Mayor, City of Tonka Bay, asked the Board to amend the agenda to consider the Tonka Bay City Council comments on the budget. The Council feels the LMCD reserve funds are adequate and more of the reserve funds should be used to reduce the levies to the cities. Cochran said the comments in the Tonka Bay Administrator's letter dated 6/16/93 will be considered when the budget is discussed later in the meeting. ! I 1, ! I, t I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 D. Joseph Zwak, Boat Storage Violation Greenwood. St. ^lbans Bay Joseph Zwak, 5165 Queens Circle, Greenwood, and three neig~- bors are the owners of an unimproved lakeshore lot adjacent to Zwak's off-lake residential property. They have 4 boats stored at the lot in violation of LMCD Code Sect. 2.02, Subd. 2 which restricts storage to 2 boats at that site. The committee recommended holding back on criminal prosecu- tion for further information from LeFevere. LeFevere, in a letter dated 6/18/93, advised the Board it can amend the Code to conform to Mr. Zwak's idea of the way it should read, or it can attempt to require Mr. Zwak to come into compliance with the Code through legal action. If the Board decides on legal action, it may proceed either as a misdemeanor prosecution or as a civil action. LeFevere's letter details the pros and cons of the two different actions. LeFevere said there appears to be an unrecon- cilable difference of opinion. Zwak or the District can start proceedings. LeFevere recommends a civil action. MOTION: Foster moved, Penn seconded, to institute a civil action to require Joseph Zwak to bring the docks and boat storage on his lakeshore lot into compliance with the LMCD Ordinances. DISCUSSION: Bloom mentioned the City of Greenwood action to delay any enforcement for a year to give time to study the situa- tion. Bloom wondered if Zwak could apply for a multiple dock license. Thibault pointed out that the Outlot does not have enough lakeshore frontage. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Johnstone asked for an outline of the anticipated expenses. E. Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono At the Board meeting of 4/28/93 the Lakeside Marina 1993 Multiple Dock License was approved with a list of conditions as outlined in a staff letter dated 3/26/93, subject to an appeal by the applicant for a hearing on the conditions. James Dunn, Owner, Lakeside Marina, and Ronald Zamansky, attorney representing Mr. Dunn, were present. In a letter dated 6/1/93, LeFevere informed Zamansky that the Board would give Dunn a hearing on 6/23/93 in response to the conditions placed on his license. Dunn said, prior to the drought years, Lakeside Marina was a retail boat sales operation. Since then its boat sales have been minimal and it is much more a storage and service' operation. Zamansky apologized for an ad Lakeside Marina ran in the newspapers, as a part of the spring boat shows, regarding unlim- ited "in and out" access. They do not challenge the LMCD posi- tion on "in and out" storage. They do object to the conditions requiring maintenance of additional records. They object to the public having knowledge of Dunn's customers and personal data. They ask for removal of those conditions and request they be treated as are other marinas. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 Hurr said she could understand a mistake in the 1993 ad but this was also done in 1990 (as well as 1991 and 1992). Foster said the LMCD records show that "in and out" storage has been offered for four years in a row. Dunn has been informed, in writing that this is a violation of his license for four years. The District does not have a trust that Dunn will not flaunt the rules again. Foster said as a business operation, there needs to be a service ticket to indicate which boats are in for service, what kind of "in and out" agreements are made with customers and which boats are there for storage only. The dialogue continued between the Board and Dunn and Zaman- sky with the Board reinforcing its requirement that there be a verifiable method of determining the reasons why each given boat is there. Zamansky said Dunn will be available to answer any questions, but what they consider personal information about their customers, will be available only by a court order. He questions the LMCD right to ask for the information. Staff prepared a chronological summary of the enforcement history going back to 1990 indicating a history of non-compli- ance. The summary will be made a part of the record. In LeFevere's letter to Zamansky he noted that Zamansky stated, at a meeting with LeFevere, that Dunn has 8 watercraft stored on land in violation of the LMCD Code. Those boats alone are reason enough for revocation of the license. LeFevere said there may nor may not be other boats in violation of the license. He believes it would be less burdensome to make the records available. Dunn offered to make existing records available for staff inspection but not copying. Cochran said the purpose of this meeting is to give Dunn an opportunity to be heard and no action is to be taken. Carlson said the committee should review the comments and documents available to it to determine whether the conditions should be amended or the violations enforced. Carlson said he would not consider removing the conditions until there is proof that the 8 "in and out" dry storage boats are removed. 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION~ Chair Foster A. Approval of Minutes. Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 6/15/93 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Intoxicating Liquor License Fees The committee discussed whether the $3,000 fee charged for a liquor license reflects the cost of issuing the license and the inspection costs. It was its recommendation to reduce the fee to $1,500. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to reduce the liquor license fee to $1,500 in 1994, reflecting that figure in the 1994 budget. i I 1, I I, i~ I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 DISCUSSION: 'The executive director said the budget to be discussed later in the meeting does not reflect the fee reduc- tion. He said the staff needs more time to determine whether $1,500 is appropriate. MOTION: Babcock moved, Hurt seconded, to table the liquor license fee back to the committee. VOTE: Carlson, Grathwol, Rascop, Johnstone, Hurt and Bab- cock voted aye. Reese, Foster, Bloom, Penn and Cochran voted nay. Owen abstained. Motion carried. C. Special Events For informational purposes, the committee submits the fol- lowing: New Special Events: 1) Operation Bass, Inc., Bass Tournament, 9/19/93, Minne- tonka Boat Works, Wayzata Renewal Special Events 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 a. Personal Watercraft Practice Course The Board discussed an application for permission to operate a personal watercraft practice course on weekdays, under special conditions, on Wayzata Bay between Sunsets Restaurant and the Depot. Foster said this is for motorized racing which is prohibited under the Code. There is the additional problem of adhering to the Code restriction limiting to thirty minutes in one area. The executive director said the Code requires a permit for placement of the buoy markers beyond 200' from shore. This would require Board approval. The policy is for Water Patrol to ap- prove the buoy marker placement before each use, as is done with the water ski slalom courses. Carlson said this would be a violation if the buoys were permanent, not removed after each use. Thibault said it is not an enclosed race course but is a set of unevenly placed buoys to practice maneuverings. They would Like to use other areas in addition to the area in front of Sunsets. Penn said he is concerned about setting a precedent and is opposed to any racing. The executive director said the staff does not recommend this permit. He said enforcing the 30 minute restriction would be burdensome on the Water Patrol. In response to a question from Babcock as to whether this is actually racing, the executive director said it has not been presented as a racing activity and speed limits would be main- tained. The executive director added that this activity could interfere with other activities in Wayzata Bay such as fishing. It also could lead ioa public perception that others can set up slalom courses without knowing a permit would be required. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 Reese said he does not see this as different than sail boat racing which takes up a certain area of the Lake. The personal watercraft are under 82 decibels, and the activity would be on weekdays only. It is a reasonable request. MOTION: Hurr moved, Penn seconded, to deny permission for a personal watercraft practice race course. VOTE: Motion carried, Reese voting nay, Babcock abstaining. D. Decibel Test The Board received a report of the 5/25/93 decibel test pro- gram. The committee recommends that the decibel level limit on Lake Minnetonka be reduced from 82 to 80 decibels. Foster explained that a boat has to be at least 84 decibels. 2 more than the ordinance requirement of 82 decibels, before the Water Patrol will issue a citation. Foster said his observation at the test was that 84 decibels is loud. Lowerin~ the decibels allowed to 80 and enforced at 83 decibels results in a more ac- ceptable sound. MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to instruct the LMCD attorney to prepare an ordinance change to reduce the deci- bel level for boats on Lake Minnetonka to 80 decibels. DISCUSSION: Lt. Esensten said he wants to point out that the instructions to the Water Patrol Deputies to use the 2 deci- bel variance are to make sure the citation will stand up in court, as well as the public perception and what is tolerable by the public. It is inaccurate to say that if the limit is changed to 80 decibels they will enforce at 83. The Water Patrol always retains the right to decide what their variance is in enforcing, based on what the courts will find acceptable and what they see as public perception. Johnstone asked if there will be a public hearing before adoption of the ordinance. Foster supported having a public hearing. All Ordinance are reviewed as part of the Board public process. Babcock asked what basis was used by the committee in making its recommendation. Foster said, after the test, the committee felt that it would make sense as a response to complaints from the public about noisy boats. Penn said he believes this is an enforcement issue. The District should make a public statement that the purpose is to increase enforcement of what is a noise problem. Babcock questioned how a boater is going to know what a boat's decibel reading is. Bloom said the manufacturers are not going to change. Babcock said he does not want to change his exhaust system because of a change in the ordinance. He suggest- ed all boats manufactured after a given date would have to com- ply. He does not favor anything that would require retrofitin~. Babcock added that Lake Minnetonka is one of the few lakes in the state suitable for the larger power boats. He questioned having the draft ordinance prepared before a public hearing and consid- eration of all of the issues. VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock voting nay. !1 1, ! I, I[ I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 LeFevere said the draft ordinance preparation can be swift. He believes there is a state pre-emption issue regarding adopting stricter standards than the state. One reason is that boats move from lake to lake. He wants to take a look at that issue before the District sets itself up for a law suit brought by the indus- try. Cochran said he believes the District has to have the forti- tude to set standards. The District did it before with regula- tions on personal watercraft and snowmobiles. Cochran has the impression that the Water Patrol does not enforce decibel levels well enough. Cochran challenged the Water Patrol to enforce the decibel levels set by the District. Esensten responded that the Water Patrol does the best job it can within the 'parameters it is given to work. E. Water Patrol Report Esensten reported as follows: * There has been very little activity because of the weath- 'er. * The Water Patrol is getting complaints about soil erosion in the channels because of the high water. * There have been 2 BWIs issued since the committee meeting for a total of 10 for this season. Esensten reported on the one BWI incident in which the handcuffed violator jumped from the boat into Seton Channel. An all night search was made. The next morning the Water Patrol was advised the violator was safe. He was apprehended. The execu- tive director asked that the LMCD office be notified when charges are filed. Esensten replied the LMCD prosecutor, Steve Tallen, has the paper work. Carlson asked how the two radar guns the LMCD donated to the Water Patrol are working. Esensten said they work very well, especially in "quiet water" areas. He expressed appreciation for the donation. Hurr suggested the Water Patrol report be placed first on the agenda. Esensten said they would appreciate not being tied to the entire meeting. The deputy would stay through if there were anything on the agenda involving the Water Patrol. He said it is important that they be at the meeting to give the report and answer questions. Cochran asked the staff to make adjustments in the agenda to place the Water Patrol early in the meeting. Rascop suggested declaring the entire Lake a quiet water area until the water goes down. Rascop's motion to that effect was not seconded. 3. ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Hurt Hurt reported there was no meeting in June. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Rascop moved, Owen seconded, to approve the minutes of the June 18, 1993 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unani- mously. Penn reported Robert Pierce has resigned as milfoil coordi- nator effective June 30. Penn said the executive director has taken over Pierce's responsibilities and assigned supervisory duties to Todd Graham. Penn expressed appreciation to the execu- tive director for his assistance. The executive director said Pierce left because of an unexpected change in his plans. Pierce would no longer have the hours available that the District needs. The executive director added there has been good cooperation from the LMCD and milfoil staff to aid him with his additional duties. Penn said the milfoil program is all right from a staffing position. The harvester operators have been trained. The har- vesters are in the water. They have finished harvesting Phelps Bay and will be moving to Carsons Bay, then Gideons Bay and from there to St. Albans Bay. The extra fuel tanks are increasing efficiency. The SONAR enclosures are in place in St. Albans Bay and it is understood the SONAR has been applied. Reese said he understands there was a problem with a commer- cial weed cutter dumping where the LMCD dumps milfoil. The executive director said the matter has been investigated and it has been corrected. Reese noted that the DNR SONOR field enclosure test program has been cut back. He questions whether this is a valid test. Carlson asked whether there will be access treatment at Kings Point and Harrisons Bay. The executive director said all of the accesses have not been physically examined to determine which ones will be treated. The treatment will be on an as needed basis. Hurr said there should be communication with the public when and where the harvesting is going to be done. Penn said there will be information in the newspapers as to where the harvesters are working and where harvesting will take place. A news release was submitted 6/21 on that subject. Johnstone asked about harvesting in Libbs Lake. The execu- tive director said the property owners have treated the entire shoreline. There is not sufficient milfoil on the interior of Libbs Lake to harvest at this time. The status will be moni- tored. Hurt asked how the areas to be harvested are selected. Penn said it is based on observation of need. Staff is looking into keeping the five harvesters together vs. splitting them up into two teams. There is a better public perception of more work being done if split up. 4. LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol Grathwol distributed a report of the 6/15/93 meeting. Grathwol said the District has to continue to work to get the car/trailer parking agreements processed by the cities. The access committee offers its assistance to any Board member in making a presentation. I I 1, ! I, L~ I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Carlson submit- ted the Fee Study Subcommittee report of its 6/8/93 meeting. He said the marina operators are in favor of the dock use area "envelope" concept. Carlson suggested referring the suggestion to the Water Structures Committee for their input and its long term impact. It woul.d lighten the licensing procedure. The next meeting will be August 3, 1993. MOTION: Carlson moved, Foster seconded, to refer the con- cept of a dock Use area "envelope" to the Water Structures Com- mittee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Carlson submitted the report of the 6/8/93 Administra- tive Subcommittee meeting. The purpose is to develop recommenda- tions for any changes in the LMCD's organizational structure which can be accomplished without legislative action and then consider what recommendations might require legislative change to the LMCD enabling act. C. Carlson reported on the Administrative Committee meeting of 6/23/93. The 1994 Preliminary Draft Budget was presented for consideration. It contains suggestions following the executive director's meeting with two city administrators and Mayor Duff, Woodland. They suggested the $15,000 allocated in 1993 for a part-time administrative employee, not used, be applied to Admin- istration, and that an additional $10,000 be taken out of the Reserve Fund. Carlson said he believes a nine month operating reserve should be maintained. The executive director polled several cities, finding that those polled try to maintain a six month reserve. A three to four month's reserve is often the case. In the case of the LMCD there is a need for a larger reserve because of the uncertainty of some funding sources. The Board discussed the use of reserve funds, both for the Administration Fund and the Milfoil Program. Carlson said it is important to determine what will be an appropriate reserve for milfoil. The $50,000 annual allocation for equipment acquisition outside of the budget will have an effect on the milfoil reserve. It is also noted that the milfoil equipment reserve is dedicated to equipment acquisition from privately raised funds, and not operations. Carlson said Tonka Bay and Orono have expressed objections .'to the proposed budget. Tonka Bay is concerned about the pro- posed 4% salary increase. Victoria offered no objection to the budget. MOTION: Carlson moved, Hurt seconded, to approve 6/18/93 revised the 1994 draft budget with the following changes in the revised draft: Line 1LMCD Communities Admn. Levy + $25,000 to $103,500 Line 2 Reserve Fund Allocation - $25,000 to -o- Line 9 c Milfoil Private Solicitations - $20,000 to $10,000 Line 9 d Milfoil Reserve Fund Allocation + 20,000 to $47,000 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 Johnstone said a detailed explanation of the budget should accompany the presentation to the cities. Penn said it should include information about the lack of secure funding from Henne- pin County and milfoil contributions. An analysis of the reserve funds should be included. Carlson offered to develop an outline with LMCD staff. AGENDA AMENDMENT Chair Cochran amended the agenda to consider new business. Hennepin Parks - LCMR Grant Application The executive director reported Hennepin Parks has submitted a matching fund grant application to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). The funds will be used to monitor surface water runoff from golf courses. John Barten, Hennepin Parks Water Quality Manager, in a letter dated 6/15/93, inquired about the LMCD interest in assist- ing Hennepin Parks in reaching the matching funds. Barten was present and said there will be cooperation from the Hennepin Conservation District and Minnesota Golf Course Superintendents Association. MOTION: Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to appropriate $2,500 from the Save the Lake Fund to be used by Hennepin Parks toward the funds it needs to meet the requirements of the LCMR to match a grant of $49,000 for monitoring surface water runoff from golf courses. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. MOTION: Carlson moved, Hurt seconded, to accept the Statement of Cash Transactions for March 1993 and order it filed. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. MOTION: Carlson moved, Hurr seconded, to approve pay- ment of bills in the amount of $25,711.22, Checks No. 9199 through 9282, and payroll checks No. 1059 through 1069, with check #9198 voided. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT A. The Special Event calendar for July was distributed. B. The Meeting Schedule for July was distributed. The executive director said the Lake Use and Recreation Committee has suggested a change in meeting date. The Board agreed to change the Lake Use and Recreation Committee meetings to 5:30 PM, on the Monday at least 8 days before the Board meeting. The Lake Access Committee will meet following the Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting when so scheduled. II 1, ! I, I~ I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 23, 1993 ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 11:25 PM. David Cochran? Chair Douglas Babcock. Secretary I I 1, I I, ,t i JUL 2 6 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Emergency Meeting 7:30 pm, Thursday, July 15, 1993 Norwest Bank Bldg., Rm 135 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Penn at 7:40 pm. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Thomas Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minnetrista; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Robert Slocum, Woodland; Staff Present: Legal Counsel David Kennedy, Executive Director Gene Strommen, Administrative Technician Rachel Thibault; Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Deputy Chief Ovid Laberge, Sgt. William Chandler. Members Absent: David H. Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Albert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; George Owen, Victoria; Tom Reese, Mound; CHAIR INTRODUCTION ON THE PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE FOR THIS EMERGENCY MEETING: Vice Chair Penn announced that this emergency board meeting was called to consider action · appropriate to the extraordinary high water levels on Lake Minnetonka to protect the shoreline and water structure property from wake damage caused by boat speeds and certain boat activities. The meeting procedure will invite comments from representatives of municipalities, agencies and citizen organizations, followed by individuals. The board will then evaluate lake level conditions and problems identified at this meeting in making a recommendation. LMCD STAFF BACKGROUND ON THE CURRENT HIGH WATER PROBLEMS: Strommen reviewed a Water Level report prepared 7/15/93 citing lake level readings from 5/3/93 to 7/13/93. Watershed information and weather forecasts were included in the report. A Six Month Precipitation Record prepared by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was also presented with readings through 7/14/93. Also provided the board and public was a copy of a 7/6/93 City of Prior Lake Ordinance No. 93-20 amending High Water Speed Limitations to control boat wakes on Prior Lake, limiting areas of the lake to snow/no wa]ce speed as may be imposed by the sheriff. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tom LaBounty, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, reviewed the water flow over the Grays Bay earthen spillway at 75 cfs and through the control structure at 75 cfs. Once the water level ceases to flow over the spillway, the control structure LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, P. 2 July 15, 1993 flow will be increased up to 150 cfs, possibly more if the downstream creek flow can safely handle the flow. The spillway level is 930.00', with a small portion presently eroded by foot traffic to 929.85' This low spot is set for repair. Each of the three control gates can release a maximum of 200 cfs. LaBounty notes that warm winds can evaporate more water than the current flow rate. At the present release rate, the lake will be lowered by 0.62' in 30 days. The lake level drop is also influenced by further precipitation and run-off from wetlands and stream inflow which presently are in a saturated/high-flow condition. Nancy Check, Minnetonka Beach, presented a city council resolution for minimum speed & wake off the eastern shore of Huntington Point from the Arcola Bridge south along the shore to the tip of Huntington Point with Slow, Minimum Wake buoys. Jennifer Dotzenroth, Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Assn., (LMLOA), presented a resolution urging the board to adopt a resolution declaring "high water conditions/elevation -- minimum wake" in effect. David Dotzenroth, pilot, clear Air, Inc., reported seeing twelve homes in the last 24 hours with water up to the door in Tonka Bay and other areas. Evidence of soil erosion and silting in lake shore waters was also observed. Jerry Rockvam, mayor, Spring Park, presented a city council resolution opposing a complete no-wake zoning of the entire lake due to mechanics of control and enforcement. Sgt. Bill Chandler reported the Water Patrol has one patrol boat assigned to the Seton/Black Lake quiet waters area. The patrol has a resource of up to ten boats available but it has personnel for only five of them. Chandler expressed concern for selecting areas for minimum wake which cannot be clearly identified as to the area boundaries for enforcement. Mark Brenneman, North Shore Drive Marina, pointed out that the flood "level" for the lake is 931.5' with the water level being more than a foot below that ~evel. It is Brenneman's understanding that at the present 150 cfs release rate at the dam the lake level will be lowered at the rate of 0.62' in 30 days. He believes that the need for emergency action is not necessary, that wind action does as more shore damage than boat wakes. He said accesses should be posted to encourage voluntary boater cooperation with minimum wakes. LaBounty continued that Grays Bay, already posted for minimum wake on Saturdays and Sundays, is virtually ignored by most boats. When the Water Patrol is present, compliance takes place, but when they leave the open throttle begins again. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, P. 3 July 15, 1993 James Mulvanny, Orono, cited a floating bog problem in North Arm which he and neighbors try to keep from floating away. Duane Markus raised a point of order on continuing the public testimony on this subject if the board cannot take any action due to a lack of quorum. Penn responded that the information by persons present is still valuable and he believes the board members should continue to hear their concerns. Carol Laybourn, Tonka Bay, called the current lake level a crisis situation. She believes Lake Minnetonka residents should rally together to restrict lakes. Ron Glesne, LMLOA, suggested that the money spent on milfoil harvesting be used to fund new rip rap for lakeshore properties. LaBounty offered bICWD help in counseling with LMCD on lake level conditions and on whatever restrictions the board deems appropriate during the high water conditions. He added that the control structure Operating Plan does not include fully opening the flood gates (to the full 200 cfs per section). Gabriel Jabbour, Tonka Bay Marina, suggested lake users be educated as to the problem by hanging banners from channel bridges asking their cooperation. He cited Big Island as having considerable shore erosion, especially near the Veterans Camp. Jabbour also called attention to a Weekly News article which cites a DNR recommendation which calls for making all lakes 500 acres or smaller minimum wake and for larger lakes a 600' minimum wake shore zone. Markus supported Jabbour's banner proposal, recommending funding be found to purchase them. Jabbour offered to match any amount raised for this purpose. Chief Laberge cautioned that city sign ordinances be checked before purchasing and installing banners on bridges or elsewhere. Rockvam as]ted if the open meeting law was being violated as a result of the short notice under which this meeting was called. Kennedy responded that as an emergency meeting, the full requirements of the open meeting law have been met. Ed Callahan, Orono mayor, spoke in support of an ordinance which would cover the whole lake rather than parts of the lake. This ~ould result in better public understanding- Chandler resp6nded to the question of how the Water Patrol would enforce a total lake minimum wake condition by indicating their patrol boats would observe the minimum wake LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, P. 4 July 15, ]993 speed for routine enforcement purposes, exceeding it only for emergency purposes -- namely public safety enforcement, concerns. Gary DeSantis, Sailor's World Marina, noted that the displacement of 30' to 40' boats are most prone to producing significant wakes. He offered his marina's cooperation to assist the Water Patrol however needed. Johnstone noted his favor for an ordinance making the entire lake a no-wake zone. He would ask that staff get it published it immediately. He further supports funding to provide more patrol time for the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. Kennedy responded to a question on the timing of enforcing a new ordinance by citing state law which allows an ordinance to be effective upon adoption. Carlson recommended that the attorney be instructed to draft two ordinance possibilities, one calling for minimum wake for the entire lake, and another for minimum wake extending 600' from shore, with a provision allowing the Water Patrol an exemption from complying with the minimum wake restrictions. Board members then discussed various public education means to communicate the regulations which may be adopted, such as signs at public and marina accesses, banners on bridges, flyer hand-out at accesses and distribution at marinas, bait shops and other boater outlets. Naegele may provide a billboard at no charge. An audible "honk" on boat horns to remind other boaters when their wake is not minimum. ADJOURNMENT Penn moved, Slocum seconded that this meeting be adjourned until 7:30 am, Saturday, July 17, at the Norwest Bank Conference Room !35, 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, b~N. Motion carried unanimously at 9:35 pm. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary JUL p. 6 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Emergency Meeting Continuation of July 15, 1993 Meeting 7:30 am, Saturday, July 17, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting of the Board of Directors was called to order by Chair Cochran at 7:35 am. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Chair David Cochran, Greenwood; Treasurer Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Albert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Tom Reese, Mound Robert Slocum, Woodlund; Staff present: Legal Counsel David Kennedy, Executive Director Gene Strommen; Members Absent: Secretary Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; George Owen, Victoria; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay CHAIR INTRODUCTION. Cochran noted from the approximately 25 persons in the audience that public comments would again be invited, some persons attending for the first time. Jerry Rockvam, mayor, Spring Park, asked that the 7/15/93 minutes be corrected to show his statement as being that of the city council based upon its resolution. Nancy Check, council member, Minnetonka Beach, asked that the reference to their resolution include placement of Slow, Minimum Wake buoys in the channel along the east shore of Huntington Point. Jennifer Dotzenroth, Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Assn., reiterated the resolution presented at the 7/15 meeting. Gabriel Jabbour, Orono, asked that the board consider the capability of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol to enforce whatever form of ordinance it may adopt. Robert Abdo, mayor, Minnetonka Beach, emphasized the high water concerns of the neighboring city shoreline properties and the urgency of the need for their wake protection. Lee Fischbach, Orono, recommended that the public boat launch accesses be closed during this high water period. Mark Brenneman, North Shore Drive Marina, believes shoreline owners have the responsibility to protect their shoreline. He noted during a recent cruise on a 34' -- 14,000 pound cruiser that its wake dissipated before reaching shore. Foster asked if there was data to reinforce the 600' distance from shore that the DNR recommended for wake control. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, P. 2 July 17, 1993 Tom Maple, board of managers, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, pointed out that the current lake level of 930.30' is not considered an emergency. Downstream problems on Minnehaha Creek do exist. The level below 931.5' is in the floodplain. Structures below 931.5' are subject to flooding or water damage in the case of shoreline rip-rap or retaining walls. Maple sees the future of Lake Minnetonka to be more subject to high water levels and the need for protection of property to the 931.5' floodplain level. Maple continued that changes in the control structure level and the related 929.4' ordinary high water level for the lake would have to be done by the courts. He compared the present control structure to draining a bathtub with a straw. He reassured the audience that the dam is intact at Grays Bay and the Mill Pond. Planning for high water in the future will likely involve public and private money. Right now the problem is for a short term program to protect the lake from erosion. Moore believes the lake shore has to be protected higher than the 931.5' level due to wave action of large watercraft. He sees rip rap up to 932.0' is being eroded at this time. Kennedy reviewed the draft ordinance relating to the operation of watercraft during periods of high water, with options. Option 1 called for regulating the entire surface area of the lake. Option 2 called for regulation of certain named bays and portions of the lake and the surface area of the lake within a distance of 600 feet of the shoreline. Definitions, a general rule and high water declaration were included. Board members discussed the various aspects of the wake problem, how it can best be enforced, and the pros and cons of total minimum wake restriction vs. partial. The level at which the high water emergency should be declared was also discussed. Straw votes were taken on the various options assisting the board in arriving at the following motions: Carlson moved, Johnstone seconded to waive all readings and adopt An Ordinance Relating to the Operation of Watercraft During Periods of High Water, amending LMCD Code with the draft Ordinance as presented by Kennedy, declaring High Water as a lake elevation of 929.8' Mean Sea Level (MSL) and identifying the Regulated Area to mean bays under 300 acres and the surface area of the lake within a distance of 600 feet of the shoreline, the bays under 300 acres being Emerald Lake, Libb's Lake, Seton Lake, Echo Bay, Bay St. Louis, Black Lake, Coffee Cove, Big Island Passage, Robinson's Bay, Tanager Lake, Forest Lake, Veteran's Bay, Carson's Bay, Excelsior Bay, Old Channel Bay, Smithtown Bay, Priest's Bay, II 1, I I .... ' LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, P. 3 July 17, 1993 St. Alban's Bay, Gray's Bay, stubb's Bay, Harrison's Bay, Carman's Bay, Jenning's Bay and Smith's Bay. Upon discussion o~ the motion, the high water lake level was questioned, but resolved as suitable at 929.6' Moore moved, Rascop seconded, to amend the motion to include in the regulated area the east shore of Huntington Point from the channel buoys to the tip of Huntington Point to include making the channel a minimum wake. The motion failed. Hurr moved, Rascop seconded to authorize the executive director to place temporary slow buoys in lake areas as deemed necessary. The motion carried. Rascop moved, Carlson seconded, to change the word "speed" to "wake" in subd. 1, line 8; Subd., 4.a), line 2 and Subd. 4.c) line 3. Motion carried. Rascop moved, Carlson seconded, to include language from Code Sec. 3.02, subd. 3 which exempts the Water Patrol and seaplanes from the wake restrictions. Motion carried. FUNDING. Johnstone moved, Rascop seconded to authorize the LMCD chair to allocate $4,000 in Save the Lake funds for expenditures relating to public information, education and additional Water Patrol service during the period of the new wake regulation. The motion discussion resulted in a number of suggestions for mailings, signs and symbols to help call the new regulations to the boating public's attention. The executive director made note of the ideas offered. Gabriel Jabbour, Orono, offered to match the expenditures spent on information and education. The motion carried. ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE DATE. Kennedy reaffirmed that this ordinance is effective upon adoption at this time. ENFORCEMENT. Staff was asked to monitor enforcement reports as a result of this new ordinance. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 9:35 am. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary Action Report: Meeting: il D JUL 2. 6 199 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT Water Structures Committee 7:30 AM., Saturday, July 10, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata. Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; James Grathwol. Excelsior; Robert Slocum. Woodland. Duane Markus, Wayzata and Robert Rascop, Shorewood, arrived as noted. Also Present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. Stocks Side Setback Variance Application, Halsteds Bay, Mound The committee received the Findings of Fact and Order re- garding the application for a variance from Thomas and Roma Stocks. Babcock observed that the Findings and Order are com- plete in explaining why this variance applies to this one site only. Two corrections in typing will be made. MOTION: Slocum moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend to the Board that the Findings and Order approving the variance for Thomas and Roma Stocks, under the conditions in the Order, be approved. VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock voting nay. A copy of the Findings and Order was supplied to Robert Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, owner of a similar lot in the develop- ment. Markus and Rascop arrived during the following discussion. 2. Lakeside Marina, Inc., Maxwell Bay, Orono James Dunn, owner of Lakeside Marina, Inc. (Lakeside), presented his comments regarding the conditions placed on Lake- side's 1993 multiple dock license in light of the 6/23/93 Board hearing. The Conditions require that the licensee shall maintain books and records sufficient to establish that Lakeside launching facilities are not being used in conjunction with any of the watercraft parked or stored on land at the marina. That launch- ing is referred to as "in and out" Dunn asked the committee to come up with a more specific definition of "in and out". He said there are a number of mari- nas which have many boats being launched each day as the result 'of servicing, sales or dry storage. The most activity at Lake- side is in the spring and fall. Dunn says he has limited park- ing. Dunn said it appears to him that the Board took the position that he is in total violation. He said he has a portion of his property in a "do it yourself" maintenance area which may also be considered dry storage. Babcock said the primary concern of the LMCD is the boats being stored on land, overnight, for the purpose of being put in and out of the Lake for the marina customer. The purpose of the I I 1, ! I, ,1~ I I WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 10, 1993 dry stacking (off-lake Storage) ordinance is to control density. In the case of Lakeside, the grandfathered density is more than 1:10' By adding in and out storage at the site, the density is being increased. The District is not attempting to regulate the boats there for service or winter storage, or the boat which is launched but not kept over night. The LMCD concern, in the case of Lakeside, is the boats being stored on land, all season, for in and out use on the Lake. Dunn said when Lakeside was actively involved in retail sales the boat storage density on land was greater. Any boat for sale could be in and out many times in a day for demonstration purposes. Lakeside now is primarily a brokerage and service operation and does not create the density of a public access or "for pay" launch site. Dunn said he has talked to the MnDNR and other marina opera- tors regarding dedicating 5 - 10% of their parking to the public for car-trailer parking. Marina operators are concerned about the large number of boats accessing the lake at public launching sites that are, in essence "in and out" by use of off-lake marine operators. There is no control or management of those activi- ties. It is his belief that the density at the on-lake marinas can be regulated by allocating the available parking to service, sales and slip customers. Babcock agreed that the launching by off-lake commercial operations is a problem to be addressed. The LMCD does not control on shore parking, except as it relates to the number of slips at a marina. Dunn said he would like the same density as other marinas licensed for off-lake storage, if he can satisfy the City of Orono. The marinas with off-lake storage racks applied for licensing at the time of "grandfathering", whereas the marinas with dry storage in the parking lots did not. It is his under- standing he is not allowed a variance because of his grandfa- thered status. The executive director asked Dunn where the Code is not specific to his case. Dunn responded, it is not specific as to what is allowed. Rascop said there should be no discussion of other issues until the issue of the conditions is satisfied. Babcock clarified the purpose of this meeting as 1) to address the violation of the Code and 2) to review the conditions placed on the Lakeside 1993 license. A less burdensome method of monitoring could be discussed. The new concerns raised by Dunn can be discussed in the future. Grathwol said it is clear there is a need to obtain informa- tion to show compliance without getting involved in proprietary matters or the business operation. Reference was made to the 3/26/93 letter to Dunn outlining the conditions for verification. Babcock suggested requiring that the books and records available to the District contain the watercraft registration number or name of the watercraft, if a documented boat, of all boats stored on land. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 10, 1993 Dunn said he could walk the property right now with Thibault and give her the status of each boat. He has already made ar- rangements for the boats that the District would classify as "in and out" to be moved to a neighboring operation. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend to the Board to proceed with prosecution on the existing violation, sub- ject to James Dunn being in compliance with the code by the 7/28/93 Board meeting and to amend the license conditions out- lined in the District's 3/26/93 letter to Dunn, to show that the records shall include the MN number, or name and port of call for documented boats, for identification of all boats stored on land. DISCUSSION: Dunn said he is in the process of obtaining addi- tional financing. Putting restrictions on the Lakeside license could present a problem. He feels this is not consistent with licensing of other marinas. Grathwol said the District is in an enforcement situation. When Lakeside is in conformance with the Code, the restrictions could be removed for next year. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Orathwol observed that Dunn has raised issues about off lake marinas, dry stacking and about the use of public launch facili- ties by private commercial interests to give advantages over other private operators by free use of public facilities. Grath- wol said the committee and Board should address those issues. 3. Gideons Point Homeowners Assoc., Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay Babcock reviewed the Gideons Point Homeowners Association (HOA) variance application and new dock license application. The Findings and Order denying the variance on the east end of the property was approved. The variance for a 112' on the Outlot on the west end was approved subject to a site plan showing the dock on the outlot and the docks on Lots 1 - 12. The applicant, Thomas Wartman, has not submitted a site plan which conforms to the dock configuration approved in this new Order. Babcock suggested a time limit of thirty days be placed on submission of a site plan conforming to the Board action. Markus asked, if Wartman does not comply can the District rescind the action on the 112' dock on the Outlot. Rascop be- lieves if the site plan is not submitted the HOA does not have the 112' dock, they are limited to what they had in 1985. Grath- wol said there would have to be a reason to rescind the variance. 4. Navarre Cove Homeowners Assoc.,Carmans Bay, Orono The committee received a memo from Thibault, dated 7/2/93, explaining that the Navarre Cove Homeowners Association (HOA) is licensed for six boat storage units at three "stick" docks 25' long. The applicant has submitted a new site plan to change the docks from 25' to 44' to reflect the dock lengths currently in place. ! I 1, I I, ,t I.I WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 10, 1993 LMCD staff recommends appPoval of the change in length. There are no canopies on the docks. The docks do not interfere with navigation in the lagoon as the shoreline is concave at this site. The docks are within the authorized dock use area for the Outlot, as well as the entire shoreline under control of the HOA. MOTION: Babcock moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of the Navarre Cove Homeowners Association revised site plan to change three stick docks from 25' to 44' for 6 Boat Storage Units as recommend by the LMCD staff, conditioned upon a copy of the Association's documentation of its rights to the shoreline be on file with the LMCD. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Unrestricted Watercraft Storage The committee received a memo, dated 6/7/93, from Thibault containing a proposal for regulating unrestricted watercraft at commercial marinas or yacht clubs, where boat storage space is rented. This is a follow up to the 5/21/93 memo to the Board from the committee listing unrestricted watercraft ordinance amendment options. Babcock called for discussion on the recommendation that unrestricted watercraft which provide a service to the public be exempt from being counted at multiple dock licensed facilities. The recommendation included an upper limit on how many unre- stricted watercraft could be stored, suggested to be 1 boat per 10' of shoreline. Examples are the rental fishing boats used as an amenity at Rockvam Boat Yards and the prams for the sailing school at the Wayzata Yacht Club. The most probable place for that type of activity would be an existing marina. Markus said in his opinion density is density. There would have to be restrictions on when the boats would be available for use. He suggested weekdays only. Markus asked how the Universi- ty of Minnesota sailboats at the Wayzata Yacht Club would fit in as they are used by a private organization, not the general public. Babcock said that use would be classified as education- al. There would have to be an upper limit at any given site. Babcock said if this were to be done there may be a limita- tion to use on weekdays only. That would be an option open to the Board on a case to case basis. The committee discussed the unrestricted watercraft ordi- nance amendment options forwarded to the Board from the committee on 5/21/93. Grathwol said. as amenities are only required for special density licensees, a code amendment for unrestricted watercraft required as an amenity could be exempt. This could also apply to grandfathered licensees. Rascop said perhaps this increase in density could bring grandfathered docks into conformity and require they supply amenities. Babcock could not foresee any grandfathered licensee coming in for a special density license. Thibault said this ordinance review should also include off lake storage, such as canoes on a rack, at commercial and resi- dential properties. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 10, 1993 Babcock said this is not intended as a method to increase density. He suggested that for multiple dock licensed marinas there could be allocated "x" number of boats on the lake. That could also be done for municipalities and homeowners associa- tions. That would supply a number for each classification to be placed in a pool and allocated on existing numbers. If there is a reduction in the number of any classification the pool would be filled from the existing licensees on a lottery or drawing. Rascop said that would require a pool for non-multiple dock riparian land. It was decided this would be a radical change. There would be enforcement problems. Babcock returned the discussion to the issue before the committee. He recommended unrestricted boats be excluded from the count if the applicant can show they are for a public use. Rascop said that would require a definition of public use. Rascop also questioned whether public use would have to be free. Thibault wondered how boat clubs would fit into the definition. Grathwol said he would be willing to recommend drafting an Ordinance to make the changes in the 5/21/93 letter. Slocum asked if the Chair would want another meeting of the sub-commit- tee to review the concept and add to it. Rascop suggested taking a percentage of the existing storage and using that for a cap. Babcock said that would favor the grandfathered docks. Rascop said there could be the 1 to 10' requirement or a percentage of the existing storage, using the lesser number. Babcock suggested a maximum of 25 unrestricted watercraft or the 1 to 10' requirement if less than 25. The committee accepted the executive director's suggestion that staff be allowed to redraft a plan, going over the memo to simplify it, looking at the long term effect on boat density. Slocum suggested the 5/21 memo be the guideline. 6. Excelsior Park Tavern Amenities, Excelsior Bay, Excelsior The executive director reported that an inspection shows that the swimming pool amenity for public use is not in effect. The four charter boats required as an amenity have not yet been licensed. The licensee says they have contacted the Water Patrol to schedule inspections of the boats within the coming week. It is believed the boats will be licensed by the July Board meeting. The licensee has offered an alternative to the swimming pool amenity. They would provide free charter boat excursions to handicapped or under-privileged community groups as an exchange of amenity. At the season end they will give the LMCD a written summary of the excursion activity. This amenity has comparable public value as the swimming lessons. Rascop said he has observed that the dock at the Excelsior Park Tavern is not in good repair. Ice damage has caused uneven- ness. Thibault and Strommen said their inspections did not show major problems but they will re-inspect it. Babcock said all docks should be in good repair. He said there should be an ordinance which governs them. 13./ WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 10, 1993 MOTION: Rascop moved, Markus seconded, to recommend the Board direct staff to amend the Excelsior Park Tavern license to re- flect the trade in amenities from the use of the swimming pool for swim lessons, to the provision of free charter boat rides to community groups, with a report of activity at the end of the season. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. Wakes The executive director distributed a public information release regarding the need to reduce wakes because of the high water. 8. Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association Thibault reported the new president of the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association does not want to make a new application. Babcock said a letter should be sent to the association advising them that the application has to be acted on in some way. Renewal of the existing license does not close the matter. Rascop asked that a copy of the letter be sent to the City of Shorewood. Adjournment Chair Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 9:50 AM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair Action Report: Meeting: JUL 2. 6 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT Lake Use and Recreation Committee 5:30 PM., Monday, July 19, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, LMCD Office Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven: Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also Present: Rachel Thibault, Admin- istrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. High Water Level The executive director distributed the following: * Copies of LMCD Ordinance No. 126, An Ordinance Relating to the Operation of Watercraft During Periods of High Water; Amending LMCD Code by Adding a Section, adopted by the Board on 7/17/93. * A flyer announcing the Minimum Wake Restriction for Lake Minnetonka effective as of July 17, 1993 with a map of the Lake .showing the bays declared "Minimum Wake" * A draft proposal of the costs involved in informing the public of the temporary Minimum Wake restrictions. The committee discussed the flyer. The flyer should be printed on heavy paper stock. The Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association (LMLOA) members should be asked to assist in distributing the flyers at launch areas. Strommen reported this was done by LMLOA members Sunday, July 18. Investigate the possibility of using the LMLOA mailing list for a direct mailing to lakeshore owners. The bay identification numbers from the map should be indicated on the flyer for the respective bays listed. Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvement, will deter- mine how far out the channel markers could be moved to give adequate deceleration space to meet the 600' requirement. The proposed cost of $3,750 for Water Patrol supplemental service is for extra full time licensed deputies at an overtime rate of $37/Hour. Rascop suggested there may be some former Water Patrol deputies who could be called into service if they meet the Sheriff's requirements. Penn suggesting going all out with the two extra boats/deputies for the first two weekends and then cutting back if necessary. Rascop and Bloom suggested having volunteer Special Deputies in boats at the Narrows and Arcola Bridge to be an indication that the Sheriff's Water Patrol is present. The executive director said the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District estimate is that it will take until at least early August for the Lake to go down to 929.8', depending on precipita- tion. ' Grathwol suggested keeping in touch with the Water Patrol to obtain the reaction of the public to the minimum wake ordinance. The executive director said he will stay within the $4,000 budget approved by the Board. If necessary a supplemental re- quest for funds will be presented to the Board at the ?/28/93 meeting. The committee decided aerial banner flights are not desira- ble. I ! 1, ! I, ,[ I ~ LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 19, 1993 The committee discussed various wordings for the signs to be displayed at public accesses. The following wording was agreed on: SIGN COPY #1 High Water Emergency Minimum Wake 600' From Shore SIGN COPY #2 High Water Emergency Minimum Wake Entire Bay MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to support the plan as presented by the executive director with changes on the flyer as noted, the LMCD Ordinance reference to be on the signs. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director will follow through on Penn's sugges- tion that affected Special Event licensees be advised of the Ordinance. 2. Decibel Level Ordinance Amendment The executive director reported Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel, is preparing the amendment to the Code regarding decibel levels on the Lake, as directed by the Board. LeFevere will review the action to be sure it is not pre-empting any state laws. The committee would like a memorandum from LeFevere re- garding the ordinance's legality. 3. MnDNR Shore Fishing Site Improvement The executive director reported the plan for a shore fishing site at Coffee Cove has been presented to the Spring Park City Council. The Mayor questioned the hard cover within 50' of the shoreline. In reality, Strommen noted, the present use has at least equal hardcover as the improvements proposed. The plan will reduce the number of cars that will park in the area from · about 20 to 14 to 16, making it orderly. There will be a level area with a large rock wall at the shoreline. Handicapped will be accommodated. The Spring Park Council wants to look at the site before taking action. MnDNR funds are committed to the project, cost estimate being $30,000. Rascop was excused. 4. 'Boat & Water Safety Education Program Foster reported the administrative technician is re-working the boat and water safety education program to meet requirements of the county probation officer staff. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 19, 1993 5. Special Events: A. New Special Events (Info only) 1) Bell Industries Dealer Fishing Tournament Wednesday, 8/25/93 B. Renewal Special Events (info only) 1) Westonka MDA Bass Fishing Tournament Sunday, 7/25/93 C. Deposit Refunds MOTION: Penn moved, Bloom seconded, to recommend approval of $100 deposit refunds to each of the following: 1) Minnetonka Bass Classic, June 5, 1993 2) IN Bass Tournament, June 6, 1993 3) Mound City Days Fireworks & Water Ski Show, 6/20/93 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 6. Sign up to Ride with Water Patrol Evening/Weekend Patrols Thibault said committee members are to call the deputy on duty, 471-8528, to make arrangements to ride with the Water Pa- trol. Rascop, Bloom and Foster said they were ready to ride during the high water emergency. 7. Water Patrol Report The executive director reported the Water Patrol will no longer have a representative at LMCD meetings. A. Monthly Activity Report The committee received a report of the significant activity on Lake Minnetonka since the LMCD Board meeting of 6/23/93 and the weekly charter boat update of inspections from 4/28/93 through July 10, 1993. The reports will be forwarded to the Board. Before leaving, Rascop said he has talked to Chair Cochran about making an effort to solve any misunderstandings which have arisen between the Water Patrol and the District. Penn said he will encourage Cochran to arrange a meeting with Chief LeBerge and other sheriff officials. 8. Adjournment Chair Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 6:40 PM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair ! · I, I~ JUL 6 1993 United States Deparunent of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington, D.C. 20240 AI)DRL%$ ONI,Y~E DI~(~OR ~SH AND ~ql~[~i SER~qCE In Reply Refer To: FWS/FDSP = Fo TA~E~ I FWS/FDSP/93222 · Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Ed: May we extend our hearty congratulations for a job well done. The July 1 event in Mound was a fine example of all elements of a community pulling together toward a common goal. Having had first-hand experience in the difficulties of staging these events makes our appreciation all the more sincere. Ed, we have had many positive reports on your total commitment and involvement in the preparations, and we wanted to be sure to thank you specifically. We feel we've made a new friend in the city of Mound. Thank you for your support of the Federal Duck Stamp Program and our artist of the year, Bruce Miller. You never know when we may be calling on you again; Bruce is a very gifted artist! Robert C. Le~ino Chief, Federal Duck Stamp Program I I ti Who Is Affected? (see map) The rule applies to contractors making shoreline improvements within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which covers 188 square miles in Hennepin and Carver counties. All or portions of 30 communities are contained in the District: Chanhassen, Deephaven, Edina, Excelsior, Golden Valley, Greenwood, Hopkins, Independence, Laketown, Long Lake, Maple Plain, Medina, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Plymouth, Richfield, St. Bonifacius, St. Louis Park, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Waconia, Watertown, Wayzata, and Woodland. The District covers a wide band along Minnehaha Creek from upstream of Lake Minnetonka to the creek's outlet at Minnehaha Falls. Rule M applies to the creek, Lake Minnetonka, and 108 other lakes. In Hennepin County, these include Calhoun, Cedar, Christmas, Dutch, Forest, Gleason, Harriet, Isles, Katrina, Langdon, Little Long, Long, and Nokomis lakes. In Carver County, they include Auburn, Lunsten, Marsh, Minnewashta, Parley, Schutz, Stieger, Stone, Virginia, Wasserman, and Zumbra lakes. Many smaller lakes are also covered by the shoreline rule. For More Information: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wenck Associates, Inc. (Consulting Environmental Engineering Firm) Mr. Mike Panzer, District Engineer · 479-4207 (W) Mr. Pat Mulloy, District Lake Specialist · 479-4208 (W) Shoreline Owners --End-- Page 3 II I I MINUTES OF A MEETING JULY 13, 1993 Brainstorming Session to Develop Draft Language for Shoreland Management Ordinance Those present were: Carl Zieman, City of Excelsior; Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., and consultant for City of Spring Park; Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Group, and consultant for City of Mound; Ceil Strauss, DNR Area Hydrologist; Jon Sutherland, Mound Building official; and Peggy James, Mound Planning and Inspections Secretary. The current and proposed ordinances for the City of Spring Park, Excelsior and Mound were briefly compared. All these cities have very small lots ranging from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The lots of record are especially small at an average of 6,000 square feet. Spring Park, Excelsior and Mound are virtually completely developed. Brixius noted that all platted lots in Spring Park, or lots of record that have been provided with sewer and water stubs are considered buildable lots regardless of the square footage, even a 2,500 square foot lot could be buildable, however, impervious surface and setback regulations must be met. Sutherland explained that Mound's current requirements of maximum 30 percent impervious surface has been creating many variances for the smaller lots, and he would like to see modifications which allow for the construction of garages without requiring a variances, even though the amount of hardcover exceeds the 30 percent limit. It is Mound's position that garages are very important as they provide storage for vehicles and other miscellaneous equipment. Strauss suggested that certain variances to hardcover be allowed to be processed administratively within each city. The DNR has been inundated with variance applications. Strauss referred to a letter written by Edward L. Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist for the DNR which stated: "The DNR has agreed to grant flexibility to other Local Government Units (LGU's) to increase impervious coverage up to 75% for both residential and commercial land use districts in cases were the LGU's have adopted a stormwater management plan and the treatment facilities are in place. In cities like Excelsior where many smaller residential lots are already existing, I have agreed that a suitable stormwater management plan for those residential areas might address stormwater treatment measures such as directing impervious runoff i ! I, i I, ti I I MINUTES OF A MEETING JULY 13, 1993 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT DRAFT LANGUAGE into more pervious grassed filter strips like lawns or gardens. Runoff from storage buildings or garages might be separated from other impervious areas with the roof or driveways sloped towards pervious surfaces. Driveway and sidewalks could also be sloped towards those areas. By identifying these types of measures in a stormwater management plan, a city like Excelsior could request that impervious surface area requirements in residential land use districts be made flexible enough to allow converge to increase from 25% to higher numbers such as 35% or higher, possibly as high as 50%." Hardships for allowing garages was reviewed; some felt that having no garage is a hardship. Koegler commented that the City of Mound uses hardships or practical difficulty. In Minnesota garages are needed because of the weather and for storage. Mound has granted variances due to practical difficulty to allow garages as long as they are of a minimal useable size, such as 24' x 24'. Strauss is in favor of allowing more flexibility for garages and impervious surface, as long as there is no further encroachment into the lake setback. It was determined a list needs to be created indicating those items which can be handled administratively by the cities. The amount of impervious surface for decks was discussed and Strauss clarified that the DNR will leave definitions of impervious surface to the cities and will accept city decisions to not include open patterned decks as impervious surface. Mound currently calculates decks at 50%. The consensus was decks with no impervious surface underneath should be at 0%. Brixius suggested that a consistent figure be used for all the Lake Minnetonka communities for impervious surface coverage, and suggested 30% hardcover, and smaller lots may exceed 30% hardcover but shall not exceed 3,000 square feet of impervious coverage. Also, if lots exceed the 30% hardcover, they must conform to certain stormwater management guidelines, such as crowning the driveway, redirecting runoff with gutters to grassy areas, etc. Strauss suggested that performance standards be developed for residential lots exceeding the 30 percent maximum hardcover, and conditions be developed in order to allow for administrative permits and void variances or conditional use permits. For cities like Mound who do not have a storm water management plan, the performance standards can be included in their shoreland management ordinance in the interim. Suggested standards are as follows: 1. Tilting or crowning of driveways and sidewalks. 2. Direct drainage onto grassy pervious surfaces versus the street or driveway. 2 I I I I MINUTES OF A MEETING JULY 13, 1993 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT DRAFT LANGUAGE Utilize gutters to direct water runoff or place roof in such a direction to run water onto pervious surfaces. Install pervious surfaces between impervious surfaces to provide buffers. Se A possible alternative could be grass-crete or some other type of pervious concrete type patio blocks. Strauss also noted that Mound must provide for a permit process for all site modifications to impervious surface such as driveways, patios, etc. Survey requirements were discussed. It was the consensus that it is the applicants obligation to ensure that the proposed project is going to work as planned. Koegler discussed the need for flexibility for commercial and industrial sites with possible separate regulations needed for existing versus new. It was suggested that some type of criteria for commercial and industrial properties be utilized until storm water management plans can be adopted, such as: Sloping· Sumps, manholes, sedimentation basins, silt traps, sewer inlets, etc. Holding basins. Replace existing impervious surfaces with pervious, such as planting areas in parking lots or between building and sidewalks, etc. Insurance that rate of runoff will not increase. With commercial and industrial properties there needs to be feasible measures to improve sites; what percentage is acceptable? It was suggested that properties could be required to meet one or two of the performance standards to allow them to exceed the impervious surface requirements, and if the standards cannot be complied with they would be required to go through the variance or CUP process as required by each individual city. There was also discussion regarding what information the DNR needs to see relating to variance and conditional use permit notices from the cities and whether the DNR needs to see all the notices. Ceil Strauss will draft DNR guidelines after review of these minutes and distribute them to the Lake Minnetonka area cities with a cover letter within two weeks. COUNCIL PACKET ADD-ONS FOR JUL Y 27. 1993